{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_78851/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_78851","id":"gutenberg_78851","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/78851","summary":null,"tags":["Classical literature","Essays","Ethics","Philosophy"],"text":"Transcriber\u2019s notes:\n\nItalic text is marked _thus_.\n\nThe spelling, hyphenation, punctuation and accentuation are as the\noriginal, except for apparent typographical errors which have been\ncorrected.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n_Tiberius and Agrippina._\n\n_From the painting by Peter Paul Rubens._]\n\n\n\n\nPLUTARCH\u2019S ESSAYS AND MISCELLANIES\n\n  Comprising all his Works Collected\n  under the Title of \u201cMorals\u201d \u00b7 Translated\n  from the Greek by Several Hands\n  Corrected and Revised by WILLIAM\n  W. GOODWIN, Ph.D., Professor of\n  Greek Literature in Harvard University\n  In Five Volumes \u00b7 Volume Three\n\n  [Illustration: HONOS ET VIRTVS]\n\n  BOSTON \u00b7 LITTLE, BROWN\n  AND COMPANY \u00b7 MCMXI\n\n\n  Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1870,\n  By LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY,\n  In the office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington.\n\n  Copyright, 1898, 1905,\n  By LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY.\n\n\n  Printers\n  S. J. PARKHILL & CO., BOSTON, U. S. A.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS OF VOLUME THIRD.\n\nWITH THE TRANSLATORS\u2019 NAMES.\n\n\n  WHETHER 'TWERE RIGHTLY SAID, LIVE CONCEALED.\n\n  BY CHARLES WHITAKER, ESQUIRE, SOMETIME FELLOW OF NEW COLLEGE IN\n  OXFORD.\n\n  He who said this had no mind to live concealed, 3. Such men strive\n  hard to be known, 3. Even a bad man ought not to withdraw from the\n  notice of others, 4. It is a loss to the world, if virtuous men live\n  concealed, 5. If brave and good men become known, they are examples\n  to others, 6. Virtue by use grows bright; but human abilities,\n  unemployed, go to decay, 7. Our life and all our faculties were given\n  to be used, and to make us known, 8. Only a vicious, useless life\n  should be forgotten, 10.\n\n\n  AN ABSTRACT OF A COMPARISON BETWIXT ARISTOPHANES AND\n  MENANDER\n\n  BY WILLIAM BAXTER, GENT.\n\n  Aristophanes suits low and vulgar persons; Menander the men of\n  culture; the style of Aristophanes lacks fitness and propriety; it is\n  harsh, coarse, and obscene; Menander charms us by his elegance and\n  refinement, 11.\n\n\n  OF BANISHMENT, OR FLYING ONE\u2019S COUNTRY.\n\n  BY JOHN PATRICK, OF THE CHARTERHOUSE.\n\n  Afflicted persons need to have their grief lightened, not increased,\n  15. Banishment may not be an evil of itself, but only as the mind\n  makes it such, 16. If it be an evil, philosophy may help a man to\n  bear it, 17. If it be an evil, let us consider how much good remains\n  to balance it, 18. By nature, we have no country, we are citizens\n  of the world, 18, 19. In whatever part of the world we are, we may\n  make ourselves at home, 20. It is folly to suppose that we cannot\n  enjoy life but where we were born, 20. A man of skill and ability\n  can thrive anywhere, 21. Custom makes every thing and every place\n  pleasant, 22. Change of scene may afford relief, 23. Happiness is not\n  limited to place, 24. The Cyclades are places of exile, yet great men\n  have lived there, 24. Homer commends islands as places of abode, 25.\n  An island may be a place of much quiet and enjoyment, 25, 26. Few of\n  the prudent and wise were buried in their own country, 27. Instances\n  of the fact, 28. Some of the finest human compositions were written\n  in exile, 29. Instances of this, 29. It is not ignominious to be\n  banished, 29, 30. Instances produced, 30, 33. Banishment does not\n  deprive us of our liberty, 31. We are all strangers and pilgrims on\n  earth; the soul being of heavenly origin, 34.\n\n\n  OF BROTHERLY LOVE\n\n  BY JOHN THOMSON, PREBENDARY OF HEREFORD.\n\n  Address to two brothers, 36. Nature, by forming some of our most\n  useful members in pairs, gives a hint of the need of harmony between\n  brothers, 37. Nature admonishes us to prefer a brother to a stranger,\n  38. The author\u2019s experience at Rome, 39. To our parents, next to the\n  gods, is due the highest veneration, 40. Parents are happy in the\n  union of brothers, and sad at their disagreement, 41. Love between\n  brothers indicates love to parents, 42. Disaffection between brothers\n  indicates great wrong somewhere, 43. Brothers, once alienated, can\n  scarce become true friends again, 44. Brothers must bear with one\n  another\u2019s failings; they should not expect perfection, 45. If your\n  brother has given offence to your father, intercede in his behalf,\n  47. If the father be dead, let justice preside in the division of his\n  property, 48, 49. An unequal division produces lasting hatred and\n  envy among brothers, 50, 51. If one brother excel another in talent\n  or learning, let him treat the other with condescension and kindness,\n  52. And let not the other indulge envy, 53. Be not jealous of a\n  brother\u2019s prosperity, 53. Brothers should assist one another, 54. The\n  elder brother should lead, but not be exacting and overbearing, 56.\n  The younger should treat the elder with respect and deference, 56,\n  57. Avoid disagreements about little things, 57. Yield your wishes\n  for peace\u2019 sake, 58. Beautiful instance of fraternal concord from the\n  history of Persia, 59. Another from the history of Syria, 60. When a\n  brother has wronged a brother, let him confess it, 61. Kindness of\n  Attalus to his brother Eumenes, 62. If brothers disagree, let each\n  avoid a correspondence with the other\u2019s enemies, 63. Cherish your\n  brother\u2019s friends, his wife and children, 64-68.\n\n\n  WHEREFORE THE PYTHIAN PRIESTESS NOW CEASES TO DELIVER\n  HER ORACLES IN VERSE.\n\n  BY JOHN PHILIPS, GENT.\n\n  A walk in Delphi, 69. The statues there; the color of the brass\n  admired, 70. The Corinthian brass, whence its extraordinary lustre\n  and beauty, 70, 71. The atmosphere of Delphi, its effect on the brass\n  of the statues, 72. The ancient oracles of Delphi, whence their\n  rudeness and coarseness, 73. Could verses so devoid of neatness\n  and elegance proceed from Apollo? 73. The ideas were supplied by\n  Apollo: the words came from the priestess, 75. The statue of Hiero at\n  Delphi: prodigy connected with it, 76. Other similar prodigies, 76.\n  But these were mere accidents, 77. Strange and unlooked-for events\n  may happen from natural causes, 78. Even though predicted, it was\n  not from any foreknowledge of the prophet but only from plausible\n  conjecture, 78. Conjectures are sometimes verified, 79. Yet there may\n  be real predictions and actual prophetic inspiration, 80. Instances\n  given, 80. Frogs and water-snakes: what relation have they to Apollo?\n  80-82; and why are they represented in the Corinthian Hall at Delphi?\n  80-82. Why does the Corinthian Hall bear that name? 82. The statue\n  of Phryne the courtesan, 83. It was no worse to place such a statue\n  in the temple of Apollo than to fill it with spoils taken in war,\n  84. Yet statues and offerings are sometimes placed there in token of\n  gratitude, 85. But why does the Pythian priestess no longer deliver\n  her oracles in verse? 86. In ancient times philosophers sometimes\n  spoke in verse, while oracles were sometimes delivered in prose, 87,\n  88. Instances given, 88, 89. Some oracles are now uttered in verse,\n  90. A singular anecdote, 90. As the soul acts through the body as its\n  servant and instrument, so the Deity uses the soul, 91. As the moon\n  reflects the light of the sun, yet in diminished force, so the Pythia\n  imperfectly yet really conveys the energy of the Deity, 92. The Deity\n  uses men according to their ability, 93. The Pythian priestess,\n  having had a slender education, cannot speak the language of culture\n  and refinement, 93, 94. The times are much altered from what they\n  once were. History and philosophy do not now take a poetical form,\n  95, 96. Poetry has lost its ancient credit, 98. This may account for\n  the disuse of verse in the Delphic utterances, 98. The ambiguity\n  of the ancient oracles accounted for, 99. In these times of public\n  tranquillity there is no need of oracles, 100. Yet let us not blame\n  the oracle, 103.\n\n\n  OF THOSE SENTIMENTS CONCERNING NATURE WITH WHICH\n  PHILOSOPHERS WERE DELIGHTED.\n\n  BY JOHN DOWEL, VICAR OF MELTON MOWBRAY IN LEICESTERSHIRE.\n\n  BOOK I. A threefold division of Philosophy, 104. Natural Philosophy:\n  what is Nature? 105. Difference between a principle and an element?\n  106. What are principles? 106. Opinions of Thales, Anaximander,\n  Anaxagoras, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Epicurus, Empedocles, Socrates,\n  Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, and others, concerning the origin of\n  things, 107-113. How was the world brought into its present order\n  and condition? 113. Whether the universe is one? 114. Whence the\n  knowledge of a Deity? 115. Different orders and classes of Deities,\n  117. What is God? is he perfect? is he eternal? does he interfere\n  with human affairs? Opinions of Pythagoras, of Socrates, Aristotle,\n  Epicurus, 118-122. Of geniuses and heroes, 122. Of matter: different\n  opinions, 123. Of ideas, 123. Of causes, 123. Of bodies, 124. Of\n  least things in nature, 125. Of figures, 125. Of colors, 125. Of the\n  division of bodies, 126. Of the mixture of the elements, 126. Of\n  a vacuum, 126. Of place, 127. Of space, 127. Of time, 127. Of the\n  essence and nature of time, 128. Of motion, 128. Of generation and\n  corruption, 128. Of necessity, 129. Of the nature of necessity, 129.\n  Of destiny or fate, 130. Of the nature of fate, 130. Of fortune, 131.\n  Of nature, 131.\n\n  BOOK II. Of the world, \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03db, 132. Of the figure of the world, 133.\n  Whether the world be an animal, 133. Whether the world be eternal and\n  incorruptible, 133. Whence does the world receive nutriment? 134.\n  From what element did God begin to raise the fabric of the world?\n  134. In what form and order was the world composed? 135. What is the\n  cause of the world\u2019s inclination? 136. Of that thing which is beyond\n  the world, and whether it be a vacuum or not, 136. What parts of the\n  world are on the right hand and what parts are on the left? 137. Of\n  heaven, its nature and essence, 137. Into how many circles is the\n  heaven distinguished? the division of heaven, 137. What are the stars\n  made of? 138. Of what figure are the stars? 139. Of the order and\n  place of the stars, 139. Of the motion and circulation of the stars,\n  140. Whence do the stars receive their light? 140. What are the stars\n  called Dioscuri, or Castor and Pollux? 141. How stars prognosticate:\n  what is the cause of winter and summer? 141. Of the essence of the\n  sun, 141, 142. Of the magnitude of the sun, 142. Of the figure or\n  shape of the sun, 143. Of the turning and returning of the sun, or\n  the summer and winter solstice, 143. Of the eclipses of the sun, 144.\n  Of the essence of the moon, 145. Of the moon\u2019s magnitude and figure,\n  145. Whence does the moon receive her light? 145. Of eclipses of the\n  moon, 146. Of the phases or aspects of the moon, 147. Of the distance\n  of the moon from the sun, 147. Of the year and the length of the year\n  in the different planets; of the great year, 147.\n\n  BOOK III. Of the galaxy, or milky way, 148. Of comets and shooting\n  fires, 149. Of lightning, thunder, hurricanes, and whirlwinds, 150.\n  Of clouds rain, snow, and hail, 151. Of the rainbow, 152. Of meteors\n  which resemble rods, 153. Of winds, 154. Of winter and summer,\n  154. Of the earth, its nature and magnitude, 154. Of the figure of\n  the earth, 155. Of the site and position of the earth, 155. Of the\n  inclination of the earth, 155. Of the motion of the earth, 156. Of\n  the zones of the earth, 156. Of earthquakes and their cause, 157. Of\n  the sea, of what it is composed, and why it has a bitter taste, 158.\n  Of the ebbing and flowing of the sea, 159. Of the halo, or circle\n  round a star, 160.\n\n  BOOK IV. Of the overflowing of the Nile, 160. Of the soul, 161.\n  Whether the soul be a body, and what is its nature and essence,\n  162. Of the parts of the soul, 162. What is the principal part of\n  the soul, and in what part of the body does it reside? 163. Of the\n  motion of the soul, 163. Of the soul\u2019s immortality, 164. Of the\n  senses, and their objects, 164. Whether what appears to our senses\n  and imaginations be realities, 165. How many senses are there? 165.\n  How the conceptions of the mind are received from the senses, 166.\n  What is the difference between imagination (\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1), imaginable\n  (\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd), fancy (\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd), and phantom (\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1)? 167. Of our\n  sight, and by what means we see, 168. Of the images presented to the\n  eye in mirrors, 169. Can darkness be visible to us? 169. Of hearing,\n  170. Of smelling, 170. Of taste, 170. Of the voice, 171. Whether the\n  voice is incorporeal? what is it that gives the echo? 172. By what\n  means the soul is sensible, 173. Of respiration or breathing, 173. Of\n  the passions of the body, and whether the soul sympathizes? 175.\n\n  BOOK V. Of divination, 176. Whence do dreams arise? 176. Of the\n  nature of generative seed, 177. Whether the sperm be a body, 177.\n  Whether women give a spermatic emission, 177. How conception is\n  effected, 178. After what manner males and females are generated,\n  178. Of the causes of monstrous conceptions, 179. How it comes to\n  pass that a woman\u2019s too frequent conversation with a man hinders\n  conception, 179. Whence it is that one birth may give two or three\n  children, 180. Whence arises the similitude of children to their\n  parents? 180. How it sometimes happens that children resemble\n  strangers and not their parents, 181. Whence arises barrenness\n  in women, and impotency in men? 181. Why mules are barren, 182.\n  Whether an unborn infant is an animal, 183. How the unborn child is\n  nourished, 183. What part of the body is first formed in the womb?\n  184. Whence is it that infants born in the seventh month are born\n  alive? 184. Of the generation of animals, 186. How many species of\n  animals there are, and whether all animals have sense and reason,\n  187. What time is required to shape the parts of animals in the womb?\n  188. Of what elements is each of our members composed? 188. What\n  causes sleep and death? 188. When is the perfection of a man dated?\n  189. Does the soul sleep or die with the body? 189. How plants grow,\n  and whether they are animals, 190. Of nourishment and growth, 191.\n  Whence is it that animals have appetites and pleasures? 191. What is\n  the cause of a fever? 192 Of health, sickness, and old age? 192.\n\n\n  A BREVIATE OF A DISCOURSE SHOWING THAT THE STOICS\n  SPEAK GREATER IMPROBABILITIES THAN THE POETS.\n\n  BY WILLIAM BAXTER, GENT.\n\n  Their philosophy leads to greater delusions than the fictions of\n  the poets; it is more inconsistent with real life and with possible\n  events, 194-196.\n\n\n  SYMPOSIACS.\n\n  BY T. C.\n\n  BOOK I. _Question_ 1. At a feast is it allowable to talk learnedly\n  and philosophize? 198. Long and tedious discourses would be out\n  of place: but there must be conversation: let it be on useful\n  subjects, 198-200. There are topics fit to be discussed at table,\n  200. Easy and pleasant discourse fits the occasion, 201. Disputation\n  and pedantry are out of place, 202. 2. Whether the entertainer\n  should seat the guests, or let every man take his own place, 203.\n  The order and respect due to age, station, and relationship, may\n  be observed without offence to any, the best man should have the\n  best place, 204-206. Custom and decency should guide, 206-208.\n  3. Upon what account is the place at the table, called Consular,\n  esteemed honorable? 210-212. Three reasons assigned, 211. 4. What\n  qualifications should the steward of a feast possess? 212-216.\n  He must be able to bear wine, have good nature, and suit his\n  ministrations to the wants and tastes of all, 213-215. He must keep\n  the company in good humor, and exclude every thing unpleasant, 216.\n  5. Why is it said that Love makes a man a poet? 217, 218. Poetry is\n  the language of strong passion, 218. 6. Whether Alexander was a great\n  drinker, 219-221. 7. Why old men love pure wine, 221. 8. Why old men\n  read best at a distance, 222-224. 9. Why fresh water washes clothes\n  better than salt, 224-226. 10. Why, at Athens, was it the privilege\n  of the tribe Aeantis, that their chorus should never be determined to\n  be the last? 226-228.\n\n  BOOK II. _Question_ 1. What are the most agreeable questions and\n  most pleasant raillery at an entertainment? 229-240. Questions are\n  agreeable when they give a man opportunity to display his knowledge,\n  to relate his own exploits, or to describe his own prosperity,\n  230-232. Raillery is pleasant when it refers to faults of which we\n  are known to be innocent; when it implies gratitude for a favor\n  bestowed; and when it proceeds from evident good humor, 233-240. 2.\n  Why in autumn are men\u2019s stomachs better than in other seasons of the\n  year, 240, 241. 3. Which was first, the bird or the egg? 242-246.\n  The perfect must come before the imperfect, 244. 4. Is wrestling the\n  oldest exercise? 246, 247. 5. Why, in reckoning up different kinds of\n  exercises, does Homer put them in this order,\u2014Cuffing, Wrestling,\n  Racing? 248, 249. 6. Why cannot Fir-trees, Pine-trees, and the\n  like be grafted upon? 250, 251. 7. About the fish called Remora or\n  Echeneis, 252. Why the horses called \u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 are very mettlesome,\n  253. 9. Why the flesh of sheep bitten by wolves is sweeter than that\n  of others, and the wool more apt to breed lice, 254. 10. Whether the\n  ancients who provided for every one his mess did better than we who\n  set many to the same dish, 255-258.\n\n\n  BOOK III. Wine reveals men\u2019s secret thoughts, 259. _Question_ 1.\n  Whether it is becoming to wear chaplets of flowers at table, 260-265.\n  Flowers were designed for our pleasure, 262. They have a good\n  medicinal effect, 264. 2. Whether Ivy is of a hot or cold nature,\n  265-267. 3. Why women are hardly, old men easily, intoxicated,\n  268-270. 4. Whether the temper of women is colder or hotter than\n  that of men, 270-272. 5. Whether wine is potentially cold, 272-274.\n  6. Which is the fittest time for a man to know his wife? 274-279. In\n  the evening, not in the daytime, 276-278. 7. Why new wine does not\n  intoxicate, 279, 280. 8. Why persons thoroughly drunk appear better\n  than those only half-drunk, 281. 9. What means the saying, Drink\n  either five or three, but not four? 282, 283. 10. Why flesh stinks\n  sooner when exposed to the moon than to the sun, 284-287.\n\n  BOOK IV. A feast should be used for the cultivation of friendship,\n  288. _Question_ 1. Whether different sorts of food or one single\n  dish, fed upon at once, be more easily digested, 289-295. 2. Why\n  mushrooms are thought to be produced by thunder, and why it is\n  believed that men asleep are never thunderstruck, 295-300. 3. Why men\n  usually invite many guests to a wedding supper, 300, 301. 4. Whether\n  sea or land affords better food, 302-306. 5. Whether the Jews abstain\n  from swine\u2019s flesh because they worship that creature, or because\n  they have an antipathy against it, 307-310. 6. What God is worshiped\n  by the Jews? Bacchus, 310-312.\n\n  BOOK V. The soul has pleasures peculiar to itself and distinct\n  from the body, 313. _Question_ 1. Why do we take pleasure in a\n  representation of human suffering, while we are shocked at the\n  reality? 314-316. 2. That the prize for poets at the games was\n  ancient, 316-318. 3. Why was the Pine counted sacred to Neptune and\n  Bacchus, and why at first was the conqueror in the Isthmian Games\n  crowned with a garland of Pine, afterwards with Parsley, and now\n  again with Pine? 318-321. 4. Meaning of that expression in Homer,\n  \u03b6\u03c9\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03b5, \u201cmix the wine stronger,\u201d 321, 322. 5. Concerning\n  those that invite many to a supper, 323-326 6. Why does a room which\n  at the beginning of a supper seems too narrow for the guests appear\n  wide enough afterwards? 326. 7. Concerning those that are said to\n  bewitch, 327-332. 8. Why does Homer call the apple-tree \u1f00\u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u03cc\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd,\n  and Empedocles call the apples \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1? 333, 334. 9. Why does the\n  fig-tree, having itself a sharp and bitter taste, bear sweet fruit?\n  335. 10. What are those that are said to be \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03cd\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, and\n  why does Homer call salt divine? 336, 337.\n\n  BOOK VI. The memory of a useful discourse gives pleasure long\n  afterwards, 338, 339. _Question_ 1. Why are those that are fasting\n  more inclined to drink than to eat? 339, 340. 2. Whether hunger\n  and thirst are caused by want of nourishment or by a change in the\n  pores or passages of the body, 341-344. 3. Why is hunger allayed\n  by drinking, but thirst increased by eating? 345, 346. 4. Why is a\n  bucket of water drawn out of a well, and left to stand all night in\n  the air that is in the well, colder next morning than the rest of\n  the water? 347, 348. 5. Why do pebble-stones and leaden bullets,\n  thrown into the water, make it more cold? 348, 349. 6. What is the\n  reason that snow is preserved by covering it with chaff and cloths?\n  350, 351. 7. Ought wine to be strained? 351-354. 8. What is the\n  cause of Bulimy, or the greedy disease? 355-358. 9. Why does Homer\n  appropriate to each particular liquid a special epithet, and use none\n  when speaking of oil? 359, 360. 10. Why is the flesh of sacrificed\n  animals, after being awhile upon a fig-tree, more tender than before?\n  361, 362.\n\n\n  BOOK VII. _Question_ 1. Plato defended for saying that drink passeth\n  through the lungs, 363-367. 2. What humored man is he whom Plato\n  calls \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, and why do seeds that fall on oxen\u2019s horns become\n  \u1f00\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1? 368-370. 3. Why is the middle of wine, the top of oil,\n  and the bottom of honey the best? 370, 371. 4. Why did the ancient\n  Romans remove the table before all the meat was eaten, and why not\n  extinguish the lamp? 372-375. To leave something for the servants,\n  374. \u201cLeave something for the Medes\u201d: a proverb in Boeotia, 375. 5.\n  That we ought carefully to preserve ourselves from pleasures arising\n  from bad music; and how it may be done, 376-380. Bad music, the loose\n  ode, enervates and debauches the mind. Have recourse to that which\n  is pure and good, ib. 6. Concerning those guests that are called\n  shadows, whether being invited by some of the invited guests, but not\n  by the entertainer, they ought to go to the house; and if so, in what\n  cases? 381-387. Such a person is placed at a disadvantage on joining\n  the company, and why, 382. But an invited guest, who has liberty to\n  invite others may do so, yet with due caution and discretion; and\n  the others may go, 385, 386. 7. Whether flute-girls may be admitted\n  to a feast, 387, 388. 8. What sort of music is fittest for an\n  entertainment? 389-394. Not tragedy, it is too grave and dignified,\n  390. But the New Comedy, as that of Menander, or a song with pipe or\n  harp, 391, 392. 9. That the Greeks, as well as the Persians, were\n  accustomed to debate state affairs at their entertainments, 394. 10.\n  Was that a good custom? 395-398. Are men wise over their wine? 396.\n  Men may drink freely, and yet not lose their wit, 397.\n\n  BOOK VIII. In our entertainments we may and should use learned and\n  philosophical discourse, 399. _Question_ 1. On the birthdays of\n  famous men, and the generation of the Gods, 400, 401. 2. What is\n  Plato\u2019s meaning when he says that God all ways plays the geometer?\n  402-406. 3. Why sounds seem louder in the night than in the day,\n  406-410. 4. In the Sacred Games one sort of garland was given in\n  one, and another in another: why was the Palm common to all? and\n  why call the great dates \u039d\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03b9? 411-414. 5. Why do those who\n  sail upon the Nile take up the water they are to use before day?\n  415, 416 6. Concerning those who come late to an entertainment,\n  and the derivation of the words \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, and \u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd,\n  417-419. The Latin terms compared, 418. 7. Concerning the Symbols of\n  Pythagoras: Receive not a swallow into your house; as soon as you are\n  risen ruffle the bedclothes; and some other precepts: what is their\n  meaning? 419-421. 8. Why the Pythagoreans do not eat fish, 422-426.\n  9. Whether there can be new diseases, and how caused, 426-432. On\n  the negative, it is said the course of Nature is invariable, 427.\n  The affirmative alleges that the causes of disease may vary, become\n  intense and complicated, 430. Alterations in diet may raise new\n  diseases, 432. 10. Why we give least credit to dreams in Autumn,\n  432-435.\n\n  BOOK IX. _Question_ 1. Concerning verses fitly applied, and the\n  reverse, 436-438. 2, 3. Why is Alpha placed first in the alphabet?\n  and what is the proportion between the number of vowels and\n  semi-vowels? 438-441. 4. Which of the hands of Venus did Diomedes\n  wound? 441. 5. Why Plato says that the soul of Ajax came to draw her\n  lot in the twentieth place in hell, 442, 443. 6. What is meant by\n  the fable about the defeat of Neptune? and why do the Athenians omit\n  the second day of the month Bo\u00ebdromion? 444, 445. 12. Is it probable\n  that the number of the stars is even or odd? 446. 13. A moot-point\n  from the third book of the Iliad, 446-450. 14. Observations about the\n  number of the Muses, and their relation to human affairs, 450-456.\n  15. That there are three parts in dancing, motion, gesture, and\n  representation: what each part is, and what is common to both poetry\n  and dancing, 457-460.\n\n\n  OF MORAL VIRTUE.\n\n  BY C. H., ESQUIRE.\n\n  Plan of the Essay, 461. Opinions of philosophers: of Menedemus,\n  Ariston, Zeno, Chrysippus, 462. Opinion of Plato, 464; of Aristotle,\n  465. The soul has a twofold nature, 463. It is composed of intellect\n  or reason, and the passions, 465. The reason and an intelligent\n  judgment must govern, 466. The passions by long training becoming\n  subject to the reason, the result is MORAL VIRTUE, 468. Science and\n  Prudence, what, and their objects, 469. How science and prudence\n  differ, 469, 470. Prudence has need of deliberation, 470. It corrects\n  the excesses and defects of passion, 470. Moral virtue is the mean\n  between excess and defect, 471. Yet it needs the ministry of the\n  passions, 471. Mean and mediocrity not the same thing, 471. The idea\n  further illustrated, 472. Continence distinguished from temperance,\n  473. Incontinence and intemperance, 474. Illustrations, 475, 476.\n  Moral virtue is firm and immovable, 478. The passions are subject\n  to frequent and sudden changes, 478. When reason is overborne by\n  passion, there is a sense of guilt, 479. Reason is not at variance\n  with itself, 480. The soul is at peace, where passion does not\n  interpose, 480. Reason tends to what is true and just, 480. Reason,\n  left to itself, embraces the truth, 481. It is often hindered by\n  passion, 481. Reason and passion often divide the soul, 482. They\n  often harmonize and concur, 483. Some philosophers affirm that\n  reason and passion do not materially differ, 478. Their opinions\n  controverted, 479, et seq. Their improper use of terms, 484. The\n  passions differ with their occasions, 486. Men may mistake in\n  their judgments, 487. The passions, deriving their strength from\n  the body, are powerful in the young, 489. The state of the body\n  corresponds with the state of the passions, 490. We should not seek\n  to exterminate the passions, but to regulate and control them, 490.\n  The passions have their proper use, 491. These considerations are of\n  importance in the government of States, and in the education of the\n  young, 493, 494.\n\n\n  NATURAL QUESTIONS\n\n  BY R. BROWN, M.L.\n\n  What is the reason that sea-water nourishes not trees? 495. 2. Why\n  do trees and seeds thrive better with rain than with watering? 496.\n  3. Why do herdsmen place salt before cattle? 497. 4. Why is the\n  water of thunder-showers fitter to water seeds? 498. 5. How comes it\n  to pass that, since there are eight kinds of tastes, we find salt\n  in no kind of fruit? 498, 499. 6. Why, if a man frequently pass\n  along dewy trees, are those limbs that touch the wood seized with\n  leprosy? 500. 7. Why in winter is the sailing of ships more slow in\n  rivers than in the sea? 500. 8. Why, since all other liquors upon\n  moving and stirring about grow cold, does the sea by being tossed\n  in waves grow hot? 501. 9. Why in winter is the saltness of the sea\n  diminished? 501. 10. Why do men pour sea-water into wine, and in\n  defect thereof cast in some Zacynthian earth? 502. 11. What is the\n  cause of sea-sickness? 502. 12. Why does pouring oil on the sea calm\n  its waves? 503. 13. Why do fishermen\u2019s nets decay more in winter than\n  in summer? 503. 14. Why do the Dorians pray for bad making of their\n  hay? 504. 15. Why is rich soil fruitful of wheat, and a thin soil\n  of barley? 504. 16. Why is it said, Sow wheat in clay and barley in\n  dust? 505. 17. Why is the hair of horses, rather than of mares, used\n  for fishing-lines? 505. 18. Why is the sight of a cuttle-fish the\n  sign of a great storm? 505. 19. Why does the polypus change color?\n  506. 20. Why are the tears of wild boars sweet, and the tears of the\n  hart salt and hurtful? 507. 21. Why do tame sows farrow often, some\n  at one time, and some at other times; and the wild but once a year,\n  and all about the same time? 508. 22. Why are the paws of bears the\n  sweetest and pleasantest food? 509. 23. Why are the tracks of wild\n  beasts found with so much difficulty in spring? 509. 24. Why are\n  their tracks worse scented about the full moon? 509. 25. Why does\n  frost make hunting difficult? 510. 26. Why do brutes, when sick, seek\n  appropriate remedies? 510. 27. Why does must, if the vessel stand in\n  the cold, long continue sweet? 511. 28. Why, of all wild beasts, does\n  not the boar bite the toil, though wolves and foxes do this? 512. 29.\n  Why do we admire natural hot baths, and not cold? 512. 30. Why are\n  vines which are rank of leaves, but otherwise fruitless, said \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u1f70\u03bd?\n  513. 31. Why does the vine irrigated with wine, especially its own\n  wine, perish? 513. 32. Why, of all trees, does the palm alone bend\n  upward when a weight is laid on it? 514. 33. Why is pit-water less\n  nutritive than that which comes from springs, or from the clouds?\n  514. 34. Why is the west wind commonly held to be the swiftest? 515.\n  35. Why cannot bees abide smoke? 515. 36. Why will bees sooner sting\n  persons who have lately committed whoredom? 516. 37. Why do dogs\n  follow after a stone thrown at them and bite it, letting alone the\n  man who flung it? 516. 38. Why at a certain time of the year do all\n  she-wolves bring forth whelps within the compass of twelve days? 517.\n  39. How comes it that water, apparently white at the top, is black at\n  the bottom? 518.\n\n\n  INDEX\n\n\n\n\nPLUTARCH\u2019S MORALS.\n\n\n\n\nPLUTARCH\u2019S MORALS.\n\n  VOL. III.\n\n\n\n\nWHETHER 'TWERE RIGHTLY SAID, LIVE CONCEALED.\n\n\n1. It is sure, he that said it had no mind to live concealed, for he\nspoke it out of a design of being taken notice of for his very saying\nit, as if he saw deeper into things than every vulgar eye, and of\npurchasing to himself a reputation, how unjustly soever, by inveigling\nothers into obscurity and retirement. But the poet says right:\n\n  I hate the man who makes pretence to wit,\n  Yet in his own concerns waives using it.[1]\n\nFor they tell us of one Philoxenus the son of Eryxis, and Gnatho the\nSicilian, who were so over greedy after any dainties set before them,\nthat they would blow their nose in the dish, whereby, turning the\nstomachs of the other guests, they themselves went away fuller crammed\nwith the rarities. Thus fares it with all those whose appetite is\nalways lusting and insatiate after glory. They bespatter the repute\nof others, as their rivals in honor, that they themselves may advance\nsmoothly to it and without a rub. They do like watermen, who look\nastern while they row the boat ahead, still so managing the strokes\nof the oar that the vessel may make on to its port. So these men who\nrecommend to us such kind of precepts row hard after glory, but with\ntheir face another way. To what purpose else need this have been\nsaid?\u2014why committed to writing and handed down to posterity? Would he\nlive incognito to his contemporaries, who is so eager to be known to\nsucceeding ages?\n\n2. But besides, doth not the thing itself sound ill, to bid you keep\nall your lifetime out of the world\u2019s eye, as if you had rifled the\nsepulchres of the dead, or done such like detestable villany which you\nshould hide for? What! is it grown a crime to live, unless you can keep\nall others from knowing you do so? For my part, I should pronounce that\neven an ill-liver ought not to withdraw himself from the converse of\nothers. No; let him be known, let him be reclaimed, let him repent; so\nthat, if you have any stock of virtue, let it not lie unemployed, or\nif you have been viciously bent, do not by flying the means continue\nunreclaimed and uncured. Point me out therefore and distinguish me\nthe man to whom you adopt this admonition. If to one devoid of sense,\ngoodness, or wit, it is like one that should caution a person under\na fever or raving madness not to let it be known where he is, for\nfear the physicians should find him, but rather to skulk in some dark\ncorner, where he and his diseases may escape discovery. So you who\nlabor under that pernicious, that scarce curable disease, wickedness,\nare by parity of reason bid to conceal your vices, your envyings, your\nsuperstitions, like some disorderly or feverous pulse, for fear of\nfalling into the hands of them who might prescribe well to you and set\nyou to rights again. Whereas, alas! in the days of remote antiquity,\nmen exhibited the sick to public view, when every charitable passenger\nwho had labored himself under the like malady, or had experienced a\nremedy on them that did, communicated to the diseased all the receipts\nhe knew; thus, say they, skill in physic was patched up by multiplied\nexperiments, and grew to a mighty art. At the same rate ought all the\ninfirmities of a dissolute life, all the irregular passions of the\nsoul, to be laid open to the view of all, and undergo the touch of\nevery skilful hand, that all who examine into the temper may be able\nto prescribe accordingly. For instance, doth anger transport you? The\nadvice in that case is, Shun the occasions of it. Doth jealousy torment\nyou? Take this or that course. Art thou love-sick? It hath been my own\ncase and infirmity to be so too; but I saw the folly of it, I repented,\nI grew wiser. But for those that lie, denying, hiding, mincing, and\npalliating their vices, it makes them but take the deeper dye, it\nrivets their faults into them.\n\n3. Again, if on the other hand this advice be calculated for the owners\nof worth and virtue, if they must be condemned to privacy and live\nunknown to the world, you do in effect bid Epaminondas lay down his\narms, you bid Lycurgus rescind his laws, you bid Thrasybulus spare\nthe tyrants, in a word, you bid Pythagoras forbear his instructions,\nand Socrates his reasonings and discourses; nay, you lay injunctions\nchiefly upon yourself, Epicurus, not to maintain that epistolary\ncorrespondence with your Asiatic friends, not to entertain your\nEgyptian visitants, not to be tutor to the youth of Lampsacus, not to\npresent and send about your books to women as well as men, out of an\nostentation of some wisdom in yourself more than vulgar, not to leave\nsuch particular directions about your funeral. And in fine, to what\npurpose, Epicurus, did you keep a public table? Why that concourse of\nfriends, that resort of fair young men, at your doors? Why so many\nthousand lines so elaborately composed and writ upon Metrodorus,\nAristobulus, and Chaeredemus, that death itself might not rob us\nof them; if virtue must be doomed to oblivion, art to idleness and\ninactivity, philosophy to silence, and all a man\u2019s happiness must be\nforgotten?\n\n4. But if indeed, in the state of life we are under, you will needs\nseclude us from all knowledge and acquaintance with the world (as\nmen shut light from their entertainments and drinking-bouts, for\nwhich they set the night apart), let it be only such who make it the\nwhole business of life to heap pleasure upon pleasure; let such live\nrecluses all their days. Were I, in truth, to wanton away my days in\nthe arms of your miss Hedeia, or spend them with Leontium, another dear\nof yours,\u2014were I to bid defiance to virtue, or to place all that\u2019s\ngood in the gratification of the flesh or the ticklings of a sensual\npleasure,\u2014these accursed actions and rites would need darkness and an\neternal night to veil them; and may they ever be doomed to oblivion\nand obscurity. But what should they hide their heads for, who with\nregard to the works of nature own and magnify a God, who celebrate his\njustice and providence, who in point of morality are due observers of\nthe law, promoters of society and community among all men, and lovers\nof the public-weal, and who in the administration thereof prefer the\ncommon good before private advantage? Why should such men cloister up\nthemselves, and live recluses from the world? For would you have them\nout of the way, for fear they should set a good example, and allure\nothers to virtue out of emulation of the precedent? If Themistocles\u2019s\nvalor had been unknown at Athens, Greece had never given Xerxes that\nrepulse. Had not Camillus shown himself in defence of the Romans, their\ncity Rome had no longer stood. Sicily had not recovered her liberty,\nhad Plato been a stranger to Dion. Truly (in my mind) to be known to\nthe world under some eminent character not only carries a reputation\nwith it, but makes the virtues in us become practical like light,\nwhich renders us not only visible but useful to others. Epaminondas,\nduring the first forty years of his life, in which no notice was taken\nof him, was an useless citizen to Thebes; but afterwards, when he had\nonce gained credit and the government amongst the Thebans, he both\nrescued them from present destruction, and freed even Greece herself\nfrom imminent slavery, exhibiting (like light, which is in its own\nnature glorious, and to others beneficial at the same time) a valor\nseasonably active and serviceable to his country, yet interwoven with\nhis own laurels. For\n\n  Virtue, like finest brass, by use grows bright.[2]\n\nAnd not our houses alone, when (as Sophocles has it) they stand long\nuntenanted, run the faster to ruin; but men\u2019s natural parts, lying\nunemployed for lack of acquaintance with the world, contract a kind\nof filth or rust and craziness thereby. For sottish ease, and a life\nwholly sedentary and given up to idleness, spoil and debilitate not\nonly the body but the soul too. And as close waters shadowed over by\nbordering trees, and stagnated in default of springs to supply current\nand motion to them, become foul and corrupt; so, methinks, is it with\nthe innate faculties of a dull unstirring soul,\u2014whatever usefulness,\nwhatever seeds of good she may have latent in her, yet when she puts\nnot these powers into action, when once they stagnate, they lose their\nvigor and run to decay.\n\n5. See you not how on night\u2019s approach a sluggish drowsiness oft-times\nseizes the body, and sloth and inactiveness surprise the soul, and\nshe finds herself heavy and quite unfit for action? Have you not then\nobserved how a man\u2019s reason (like fire scarce visible and just going\nout) retires into itself, and how by reason of its inactivity and\ndulness it is gently agitated by divers fantastical imaginations, so\nthat nothing remains but some obscure indications that the man is alive.\n\n  But when the orient sun brings back the day,\n  It chases night and dreamy sleep away.\n\nIt doth, as it were, bring the world together again, and with his\nreturned light call up and excite all mankind to thought and action;\nand, as Democritus tells us, men setting themselves every new-spring\nday to endeavors of mutual beneficence and service one towards\nanother, as if they were fastened in the straitest tie together, do all\nof them, some from one, some from another quarter of the world, rouse\nup and awake to action.\n\n6. For my own part, I am fully persuaded that life itself, and our\nbeing born at the rate we are, and the origin we share in common with\nall mankind, were vouchsafed us by God to the intent we should be known\nto one another. It is true, whilst man, in that little part of him, his\nsoul, lies struggling and scattered in the vast womb of the universe,\nhe is an obscure and unknown being; but, when once he gets hither\ninto this world and puts a body on, he grows illustrious, and from an\nobscure becomes a conspicuous being; from an hidden, an apparent one.\nFor knowledge does not lead to essence (or being), as some maintain;\nbut the essence of things rather conducts us into the knowledge and\nunderstanding thereof. For the birth or generation of individuals\ngives not any being to them which they had not before, but brings that\nindividual into view; as also the corruption or death of any creature\nis not its annihilation or reduction into mere nothing, but rather a\nsending the dissolved being into an invisible state. Hence is it that\nmany persons (conformably to their ancient country laws), taking the\nSun to be Apollo, gave him the names of Delius and Pythius (that is,\nconspicuous and known). But for him, be he either God or Daemon, who\nhath dominion over the opposite portion, the infernal regions, they\ncall him Hades (that is, invisible)\n\n  Emperor of gloomy night and lazy sleep,\n\nfor that at our death and dissolution we pass into a state of\ninvisibility and beyond the reach of mortal eyes. I am indeed of\nopinion, that the ancients called man Phos (that is, light), because\nfrom the affinity of their natures strong desires are bred in mankind\nof continually seeing and being seen to each other. Nay, some\nphilosophers hold the soul itself to be essentially light; which\nthey would prove by this among other arguments, that nothing is so\ninsupportable to the mind of man as ignorance and obscurity. Whatever\nis destitute of light she avoids, and darkness, the harbor of fears\nand suspicions, is uneasy to her; whereas, on the other hand, light\nis so delicious, so desirable a thing, that without that, and wrapped\nin darkness, none of the delectables in nature are pleasing to her.\nThis makes all our very pleasures, all our diversions and enjoyments,\ncharming and grateful to us, like some universal relishing ingredients\nmixed with the others to make them palatable. But he that casts himself\ninto obscure retirements, he that sits surrounded in darkness and\nburies himself alive, seems, in my mind, to repine at his own birth and\ngrudge he ever had a being.\n\n7. And yet it is certain, in the regions prepared for pious souls, they\nconserve not only an existence in (or agreeable to) nature, but are\nencircled with glory.\n\n  There the sun with glorious ray,\n  Chasing shady night away,\n  Makes an everlasting day;\n  Where souls in fields of purple roses play;\n  Others in verdant plains disport,\n  Crowned with trees of every sort,\n  Trees that never fruit do bear,\n  But always in the blossom are.[3]\n\nThe rivers there without rude murmurs gently glide, and there they meet\nand bear each other company, passing away their time in commemorating\nand running over things past and present.\n\nA third state there is of them who have led vicious and wicked lives,\nwhich precipitates souls into a kind of hell and miserable abyss,\n\n  Where sluggish streams of sable night\n  Spout floods of darkness infinite.[**duplicate anchor]\n\nThis is the receptacle of the tormented; here lie they hid under\nthe veils of eternal ignorance and oblivion. For vultures do not\neverlastingly gorge themselves upon the liver of a wicked man, exposed\nby angry Gods upon the earth, as poets fondly feign of Prometheus. For\neither rottenness or the funeral pile hath consumed that long ago. Nor\ndo the bodies of the tormented undergo (as Sisyphus is fabled to do)\nthe toil and pressure of weighty burdens;\n\n  For strength no longer flesh and bone sustains.[4]\n\nThere are no reliques of the body in dead men which stripes and\ntortures can make impressions on; but in very truth the sole punishment\nof ill-livers is an inglorious obscurity, or a final abolition, which\nthrough oblivion hurls and plunges them into deplorable rivers,\nbottomless seas, and a dark abyss, involving all in uselessness and\ninactivity, absolute ignorance and obscurity, as their last and eternal\ndoom.\n\n\n\n\nAN ABSTRACT OF A COMPARISON BETWIXT ARISTOPHANES AND MENANDER.\n\n\n1. To speak in sum and in general, he prefers Menander by far; and as\nto particulars, he adds what here ensues. Aristophanes, he saith, is\nimportune, theatric, and sordid in his expression; but Menander not\nso at all. For the rude and vulgar person is taken with the things\nthe former speaketh; but the well-bred man will be quite out of humor\nwith them. I mean, his opposed terms, his words of one cadence, and\nhis derivatives. For the one makes use of these with due observance\nand but seldom, and bestows care upon them; but the other frequently,\nunseasonably, and frigidly. \u201cFor he is much commended,\u201d said he, \u201cfor\nducking the chamberlains, they being indeed not chamberlains (\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03b9)\nbut bugbears (\u039b\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03b9).\u201d And again,\u2014\u201cThis rascal breathes out nothing\nbut roguery and affidavitry;\u201d and \u201cBeat him well in his belly with the\nentrails and the guts;\u201d and, \u201cI shall laugh till I go to Laughington\n(\u0393\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd);\u201d and, \u201cThou poor sharded ostracized pot, what shall I do with\nthee?\u201d and, \u201cTo you women surely he is a mad plague, for he grew up\nhimself among these mad worts;\u201d\u2014and, \u201cLook here, how the moths have\neaten away my crest;\u201d and, \u201cBring me hither the gorgon-backed circle of\nmy shield;\u201d \u201cGive me the round-backed circle of a cheese-cake;\u201d\u2014and\nmuch more of such like stuff.[5] There is then in the structure of\nhis words something tragic and something comic, something blustering\nand something prosaic, an obscurity, a vulgarness, a turgidness,\nand a strutting, with a nauseous prattling and fooling. And as his\nstyle has so great varieties and dissonances in it, so neither doth\nhe give to his persons what is fitting and proper to each,\u2014as state\n(for instance) to a prince, force to an orator, innocence to a woman,\nmeanness of language to a poor man, and sauciness to a tradesman,\u2014but\nhe deals out to every person, as it were by lot, such words as come\nnext to his hand, and you would scarce discern whether he that is\ntalking be a son, a father, a peasant, a God, an old woman, or a hero.\n\n2. But now Menander\u2019s phrase is so well turned and contempered with\nitself, and so everywhere conspiring, that, while it traverses many\npassions and humors and is accommodated to all sorts of persons,\nit still shows the same, and even retains its semblance in trite,\nfamiliar, and every-day expressions. And if his master do now and\nthen require something of rant and noise, he doth but (like a skilful\nflutist) set open all the holes of his pipe, and then presently stop\nthem again with good decorum and restore the tune to its natural\nstate. And though there be a great number of excellent artists of all\nprofessions, yet never did any shoemaker make the same sort of shoe, or\ntireman the same sort of visor, or tailor the same sort of garment, to\nfit a man, a woman, a child, an old man, and a slave. But Menander hath\nso addressed his style, as to proportion it to every sex, condition,\nand age; and this, though he took the business in hand when he was very\nyoung, and died in the vigor of his composition and action, when, as\nAristotle tells us, authors receive most and greatest improvement in\ntheir styles. If a man shall then compare the middle and last with the\nfirst of Menander\u2019s plays, he will by them easily conceive what others\nhe would have added to them, had he had but longer life.\n\n3. He adds further, that of dramatic exhibitors, some address\nthemselves to the crowd and populace, and others again to a few; but\nit is a hard matter to say which of them all knew what was befitting\nin both the kinds. But Aristophanes is neither grateful to the vulgar,\nnor tolerable to the wise; but it fares with his poesy as it doth\nwith a courtesan who, when she finds she is now stricken and past\nher prime, counterfeits a sober matron, and then the vulgar cannot\nendure her affectation, and the better sort abominate her lewdness and\nwicked nature. But Menander hath with his charms shown himself every\nway sufficient for satisfaction, being the sole lecture, argument,\nand dispute at theatres, schools, and at tables; hereby rendering his\npoesy the most universal ornament that was ever produced by Greece, and\nshowing what and how extraordinary his ability in language was, while\nhe passes every way with an irresistible persuasion, and wins every\nman\u2019s ear and understanding who has knowledge of the Greek tongue. And\nfor what other reason in truth should a man of parts and erudition be\nat the pains to frequent the theatre, but for the sake of Menander\nonly? And when are the play-houses better filled with men of letters,\nthan when his comic mask is exhibited? And at private entertainments\namong friends, for whom doth the table more justly make room or Bacchus\ngive place than for Menander? To philosophers also and hard students\n(as painters are wont, when they have tired out their eyes at their\nwork, to divert them to certain florid and green colors) Menander is a\nrepose from their auditors and intense thinkings, and entertains their\nminds with gay shady meadows refreshed with cool and gentle breezes.\n\n4. He adds, moreover, that though this city breeds at this time very\nmany and excellent representers of comedy, Menander\u2019s plays participate\nof a plenteous and divine salt, as if they were made of the very sea\nout of which Venus herself sprang. But that of Aristophanes is harsh\nand coarse and hath in it an angry and biting sharpness. And for my\npart I cannot tell where his so much boasted ability lies, whether in\nhis style or persons. The parts he acts I am sure are quite over-acted\nand depraved. His knave (for instance) is not fine, but dirty; his\npeasant is not assured, but stupid; his droll is not jocose, but\nridiculous; and his lover is not gay, but lewd. So that to me the man\nseems not to have written his poesy for any temperate person, but to\nhave intended his smut and obscenity for the debauched and lewd, his\ninvective and satire for the malicious and ill-humored.\n\n\n\n\nOF BANISHMENT, OR FLYING ONE\u2019S COUNTRY.\n\n\n1. One may say of discourses what they use to say of friends, that they\nare the best and firmest that afford their useful presence and help in\ncalamities. Many indeed present themselves and discourse with those\nthat are fallen into misfortunes, who yet do them more harm than good.\nLike men that attempt to succor drowning persons and have themselves\nno skill in diving under water, they entangle one another, and sink\ntogether to the bottom. The discourses of friends, such as would help\nan afflicted person, ought to be directed to the consolation, and not\nto the patronage of his sorrows. For we have no need in our distresses\nof such as may bear us company in weeping and howling, like a chorus in\na tragedy, but of such as will deal freely with us, and will convince\nus that,\u2014as it is in all cases vain and foolish and to no purpose to\ngrieve and cast down one\u2019s self,\u2014so, when the things themselves that\nafflict us, after a rational examination and discovery of what they\nare, give a man leave to say to himself thus.\n\n  Thou feel\u2019st but little pain and smart.\n  Unless thou\u2019lt feign and act a part,\n\nit would be extremely ridiculous for him not to put the question to his\nbody, and ask it what it has suffered, nor to his soul, and ask how\nmuch worse it is become by this accident, but only to make use of those\nteachers of grief from abroad, who come to bear a part with him in his\nsorrow, or to express indignation at what has happened.\n\n2. Let us therefore, when we are alone, question with ourselves\nconcerning the things that have befallen us, considering them as heavy\nloads. The body, we know, is under pressure by a burden lying upon it;\nbut the soul oft-times adds a further weight of her own to things. A\nstone is hard and ice is cold by nature, not by any thing from without\nhappening to make such qualities and impressions upon them. But as\nfor banishment and disgraces and loss of honors (and so for their\ncontraries, crowns, chief rule, and precedency of place), our opinion\nprescribing the measure of our joys or sorrows and not the nature of\nthe things themselves, every man makes them to himself light or heavy,\neasy to be borne or grievous. You may hear Polynices\u2019s answer to this\nquestion,\n\n  JOCAST. But say, is\u2019t so deplorable a case\n      To live in exile from one\u2019s native place?\n  POLYN. It\u2019s sad indeed; and whatsoe\u2019er you guess,\n      \u2019Tis worse to endure than any can express.[6]\n\nBut you may hear Alcman in quite another strain, as the epigrammatist\nhas brought him in saying:\n\n    Sardis, my ancient fatherland,\n    Hadst thou, by Fate\u2019s supreme command,\n    My helpless childhood nourished,\n    I must have begg\u2019d my daily bread,\n    Or else, a beardless priest become,\n    Have toss\u2019d Cybele frantic down.\n    Now Alcman I am call\u2019d\u2014a name\n    Inscribed in Sparta\u2019s lists of fame,\n    Whose many tripods record bear\n    Of solemn wreaths and tripods rare,\n    Achieved in worship at the shrine\n    Of Heliconian maids divine,\n    By whose great aid I\u2019m mounted higher\n    Than Gyges or his wealthy sire.[7]\n\nThus one man\u2019s opinion makes the same thing commodious, like current\nmoney, and another man\u2019s unserviceable and hurtful.\n\n3. But let us grant (as many say and sing) that it is a grievous thing\nto be banished. So there are also many things that we eat, of a bitter,\nsharp, and biting taste, which yet by a mixture of other things more\nmild and sweet have all their unpleasantness taken off. There are also\nsome colors troublesome to look upon, which bear so hard and strike so\npiercingly upon the sight, that they confound and dazzle it; if now\nby mixing shadows with them, or by turning our eyes upon some green\nand pleasant color, we remedy this inconvenience, thou mayst also do\nthe same to the afflictions that befall thee, considering them with\na mixture of those advantages and benefits thou still enjoyest, as\nwealth, friends, vacancy from business, and a supply of all things\nnecessary to human life. For I think there are few Sardians but would\ndesire to be in your condition, though banished, and would choose to\nlive as you may do, though in a strange country, rather than\u2014like\nsnails that grow to their shells\u2014enjoy no other good, saving only what\nthey have at home without trouble.\n\n4. As he therefore in the comedy that advised his unfortunate friend\nto take heart and to revenge himself of Fortune, being asked which\nway, answered, By the help of philosophy; so we also may be revenged\nof her, by acting worthily like philosophers. For what course do we\ntake when it is rainy weather, or a cold north wind blows? We creep\nto the fireside, or go into a bath, put on more clothes, or go into\na dry house; and do not sit still in a shower and cry. It is in thy\npower above most men\u2019s to revive and cherish that part of thy life\nwhich seems to be chill and benumbed, not needing any other helps, but\nonly according to thy best judgment and prudence making use of the\nthings that thou possessest. The cupping-glasses physicians use, by\ndrawing the worst humors out of the body, alleviate and preserve the\nrest; but they that are prone to grieve and make sad complaints, by\nmustering together alway the worst of their afflictive circumstances,\nby debating these things over and over, being fastened (as it were) to\ntheir troubles, make the most advantageous things to be wholly useless\nto themselves, and especially when their case requires most help and\nassistance. As for those two hogsheads, my friend, which Homer says lie\nin heaven, full, the one of the good, the other of the ill fates of\nmen,\u2014it is not Jupiter that sits to draw out and transmit to some a\nmoderate share of evils mixed with good, but to others only unqualified\nstreams of evil; but it is we ourselves who do it. Those of us that are\nwise, drawing out of the good to temper with our evils, make our lives\npleasant and potable; but the greater part (which are fools) are like\nsieves, which let the best pass through, but the worst and the very\ndregs of misfortune stick to them and remain behind.\n\n5. Wherefore, if we fall into any real evil or calamity, we must bring\nin what is pleasant and delightful of the remaining good things in our\npossession, and thus, by what we enjoy at home, mitigate the sense of\nthose evils that befall us from abroad. But where there is no evil in\nthe nature of the things, but the whole of that which afflicts us is\nframed by imagination and false opinion, in this case we must do just\nas we deal with children that are apt to be frighted with false faces\nand vizards; by bringing them nearer, and making them handle and turn\nthem on every side, they are brought at last to despise them; so we, by\na nearer touching and fixing our consideration upon our feigned evils,\nmay be able to detect and discover the weakness and vanity of what we\nfear and so tragically deplore.\n\nSuch is your present condition of being banished out of that which\nyou account your country; for nature has given us no country, as it\nhas given us no house or field, no smith\u2019s or apothecary\u2019s shop, as\nAriston said; but every one of them is always made or rather called\nsuch a man\u2019s by his dwelling in it or making use of it. For man (as\nPlato says) is not an earthly and unmovable, but a heavenly plant, the\nhead raising the body erect as from a root, and directed upwards toward\nheaven.[8] Hence is that saying of Hercules:\n\n  Am I of Thebes or Argos? Whether\n  You please, for I\u2019m content with either;\n  But to determine one, \u2019tis pity,\n  In Greece my country\u2019s every city.\n\nBut Socrates expressed it better, when he said, he was not an Athenian\nor a Greek, but a citizen of the world (just as a man calls himself\na citizen of Rhodes or Corinth), because he did not enclose himself\nwithin the limits of Sunium, Taenarum, or the Ceraunian mountains.\n\n  Behold how yonder azure sky,\n  Extending vastly wide and high\n  To infinitely distant spaces,\n  In her soft arms our earth embraces.[9]\n\nThese are the boundaries of our country, and no man is an exile or a\nstranger or foreigner in these, where there is the same fire, water,\nair, the same rulers, administrators, and presidents, the same sun,\nmoon, and daystar; where there are the same laws to all, and where,\nunder one orderly disposition and government, are the summer and winter\nsolstices, the equinoxes, Pleiades, Arcturus, times of sowing and\nplanting; where there is one king and supreme ruler, which is God, who\ncomprehends the beginning, the middle, and end of the universe; who\npasses through all things in a straight course, compassing all things\naccording to nature: justice follows him to take vengeance on those\nthat transgress the divine law, which justice we naturally all make use\nof towards all men, as being citizens of the same community.\n\n6. But for thee to complain that thou dost not dwell at Sardis is\nno objection; for all the Athenians do not inhabit Collytus, nor do\nall the men of Corinth live in the Cranium, nor all of Lacedaemon in\nPitane.\n\nDo you look upon those Athenians as strangers and banished persons\nwho removed from Melite to Diomea,\u2014whence they called the month\nMetageitnion, and the sacrifices they offered in memory of their\nremoval Metageitnia, being pleased with and cheerfully accepting this\nnew neighborhood to another people? Surely you will not say so. What\nparts of the inhabited earth or of the whole earth can be said to be\nfar distant one from another, when mathematicians demonstrate that the\nwhole earth is to be accounted as an indivisible point, compared with\nthe heavens? But we, like pismires or bees, when we are cast out of\none ant-hill or hive, are in great anxiety, and take on as if we were\nstrangers and undone, not knowing how to make and account all things\nour own, as indeed they are. We shall certainly laugh at his folly who\nshall affirm there was a better moon at Athens than at Corinth; and yet\nwe in a sort commit the same error, when being in a strange country we\nlook upon the earth, the sea, the air, the heavens doubtfully, as if\nthey were not the same, but quite different from those we have been\naccustomed to. Nature in our first production sent us out free and\nloose; we bind and straiten and pin up ourselves in houses, and reduce\nourselves into a scant and little room.\n\nMoreover, we laugh at the kings of Persia, who (if the story be true)\nwill drink only the water of the River Choaspes, by this means making\nthe rest of the habitable world to be without water, as to themselves;\nbut we, when we remove to other countries, and retain our longings\nafter Cephissus and Eurotas, and are pleased with nothing so much as\nthe hills Taygetus and Parnassus, we make the whole earth unhabitable\nto ourselves, and are without a house or city where we can dwell.\n\n7. When certain Egyptians, not enduring the anger and hard usage of\ntheir king, went to dwell in Ethiopia, and some earnestly entreated\nthem to return to their wives and children they had left behind them,\nthey very impudently showed them their privy parts, saying they should\nnever want wives or children whilst they carried those about them.\nBut it is more grave and becoming to say that whosoever happens to be\nprovided with a competency of the necessaries to life, wheresoever\nhe is, is not without a city or a dwelling, nor need reckon himself\na stranger there; only he ought to have besides these prudence and\nconsideration, like a governing anchor, that he may be able to make\nadvantage of any port at which he arrives. It is not easy indeed for\nhim that has lost his wealth quickly to gather it up again; but every\ncity becomes presently that man\u2019s country who has the skill to use it,\nand who has those roots which can live and thrive, cling and grow to\nevery place. Such had Themistocles, and such had Demetrius Phalareus;\nfor this last named, after his banishment, being the prime friend\nof King Ptolemy in Alexandria, not only was abundantly provided for\nhimself, but also sent presents to the Athenians. As for Themistocles,\nhe was maintained by an allowance suitable to his quality at the King\u2019s\ncharge, and is reported to have said to his wife and children, We had\nbeen undone, if we had not been undone. Diogenes the Cynic also, when\none told him, The Sinopians have condemned thee to fly from Pontus,\nreplied, And I have condemned them to stay in Pontus,\n\n                  Close prisoners there to be,\n  At th\u2019 utmost shore of the fierce Euxine Sea.[10]\n\nStratonicus enquiring of his host in the isle of Seriphus what crime\namong them was punished with banishment, and being told forgery was so\npunished, he asked him why he did not commit that crime that he might\nbe removed out of that strait place; and yet there, as the comedian\nexpresses it, they reap down their figs with slings, and that island is\nprovided with all things that it wants.\n\n8. For if you consider the truth of things, setting aside vain fancy\nand opinion, he that has got an agreeable city to dwell in is a\nstranger and foreigner to all the rest, for it seems not reasonable and\njust, that leaving his own he should go to dwell in another city. As\nthe proverb is, \u201cSparta is the province fallen to your lot, adorn it,\u201d\nthough it should be in no credit or prove unhealthful, though disturbed\nwith seditions, and its affairs in distemper and out of order. But\nas for him whom Fortune has deprived of his own habitation, it gives\nhim leave to go and dwell where he pleases. That good precept of the\nPythagoreans, \u201cMake choice of the best life you can, and custom will\nmake it pleasant,\u201d is here also wise and useful. Choose the best and\npleasantest place to live in, and time will make it thy country, and\nsuch a country as will not encumber and distract thee, not laying on\nthee such commands as these,\u2014Bring in so much money; Go on such an\nembassy to Rome; Entertain such a governor; Bear such a public office.\nIf a prudent person and no way conceited, calls these things to mind,\nhe will choose to live in exile in such a sorry island as Gyarus, or in\nCynarus that is \u201cso hard and barren and unfit for plantation,\u201d and do\nthis without reluctancy, not making such sorrowful complaints as the\nwomen do in the poet Simonides:\n\n  The troubled sea\u2019s dark waves surround me,\n  And with their horrid noise confound me;\n\nbut will rather remind himself of that saying of King Philip, who\nreceiving a fall in a place of wrestling, when he turned himself in\nrising and saw the print of his body in the dust, exclaimed, Good God!\nwhat a small portion of earth has Nature assigned us, and yet we covet\nthe whole world.\n\n9. I presume you have seen the island of Naxos, or at least the town\nof Hyria here hard by; in the former of which Ephialtes and Otus made\ntheir abode, and in the latter Orion dwelt. Alcmaeon\u2019s seat was on\nthe newly hardened mud which the river Achelous had cast up,\u2014when he\nfled from the Furies, as the poets tell us,\u2014but I guess it was when\nhe fled from the rulers of the state and from seditions, and to avoid\nthose furies, the sycophants and informers, that he chose that little\nspot of ground to dwell on, where he was free from business and lived\nin ease and quiet. Tiberius Caesar passed the last seven years of his\nlife in the island of Capreae; and that sacred governing spirit that\nswayed the whole world, and was enclosed as it were in his breast, yet\nfor so long time never removed nor changed place. And yet the thoughts\nand cares of the empire, that were poured in upon him and invaded him\non every side, made that island\u2019s repose and retirement to be less pure\nand undisturbed to him. But he that by retreating to a small island can\nfree himself from great evils is a miserable man, if he does not often\nsay and sing those verses of Pindar to himself,\u2014\n\n  Where slender cypress grows I\u2019d have a seat,\n  But care not for the shady woods of Crete!\n  I\u2019ve little land and so not many trees,\n  But free from sorrow I enjoy much ease,\u2014\n\nnot being disquieted with seditions or the edicts of princes, nor with\nadministering affairs when the public is in straits, nor undergoing\nofficers that are hard to be put by and denied.\n\n10. For if that be a good saying of Callimachus, that we ought not to\nmeasure wisdom by a Persian cord, much less should we measure happiness\nby cords of furlongs, or, if we chance to inhabit an island of two\nhundred furlongs and not (like Sicily) of four days\u2019 sail in compass,\nthink that we ought to disquiet ourselves and lament as if we were\nvery miserable and unfortunate. For what does a place of large extent\ncontribute to the tranquillity of one\u2019s life? Do you not hear Tantalus\nsaying in the tragedy:\n\n  I sow the Berecyntian ground,\n  A field of twelve days\u2019 journey round?\n\nBut he says a little after:\n\n  My mind, that used to mount the skies,\n  Fallen to the earth dejected lies,\n  And now this friendly counsel brings,\u2014\n  Less to admire all earthly things.[11]\n\nNausithous, forsaking the spacious country of Hyperia because the\nCyclops bordered upon it, and removing to an island far distant from\nall other people, chose there,\n\n  Remote from all commerce t\u2019 abide,\n  By sea\u2019s surrounding waves denied;[12]\n\nand yet he procured a very pleasant way of living to his own citizens.\n\nThe Cyclades islands were formerly inhabited by the children of Minos,\nand afterwards by the children of Codrus and Neleus; in which now\nfools that are banished thither think they are punished. And indeed,\nwhat island is there to which men are wont to be banished that is not\nlarger than the land that lies about Scillus, in which Xenophon after\nhis military expedition passed delicately his old age? The Academy\nnear Athens, that was purchased for three thousand drachmas, was the\nplace where Plato, Xenocrates, and Polemo dwelt; there they held their\nschools, and there they lived all their lifetime, except one day every\nyear, when Xenocrates came into the city at the time of the Bacchanals\nand the new tragedies, to grace the feast, as they say. Theocritus of\nChios reproached Aristotle, who affected a court-life with Philip and\nAlexander, that he chose instead of the Academy rather to dwell at the\nmouth of Borborus. For there is a river by Pella, which the Macedonians\ncall by that name.\n\nBut as for islands, Homer sets himself as it were studiously to commend\nthem in these verses:\n\n  He comes to the isle of Lemnos, and the town\n  Where divine Thoas dwelt, of great renown;\n\nand\n\n  As much as fruitful Lesbos does contain,\n  A seat which Gods above do not disdain;\n\nand\n\n  When he to th\u2019 lofty hills of Scyros came,\n  And took the town that boasts Enyeus\u2019s name;\n\nand\n\n  These from Dulichium and th\u2019 Echinades,\n  Blest isles, that lie \u2019gainst Elis, o\u2019er the seas.[13]\n\nAnd among the famous men that dwelt in islands they reckon Aeolus, a\ngreat favorite of the Gods, the most prudent Ulysses, the most valiant\nAjax, and Alcinous, the most courteous entertainer of strangers.\n\n11. When Zeno was told that the only ship he had remaining was cast\naway at sea with all her lading, he replied: Well done Fortune, that\nhast reduced me to the habit and life of a philosopher. And, indeed, a\nman that is not puffed up with conceit nor madly in love with a crowd\nwill not, I suppose, have any reason to accuse Fortune for constraining\nhim to live in an island, but will rather commend her for removing\nso much anxiety and agitation of his mind, for putting a stop to his\nrambles in foreign countries, to his dangers at sea, and the noise and\ntumult of the exchange, and for giving him a fixed, vacant, undisturbed\nlife, such a life as he may truly call his own, describing as it\nwere a circle about him, in which is contained the use of all things\nnecessary. For what island is there that has not a horse, a walk,\nand a bath in it; that has not fishes and hares for such as delight\nin hunting and angling and such like sports? But the chiefest of all\nis, that the quiet which others thirst so much after thou commonly\nmayst have here without seeking. For those that are gamesters at dice,\nshutting up themselves at home, there are sycophants and busy spies\nthat hunt them out, and prosecute them from their houses of pleasure\nand gardens in the suburbs, and hale them by violence before the\njudges or the court. But none sails to an island to give a man any\ndisturbance, no petitioner, no borrower, no urger to suretyship, no one\nthat comes to beg his voice when he stands candidate for an office;\nonly the best friends and familiars, out of good-will and desire to\nsee him, may come over thither; and the rest of his life is safe and\ninviolable to him, if he has the will and the skill to live at ease.\nBut he that cries up the happiness of those that run about in other\ncountries, or spend the most of their life in inns and passage-boats,\nis no wiser than he is that thinks the planets in a better estate\nthan the fixed stars. And yet every planet rolling about in its\nproper sphere, as in an island, keeps its order. For the sun never\ntransgresses its limited measures, as Heraclitus says; if it did do so,\nthe Furies, which are the attendants of Justice, would find it out and\npunish it.\n\n12. These things, my friend, and such like we say and sing to those\nwho, by being banished into an island, have no correspondence or\ncommerce with other people,\n\n  Hindered by waves of the surrounding deep,\n  Which many \u2019gainst their mind close prisoners keep.[14]\n\nBut as for thee, who art not assigned to one place only, but forbidden\nonly to live in one, the prohibiting thee one is the giving thee leave\nto dwell anywhere else besides. If on one hand it is urged thus against\nyou: You are in no office, you are not of the senate, nor preside\nas moderator at the public games, you may oppose on the other hand\nthus: We head no factions, we make no expensive treats, nor give long\nattendance at the governor\u2019s gates; we care not at all who is chosen\ninto our province, though he be choleric or unsufferably vexatious.\n\nBut just as Archilochus disparaged the island of Thasos because of its\nasperity and inequality in some places overlooking its fruitful fields\nand vineyards, saying thus of it,\n\n  Like ridge of ass\u2019s back it stood,\n  Full of wild plants, for nothing good;\n\nso we, whilst we pore upon one part of banishment which is ignominious,\noverlook its vacancy from business, and that leisure and freedom it\naffords us.\n\nMen admired the happiness of the Persian kings, that passed their\nwinter in Babylon, their summer in Media, and the pleasant spring-time\nat Susa. And he that is an exile may, if he pleases, when the mysteries\nof Ceres are celebrated, go and live at Eleusis; and he may keep the\nfeasts of Bacchus at Argos; at the time of the Pythian games, he\nmay pass over to Delphi, and of the Isthmian, to Corinth, if public\nspectacles and shows are the things he admires; if not, then he may\nbe idle, or walk, or read, or sleep quietly; and you may add that\nprivilege Diogenes bragged of when he said, \u201cAristotle dines when it\nseems good to King Philip, but Diogenes when he himself pleases,\u201d\nhaving no business, no magistrate, no prefect to interrupt and disturb\nhis customary way of living.\n\n13. For this reason, you will find that very few of the most prudent\nand wise men were buried in their own country, but the most of them,\nwhen none forced them to it, weighed anchor and steered their course to\nlive in another port, removing some to Athens, and others from it.\n\nWho ever gave a greater encomium of his own country than Euripides in\nthe following verses?\n\n  We are all of this country\u2019s native race,\n  Not brought-in strangers from another place,\n  As some, like dice hither and thither thrown,\n  Remove in haste from this to t\u2019other town.\n  And, if a woman may have leave to boast,\n  A temperate air breathes here in every coast;\n  We neither curse summer\u2019s immoderate heat,\n  Nor yet complain the winter\u2019s cold\u2019s too great.\n\n  If aught there be that noble Greece doth yield,\n  Or Asia rich, by river or by field,\n  We seek it out and bring it to our doors.\n\nAnd yet he that wrote all this went himself into Macedonia, and passed\nthe rest of his days in the court of Archelaus. I suppose you have also\nheard of this short epigram:\n\n  Here lieth buried Aeschylus, the son\n  Of the Athenian Euphorion;\n  In Sicily his latest breath did yield,\n  And buried lies by Gela\u2019s fruitful field.\n\nFor both he and Simonides before him went into Sicily. And whereas we\nmeet with this title, \u201cThis publication of the History of Herodotus\nof Halicarnassus,\u201d many have changed it into Herodotus of Thurii, for\nhe dwelt at Thurii, and was a member of that colony. And that sacred\nand divine poet Homer, that adorned the Trojan war,\u2014why was he a\ncontroversy to so many cities (every one pleading he was theirs) but\nbecause he did not cry up any one of them to the disparagement of the\nrest? Many also and great are the honors that are paid to Jupiter\nHospitalis.\n\n14. If any one object, that these men hunted ambitiously after glory\nand honor, let him go to the philosophers and the schools and nurseries\nof wisdom at Athens, those in the Lyceum, the Academy, the Stoa,\nthe Palladium, the Odeum. If he admires and prefers the Peripatetic\nphilosophy before the rest, Aristotle was a native of Stagira,\nTheophrastus of Ephesus, Straton of Lampsacus, Glycon of Troas, Ariston\nof Ceus, Critolaus of Phaselis. If thou art for the Stoic philosophy,\nZeno was of Citium, Cleanthes of Assus, Chrysippus of Soli, Diogenes\nof Babylon, Antipater of Tarsus, and Archedemus who was of Athens went\nover to the Parthians, and left a succession of Stoic philosophers in\nBabylon. And who, I pray, persecuted and chased these men out of their\ncountry? Nobody at all; but they pursued their own quiet, which men\ncannot easily enjoy at home that are in any reputation or have any\npower; other things they taught us by what they said, but this by what\nthey did. For even now the most approved and excellent persons live\nabroad out of their own country, not being transported, but departing\nvoluntarily, not being driven thence, but flying from business and from\nthe disquiets and molestations which they are sure to meet with at home.\n\nIt seems to me that the Muses helped the ancient writers to finish\ntheir choicest and most approved compositions, by calling in, as it\nwere, banishment to their assistance. Thucydides the Athenian wrote\nthe Peloponnesian and Athenian War in Thrace, hard by the forest of\nScapte; Xenophon wrote his history in Scillus belonging to Elis;\nPhilistus in Epirus, Timaeus of Tauromenum at Athens, Androtion the\nAthenian in Megara, Bacchylides the poet in Peloponnesus. These and\nmany more, after they had lost their country, did not lose all hope nor\nwere dejected in their minds, but took occasion thereupon to express\nthe vivacity of their spirit and the dexterity of their wit, receiving\ntheir banishment at the hands of Fortune as a viaticum that she had\nsent them; whereby they became renowned everywhere after death, whereas\nthere is no remaining mention of those factious persons that expelled\nthem.\n\n15. He therefore is ridiculous that looks upon it as an ignominious\nthing to be banished. For what is it that thou sayest? Was Diogenes\nignominious, when Alexander, who saw him sitting and sunning himself,\ncame and asked him whether he wanted any thing, and he answered him,\nthat he lacked nothing but that he would go a little aside and not\nstand in his light? The king, admiring the presence of his mind,\nturned to his followers and said: If I were not Alexander, I would\nbe Diogenes. Was Camillus inglorious because he was expelled Rome,\nconsidering he has got the reputation of being its second founder?\nNeither did Themistocles by his banishment lose any of the renown he\nhad gained in Greece, but added to it that which he had acquired among\nthe barbarians; neither is there any so without all sense of honor,\nor of such an abject mind, that had not rather be Themistocles the\nbanished, than Leobates that indicted him; or be Cicero that had the\nsame fate, than Clodius that expelled him Rome; or be Timotheus that\nabandoned his country, than Aristophon that was his accuser.\n\n16. But because the words of Euripides move many, who seems to frame a\nheavy charge against banishment and to urge it home, let us see what he\nsays more particularly in his questions and answers about it.\n\n  JOCASTA. But is\u2019t so sad one\u2019s country to forego,\n    And live in exile? Pray, son, let me know.\n\n  POL. Some ills when told are great, when tried are less;\n    But this is saddest felt, though sad t\u2019 express.\n\n  JOC. What is\u2019t, I pray, afflicts the banished most?\n\n  POL. That liberty to speak one\u2019s mind is lost.\n\n  JOC. He is indeed a slave that dares not utter\n    His thoughts, nor \u2019gainst his cruel masters mutter.\n\n  POL. But all their insolencies must o\u2019erpass,\n    And bear their follies tamely like an ass.[15]\n\nThese assertions of his are neither good nor true. For first, not to\nspeak what one thinks is not a piece of slavery; but it is the part\nof a prudent man to hold one\u2019s peace and be silent when time and\nthe circumstances of affairs require it; as he himself says better\nelsewhere, that a wise man knows\n\n  Both when it\u2019s best no tongue to find,\n  And when it\u2019s safe to speak his mind.\n\nAgain, as for the rudeness and insolency of such as have power in their\nhands, they that stay in their country are no less forced to bear and\nendure it than those that are driven out of it; nay, commonly the\nformer stand more in fear of false informations and the violence of\nunjust rulers in cities than the latter. But his greatest mistake and\nabsurdity is his taking away all freedom of speech from exiles. It is\nwonderful indeed if Theodorus had no freedom of this kind, who,\u2014when\nKing Lysimachus said to him: Thou being such a criminal, the country\ncast thee forth, did it not?\u2014replied: Yes, not being able to bear me;\njust as Semele cast out Bacchus, when she could bear him no longer. And\nwhen the king showed him Telesphorus in an iron cage, with his eyes\ndigged out of their holes, his nose and ears and tongue cut off, and\nsaid: So I deal with those that injure me, he was not abashed. What!\ndid not Diogenes retain his wonted freedom of speaking, who coming into\nKing Philip\u2019s camp, when he was going to give the Grecians battle, was\nbrought before him for a spy; and confessed that he was so, but that he\ncame to take a view of his unsatiable greediness of empire and of his\nmadness and folly who was going in the short time of a fight to throw a\ndie for his crown and life?\n\nAnd what say you to Hannibal the Carthaginian? Did not he use a\nconvenient freedom towards Antiochus (he at that time an exile, and\nthe other a king), when upon an advantageous occasion he advised him\nto give his enemies battle? He, when he had sacrificed, told him the\nentrails forbade it. Hannibal sharply rebuked him thus: You are for\ndoing what the flesh of a beast, not what the reason of a wise man,\nadviseth.\n\nNeither does banishment deprive geometricians or mathematicians of\nthe liberty of discoursing freely concerning matters they know and\nhave skill in; and why should any worthy or good man be denied it? But\nmeanness of thought obstructs and hinders the voice, strangles the\npower of speech, and makes a man a mute. But let us see what follows\nfrom Euripides:\n\n  JOC. Upon good hopes exiles can thrive, they say.\n\n  POL. Hopes have fine looks, but kill one with delay.[16]\n\nThis is also an accusation of men\u2019s folly rather than of banishment;\nfor it is not the well instructed and those that know how to use what\nthey have aright, but such as depend upon what is to come and desire\nwhat they have not, that are carried and tossed up and down by hopes,\nas in a floating vessel, though they have scarce ever stirred beyond\nthe gates of their own city. But to go on:\n\n  JOC. Did not your father\u2019s friends aid your distress?\n\n  POL. Take care to thrive; for if you once are poor,\n    Those you call friends will know you then no more.\n\n  JOC. Did not your high birth stand you in some stead?\n\n  POL. It\u2019s sad to want, for honor buys no bread.\n\nThese also are ungrateful speeches of Polynices, who accuses banishment\nas casting disparagement upon noble birth and leaving a man without\nfriends, who yet because of his high birth was thought worthy, though\nan exile, to have a king\u2019s daughter given him in marriage, and also by\nthe powerful assistance of his friends gathered such an army as to make\nwar against his own country, as he confesses himself a little after:\n\n  Many a famous Grecian peer\n  And captain from Mycenae here\n  In readiness t\u2019 assist me tarry;\n  Sad service \u2019tis, but necessary.[17]\n\nNeither are the words of his lamenting mother any wiser:\n\n  No nuptial torch at all I lighted have\n  To thee, as doth a wedding-feast beseem;\n  No marriage-song was sung; nor thee to lave\n  Was water brought from fair Ismenus\u2019 stream.\n\nShe ought to have been well pleased and rejoiced when she heard that\nher son dwelt in such kingly palaces; but, whilst she laments that the\nnuptial torch was not lighted, and the want of waters from Ismenus\u2019s\nriver for him to have bathed in (as if people at Argos were destitute\nboth of fire and water at their weddings), she makes those evils, which\nher own conceit and folly produced, to be the effects of banishment.\n\n17. But is it not then an ignominious thing to be an exile? Yes, it is\namong fools, with whom it is a reproach to be poor, to be bald, or of\nlow stature, and (with as much reason) to be a stranger or a pilgrim.\nBut they that do not fall into these mistakes admire good men, though\nthey happen to be poor or strangers or in exile. Do not we see the\ntemple of Theseus venerated by all men, as well as the Parthenon and\nEleusinium? And yet Theseus was banished from Athens, by whose means\nit is at this time inhabited; and lost his abode in that city, which\nhe did not hold as a tenant, but himself built. And what remarkable\nthing is there remaining in Eleusis, if we are ashamed of Eumolpus, who\ncoming thither from Thrace initiated the Greeks, and still does so,\nin the mysteries of religion? And whose son was Codrus, that reigned\nat Athens, but of that Melanthus who was banished from Messene? Will\nyou not commend that speech of Antisthenes, who, when one said to him,\nPhrygia is thy mother, replied, She was also the mother of the Gods?\nAnd if any one reproach thee with thy banishment, why canst not thou\nanswer, that the father of the great conqueror Hercules was an exile?\nAnd so was Cadmus the grandfather of Bacchus, who, being sent abroad in\nsearch for Europa, did return no more:\n\n  Sprung from Phoenicia, to Thebes he came;\n  Thebes to his grandson Bacchus lays a claim,\n  Who there inspires with rage the female rout,\n  That worship him by running mad about.[18]\n\nAs for those things which Aeschylus obscurely insinuates in that\nexpression of his,\n\n  And of Apollo, chaste God, banished heaven,\n\nI\u2019ll favor my tongue, as Herodotus phrases it, and say nothing.\n\nEmpedocles, when he prefaces to his philosophy thus,\u2014\n\n  This old decree of fate unchanged stands,\u2014\n  Whoso with horrid crimes defiles his hands,\n  To long-lived Daemons this commission\u2019s given\n  To chase him many ages out of heaven.\n  Into this sad condition I am hurled,\n  Banished from God to wander through the world,\u2014\n\ndoes not here only point at himself; but in what he says of himself he\nshows the condition of us all, that we are pilgrims and strangers and\nexiles here in this world. For know, says he, O men, that it is not\nblood nor a spirit tempered with it that gave being and beginning to\nthe soul, but it is your terrestrial and mortal body that is made up of\nthese. And by the soft name of pilgrimage, he insinuates the origin of\nthe soul, that comes hither from another place. And the truth is, she\nflies and wanders up and down, being driven by the divine decrees and\nlaws; and afterwards, as in an island surrounded with a great sea, as\nPlato speaks, she is tied and linked to the body, just like an oyster\nto its shell, and because she is not able to remember nor relate,\n\n  From what a vast and high degree\n  Of honor and felicity\n\nshe has removed,\u2014not from Sardis to Athens, not from Corinth to\nLemnos or Scyros, but having changed heaven and the moon for earth and\nan earthly life,\u2014if she is forced to make little removes here from\nplace to place, the soul hereupon is ill at ease and troubled at her\nnew and strange state, and hangs her head like a decaying plant. And\nindeed some one country is found to be more agreeable to a plant than\nanother, in which it thrives and flourishes better; but no place can\ndeprive a man of his happiness, unless he pleases, no more than of his\nvirtue and prudence. For Anaxagoras wrote his book of the Squaring\nof a Circle in prison; and Socrates, just when he was going to drink\nthe poison that killed him, discoursed of philosophy, and exhorted his\nfriends to the study of it; who then admired him as a happy man. But\nPha\u00ebton and Tantalus, though they mounted up to heaven, yet, the poets\ntell us, through their folly fell into the extremest calamities.\n\n\n\n\nOF BROTHERLY LOVE.\n\n\n1. The ancient statues of Castor and Pollux are called by the Spartans\nDocana; and they are two pieces of wood one over against the other\njoined with two other cross ends, and the community and undividedness\nof this consecrated representation seems to resemble the fraternal\nlove of these two Gods. In like manner do I devote this discourse\nof Brotherly Love to you, Nigrinus and Quintus, as a gift in common\nbetwixt you both, who well deserve it. For as to the things it advises\nto, you will, while you already practise them, seem rather to give your\ntestimonies to them than to be exhorted by them. And the satisfaction\nyou have from well-doing will give the more firm durance to your\njudgment, when you shall find yourselves approved by wise and judicious\nspectators. Aristarchus the father of Theodectes said indeed once, by\nway of flout of the Sophists, that formerly there were scarce seven\nSophists to be found, but that in his time there could hardly be found\nso many who were not Sophists. But I see brotherly love is as scarce\nin our days as brotherly hatred was in ancient times, the instances\nof which have been publicly exposed in tragedies and public shows for\ntheir strangeness. But all in our times, when they have fortuned to\nhave good brothers, do no less admire them than the famed Molionidae,\nthat are supposed to have been born with their bodies joined with each\nother. And to enjoy in common their fathers\u2019 wealth, friends, and\nslaves is looked upon as incredible and prodigious, as if one soul\nshould make use of the hands, feet, and eyes of two bodies.\n\n2. And Nature hath given us very near examples of the use of\nbrothers, by contriving most of the necessary parts of our bodies\ndouble, as it were, brothers and twins,\u2014as hands, feet, eyes, ears,\nnostrils,\u2014thereby telling us that all these were thus distinguished\nfor mutual benefit and assistance, and not for variance and discord.\nAnd when she parted the very hands into many and unequal fingers, she\nmade them thereby the most curious and artificial of all our members;\ninsomuch that the ancient philosopher Anaxagoras assigned the hands for\nthe reason of all human knowledge and discretion. But the contrary to\nthis seems the truth. For it is not man\u2019s having hands that makes him\nthe wisest animal, but his being naturally reasonable and capable of\nart was the reason why such organs were conferred upon him. And this\nalso is most manifest to every one, that the reason why Nature out of\none seed and source formed two, three, and more brethren was not for\ndifference and opposition, but that their being apart might render\nthem the more capable of assisting one another. For those that were\ntreble-bodied and hundred-handed, if any such there were, while they\nhad all their members joined to each other, could do nothing without\nthem or apart, as brothers can who can live together and travel,\nundertake public employments and practise husbandry, by one another\u2019s\nhelp, if they preserve but that principle of benevolence and concord\nthat Nature hath bestowed upon them. But if they do not, they will not\nat all differ in my opinion from feet that trip up one another, and\nfingers that are unnaturally writhen and distorted by one another. Yea,\nrather, as things moist and dry, cold and hot, partake of one nature in\nthe same body, and by their consent and agreement engender the best\nand most pleasant temperament and harmony,\u2014without which (they say)\nthere is neither satisfaction nor benefit in either riches or kingship\nitself, which renders man equal to Gods,\u2014but if excess and discord\nbefall them, they miserably ruinate and confound the animal; so, where\nthere is an unanimous accordance amongst brothers, the family thrives\nand flourishes, and friends and acquaintance, like a well furnished\nchoir, in all their actions, words, and thoughts maintain a delightful\nharmony.\n\n  But jarring feuds advance the worst of men,\n\nsuch as a vile ill-tongued slave at home, an insinuating parasite\nabroad, or some other envious person. For as diseases in bodies\nnauseating their ordinary diet incline the appetite to every improper\nand noxious thing; so calumny freely entertained against relations,\nand through prejudging credulity enhanced into suspicion, occasions an\nadopting the pernicious acquaintance of such as are ready enough to\ncrowd into the room of their betters.\n\n3. The Arcadian prophet in Herodotus was forced to supply the loss of\none of his feet with an artificial one made of wood. But he who in a\ndifference throws off his brother, and out of places of common resort\ntakes a stranger for his comrade, seems to do no less than wilfully\nto mangle off a part of himself, attempting to repair the barbarous\nbreach by the unnatural application of an extraneous member. For the\nordinary inclinations and desires of men, being after some sort of\nsociety or other, sufficiently admonish them to set the highest value\nupon relations, to pay them all becoming respects, and to have a tender\nregard for their persons, nothing being more irksome to nature than to\nlive in that destitution and solitude that denies them the happiness of\na friend and the privilege of communication. Well therefore was that of\nMenander:\n\n  \u2019Tis not o\u2019th\u2019 store of sprightly wine,\n  Nor plenty of delicious meats,\n\n  Though generous Nature should design\n  T\u2019 oblige us with perpetual treats;\n  \u2019Tis not on these we for content depend,\n  So much as on the shadow of a friend.\n\nFor a great deal of friendship in the world is really no better and no\nmore than the mere imitation and resemblance of that first affection\nthat Nature wrought in parents towards their children, and in their\nchildren towards one another. And whoever has not a particular esteem\nand regard for this kind of friendship, I know no reason any one has to\ncredit his kindest pretensions. For what shall we make of that man who\nin his complaisance, either in company or in his letters, salutes his\nfriend by the name of brother, and yet scorns the company of that very\nbrother whose name was so serviceable to him in his compliment? For,\nas it is the part of a madman to adorn and set out the effigies of his\nbrother, and in the mean time to abuse, beat, and maim his person; so,\nto value and honor the name in others but to hate and shun the brother\nhimself is likewise an action of one that is not so well in his wits\nas he should be, and that never yet considered that Nature is a most\nsacred thing.\n\n4. I remember, when I was at Rome, I undertook an umpirage between two\nbrothers. The one pretended to the study of philosophy, but (as it\nappeared by the event) with as little reason as to the relation of a\nbrother. For, when I advised him that now was the time for him to show\nhis philosophy, in the prudent managery and government of himself,\nwhilst he was to treat with so dear a relation as a brother, and such\na one especially as wanted those advantages of knowledge and education\nthat he had; Your counsel, replied my philosopher, may do well with\nsome illiterate novice or other; but, for my part, I see no such great\nmatter in that which you so gravely allege, our being the issue of the\nsame parents. True, I answered, you declare evidently enough that you\nmake no account of your affinity. But, by your favor, Mr. Philosopher,\nall of your profession that I ever was acquainted with, whatever their\nprivate opinions were, affirm both in their prose and poetry that,\nnext to the Gods and the laws, her conservators and guardians, Nature\nhad assigned to parents the highest honor and veneration. And there is\nnothing that men can perform more grateful to the Gods, than freely\nand constantly to pay their utmost acknowledgments and thanks to their\nparents, and those from whom they received their nurture and education;\nas, on the other hand, there is no greater argument of a profane and\nimpious spirit than a contemptuous and surly behavior towards them. We\nare therefore enjoined to take heed of doing any one wrong. But he that\ndemeans not himself with that exactness before his parents that all his\nactions may afford them a pleasure and satisfaction, though he give\nthem no other distaste, is sure to undergo a very hard censure. Now\nwhat can more effectually express the gratitude of children to their\nparents, or what actions or dispositions in their children can be more\ndelightful and rejoicing, than firm love and amity amongst them?\n\n5. And this may be understood by lesser instances. For, if parents will\nbe displeased when an old servant that has been favored by them shall\nbe reproached and flouted at by the children, or if the plants and the\nfields wherein they took pleasure be neglected, if the forgetting a\ndog or a beloved horse fret their humorsome age (that is very apt to\nbe jealous of the love and obedience of their children), if, lastly,\nwhen they disaffect and despise those recreations that are pleasing\nto the eye and ear, or those juvenile exercises and games which they\nthemselves formerly delighted in,\u2014if at any of all these things the\nparents will be angry and offended,\u2014how will they endure such discord\nas inflames their children with mutual malice and hatred, fills their\nmouths with opprobrious and execrating language and works them into\nsuch an inveteracy that the contrary and spiteful method of their\nactions declares a drift and design of ruining one another? If, I say,\nthose smaller matters provoke their anger, how will all the rest be\nresented? Who can resolve me? But, on the other hand, where the love\nof brothers is such that they make up that distance Nature has placed\nthem at (in respect of their different bodies) by united affections,\ninsomuch that their studies and recreations, their earnest and their\njest, keep true time and agree exactly together, such a pleasing\nconsort amongst their children proves a nursing melody to the decayed\nparents to preserve and maintain their quiet and peace in their old\n(though tender) age. For never was any father so intent upon oratory,\nambitious of honor, or craving after riches, as fond of his children.\nWherefore neither is it so great a satisfaction to hear them speak\nwell, find them grow wealthy, or see them honored with the power of\nmagistracy, as to be endeared to each other in mutual affection.\nWherefore it is reported of Apollonis of Cyzicum, mother of King\nEumenes and three other sons, Attalus, Philetaerus, and Athenaeus, that\nshe always accounted herself happy and gave the Gods thanks, not so\nmuch for wealth or empire, as because she saw her three sons guarding\nthe eldest, and him reigning securely among his armed brothers. And on\nthe contrary, Artaxerxes, understanding that his son Ochus had laid a\nplot against his brothers, died with sorrow at the surprise. For the\nquarrels of brothers are pernicious, saith Euripides, but most of all\nto the parents themselves. For he that hates and plagues his brother\ncan hardly forbear blaming the father who begot and the mother who bare\nhim.\n\n6. Wherefore Pisistratus, being about to marry again, his sons being\ngrown up to a mature age, gave them their deserved character of praise,\ntogether with the reason of his designs for a second marriage,\u2014that\nhe might be the happy father of more such children. Now those who are\ntruly ingenious do not only love one another the more entirely for the\nsake of their common parents, but they love their very parents for the\nsake of one another; always owning themselves bound to their parents\nespecially for the mutual happiness that they enjoy in each other,\nand looking upon their brethren as the dearest and the most valuable\ntreasure they could have received from their parents. And thus Homer\nelegantly expresses Telemachus bewailing the want of a brother:\n\n  Stern Jove has in some angry mood\n  Condemned our race to solitude.[19]\n\nBut I like not Hesiod\u2019s judgment so well, who is all for a single\nson\u2019s inheriting. Not so well (I say) from Hesiod, a pupil of the\nMuses, who being endeared sisters kept always together, and therefore\nfrom that inseparate union (\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f56\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9) were called Muses. To parents\ntherefore the love of brothers is a plain argument of their children\u2019s\nlove to themselves. And to the children of the brothers themselves it\nis the best of precedents, and that which affords the most effectual\nadvice that can be thought of; as again, they will be forward enough\nin following the worst of their parents\u2019 humors and inheriting their\nanimosities. But for one who has led his relations a contentious life,\nand quarrelled himself up into wrinkles and gray hairs,\u2014for such a one\nto begin a lecture of love to his children is just like him.\n\n        Who boldly takes the fees,\n  To cure in others what\u2019s his own disease.[20]\n\nIn a word, his own actions weaken and confute all the arguments of his\nbest counsel. Take Eteocles of Thebes reflecting upon his brother and\nflying out after this manner.\n\n  I\u2019d mount the Heavens, I\u2019d strive to meet the sun\n  In\u2019s setting forth, I\u2019d travel with him down\n\n  Beneath the earth, I\u2019d balk no enterprise.\n  To gain Jove\u2019s mighty power and tyrannize.[21]\n\nSuppose, I say, out of this rage, he had presently fallen into the\nsofter strain of good advice to his children, charging them thus:\n\n  Prize gentle amity that vies\n  With none for grandeur; concord prize\n  That joins together friends and states.\n  And keeps them long confederates.\n  Equality!\u2014whatever else deceives\n  Our trust, \u2019tis this our very selves outlives;\n\nwho is there that would not have despised him? Or what would you have\nthought of Atreus, after he had treated his brother at a barbarous\nsupper, to hear him afterwards thus instructing his children:\n\n  Such love as doth become related friends\n  Alone, when ills betide, its succor lends?\n\n7. It is therefore very needful to throw off those ill dispositions,\nas being very grievous and troublesome to their parents, and more\ndestructive to children in respect of the ill example. Besides, it\noccasions many strange censures and much obloquy amongst men. For they\nwill not be apt to imagine that so near and intimate relations as\nbrothers, that have eaten of the same bread and all along participated\nof the same common maintenance, and who have conversed so familiarly\ntogether, should break out into contention, except they were conscious\nto themselves of a great deal of naughtiness. For it must be some\ngreat matter that violates the bonds of natural affection; whence it\nis that such breaches are so hardly healed up again. For, as those\nthings which are joined together by art, being parted, may by the\nsame art be compacted again, but if there be a fracture in a natural\nbody, there is much difficulty in setting and uniting the broken\nparts; so, if friendships that through a long tract of time have been\nfirmly and closely contracted come once to be violated, no endeavors\nwill bring them together any more. And brothers, when they have once\nbroke natural affection, are hardly made true friends again; or, if\nthere be some kind of peace made betwixt them, it is like to prove but\nsuperficial only, and such as carries a filthy festering scar along\nwith it. Now all enmity between man and man which is attended with\nthese perturbations of quarrelsomeness, passion, envy, recording of\nan injury, must needs be troublesome and vexatious; but that which is\nharbored against a brother, with whom they communicate in sacrifices\nand other religious rites of their parents, with whom they have the\nsame common charnel-house and the same or a near habitation, is much\nmore to be lamented,\u2014especially if we reflect upon the horrid madness\nof some brothers, in being so prejudiced against their own flesh and\nblood, that his face and person once so welcome and familiar, his voice\nall along from his childhood as well beloved as known, should on a\nsudden become so very detestable. How loudly does this reproach their\nill-nature and savage dispositions, that, whilst they behold other\nbrethren lovingly conversing in the same house and dieting together\nat the same table, managing the same estate and attended by the same\nservants, they alone divide friends, choose contrary acquaintance,\nresolving to abandon every thing that their brother may approve of? Now\nit is obvious to any to understand, that new friends and companions may\nbe compassed and new kindred may come in when the old, like decayed\nweapons and worn-out utensils, are lost and gone. But there is no more\nregaining of a lost brother, than of a hand that is cut off or an eye\nthat is beaten out. The Persian woman therefore spake truth, when she\npreferred the saving her brother\u2019s life before her very children\u2019s,\nalleging that she was in a possibility of having more children if she\nshould be deprived of those she had, but, her parents being dead, she\ncould hope for no more brothers after him.[22]\n\n8. You will ask me then, What shall a man do with an untoward brother?\nI answer, every kind and degree of friendship is subject to abuse from\nthe persons, and in that respect has its taint, according to that of\nSophocles:\n\n  Who into human things makes scrutinies,\n  He may on most his censures exercise.\n\nFor, if you examine the love of relations, the love of associates, or\nthe more sensual passion of fond lovers, you will find none of them\nall clear, pure, and free from all faults. Wherefore the Spartan, when\nhe married a little wife, said that of evils he had to choose the\nleast. But brothers would do well to bear with one another\u2019s familiar\nfailings, rather than to adventure upon the trial of strangers. For\nas the former is blameless because it is necessary, so the other is\nblameworthy because it is voluntary. For it is not to be expected that\na sociable guest or a wild crony should be bound by the same\n\n  Chains of respect, forged by no human hand,\n\nas one who was nourished from the same breast and carries the same\nblood in his veins. And therefore it would become a virtuous mind to\nmake a favorable construction of his brother\u2019s miscarriages, and to\nbespeak him with this candor:\n\n  I cannot leave you thus under a cloud\n  Of infelicities,[23]\n\nwhether debauched with vice or eclipsed with ignorance, for fear my\ninadvertency to some failing that naturally descends upon you from\none of our parents should make me too severe against you. For, as\nTheophrastus said, as to strangers, judgment must rule affection rather\nthan affection prescribe to judgment; but where nature denies judgment\nthis prerogative, and will not wait for the bushel of salt (as the\nproverb has it) to be eaten, but has already infused and begun in us\nthe principle of love, there we should not be too rigid and exact in\nthe examining of faults. Now what would you think of men when they\ncan easily dispense with and smile at the sociable vices of their\nacquaintance, and in the mean time be so implacably incensed with the\nirregularities of a brother? Or when fierce dogs, horses, wolves, cats,\napes, lions, are so much their favorites that they feed and delight in\nthem, and yet cannot stomach only their brother\u2019s passion, ignorance,\nor ambition? Or of others who have made away their houses and lands to\nharlots, and quarrelled with their brothers only about the floor or\ncorner of the house? Nay, further, such a prejudice have they to them,\nthat they justify the hating them from the rule of hating every ill\nthing, maliciously accounting them as such; and they go up and down\ncursing and reproaching their brothers for their vices, while they are\nnever offended or discontented therewith in others, but are willing\nenough daily to frequent and haunt their company.\n\n9. And this may serve for the beginning of my discourse. I shall enter\nupon my instructions not as others do, with the distribution of the\nparents\u2019 goods, but with advice rather to avoid envious strifes and\nemulation whilst the parents are living. Agesilaus was punished with a\nmulct by the Lacedaemonian council for sending every one of the ancient\nmen an ox as a reward of his fortitude; the reason they gave for their\ndistaste was, that by this means he won too much upon the people,\nand made the commonalty become wholly serviceable to his own private\ninterest. Now I would persuade the son to show all possible honor and\nreverence to his parents, but not with that greedy design of engrossing\nall their love to himself,\u2014of which too many have been guilty, working\ntheir brethren out of favor, on purpose to make way for their own\ninterest,\u2014a fault which they are apt to palliate with specious,\nbut unjust pretences. For they deprive and cheat their brethren out\nof the greatest and most valuable good they are capable of receiving\nfrom their parents, viz., their kindness and affection, whilst they\nslyly and disingenuously steal in upon them in their business, and\nsurprise them in their errors, demeaning themselves with all imaginable\nobservance to their parents, and especially with the greatest care and\npreciseness in those things wherein they see their brethren have been\nfaulty or suspected to be so. But a kind brother, and one that truly\ndeserves the name, will make his brother\u2019s condition his own, freely\ntake upon himself a share of his sufferings, particularly in the anger\nof his parents, and be ready to do any thing that may conduce to the\nrestoring him into favor; but if he has neglected some opportunity or\nsomething which ought to have been done by him, to excuse it upon his\nnature, as being more ready and seriously disposed for other things.\nThat of Agamemnon therefore was well spoken in the behalf of his\nbrother:\n\n  Nor sloth, nor silly humor makes him stay;\n  I am the only cause. All his delay\n  Waits my attempts:[24]\n\nand he says that this charge was delivered him by his brother. Fathers\nwillingly allow of the changing of names, and have an inclination to\nbelieve their children when they make the best interpretation of their\nbrother\u2019s failings,\u2014as when they call carelessness simple honesty, or\nstupidity goodness, or, if he be quarrelsome, term him a smart-spirited\nyouth and one that will not endure to be trampled on. By this means it\ncomes to pass, that he who makes his brother\u2019s peace and ingratiates\nhim with his offended father at the same time fairly advances his own\ninterest, and grows deservedly the more in favor.\n\n10. But when the storm is once over, it is necessary to be serious\nwith him, to reprehend him sharply for his crime, discovering to him\nwith all freedom wherein he has been wanting in his duty. For as such\nguilty brothers are not to be allowed in their faults, neither are they\nto be insulted with raillery. For to do the latter were to rejoice and\nfind advantage in their failings, and to do the former were to take\npart in them. Therefore ought they so to manage their severities that\nthey may show a solicitude and concernedness for their brethren and\nmuch discomposure and trouble at their follies. Now he is the fittest\nperson to school his brother smartly who has been a ready and earnest\nadvocate in his behalf. But suppose the brother wrongfully charged, it\nis fitting he should be obsequious to his parents in all other things\nwhatsoever, and to bear with their angry humors; but a defence made\nbefore them for a brother that suffers by slander and false accusation\nis unreprovable and very good. In all such there is no need to fear\nthat check in Sophocles,\n\n  Curst son! who with thy father durst contend;[25]\n\nfor there is allowed a liberty of vindicating a traduced brother. And\nwhere the parents are convinced of their injury, in cases of this kind\ndefeat is more pleasant to them than victory.\n\n11. But when the father is dead, it is fitting brothers should close\nthe nearer in affection; immediately in their sadness and sorrow\ncommunicating their mutual love, and, in the next place, rejecting\nthe suspicious stories and suggestions of servants, discountenancing\ntheir sly methods and subtle applications, and amongst other stories,\nadverting to the fable of Jupiter\u2019s sons, Castor and Pollux, whose\nlove to one another was such that Pollux, when one was whispering to\nhim somewhat against his brother, killed him with a blow of his fist.\nAnd when they come to dividing their parents\u2019 goods, let them take\nheed that they come not with prejudice and contentious resolutions,\ngiving defiance and shouting the warcry, as so many do. But let them\nobserve with caution that day above all others, as it may be to them\nthe beginning either of mortal enmity or of friendship and concord. And\nthen, either amongst themselves, or, if need be, in the presence of\nsome common and indifferent friend, let them deal fairly and openly,\nallowing Justice (as Plato says) to draw the lot, giving and receiving\nwhat may consist with love and friendship. Thus they will appear to\nbe sharers only in the care and disposal of these things, whilst the\npropriety and enjoyment is free and common to them all. But they that\ntake an advantage in the controversy, and seize from one another\nnurses and children who have been fostered and brought up with them,\nprevailing by their eagerness, may perhaps go away with the gain of\na single slave, but they have forfeited in the stead of it the best\nlegacy their parents could have left them, the love and confidence of\ntheir brothers. I have known some brothers, without the instigation of\nlucre, and merely out of a savage disposition, fly upon the goods of\ntheir deceased parents with as much ravine and fierceness as they would\nupon the spoil of an enemy. Such were the actions of Charicles and\nAntiochus the Opuntians, who divided a silver cup and a garment in two\npieces, as though by some tragical imprecation they had been set on\n\n  To share the patrimony with a sword.[26]\n\nOthers I have known proclaiming the success of their subtle methods\nof fierce and eager and sometimes sly and fallacious reasonings, by\nwhich means they have compassed larger proportion from their deluded\nbrethren. Whereas their just actions and their kind and humble carriage\nhad less reproached their pride, but raised the esteem of their\npersons. Wherefore that action of Athenodorus is very memorable,\nand indeed generally remembered by our countrymen. His elder brother\nXeno in the time of his guardianship had wasted a great part of his\nsubstance, and at last was condemned for a rape, and all that was left\nwas confiscated. Athenodorus was then but a youth; but when his share\nof the estate was given to him, he had that regard to his brother,\nthat he brought all his own proportion and freely exposed it to a new\ndivision with him. And though in the dividing it he suffered great\nabuse from him, he resented it not so much as to repent of what he had\ndone, but endured with most remarkable meekness and unconcerned ease\nhis brother\u2019s outrage, that was become notorious throughout all Greece.\n\n12. Solon discoursing about the commonwealth approved of equality, as\nbeing that which would occasion no tumult or faction. But this opinion\nappeared too popular; for by this arithmetical method he would have\nset up democracy in the room of a far happier government, consisting\nwith a more suitable (viz., a geometrical) proportion. But he that\nadvises brethren in the dividing of an estate should give them Plato\u2019s\ncounsel to the citizens, that they would lay aside self-interest, or,\nif they cannot be persuaded to that, to be satisfied with an equal\ndivision. And this is the way to lay a good and lasting foundation of\nlove and peace betwixt them. Besides that, he may have the advantage\nof naming eminent instances. Such was that of Pittacus, who, being\nasked of the Lydian king whether he had any estate, replied that he\nhad twice as much as he wanted, his brother being dead. But since that\nnot only in the affluence or want of riches he that has a less share\nis liable to hostility with him that has more, but generally, as Plato\nsays, in all inequality there is inquietude and disturbance, and in\nthe contrary a during confidence; so a disparity among brethren tends\ndangerously to discord. But for them to be equal in all respects, I\ngrant, is impossible. For what through the difference that nature made\nimmediately betwixt them at the first, and what through the following\ncontingencies of their lives, it comes to pass that they contract an\nenvy and hatred against one another, and such abominable humors as\nrender them the plagues not only of their private families but even\nof commonwealths. And this indeed is a disease which it were well\nto prevent, or to cure when it is engendered. I would persuade that\nbrother therefore that excels his fellows in any accomplishments, in\nthose very things to communicate and impart to them the utmost he can,\nthat they may shine in his honor, and flourish with his interest. For\ninstance, if he be a good orator, to endeavor to make that faculty\ntheirs, accounting it never the less for being imparted. And care ought\nto be taken that all this kindness be not followed with a fastidious\npride, but rather with such a becoming condescension and familiarity\nas may secure his worth from envy, and by his own equanimity and sweet\ndisposition, as far as is possible, make up the inequality of their\nfortunes. Lucullus refused the honor of magistracy on purpose to give\nway to his younger brother, contentedly waiting for the expiration of\nhis year. Pollux chose rather to be half a deity with his brother than\na deity by himself, and therefore to debase himself into a share of\nmortality, that he might raise his brother as much above it. You then\nare a happy man, one would think, that can oblige your brother at a\ncheaper rate, illustrate him with the honor of your virtues, and make\nhim great like yourself, without any damage or derogation. Thus Plato\nmade his brothers famous by mentioning them in the choicest of his\nbooks,\u2014Glauco and Adimantus in that concerning the Commonwealth, and\nAntipho his youngest brother in his Parmenides.\n\n13. Besides, as there is difference in the natures and fortunes of\nbrothers, so neither is it possible that the one should excel the\nother in every particular thing. The elements exist out of one common\nmatter, yet they are qualified with quite contrary faculties. No one\never saw two brothers by the same father and mother so strangely\ndistinguished that, whereas the one was a Stoic and withal a wise\nman,\u2014a comely, pleasant, liberal, eminent, wealthy, eloquent,\nstudious, courteous man,\u2014the other was quite contrary to all these.\nBut, however, the vilest, the most despicable things have some\nproportion of good, or natural disposition to it.\n\n  Thus amongst hated thorns and prickly briers\n  The fragrant violet retires.\n\nNow therefore, he who has the eminency in other things, if he yet do\nnot hinder nor stifle the credit of what is laudable in his brother,\nlike an ambitious antagonist that grasps at all the applause, but if\nhe rather yield to him, and declare that in many things he excels him,\nby this means takes away all occasion of envy, which being like fire\nwithout fuel, must needs die without it. Or rather he prevents the very\nbeginnings of envy, and suffers it not so much as to kindle betwixt\nthem. But he who, where he knows himself far superior to his brother,\ncalls for his help and advice, whether it be in the business of a\nrhetorician, a magistrate, or a friend,\u2014in a word, he that neglects\nor leaves him out in no honorable employment or concern, but joins him\nwith himself in all his noble and worthy actions, employs him when\npresent, waits for him when absent, and makes the world take notice\nthat he is as fit for business as himself, but of a more modest and\nyielding disposition,\u2014all this while has done himself no wrong, and\nhas bravely advanced his brother.\n\n14. And this is the advice one would offer to the excelling brother.\nThe other should consider that, as his brother excels him in wealth,\nlearning, esteem, he must expect to come behind not him only but\nmillions more,\n\n  Who live o\u2019 th\u2019 offsprings of the spacious earth.\n\nBut if he envies all that are so happy, or is the only one in the world\nthat repines at his own brother\u2019s felicity, his malicious temper speaks\nhim one of the most wretched creatures in the world. Wherefore, as\nMetellus\u2019s opinion was, that the Romans were bound to thank the Gods\nthat Scipio, being such a brave man, was not born in another city;\nso he who aspires after great things, if he miss of his designs for\nhimself, can do no less than entitle his brother to his best wishes.\nBut some are so unlucky in estimating of virtuous and worthy actions\nthat, whereas they are overjoyed to see their friends grow in esteem,\nand are not a little proud of entertaining persons of honor or great\nopulency, their brother\u2019s worth and eminency is in the mean time looked\nupon with a jealous eye, as though it threatened to cloud and eclipse\nthe splendor of their condition. How do they exalt themselves at the\nmemory of some prosperous exploits of their father, or the wise conduct\nof their great-grandfather, by all which they are nothing advantaged?\nBut again, how are they daunted and dispirited to see a brother\npreferred to inheritances, dignities, or honorable marriage? But we\nshould not envy any one; but if this cannot be, we ought at least to\nturn our malice and rancor out of the family against worse objects, in\nimitation of those who ease the city of sedition by turning the same\nupon their enemies without. We may say, as Diomedes said to Glaucus:\n\n  Trojans I have and friends; you, what I hate,\u2014\n  Grecians to envy and to emulate.[27]\n\n15. Brothers should not be like the scales of a balance, the one rising\nupon the other\u2019s sinking; but rather like numbers in arithmetic,\nthe lesser and greater mutually helping and improving each other.\nFor that finger which is not active in writing or touching musical\ninstruments is not inferior to those that can do both; but they all\nmove and act, one as well as another, and are assistant to each other,\nwhich makes the inequality among them seem designed by Nature, when\nthe greatest cannot be without the help of the least that is placed\nin opposition to it. Thus Craterus and Perilaus, brothers to kings\nAntigonus and Cassander, betook themselves, the one to managing of\nmilitary, the other of his domestic affairs. On the other hand, the\nmen like Antiochus, Seleucus, Grypus, and Cyzicenus, disdaining any\nmeaner things than purple and diadems, brought a great deal of trouble\nand mischief upon one another, and made Greece itself miserable with\ntheir quarrels. But in regard that men of ambitious inclinations will\nbe apt to envy those who have got the start of them in honor, I judge\nit most convenient for brothers to take different methods in pursuit of\nit, rather than to vex and emulate one another in the same way. Those\nbeasts fight and war one with another who feed in one pasture, and\nwrestlers are antagonists when they strive in the same game. But those\nthat pretend to different games are the greatest friends, and ready to\ntake one another\u2019s parts with the utmost of their skill and power. So\nthe two sons of Tyndarus, Castor and Pollux, carried the day,\u2014Pollux\nat cuffs, and Castor at racing. Thus Homer brings in Teucer as expert\nin the bow, whom his brother Ajax, who was best in close fight,\n\n  Protected over with a glittering shield.[28]\n\nAnd amongst those who are concerned in the Commonwealth a general of an\narmy does not much envy the leaders of the people, nor among those that\nprofess rhetoric do the lawyers envy the sophisters, nor amongst the\nphysicians do those who prescribe rules for diet envy the chirurgeon;\nbut they mutually aid and assert the credit of one another. But for\nbrothers to study to be eminent in the same art and faculty is all\nthe same, amongst ill men, as if rival lovers, courting one and the\nsame mistress, should both strive to gain the greatest interest in her\naffections. Those indeed that travel different ways can probably do\none another but little good; but those who carry on quite different\ndesigns, and take several methods in their conversations, avoid envy,\nand many times do one another a kindness. As Demosthenes and Chares,\nand again Aeschines and Eubulus, Hyperides and Leosthenes, the one\ntreating the people with their discourses and writings, the others\nassisting them by action and conduct. Therefore, where the disposition\nof brothers is such that they cannot agree in prosecuting the same\nmethods of becoming great, it is convenient that one of them should\nso command himself as to assume the most different inclinations and\ndesigns from his brother; that, if they both aim at honor, they may\nserve their ambition by different means, and that they may cheerfully\ncongratulate each other on the success of their designs, and so enjoy\nat once their honor and themselves.\n\n16. But, besides this, they must beware of the suggestions of kindred,\nservants, or even wives, that may work much in a vain-glorious mind.\nYour brother, say they, is the great man of action, whom the people\nhonor and admire; but nobody comes near or regards you. Now a man that\nwell understood himself would answer, I have indeed a brother that is a\nplausible man in the world, and the greatest part of his honor I have\na right to. For Socrates said that he would rather have Darius for his\nfriend than a Daric. But to a prudent and ingenious brother, it would\nbe as great a satisfaction to see his brother an excellent orator, a\nperson of great wealth or authority, as if he had been any or all these\nhimself. And thus especially may that trouble and discontent, that\narises from the great odds that are betwixt brethren, be mitigated.\nBut there are other differences that happen amongst ill-constructed\nbrothers in respect of their age. For, whilst the elder justly claim\nthe privilege of pre-eminence and authority over the younger, they\nbecome troublesome and uneasy to them; and the younger, growing pert\nand refractory, begin to slight and contemn the elder. Hence it is that\nthe younger, looking upon themselves as hated and curbed, decline and\nstomach their admonitions. The elder again, being fond of superiority,\nare jealous of their brothers\u2019 advancement, as though it tended to\nlessen them. Therefore, as we judge of a kindness that it ought to\nbe valued more by the party obliged than by him who bestows it, so,\nif the elder would be persuaded to set less by his seniority and the\nyounger to esteem it more, there would be no supercilious slighting\nand contemptuous carriage betwixt them. But, seeing it is fitting\nthe elder should take care of them, lead, and instruct them, and the\nyounger respect, observe, and follow them; it is likewise convenient\nthat the elder\u2019s care should carry more of familiarity in it, and\nthat he should act more by persuasion than command, being readier to\nexpress much satisfaction and to applaud his brother when he does well\nthan to reprove and chastise him for his faults. Now the younger\u2019s\nimitation should be free from such a thing as angry striving. For\nunprejudiced endeavors in following another speak the esteem of a\nfriend and admirer, the other the envy of an antagonist. Whence it is\nthat those who, out of love to virtue, desire to be like their brother\nare beloved; but those again who, out of a stomaching ambition, contend\nto be equal with them meet with answerable usage. But above all other\nrespects due from the younger to the elder, that of observance is\nmost commendable, and occasions the return of a strong affection and\nequal regard. Such was the obsequious behavior of Cato to his elder\nbrother Caepio all along from their childhood, that, when they came\nto be men, he had so much overcome him with his humble and excellent\ndisposition, and his meek silence and attentive obedience had begot\nin him such a reverence towards him, that Caepio neither spake nor\ndid any thing material without him. It is recorded that, when Caepio\nhad sealed some writing of depositions, and his brother coming in was\nagainst it, he called for the writing and took off his seal, without\nso much as asking Cato why he did suspect the testimony. The reverence\nthat Epicurus\u2019s brothers showed him was likewise remarkable, and well\nmerited by his good will and affectionate care for them. They were so\nespecially influenced by him in the way of his philosophy, that they\nbegan betimes to entertain a high opinion of his accomplishments, and\nto declare that there was never a wiser man heard of than Epicurus. If\nthey erred, yet we may here observe the obliging behavior of Epicurus,\nand the return of their passionate respects to him. And amongst later\nphilosophers, Apollonius the Peripatetic convinced him who said honor\nwas incommunicable, by raising his younger brother Sotion to a higher\ndegree of eminence than himself. Amongst all the good things I am\nbound to Fortune for, I have that of a kind and affectionate brother\nTimon, which cannot be unknown to any who have conversed with me, and\nespecially those of my own family.\n\n17. There are yet other disturbances that brothers near the same age\nought to be warned of; they are but small indeed at present, but they\nare frequent and leave a lasting grudge, such as makes them ready\nupon all occasions to fret and exasperate one another, and conclude\nat last in implacable hatred and malice. For, having once begun to\nfall out in their sports, and to differ about little things, like\nthe feeding and fighting of cocks and other fowl, the exercises of\nchildren, the hunting of dogs, the racing of horses, it comes to pass\nthat they have no government of themselves in greater matters, nor\nthe power to restrain a proud and contentious humor. So the great\nmen among the Grecians in our time, disagreeing first about players\nand musicians, afterward about the bath in Aedepsus, and again about\nrooms of entertainment, from contending and opposing one another about\nplaces, and from cutting and turning water-courses, they were grown\nso fierce and mad against one another, that they were dispossessed\nof all their goods by a tyrant, reduced to extreme poverty, and put\nto very hard shifts. In a word, so miserably were they altered from\nthemselves, that there was nothing of the same but their inveterate\nhatred remaining in them. Wherefore there is no small care to be taken\nby brothers in subduing their passions and preventing quarrels about\nsmall matters, yielding rather for peace\u2019s sake, and taking greater\npleasure in indulging than crossing and conquering one another\u2019s\nhumors. For the ancients accounted the Cadmean victory to be no other\nthan that between the brothers at Thebes, esteeming that the worst\nand basest of victories. But you will say, Are there not some things\nwherein men of mild and quiet dispositions may have occasion to dissent\nfrom others? There are, doubtless; but then they must take care that\nthe main difference be betwixt the things themselves, and that their\npassions be not too much concerned. But they must rather have a regard\nto justice, and as soon as they have referred the controversy to\narbitrament, immediately discharge their thoughts of it, for fear too\nmuch ruminating leave a deep impression of it in the mind, and render\nit hard to be forgotten. The Pythagoreans were imitable for this, that,\nthough no nearer related than by mere common discipline and education,\nif at any time in a passion they broke out into opprobrious language,\nbefore the sun set they gave one another their hands, and with them a\ndischarge from all injuries, and so with a mutual salutation concluded\nfriends. For as a fever attending an inflamed sore threatens no great\ndanger to the body, but, if the sore being healed the fever stays,\nit appears then to be a distemper and to have some deeper cause; so,\nwhen among brothers upon the ending of a difference all discord ceases\nbetwixt them, it is an argument that the cause lay in the matter of\ndifference only, but, if the discord survive the decision of the\ncontroversy, it is plain that the pretended matter served only for a\nfalse scar, drawn over on purpose to hide the cause of an incurable\nwound.\n\n18. It is worth the while at present to hear an account of a dispute\nbetween two foreign brothers, not concerning a little patch of land,\nnor a few servants or cattle, but no less than the kingdom of Persia.\nWhen Darius was dead, some were for Ariamenes\u2019s succeeding to the\ncrown as being eldest son; others were for Xerxes, who was born to\nDarius of Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus, in the time of his reign over\nPersia. Ariamenes therefore came from Media in no hostile posture,\nbut very peaceably, to hear the matter determined. Xerxes being there\nused the majesty and power of a king. But when his brother was come,\nhe laid down his crown and other royal ornaments, went and meeting\ngreeted him. And sending him presents, he gave a charge to his servants\nto deliver them with these words: With these presents your brother\nXerxes expresses the honor he has for you; and, if by the judgment\nand suffrage of the Persians I be declared king, I place you next to\nmyself. Ariamenes replied: I accept your gifts, but presume the kingdom\nof Persia to be my right. Yet for all my younger brethren I shall have\nan honor, but for Xerxes in the first place. The day of determining who\nshould reign being come, the Persians made Artabanus brother to Darius\njudge. Xerxes excepting against him, confiding most in the multitude,\nhis mother Atossa reproved him, saying: Why, son, are you so shy of\nArtabanus, your uncle, and one of the best men amongst the Persians?\nAnd why should you dread the trial, where the worst you can fear is\nto be next the throne, and to be called the king of Persia\u2019s brother?\nXerxes at length submitting, after some debate Artabanus adjudged the\nkingdom to Xerxes. Ariamenes presently started up, and went and showed\nobeisance to his brother, and taking him by the hand, placed him in the\nthrone. And from that time, being placed himself by Xerxes next in the\nkingdom, he continued the same affection to him, insomuch that, for\nhis brother\u2019s honor engaging himself in the naval fight at Salamis, he\nwas killed there. And this may serve for a clear and unquestionable\ninstance of true kindness and greatness of mind.\n\nAntiochus\u2019s restless ambition after a crown was as much to be\ncondemned; but still we may admire this in him, that it did not totally\nextinguish natural affection and destroy the love of a brother. He\nwent to war with his brother Seleucus for the kingdom, himself being\nthe younger brother, and having the assistance of his mother. In the\ndurance of which war Seleucus joins battle with the Galatians and is\ndefeated; being not heard of for a time, he is supposed to be slain and\nhis whole army to be slaughtered by the enemy. Antiochus, understanding\nit, put off his purple, went into mourning, caused his palace to be\nshut up, and retired to lament the death of his brother. But, within\na short time after, hearing that his brother was safe and raising new\nforces, he went and offered sacrifices for joy, and commanded his\nsubjects to do the like and to crown themselves with garlands. But\nthe Athenians, though they made a ridiculous story about a falling\nout amongst the Deities, compensated for the absurdity pretty well in\nstriking out the second day of their month Boedromion, because upon\nthat day Neptune and Minerva were at variance. And why should not we\ncancel out of our memories, as an unhappy day and no more to be spoken\nof, that wherein we have differed with any of our family or relations?\nBut rather, far be it from us that the feuds of that day should bury\nthe memory of all that happier time wherein we were educated and\nconversed together. For, except nature has bestowed those virtues\nof meekness and patience upon us in vain and to no purpose, we have\ncertainly the greatest reason to exercise them towards our intimate\nfriends and kindred. Now the acknowledgments of the offender and the\nbegging pardon for the crime express a kind and amicable nature no\nless than the remitting of it. Wherefore it is not for us to slight\nthe anger of those whom we have incensed through our folly, neither\nshould they be so implacable as to refuse an humble submission; but\nrather, where we have done the wrong, we should endeavor to prevent a\ndistaste by the earliest and humblest acknowledgments and impetrations\nof pardon, and where we have received any, to be as ready and free in\nthe forgiving of it. Euclides, Socrates\u2019s auditor, was famous in the\nschools for his mild return to his raving brother, whom he heard bellow\nout threats against him after this manner: Let me perish, if I be not\nrevenged on you. He answered: And let me perish, if I do not prevail\nwith you to desist from this passion, and to let us be as good friends\nas ever we were. This Euclides spake; but what king Eumenes did was\nan act of meekness seldom to be paralleled, and never yet outdone.\nFor Perseus king of Macedon, being his great enemy, had engaged some\npersons to attempt the killing him. In order to which barbarous act\nthey lay in wait for him at Delphi, and, when they perceived him going\nfrom the sea toward the Oracle, came behind him and set upon him with\ngreat stones, wounding him in the head and neck, till reeling with\nhis hurt he fell down and was supposed dead. The rumor of this action\ndispersed every way, and some friends and servants of his coming to\nPergamus, who were the amazed spectators of the supposed murder,\nbrought the news. Whereupon Attalus, Eumenes\u2019s eldest brother, a\nwell-tempered man and one that had showed the greatest affection and\nrespect to his brother, was proclaimed king, and not only assumed\nthe crown, but married his deceased brother\u2019s queen, Stratonica. But\nintelligence coming a while after that Eumenes was alive and coming\nhome, he presently laid aside the crown, and putting on his usual\nhabiliments, went with the rest of the guard to meet and attend him.\nEumenes received him with the most affectionate embrace, and saluted\nthe queen with honorable respect and much endearment. And not long\nafter, at his death, he was so free from passion or jealousy against\nhis brother, that he bequeathed to him both his crown and his queen.\nThe return of Attalus to his brother\u2019s kindness was ingenuous and very\nremarkable. For after his brother\u2019s death he took no care to advance\nhis own children, though he had many, but provided especially for the\neducation of Eumenes\u2019s son, and when he came to age, placed the crown\nupon his head, and saluted him with the title of king. But Cambyses,\nbeing disturbed only with a dream that his brother was like to reign\nover Asia, without any enquiry after farther evidence or ground for his\njealousy, caused him to be put to death. Whereupon the succession went\nout of Cyrus\u2019s family into the line of Darius, a prince who understood\nhow to share the management of his affairs and even his regal authority\nnot merely with his brothers, but also with his friends.\n\n19. Again, this rule is to be observed, that, whenever any difference\nhappens betwixt brothers, during the time of strangeness especially\nthey hold a correspondence with one another\u2019s friends, but by all\nmeans avoid their enemies. The Cretans are herein very observable;\nwho, being accustomed to frequent skirmishes and fights, nevertheless,\nas soon as they were attacked by a foreign enemy, were reconciled and\nwent together. And that was it which they commonly called Syncretism.\nFor there are some who, like waters running among loose and chinky\ngrounds, overthrow all familiarity and friendship; enemies to both\nparties, but especially bent upon the ruining of him whose weakness\nexposes him most to danger. For every sincere substantial friend joins\nin affection with one that approves himself such to him. And you shall\nobserve, on the other hand, that the most inveterate and pernicious\nenemy contributes the poison of his ill-nature to heighten the passion\nof an angry brother. Therefore as the cat, in Aesop, out of pretended\nkindness asked the sick hen how she did, and she answered, The better\nif you were further off; after the same manner one would answer an\nincendiary that throws in words to breed discord, and to that end pries\ninto things that are not to be spoken of, saying: I have no controversy\nwith my brother nor he with me, if neither of us shall hearken to such\nsycophants as you are. I cannot understand why\u2014seeing it is commonly\nheld convenient for those who have tender eyes and a weak sight to shun\nthose objects that are apt to make a strong reflection\u2014the rule should\nnot hold good in morals, and why those whom we would imagine sick of\nthe trouble of fraternal quarrels and contentions should rather seem\nto take pleasure in them, and even seek the company of those who will\nonly excite them the more and make all worse. How much more prudential\na course would they take in avoiding the enemies of their offended\nbrethren, and rather conversing with their relations and friends or\neven with their wives, and discovering their grievances to them frankly\nand with plainness of speech! But some are of that scrupulous opinion,\nthat brothers walking together must not suffer a stone to lie in the\nway betwixt them, and are very much concerned if a dog happen to run\nbetwixt them; and many such things, being looked upon as ominous,\ndiscompose and terrify them. Whereas none of them all any way tends\nto the breaking of friendship or the causing of dissension; but they\nare not in the least aware that men of snarling dispositions, base\ndetractors, and instigators of mischief, whom they improvidently admit\ninto their society, are the things that do them the greatest hurt.\n\n20. Therefore (this discourse suggesting one thing after another)\nTheophrastus said well: If there ought to be all things common amongst\nfriends, why should not the best of those things, their friends\nthemselves, be communicated? And this is advice that cannot be too soon\ntendered to brethren, for their separate acquaintance and conversation\nconduce to the estranging them from one another. For those who affect\ndivers friends will be apt to delight in them so much as to emulate\nthem, and will therefore be easily drawn and persuaded by them; for\nfriendships have their distinctive marks and manners, and there is\nno greater argument of a different genius and disposition than the\nchoice of different friends. Wherefore neither the common table nor\nthe common recreations nor any other sort of intimacy comprehends so\nmuch of amity betwixt brothers, as to be united in their interest and\nto have the same common friends and enemies; for ordinary friendship\nsuffers neither calumnies nor clashings, but if there be any anger\nor discontent, honest and impartial friends make an end of it. For\nas tin unites and solders up broken brass, being put to the ends and\nattempered to the nature of the broken pieces; so it is the part of a\nfriend betwixt two brothers, to suit and accommodate himself to the\nhumors of both, that he may confirm and secure their friendship. But\nthose of different and uncomplying tempers are like improper notes in\nmusic, that serve only to spoil the consort, and offend the ear with a\nharsh noise. It is a question therefore whether Hesiod was in the right\nor not when he said:\n\n  Let not thy friend become thy brother\u2019s peer.[29]\n\nFor one of an even behavior, that freely communicates himself between\nboth, may by his interest in both contract a firm and happy tie and\nengagement of love between brothers. But Hesiod, it seems, spoke\nof those he suspected,\u2014the greatest part and the worst sort of\nfriends,\u2014men of envious and selfish designs. He is wise who avoids\nsuch friends; and if in the mean time he divide his kindness equally\nbetween a true friend and a brother, let him do it with this reserve\nalways, that the brother have the preference in magistracy and the\nmanagement of public affairs, that he have the greater respect\nshown him in invitations and in contracting acquaintance with great\npersons, and in any thing that looks honorable and great in the eyes\nof the people, that the pre-eminence be given to Nature; for in these\ninstances to prefer a friend does him not so much credit as that base\nand unworthy action of lessening and slighting a brother does the\nvilifying brother disgrace. But several have given their opinions in\nthis thing. That of Menander is very well,\n\n  No one who loves will bear to be contemned.\n\nThis may remind brothers to preserve a tender regard to one another,\nand not to presume that Nature will overcome all their slights and\ndisdain. A horse naturally loves a man, and a dog his master; but, if\nthey are neglected in what is fitting and necessary for them, they will\ngrow strange and unmanageable. The body, that is so intimately united\nto the soul, if the soul suspend a careful influence from it, will not\nbe forward to assist it in its operations; it may rather spoil and\ncross them.\n\n21. Now as the kind regards of brother to brother are highly\ncommendable, so may they be expressed to the greater advantage,\nwhen he confines them not wholly to his person, but pays them, as\noccasion serves, rather by reflection to his kindred and such as\nretain to him; when he maintains a kind and complaisant humor amidst\nall contingencies, when he obliges the servile part of the family\nwith a courteous and affable carriage, when he is grateful to the\nphysician and good friends for the safe recovery of his brother, and\nis ready to go upon any expedition or service for him. Again, it is\nhighly commendable in him to have the highest esteem and honor for\nhis brother\u2019s wife, reputing and honoring her as the most sacred of\nall his brother\u2019s sacred treasures, and thus to do honor to him;\ncondoling with her when she is neglected, and appeasing her when\nshe is angered; if she have a little offended, to intercede and sue\nfor her peace; if there have been any private difference between\nhimself and his brother, to make his complaint before her in order\nto a reconcilement. But especially let him be much troubled at his\nbrother\u2019s single state; or, if he be married, at his want of children.\nIf not married, let him follow him with arguments and persuasions,\nto teaze him with rebukes and reproaches, and to do every thing that\nmay incline him to enter into a conjugal state. When he has children,\nlet him express his affection and respects to both parents with the\ngreater ardency. Let him love the children equally with his own, but\nbe more favorable and indulgent to them, that, if it chance that they\ncommit some of their youthful faults, they may not run away and hide\nthemselves among naughty acquaintances through fear of their parents\u2019\nanger, but may have in their uncle a recourse and refuge, where they\nwill be admonished lovingly and will find an intercessor to make\ntheir excuse and get their pardon. So Plato reclaimed his nephew\nSpeusippus, that was far gone in idleness and debauchery; the young\nman, impatient of his parents\u2019 reprehensions, ran away from them, who\nwere more impatient of his extravagancies. His uncle expressed nothing\nof disturbance at all this, but continued calm and free from passion;\nwhereupon Speusippus was seized with an extraordinary shame, and from\nthat time became an admirer of both his uncle and his philosophy. Many\nof Plato\u2019s friends blamed him that he had not instructed the youth; he\nmade answer, that he instructed him by his life and conversation, from\nwhich he might learn, if he pleased, the difference betwixt ill and\nvirtuous actions. The father of Aleuas the Thessalian, looking upon his\nson as of a fierce and injurious nature, kept him under with a great\ndeal of severity, but his uncle received him with as great kindness.\nWhen therefore the Thessalians sent some lots to the oracle at Delphi,\nto enquire by them who should be their king, his uncle stole in one\nlot privately in the name of Aleuas; the priestess answered from the\noracle, that Aleuas should be king. His father being surprised averred\nthat there was never a lot thrown in for Aleuas that he knew of; at\nlast all concluded that some mistake was committed in putting down\nthe names, whereupon they sent again to enquire of the oracle. The\npriestess, confirming her first words, answered:\n\n  I mean the youth with reddish hair,\n  Whom dame Archedice did bear.\n\nThus Aleuas was by the oracle, through his uncle\u2019s kind policy,\ndeclared king; by which means he surmounted all his ancestors, and\nadvanced his family into a splendid condition. For it is prudence\nin a brother, when he beholds with joy the brave and worthy actions\nof his nephews growing great and honorable by their own deserts, to\nprompt and encourage them on by congratulation and applause. For to\npraise his own son may be absurd and offensive, but to commend the\ngood actions of a brother\u2019s son, is an excellent thing, and one which\nproceeds from no self-interest, nor any other principle but a true\nveneration for virtue. Now the very name of uncle (\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2) intimates\nthat mutual beneficence and friendship that ought to be between him and\nhis nephews. Besides this, we have a precedent from those that are\nof a sublimer make and nature than ourselves. Hercules, who was the\nfather of sixty-eight sons, had a brother\u2019s son that was as dear to\nhim as any of his own; and even to this time Hercules and his nephew\nIolaus have in many places one common altar betwixt them, and share in\nthe same adorations. He is called literally Hercules\u2019s assistant. And\nwhen his brother Iphicles was slain in a battle at Lacedaemon, in his\nexceeding grief he left the whole of Peloponnesus. Also Leucothea, her\nsister being dead, took her infant, nursed him up, and consecrated him\nwith herself among the deities; from whence the Roman matrons, upon the\nfestivals of Leucothea (whom they call also Matuta) have a custom of\nnursing their sisters\u2019 children instead of their own, during the time\nof the festival.\n\n\n\n\nWHEREFORE THE PYTHIAN PRIESTESS NOW CEASES TO DELIVER HER ORACLES IN\nVERSE.\n\nI. BASILOCLES, PHILINUS.\n\nII. PHILINUS, DIOGENIANUS, THEO, SERAPIO, BOETHUS, INTERPRETERS.\n\n\n1. BASILOCLES. You have spun out the time, Philinus, till it\nis late in the evening, in giving the strangers a full sight of all the\nconsecrated rarities; so that I am quite tired with waiting longer for\nyour society.\n\nPHILINUS. Therefore we walked slowly along, talking and\ndiscoursing, O Basilocles, sowing and reaping by the way such sharp and\nhot disputes as offered themselves, which sprung up anew and grew about\nus as we walked, like the armed men from the Dragon\u2019s teeth of Cadmus.\n\nBASILOCLES. Shall we then call some of those that were\npresent; or wilt thou be so kind as to tell us what were the discourses\nand who were the disputants?\n\nPHILINUS. That, Basilocles, it must be my business to do.\nFor thou wilt hardly meet with any one else in the city able to serve\nthee; for we saw most of the rest ascending with the stranger up to the\nCorycian cave and to Lycorea.\n\nBASILOCLES. This same stranger is not only covetous of seeing\nwhat may be seen, but wonderfully civil and genteel.\n\nPHILINUS. He is besides a great lover of science, and studious\nto learn. But these are not the only exercises which are to be admired\nin him. He is a person modest, yet facetious, smart and prudent in\ndispute, void of all passion and contumacies in his answers; in short,\nyou will say of him at first sight that he is the son of a virtuous\nfather. For dost thou not know Diogenianus, a most excellent person?\n\nBASILOCLES. I have not seen him, Philinus, but many report\nseveral things of the young gentleman, much like what you say. But,\npray now, what was the beginning of these discourses? Upon what\noccasion did they arise?\n\n2. PHILINUS. The interpreters of the sacred mysteries acted\nwithout any regard to us, who desired them to contract their relation\ninto as few words as might be, and to pass by the most part of the\ninscriptions. But the stranger was but indifferently taken with the\nform and workmanship of the statues, being one, as it appeared, who had\nalready been a spectator of many rare pieces of curiosity. He admired\nthe beautiful color of the brass, not foul and rusty, but shining with\na tincture of blue. What, said he, was it any certain mixture and\ncomposition of the ancient artists in brass, like the famous art of\ngiving a keen edge to swords, without which brass could not be used\nin war? For Corinthian brass received its lustre not from art, but by\nchance, when a fire had devoured some house wherein there was both gold\nand silver, but of brass the greater plenty; which, being intermixed\nand melted into one mass, derives its name from the brass, of which\nthere was the greater quantity. Then Theo interposing said: But we have\nheard another more remarkable reason than this; how an artist in brass\nat Corinth, happening upon a chest full of gold, and fearing to have it\ndivulged, cut the gold into small pieces, and mixed it by degrees with\nthe brass, till he found the more noble metal gave a more than usual\nlustre to the baser, and so transformed it that he sold at a great rate\nthe unknown mixture, that was highly admired for its beauty and color.\nBut I believe both the one and the other to be fabulous; for by all\nlikelihood this Corinthian brass was a certain mixture and temperature\nof metals, prepared by art; just as at this day artisans temper gold\nand silver together, and make a peculiar and wonderful pale yellow\nmetal; howbeit, in my eye it is of a sickly color and a corrupt hue,\nwithout any beauty in the world.\n\n3. What then, said Diogenianus, do you believe to be the cause of\nthis extraordinary color in the brass? And Theo replied: Seeing that\nof those first and most natural elements, which are and ever will\nbe,\u2014that is to say, fire, air, earth, and water,\u2014there is none that\napproaches so near to brass or that so closely environs it as air\nalone, we have most reason to believe that the air occasions it, and\nthat from thence proceeds the difference which brass displays from\nother metals. Or did you know this even \u201cbefore Theognis was born,\u201d as\nthe comic poet intimates; but would you know by what natural quality\nor by what virtual power this same air thus colors the brass, being\ntouched and surrounded by it? Yes, said Diogenianus; and so would\nI, dear son, replied the worthy Theo. First then let us endeavor,\naltogether with submission to your good pleasure, said the first\npropounder, to find out the reason wherefore of all moistures oil\ncovers brass with rust. For it cannot be imagined that oil of itself\ncauses that defilement, if when first laid on it is clean and pure.\nBy no means, said the young gentleman, in regard the effect seems to\nproceed from another cause; for the rust appears through the oil, which\nis thin, pure, and transparent, whereas it is clouded by other more\nthick and muddy liquors, and so is not able to show itself. It is well\nsaid, son, replied the other, and truly; but hear, however, and then\nconsider the reason which Aristotle produces. I am ready, returned\nthe young gentleman. He says then, answered the other, that the rust\ninsensibly penetrates and dilates itself through other liquids, as\nbeing of parts unequal, and of a thin substance; but that it grows\nto a consistency, and is, as it were, incorporated by the more dense\nsubstance of the oil. Now if we could but suppose how this might be\ndone, we should not want a charm to lull this doubt asleep.\n\n4. When we had made our acknowledgment that he had spoken truth, and\nbesought him to proceed, he told us that the air of the city of Delphi\nis heavy, compacted, thick, and forcible, by reason of the reflection\nand resistency of the adjacent mountains, and besides that, is sharp\nand cutting (as appears by the eager stomachs and swift digestion of\nthe inhabitants); and that this air, entering and penetrating the brass\nby its keenness, fetches forth from the body of the brass much rust\nand earthy matter, which afterwards it stops and coagulates by its own\ndensity, ere it can get forth; by which means the rust abounding in\nquantity gives that peculiar grain and lustre to the superficies. When\nwe approved this argument, the stranger declared his opinion, that it\nneeded no more than one of those suppositions to clear the doubt; for,\nsaid he, that tenuity or subtilty seems to be in some measure contrary\nto that thickness supposed to be in the air, and therefore there is no\nreason to suppose it; for the brass, as it grows old, of itself exhales\nand sends forth that rust, which afterwards, being stopped and fixed by\nthe thickness of the air, becomes apparent by reason of its quantity.\nThen Theo replied: and what hinders but that the same thing may be\nthick and thin both together, like the woofs of silk or fine linen?\u2014of\nwhich Homer says:\n\n  Thin was the stuff,\n  Yet liquid oil ran o\u2019er the tissued woof,[30]\n\nintimating the extreme fineness of the texture, yet so close woven that\nit could not suffer oil to pass through it. In like manner may we make\nuse of the subtilty of the air, not only to scour the brass and fetch\nthe rust out of it, but also to render the color more pleasing and more\nazure-like, by intermixing light and splendor amidst the blue.\n\n5. This said, after short silence, the guides began again to cite\ncertain words of an ancient oracle in verse, which, as it seemed to\nme, pointed at the sovereignty of Aegon king of Argos. I have often\nwondered, said Diogenianus, at the meanness and ill-contrived hobbling\nof the verses which conveyed the ancient oracles into the world. And\nyet Apollo is called the chief of the Muses; whom it therefore behooved\nto take no less care of elegancy and beauty in style and language, than\nof the voice and manner of singing. Besides, he must needs be thought\nto surpass in a high degree either Homer or Hesiod in poetic skill.\nNevertheless we find several of the oracles lame and erroneous, as\nwell in reference to the measure as to the words. Upon which the poet\nSerapio, newly come from Athens, being then in company, said: If we\nbelieve that those verses were composed by Apollo, can we acknowledge\nwhat you allege, that they come short of the beauty and elegancy which\nadorn the writings of Homer and Hesiod; and shall we not make use of\nthem as examples of neatness and curiosity, correcting our judgment\nanticipated and forestalled by evil custom? To whom Boethus the\ngeometer (the person who you know has lately gone over to the camp of\nEpicurus) said: Have you not heard the story of Pauson the painter?\nNot I, replied Serapio. It is worth your attention, answered Boethus.\nHe, having contracted to paint a horse wallowing upon his back, drew\nthe horse galloping at full speed; at which when the person that had\nagreed with him seemed to be not a little displeased, Pauson fell a\nlaughing, and turned the picture upside downward; by which means the\nposture was quite altered, and the horse that seemed to run before lay\ntumbling now upon the ground. This (as Bion says) frequently happens\nto propositions, when they are once inverted; for some will deny the\noracles to be elegant, because they come from Apollo; others will\ndeny Apollo to be the author, because of their rude and shapeless\ncomposure. For the one is dubious and uncertain; but this is manifest,\nthat the verses wherein the oracles are generally delivered are no way\nlaboriously studied. Nor can I appeal to a better judge than yourself,\nwhose compositions and poems are not only written so gravely and\nphilosophically, but, for invention and elegancy, more like to those of\nHomer and Hesiod than the homely Pythian raptures.\n\n6. To whom Serapio: We labor, Boethus, said he, under the distempered\nsenses both of sight and hearing, being accustomed through niceness\nand delicacy to esteem and call that elegant which most delights; and\nperhaps we may find fault with the Pythian priestess because she does\nnot warble so charmingly as the fair lyric songstress Glauca, or else\nbecause she does not perfume herself with precious odors or appear\nin rich and gaudy habit. And some may mislike her because she burns\nfor incense rather barley-meal and laurel than frankincense, ladanon,\nand cinnamon. Do you not see, some one will say, what a grace there\nis in Sappho\u2019s measures, and how they delight and tickle the ears and\nfancies of the hearers? Whereas the Sibyl with her frantic grimaces, as\nHeraclitus says, uttering sentences altogether thoughtful and serious,\nneither bespiced nor perfumed, continues her voice a thousand years by\nthe favor of the Deity that speaks within her. Pindar therefore tells\nus that Cadmus heard from heaven a sort of music that was neither lofty\nnor soft, nor shattered into trills and divisions; for severe holiness\nwill not admit the allurements of pleasure, that was for the most part\nthrown into the world and flowed (as it appears) into the ears of men\nat the same time with the Goddess of mischief.\n\n7. Serapio thus concluding, Theo with a smile proceeded. Serapio,\nsaid he, has not forgot his wonted custom of taking an opportunity to\ndiscourse of pleasure. But we, Boethus, believe not these prophetic\nverses to be the compositions of Apollo, if they are worse than\nHomer\u2019s; but we believe that he supplied the principle of motion,\nand that every one of the prophetesses was disposed to receive his\ninspiration. For if the oracles were to be set down in writing, not\nverbally to be pronounced, surely we should not find fault with the\nhand, taking it to be Apollo\u2019s, because the letters were not so fairly\nwritten as in the epistles of kings. For neither the voice, nor the\nsound, nor the word, nor the metre proceeds from the God, but from the\nwoman. God only presents the visions, and kindles in the soul a light\nto discover future events; which is called divine inspiration. But in\nshort, I find it is a hard matter to escape the hands of Epicurus\u2019s\npriests (of which number I perceive you are), since you reprove the\nancient priestesses for making bad verses, and the modern prophetesses\nfor delivering the oracles in prose and vulgar language, which they do\nthat they may escape being by you called to an account for their lame\nand mistaken verses. But then, Diogenianus, I beseech you, said he, in\nthe name of all the Gods, be serious with us; unriddle this question,\nand explain this mystery unto us, which is now grown almost epidemical.\nFor indeed there is hardly any person that does not with an extreme\ncuriosity search after the reason wherefore the Pythian oracle has\nceased to make use of numbers and verse. Hold, son, said Theo, we shall\ndisoblige our historical directors by taking their province out of\ntheir hands. First suffer them to make an end, and then at leisure we\nwill go on with what you please.\n\n8. Thus walking along, we were by this time got as far as the statue\nof Hiero the tyrant, while the stranger, although a most learned\nhistorian, yet out of his complaisant and affable disposition,\nattentively leaned to the present relations. But then, among other\nthings, hearing how that one of the brazen pillars that supported the\nsaid statue of Hiero fell of itself the same day that the tyrant died\nat Syracuse, he began to admire the accident. Thereupon at the same\ntime I called to mind several other examples of the like nature: as\nthat of Hiero the Spartan, the eyes of whose statue fell out of its\nhead just before he was slain at the battle of Leuctra;\u2014how the two\nstars vanished which Lysander offered and consecrated to the Gods\nafter the naval engagement near Aegos Potami, and how there sprung of\na sudden from his statue of stone such a multitude of thorny bushes\nand weeds as covered all his face;\u2014how, when those calamities and\nmisfortunes befell the Athenians in Sicily, the golden dates dropped\nfrom the palm-tree, and the ravens with their beaks pecked holes in\nthe shield of Pallas;\u2014how the crown of the Cnidians which Philomelus,\nthe tyrant of the Phocians, gave Pharsalia, a female dancer, was the\noccasion of her death; for, passing out of Greece into Italy, one day\nas she was playing and dancing in the temple of Apollo in the city\nof Metapontum, having that crown upon her head, the young men of the\nplace falling upon her, and fighting one among another for lucre of the\ngold, tore the damsel in pieces. Now, though Aristotle was wont to say\nthat only Homer composed names and terms that had motion, by reason\nof the vigor and vivacity of his expressions, for my part I am apt to\nbelieve that the offerings made in this city of statues and consecrated\npresents sympathize with Divine Providence, and move themselves jointly\ntherewith to foretell and signify future events; and that no part of\nall those sacred donatives is void of sense, but that every part is\nfull of the Deity.\n\nIt is very probable, answered Boethus; for, to tell you truth, we do\nnot think it sufficient to enclose the Divinity every month in a mortal\nbody, unless we incorporate him with every stone and lump of brass; as\nif Fortune and Chance were not sufficient artists to bring about such\naccidents and events. Say ye so then? said I. Seems it to you that\nthese things happen accidentally and by hap-hazard; and is it likely\nthat your atoms never separate, never move or incline this or that way\neither before or after, but just in that nick of time when some one of\nthose who have made these offerings is to fare either better or worse?\nShall Epicurus avail thee by his writings and his sayings, which he\nwrote and uttered above three hundred years ago, and shall the Deity,\nunless he crowd himself into all substances and blend himself with all\nthings, not be allowed to be a competent author of the principles of\nmotion and affection?\n\n9. This was the reply I made Boethus, and the same answer I gave him\ntouching the Sibyl\u2019s verses; for when we drew near that part of the\nrock which joins to the senate-house, which by common fame was the\nseat of the first Sibyl that came to Delphi from Helicon, where she\nwas bred by the Muses (though others affirm that she fixed herself\nat Maleo, and that she was the daughter of Lamia, the daughter of\nNeptune), Serapio made mention of certain verses of hers, wherein she\nhad extolled herself as one that should never cease to prophesy even\nafter her death; for that after her decease she should make her abode\nin the orb of the moon, being metamorphosed into the face of that\nplanet; that her voice and prognostications should be always heard in\nthe air, intermixed with the winds and by them driven about from place\nto place; and that from her body should spring various plants, herbs,\nand fruits to feed the sacred victims, which should have sundry forms\nand qualities in their entrails, whereby men would be able to foretell\nall manner of events to come. At this Boethus laughed outright; but\nthe stranger replied that, though the Sibyl\u2019s vain-glory seemed\naltogether fabulous, yet the subversions of several Grecian cities,\ntransmigrations of the inhabitants, several invasions of barbarian\narmies, the destructions of kingdoms and principalities, testified\nthe truth of ancient prophecies and predictions. And were not those\naccidents that fell out not many years ago in our memories at Cumae and\nPuteoli, said he, long before that time the predictions and promises\nof the Sibyl, which Time, as a debtor, afterwards discharged and paid?\nSuch were the breaking forth of kindled fire from the sulphuric wombs\nof mountains, boiling of the sea, cities so swallowed up as not to\nleave behind the least footsteps of the ruins where they stood; things\nhard to be believed, much harder to be foretold, unless by Divine\nforesight.\n\n10. Then Boethus said: I would fain know what accidents fall out\nwhich time does not owe at length to Nature. What so prodigious or\nunlooked for, either by land or sea, either in respect of cities or\nmen, which, if it be foretold, may not naturally come to pass at one\nseason or other, in process of time? So that such a prophecy, to speak\nproperly, cannot be called a prediction, but a bare speech or report,\nor rather a scattering or sowing of words in boundless infinity that\nhave no probability or foundation; which, as they rove and wander in\nthe air, Fortune accidentally meets, and musters together by chance, to\ncorrespond and agree with some event. For, in my opinion, there is a\ngreat difference between the coming to pass of what has been said and\nthe saying of what shall happen. For the discourse of things that are\nnot, being already in itself erroneous and faulty, cannot, in justice,\nclaim the honor of after-credit from a fortuitous accident. Nor is it a\ntrue sign that the prophet foretells of his certain knowledge, because\nwhat he spoke happened to come to pass; in regard there are an infinite\nnumber of accidents, that fall in the course of nature, suitable to all\nevents. He therefore that conjectures best, and whom the common proverb\navers to be the exactest diviner, is he who finds out what shall\nhappen hereafter, by tracing the footsteps of future probabilities.\nWhereas these Sibyls and enthusiastic wizards have only thrown into\nthe capacious abyss of time, as into a vast and boundless ocean, whole\nheaps of words and sentences, comprehending all sorts of accidents and\nevents, which, though some perchance may come to pass, were yet false\nwhen uttered, though afterwards by chance they may happen to be true.\n\n11. Boethus having thus discoursed, Serapio replied, that Boethus had\nrightly and judiciously argued in reference to cursory predictions\nuttered not determinately and without good ground. One fairly guessed\nthat such a captain should get the victory, and he won the field;\nanother cried that such things portended the subversion of such a\ncity, and it was laid in ashes. But when the person does not only\nforetell the event, but how and when, by what means, and by whom it\nshall come to pass, this is no hazardous conjecture, but an absolute\ndemonstration, and pre-inspired discovery of what shall come to pass\nhereafter, and that too by the determined decree of fate, long before\nit comes to pass. For example, to instance the halting of Agesilaus,\n\n  Sparta, beware, though thou art fierce and proud,\n  Lest a lame king thy ancient glories cloud;\n  For then 'twill be thy fate to undergo\n  Tedious turmoils of war, and sudden woe;\n\ntogether with what was prophesied concerning the island which the sea\nthrew up right against Thera and Therasia; as also the prediction of\nthe war between King Philip and the Romans,\n\n  When Trojan race shall tame Phoenicians bold,\n  Prodigious wonders shall the world behold;\n  From burning seas shall flames immense ascend;\n  Lightning and whirlwinds hideous rocks shall rend\n  From their foundations, and an island rear,\n  Dreadful to sight and terrible to hear.\n  In vain shall greater strength and valor then\n  Withstand the contemned force of weaker men.\n\nSoon after this island shot up out of the ocean, surrounded with flames\nand boiling surges; and then it was that Hannibal was overthrown, and\nthe Carthaginians were subdued by the distressed and almost ruined\nRomans, and that the Aetolians, assisted by the Romans, vanquished\nPhilip King of Macedon. So that it is never to be imagined that these\nthings were the effects of negligent and careless chance; besides, the\nseries and train of events ensuing the prodigy clearly demonstrate\nthe foreknowledge of a prophetic spirit. The same may be said of the\nprophecy made five hundred years beforehand to the Romans of the time\nwhen they should be engaged in war with all the world at once; which\nhappened when their own slaves made war upon their masters. In all this\nthere was nothing of conjecture, nothing of blind uncertainty, nor\nis there any occasion to grope into the vast obscurity of chance for\nthe reason of these events; but we have many pledges of experience,\nthat plainly demonstrate the beaten path by which destiny proceeds.\nFor certainly there is no man who will believe that ever those events\nanswered accidentally the several circumstances of the prediction;\notherwise we may as well say that Epicurus himself never wrote his book\nof dogmatic precepts, but that the work was perfected by the accidental\nmeeting and interchange of the letters, one among another.\n\n12. Thus discoursing, we kept on our walk; but when we came into the\nCorinthian Hall and observed the brazen palm-tree, the only remainder\nleft of all the consecrated donatives, Diogenianus wondered to observe\nseveral figures of frogs and water-snakes, all in cast work about the\nroot of the tree. Nor were we less at a stand, well knowing the palm\nto be no tree that grows by the water or delights in moist or fenny\nplaces; neither do frogs at all concern or belong to the Corinthians,\neither by way of emblem or religious ceremony, or as the city arms; as\nthe Selinuntines formerly offered to their Gods parsley or smallage\n(_selinon_) of goldsmith\u2019s work and of the choicest yellow\nmetal; and the inhabitants of Tenedos always kept in their temple a\nconsecrated axe, a fancy taken from their esteem of the crab-fish\nthat breed in that island near the promontory of Asterium, they being\nthe only crabs that carry the figure of an axe upon the upper part of\ntheir shells. For as for Apollo, we were of opinion that crows, swans,\nwolves, sparrow-hawks, or any other sort of creature, would be more\nacceptable to him than despicable animals. To this Serapio replied,\nthat sure the workman thereby designed to show that the Sun was\nnourished by moisture and exhalations; whether it was that he thought\nat that time of that verse in Homer\n\n  The rising Sun then causing day to break,\n  Quits the cool pleasure of the oozy lake,[31]\n\nor whether he had seen how the Egyptians, to represent sunrise, paint\na little boy sitting upon a lotus. Thereupon, not able to refrain\nlaughing, What, said I, are you going about to obtrude your stoicisms\nagain upon us; or do you think to slide insensibly into our discourse\nyour exhalations and fiery prodigies? What is this but, like the\nThessalian women, to call down the Sun and Moon by enchantments from\nthe skies, while you derive their original from the earth and water?\n\nTherefore Plato will have a man to be a heavenly tree, growing with\nhis root, which is his head, upward. But you deride Empedocles for\naffirming that the Sun, being illumined by the reflection of the\ncelestial light, with an intrepid countenance casts a radiant lustre\nback upon the convex of heaven; while you yourselves make the Sun to\nbe a mere terrestrial animal or water plant, confining him to ponds,\nlakes, and such like regions of frogs. But let us refer these things\nto the tragical monstrosity of Stoical opinions, and now make some\nparticular reflections touching the extravagant pieces of certain\nartificers, who, as they are ingenious and elegant in some things, so\nare no less weakly curious and ambitious in others of their inventions;\nlike him who, designing to signify the dawn of day-light or the hours\nof sunrise, painted a cock upon the hand of Apollo. And thus may\nthese frogs be thought to have been designed by the artist to denote\nthe spring, when the Sun begins to exercise his power in the air and\nto dissolve the winter congealments; at least, if we may believe, as\nyou yourselves affirm, that Apollo and the Sun are both one God, and\nnot two distinct Deities. Why, said Serapio, do you think the Sun and\nApollo differ the one from the other? Yes, said I, as the Moon differs\nfrom the Sun. Nay, the difference is somewhat greater. For the Moon\nneither very often nor from all the world conceals the Sun; but the Sun\nis the cause that all men are ignorant of Apollo, by sense withdrawing\nthe rational intellect from that which is to that which appears.\n\n13. After this, Serapio put the question to the Historical Directors,\nwhy that same hall did not bear the name of Cypselus, who was both the\nfounder and the consecrator, but was called the Corinthians\u2019 Hall?\nWhen all the rest were silent, because perhaps they knew not what\nto say; How can we imagine, said I with a smile, that these people\nshould either know or remember the reason, having been so amused and\nthunderstruck by your high-flown discourses of prodigies altogether\nsupernatural? However we have heard it reported, when the monarchical\ngovernment of Corinth was dissolved by the ruin of Cypselus, the\nCorinthians claimed the honor to own both the golden statue at Pisa,\nand the treasure that lay in that place; which was also by the\nDelphians decreed to be their just right. This glory being envied\nthem by the Eleans, they were by a decree of the Corinthians utterly\nexcluded from the solemnities of the Isthmian games. This is the true\nreason, that never since any person of the country of Elis was admitted\nto any trial of skill at those festivals. For as for that murder of the\nMolionidae, slain by Hercules near Cleonae, that was not the reason\nwherefore Eleans were excluded, as some have vainly alleged; for on\nthe contrary it had been more proper for the Eleans themselves to have\nexcluded the Corinthians from the Olympic games, had they any animosity\nagainst them on this account. And this is all that I have to say in\nreference to this matter.\n\n14. But when we came into the treasury of the Acanthians and Brasidas,\nthe director showed us the place where formerly stood the obelisks\ndedicated to the memory of the courtesan Rhodopis. Then Diogenianus\nin a kind of passion said: It was no less ignominy for this city to\nallow Rhodopis a place wherein to deposit the tenth of her gains got\nby the prostitution of her body, than to put Aesop her fellow-servant\nto death. But why should you be offended at this, said Serapio, when\nyou have but to cast up your eye, and you may yonder behold the golden\nstatue of Mnesarete standing between kings and emperors, which Crates\naverred to be a trophy of the Grecian intemperance? The young man\nobserved the statue, and said: But it was Phryne of whom Crates uttered\nthat expression. That is very true, replied Serapio; for her proper\nname was Mnesarete; but Phryne was a nickname, given her by reason of\nthe yellowness of her complexion, like the color of a toad that lies\namong moist and overgrown bushes, called in Greek \u03c6\u03c1\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7. For many times\nit happens that nicknames eclipse and drown the proper names both\nof men and women. Thus the mother of Alexander, whose true name was\nPolyxena, was afterwards called Myrtale, then Olympias, and Stratonice;\nEumetis the Corinthian was afterwards called from her father\u2019s\nname Cleobule; and Herophyle of the city of Erythraea, skilful in\ndivination, was called Sibylla. And the grammarians will tell you that\nLeda herself was first called Mnesionoe, and Orestes Achaeus. But how,\nsaid he, looking upon Theo, can you answer this complaint concerning\nPhryne, for being placed in so much state above her quality?\n\n15. In the same manner, and as easily, replied Serapio, as I may\ncharge and accuse yourself for reproaching the slightest faults among\nthe Greeks. For as Socrates reprehended Callias for being always at\nenmity with perfumes and precious odors, while yet he could endure to\nsee boys and girls dance and tumble together, and to be a spectator of\nthe lascivious gestures of wanton mummers and merry-andrews; so, in my\nopinion, it is with you that envy the standing of a woman\u2019s statue in\nthe temple, because she made ill use of her beauty. Yet, though you\nsee Apollo surrounded with the first-fruits and tenths of murders,\nwars, and plunder, and all the temple full of spoils and pillage\ntaken from the Greeks, these things never move your indignation;\nyou never commiserate your countrymen, when you read engraved upon\nthese gaudy donatives such doleful inscriptions as these,\u2014Brasidas\nand the Acanthians dedicate these spoils taken from Athenians,\u2014the\nAthenians these from the Corinthians,\u2014the Phocians these from the\nThessalians,\u2014the Orneatae these from the Sicyonians,\u2014the Amphictyons\nthese from the Phocians. Now if it is true that Praxiteles offended\nCrates by erecting a statue in honor of his mistress, in my opinion\nCrates rather ought to have commended him for placing among the golden\nmonuments of kings and princes the statue of a courtesan, thereby\nshowing a contempt and scorn of riches, to which there is nothing\nof grandeur or veneration due; for it becomes princes and kings to\nconsecrate to the God the lasting monuments of justice, temperance,\nmagnanimity, not of golden and superfluous opulency, which are as\nfrequently erected to the most flagitious of men.\n\n16. But you forgot, said one of the directors, that Croesus honored\nthe woman that baked his bread with a golden statue, which he caused\nto be set up in this place, not to make a show of royal superfluity,\nbut upon a just and honest occasion of gratitude, which happened thus.\nIt is reported that Alyattes, the father of Croesus, married a second\nwife, by whom he had other children. This same step-dame, therefore,\ndesigning to remove Croesus out of the way, gave the woman-baker a dose\nof poison, with a strict charge to put it in the bread which she made\nfor the young prince. Of this the woman privately informed Croesus, and\ngave the poisoned bread to the queen\u2019s children. By which means Croesus\nquietly succeeded his father; when he did no less than acknowledge the\nfidelity of the woman by making even the God himself a testimony of\nhis gratitude, wherein he did like a worthy and virtuous prince. And\ntherefore it is but fitting that we should extol, admire, and honor\nthe magnificent presents and offerings consecrated by several cities\nupon such occasions, like that of the Opuntines. For when the tyrants\nof Phocis had broken to pieces, melted down, and coined into money the\nmost precious of their sacred donatives, which they spent as profusely\nin the neighboring parts, the Opuntines made it their business to\nbuy up all the plundered metal, wherever they could meet with it;\nand putting it up into a vessel made on purpose, they sent it as an\noffering to Apollo. And, for my part, I cannot but highly applaud the\ninhabitants of Myrina and Apollonia, who sent hither the first-fruits\nof their harvests in sheaves of gold; but much more the Eretrians and\nMagnesians, who dedicated to our God the first-fruits of their men, not\nonly acknowledging that from him all the fruits of the earth proceeded,\nbut that he was also the giver of children, as being the author of\ngeneration and a lover of mankind. But I blame the Megarians, for that\nthey alone erected here a statue of our God holding a spear in his\nhand, in memory of the battle which they won from the Athenians, whom\nthey vanquished after the defeat of the Medes, and expelled their city,\nof which they were masters before. However, afterwards they presented\na golden plectrum to Apollo, remembering perhaps those verses of\nScythinus, who thus wrote of the harp:\n\n  This was the harp which Jove\u2019s most beauteous son\n  Framed by celestial skill to play upon;\n  And for his plectrum the Sun\u2019s beams he used,\n  To strike those cords that mortal ears amused.\n\n17. Now as Serapio was about to have added something of the same\nnature, the stranger, taking the words out of his mouth, said: I am\nwonderfully pleased to hear discourses upon such subjects as these; but\nI am constrained to claim your first promise, to tell me the reason\nwherefore now the Pythian prophetess no longer delivers her oracles\nin poetic numbers and measures. And therefore, if you please, we will\nsurcease the remaining sight of these curiosities, choosing rather to\nsit a while and discourse the matter among ourselves. For it seems to\nbe an assertion strangely repugnant to the belief and credit of the\noracle, in regard that of necessity one of these two things must be\ntrue, either that the Pythian prophetess does not approach the place\nwhere the deity makes his abode, or that the sacred vapor that inspired\nher is utterly extinct, and its efficacy lost. Walking therefore to\nthe south side of the temple, we took our seats within the portico,\nover against the temple of Tellus, having from thence a prospect of\nthe Castalian fountain; insomuch that Boethus presently told us that\nthe very place itself favored the stranger\u2019s question. For formerly\nthere stood a temple dedicated to the Muses, close by the source of the\nrivulet, whence they drew their water for the sacrifices, according to\nthat of Simonides:\n\n  There flows the spring, whose limpid stream supplies\n  The fair-haired Muses water for their hands,\n  Before they touch the hallowed sacrifice.\n\nAnd the said Simonides a little lower calls Clio somewhat more curiously\n\n  The chaste inspectress of those sacred wells,\n  Whose fragrant water all her cisterns fills;\n  Water, through dark ambrosial nooks conveyed,\n  By which Castalian rivulets are fed.\n\nAnd therefore Eudoxus erroneously gave credit to those that gave the\nepithet of Stygian to this water, near which the wiser sort placed\nthe temple of the Muses, as guardians of the springs and assistants\nto prophecy; as also the temple of Tellus, to which the oracle\nappertained, and where the answers were delivered in verses and songs.\nAnd here it was, as some report, that first a certain heroic verse was\nheard to this effect:\n\n  Ye birds, bring hither all your plumes;\n  Ye bees, bring all your wax;\n\nwhich related to the time that the oracle, forsaken by the Deity, lost\nits veneration.\n\n18. These things, then said Serapio, seem to belong of right to the\nMuses, as being their particular province; for it becomes us not to\nfight against the gods, nor with divination to abolish providence and\ndivinity, but to search for convincement to refel repugnant arguments;\nand, in the mean time, not to abandon that religious belief and\npersuasion which has been so long propagated among us, from father to\nson, for so many generations.\n\nYou say very right, said I, Serapio; for we do not as yet despair\nof philosophy or give it over for lost, because, although formerly\nthe ancient philosophers published their precepts and sentences in\nverse,\u2014as did Orpheus, Hesiod, Parmenides, Xenophanes, Empedocles,\nand Thales,\u2014yet that custom has been lately laid aside by all others\nexcept yourself. For you indeed once more have arrayed philosophy in\npoetic numbers, on purpose to render it more sprightly, more charming,\nand delightful to youth. Nor is astrology as yet become more ignoble\nor less valued, because Aristarchus, Timochares, Aristillus, and\nHipparchus have written in prose, though formerly Eudoxus, Hesiod,\nand Thales wrote of that science in verse; at least if that astrology\nwas the legitimate offspring of Thales which goes under his name.\nPindar also acknowledges his dissatisfaction touching the manner\nof melody neglected in this time, and wonders why it should be so\ndespised. Neither is it a thing that looks like hurtful or absurd,\nto enquire into the causes of these alterations. But to destroy the\narts and faculties themselves because they have undergone some certain\nmutations, is neither just nor rational.\n\n19. Upon which Theo interposing said: It cannot be denied but that\nthere have been great changes and innovations in reference to poetry\nand the sciences; yet is it as certain, that from all antiquity oracles\nhave been delivered in prose. For we find in Thucydides, that the\nLacedaemonians, desirous to know the issue of the war then entered\ninto against the Athenians, were answered in prose, that they should\nbecome potent and victorious, and that the Deity would assist them,\nwhether invoked or not invoked; and again, that unless they recalled\nPausanias, they would plough with a silver ploughshare.[32] To the\nAthenians consulting the oracle concerning their expedition into\nSicily, he gave order to send for the priestess of Minerva from the\ncity of Erythrae; which priestess went by the name of Hesychia, or\nrepose. And when Dinomenes the Sicilian enquired what should become\nof his children, the oracle returned for answer, that they should all\nthree be lords and princes. And when Dinomenes replied, But then, most\npowerful Apollo, let it be to their confusion; the God made answer,\nThat also I both grant and promise. The consequence of which was,\nthat Gelo was troubled with the dropsy during his reign, Hiero was\nafflicted with the stone, and the third, Thrasybulus, surrounded with\nwar and sedition, was in a short time expelled his dominions. Procles\nalso, the tyrant of Epidaurus, after he had cruelly and tyrannically\nmurdered several others, put Timarchus likewise to death, who fled to\nhim for protection from Athens with a great sum of money,\u2014after he had\npledged him his faith and received him at his first arrival with large\ndemonstrations of kindness and affection,\u2014and then threw his carcass\ninto the sea, enclosed in a pannier. All this he did by the persuasion\nof one Cleander of Aegina, no other of his courtiers being privy to it.\nAfter which, meeting with no small trouble and misfortune in all his\naffairs, he sent to the oracle his brother Cleotimus, with orders to\nenquire whether he should provide for his safety by flight, or retire\nto some other place. Apollo made answer, that he advised Procles to fly\nwhere he had directed his Aeginetan guest to dispose of the pannier, or\nwhere the hart had cast his horns. Upon which the tyrant, understanding\nthat the oracle commanded him either to throw himself into the sea or\nto bury himself in the earth (in regard that a stag, when he sheds his\nantlers, scrapes a hole in the ground and hides his ignominy), demurred\na while; but at length, seeing the condition of his affairs grew every\nday worse and worse, he resolved to save himself by flight; at which\ntime the friends of Timarchus, having seized upon his person, slew\nhim and threw his body into the sea. But what is more than all this,\nthe oracular answers according to which Lycurgus composed the form of\nthe Lacedaemonian commonwealth were given in prose. Besides, Alyrius,\nHerodotus, Philochorus and Ister, than whom no men have been more\ndiligent to collect the answers of the oracles, among the many which\nthey cite in verse, quote several also in prose. And Theopompus, the\nmost diligent that ever made scrutiny into oracular history, sharply\nreprehends those who believed the Pythian oracles were not delivered in\nverse at that time; and yet, when he labors to prove his assertion, he\nis able to produce but very few, because doubtless the rest even then\nwere uttered in prose.\n\n20. Yet there are some that now at this day run in verse; one of which\nhas become notorious above the rest. There is in Phocis a temple\nconsecrated to Hercules the woman-hater, the chief priest of which is\nforbid by the law and custom of the place to have private familiarity\nwith his wife during the year that he officiates; for which reason\nthey most commonly make choice of old men to perform that function.\nNevertheless, some time since a young man, no way vicious and covetous\nof honor, yet doting upon a new married wife, took upon him the\ndignity. At first he was very chaste and temperate, and abstained from\nthe woman; but soon after, the young lady coming to give him a visit\nas he was laid down to rest himself after a brisk dancing and drinking\nbout, he could not resist the charming temptation. But then, coming\nto himself and remembering what he had done, perplexed and terrified,\nhe fled to the oracle to consult Apollo upon the crime which he had\ncommitted; who returned him this answer,\n\n  All things necessary God permitteth.\n\nBut should we grant that in our age no oracles are delivered in verse,\nwe should be still doubtful about the ancient times, when the oracles\nwere delivered sometime in verse sometime in prose. Though, whether it\nbe in prose or verse, the oracle is never a whit the falser or the more\nmiraculous, so that we have but a true and religious opinion of the\nDeity; not irreverently conceiting that formerly he composed a stock\nof verses to be now repeated by the prophetess, as if he spoke through\nmasks and visors.\n\n21. But these things require a more prolix discourse and a stricter\nexamination, to be deferred till another time. For the present,\ntherefore, let us only call to mind thus much, that the body makes\nuse of several instruments, and the soul employs the body and its\nmembers; the soul being the organ of God. Now the perfection of the\norgan is to imitate the thing that makes use of it, so far as it is\ncapable, and to exhibit the operation of its thought, according to\nthe best of its own power; since it cannot show it as it is in the\ndivine operator himself,\u2014neat, without any affection, fault, or error\nwhatsoever,\u2014but imperfect and mixed. For of itself, the thing is to\nus altogether unknown, till it is infused by another and appears to us\nas fully partaking of the nature of that other. I forbear to mention\ngold or silver, brass or wax, or whatever other substances are capable\nto receive the form of an imprinted resemblance. For true it is, they\nall admit the impression; but still one adds one distinction, another\nanother, to the imitation arising from their presentation itself; as\nwe may readily perceive in mirrors, both plane, concave, and convex,\ninfinite varieties of representations and faces from one and the same\noriginal; there being no end of that diversity.\n\nBut there is no mirror that more exactly represents any shape or\nform, nor any instrument that yields more obsequiously to the use of\nNature, than the Moon herself. And yet she, receiving from the Sun his\nmasculine splendor and fiery light, does not transmit the same to us;\nbut when it intermixes with her pellucid substance, it changes color\nand loses its power. For warmth and heat abandon the pale planet, and\nher light grows dim before it can reach our sight. And this is that\nwhich, in my opinion, Heraclitus seems to have meant, when he said\nthat the prince who rules the oracle of Delphi neither speaks out\nnor conceals, but signifies. Add then to these things thus rightly\nspoken this farther consideration, that the Deity makes use of the\nPythian prophetess, so far as concerns her sight and hearing, as the\nSun makes use of the Moon; for he makes use of a mortal body and an\nimmortal soul as the organs of prediction. Now the body lies dull and\nimmovable of itself; but the soul being restless, when once the soul\nbegins to be in motion, the body likewise stirs, not able to resist\nthe violent agitation of the nimbler spirit, while it is shaken and\ntossed as in a stormy sea by the tempestuous passions that ruffle\nwithin it. For as the whirling of bodies that merely move circularly\nis nothing violent, but when they move round by force and tend\ndownward by nature, there results from both a confused and irregular\ncircumrotation; thus that divine rapture which is called enthusiasm is\na commixture of two motions, wherewith the soul is agitated, the one\nextrinsic, as by inspiration, the other by nature. For, seeing that as\nto inanimate bodies, which always remain in the same condition, it is\nimpossible by preternatural violence to offer a force which is contrary\nto their nature and intended use, as to move a cylinder spherically\nor cubically, or to make a lyre sound like a flute, or a trumpet like\na harp; how is it possible to manage an animate body, that moves of\nitself, that is indued with reason, will, and inclination, otherwise\nthan according to its pre-existent reason, power, or nature; as (for\nexample) to incline to music a person altogether ignorant and an utter\nenemy to music, or to make a grammarian of one that never knew his\nletters, or to make him speak like a learned man that never understood\nthe least tittle of any science in the world?\n\n22. For proof of this I may call Homer for my witness, who affirms\nthat there is nothing done or brought to perfection of which God\nis not the cause, supposing that God makes use not of all men for\nall things alike, but of every man according to his ability either\nof art or nature. Thus, dost thou not find it to be true, friend\nDiogenianus, that when Minerva would persuade the Greeks to undertake\nany enterprise, she brings Ulysses upon the stage?\u2014when she designs to\nbreak the truce, she finds out Pandarus?\u2014when she designs a rout of\nthe Trojans, she addresses herself to Diomede? For the one was stout of\nbody and valiant; the other was a good archer, but without brains; the\nother a shrewd politician and eloquent. For Homer was not of the same\nopinion with Pindar, at least if it was Pindar that made the following\nverses:\n\n  Were it the will of Heaven, an ozier bough\n  Were vessel safe enough the seas to plough.[33]\n\nFor he well knew that there were different abilities and natures\ndesigned for different effects, every one of which is qualified with\ndifferent motions, though there be but one moving cause that gives\nmotion to all. So that the same virtual power which moves the creature\nthat goes upon all four cannot cause it to fly, no more than he that\nstammers can speak fluently and eloquently, or he that has a feeble\nsqueaking voice can give a loud hollow. Therefore in my opinion it\nwas that Battus, when he consulted the oracle, was sent into Africa,\nthere to build a new city, as being a person who, although he lisped\nand stammered, had nevertheless endowments truly royal, which rendered\nhim fit for sovereign government. In like manner it is impossible the\nPythian priestess should learn to speak learnedly and elegantly; for,\nthough it cannot be denied but that her parentage was virtuous and\nhonest, and that she always lived a sober and a chaste life, yet her\neducation was among poor laboring people; so that she was advanced to\nthe oracular seat rude and unpolished, void of all the advantages of\nart or experience. For as it is the opinion of Xenophon, that a virgin\nready to be espoused ought to be carried to the bridegroom\u2019s house when\nshe has seen and heard as little as possible; so the Pythian priestess\nought to converse with Apollo, illiterate and ignorant almost of every\nthing, still approaching his presence with a truly and pure virgin soul.\n\nBut it is a strange fancy of men; they believe that the God makes\nuse of herons, wrens, and crows to signify future events, expressing\nhimself according to their vulgar notes, but do not expect of these\nbirds, although they are the messengers and ambassadors of the God, to\ndeliver their predictions in words clear and intelligible; but they\nwill not allow the Pythian priestess to pronounce her answers in plain,\nsincere, and natural expressions, but they demand that she shall speak\nin the poetical magnificence of high and stately verses, like those of\na tragic chorus, with metaphors and figurative phrases, accompanied\nwith the delightful sounds of flutes and hautboys.\n\n23. What then shall we say of the ancients? Not one, but many things.\nFirst then, as hath been said already, that the ancient Pythian\npriestesses pronounced most of their oracles in prose. Secondly, that\nthose ages produced complexions and tempers of body much more prone\nand inclined to poetry, with which immediately were associated those\nother ardent desires, affections, and preparations of the mind, which\nwanted only something of a beginning and a diversion of the fancy from\nmore serious studies, not only to draw to their purpose (according to\nthe saying of Philinus) astrologers and philosophers, but also in the\nheat of wine and pathetic affections, either of sudden compassion or\nsurprising joy, to slide insensibly into voices melodiously tuned, and\nto fill banquets with charming odes or love songs, and whole volumes\nwith amorous canzonets and mirthful inventions. Therefore, though\nEuripides tells us,\n\n  Love makes men poets who before no music knew,\n\nhe does not mean that love infuses music and poetry into men that\nwere not already inclined to those accomplishments, but that it warms\nand awakens that disposition which lay unactive and drowsy before.\nOtherwise we might say that now there were no lovers in the world, but\nthat Cupid himself was vanished and gone, because that now-a-days there\nis not one\n\n  Who now, true archer-like,\n  Lets his poetic raptures fly\n  To praise his mistress\u2019s lip or eye,\n\nas Pindar said. But this were absurd to affirm. For amorous\nimpatiencies torment and agitate the minds of many men not addicted\neither to music or poetry, that know not how to handle a flute or touch\na harp, and yet are no less talkative and inflamed with desire than the\nancients. And I believe there is no person who would be so unkind to\nhimself as to say that the Academy or the quires of Socrates and Plato\nwere void of love, with whose discourses and conferences touching that\npassion we frequently meet, though they have not left any of their\npoems behind. And would it not be the same thing to say, there never\nwas any woman that studied courtship but Sappho, nor ever any that\nwere endued with the gift of prophecy but Sibylla and Aristonica and\nthose that delivered their oracles and sacred raptures in verse? For\nwine, as saith Chaeremon, soaks and infuses itself into the manners and\ncustoms of them that drink it. Now poetic rapture, like the raptures of\nlove, makes use of the ability of its subject, and moves every one that\nreceives it, according to its proper qualification.\n\n24. Nevertheless, if we do but make a right reflection upon God and his\nProvidence, we shall find the alteration to be much for the better. For\nthe use of speech seems to be like the exchange of money; that which is\ngood and lawful is commonly current and known, and goes sometimes at a\nhigher, sometimes at a lower value. Thus there was once a time when the\nstamp and coin of language was approved and passed current in verses,\nsongs, and sonnets; for then all histories, all philosophical learning,\nall affections and subjects that required grave and solid discussion,\nwere written in poetry and fitted for musical composition. For what now\nbut a few will scarce vouchsafe to hear, then all men listened to,\n\n  The shepherd, ploughman, and bird-catcher too,[34]\n\nas it is in Pindar; all delighted in songs and verses. For such was\nthe inclination of that age and their readiness to versify, that they\nfitted their very precepts and admonitions to vocal and instrumental\nmusic. If they were to teach, they did it in songs fitted to the harp.\nIf they were to exhort, reprove, or persuade, they made use of fables\nand allegories. And then for their praises of the Gods, their vows,\nand paeans after victory, they were all composed in verse; by some,\nas being naturally airy and flowing in their invention; by others,\nas habituated by custom. And therefore it is not that Apollo envies\nthis ornament and elegancy to the science of divination; nor was it\nhis design to banish from the Tripos his beloved Muse, but rather to\nintroduce her when rejected by others, being rather a lover and kindler\nof poetic rapture in others, and choosing rather to furnish laboring\nfancies with imaginations, and to assist them to bring forth the lofty\nand learned kind of language, as most becoming and most to be admired.\n\nBut afterwards, when the conversation of men and custom of living\naltered with the change of their fortunes and dispositions, consuetude\nexpelling and discarding all manner of superfluity rejected also\ngolden top-knots, and silken vestments loosely flowing in careless\nfolds, clipped their long dishevelled locks, and, laying aside their\nembroidered buskin, taught men to glory in sobriety and frugality\nin opposition to wantonness and superfluity, and to place true honor\nin simplicity and modesty, not in pomp and vain curiosity. And then\nit was that, the manner of writing being quite altered, history\nalighted from versifying, as it were from riding in chariots, and on\nfoot distinguished truth from fable; and philosophy, in a clear and\nplain style, familiar and proper to instruct rather than to astonish\nthe world with metaphors and figures, began to dispute and enquire\nafter truth in common and vulgar terms. And then it was, that Apollo\ncaused the Pythian priestess to surcease calling her fellow-citizens\nfire-inflaming, the Spartans serpent-devourers, men by the name of\nOreanes, and rivers by the name of mountain-drainers; and discarding\nverses, uncouth words, circumlocutions, and obscurity, taught the\noracles to speak as the laws discourse to cities, and as princes speak\nto their people and their subjects, or as masters teach their scholars,\nappropriating their manner of speech to good sense and persuasive grace.\n\n25. For, as Sophocles tells us, we are to believe the Deity to be\n\n  Easy to wise men, who can truth discern;\n  The fool\u2019s bad teacher, who will never learn.\n\nAnd ever since belief and perspicuity thus associated together,\nit came to pass by alteration of circumstances that, whereas\nformerly the vulgar looked with a high veneration upon whatever was\nextraordinary and extravagant, and conceived a more than common\nsanctity to lie concealed under the veil of obscurity, afterwards men\ndesirous to understand things clearly and easily, without flowers of\ncircumlocutions and disguisements of dark words, not only began to\nfind fault with oracles enveloped with poetry, as repugnant to the\neasy understanding of the real meaning, and overshadowing the sentence\nwith mist and darkness, but also suspected the truth of the very\nprophecy itself which was muffled up in so many metaphors, riddles,\nand ambiguities, which seemed no better than holes to creep out at and\nevasions of censure, should the event prove contrary to what had been\nforetold. And some there were who reported that there were several\nextempore poets entertained about the Tripos, who were to receive\nthe words as they dropped roughly from the oracle, and presently by\nvirtue of their extempore fancy to model them into verses and measures,\nthat served (as it were) instead of hampers and baskets to convey\nthe answers from place to place. I forbear to tell how far those\ntreacherous deceivers like Onomacritus, Herodotus (?), and Cyneso,\nhave contributed to dishonor the sacred oracles, by their interlarding\nof bombast expressions and high-flown phrases, where there was no\nnecessity of any such alteration. It is also as certain, that those\nmountebanks, jugglers, impostors, gipsies, and all that altar-licking\ntribe of vagabonds that set up their throats at the festivals and\nsacrifices to Cybele and Serapis, have highly undervalued poesy; some\nof them extempore, and others by lottery from certain little books,\ncomposing vain predictions, which they may sell to servants and silly\nwomen, that easily suffer themselves to be deluded by the overawing\ncharms of serious ambiguity couched in strained and uncouth ballatry.\nWhence it comes to pass, that poetry, seeming to prostitute itself\namong cheats and deluders of the people, among mercenary gipsies and\nmumping charlatans, has lost its ancient credit, and is therefore\nthought unworthy the honor of the Tripos.\n\n26. And therefore I do not wonder that the ancients stood in need of\ndouble meaning, of circumlocution, and obscurity. For certainly never\nany private person consulted the oracle when he went to buy a slave or\nhire workmen; but potent cities, kings and princes, whose undertakings\nand concernments were of vast and high concernment, and whom it was\nnot expedient for those that had the charge of the oracle to disoblige\nor incense by the return of answers ungrateful to their ears. For the\ndeity is not bound to observe that law of Euripides, where he says,\n\n  Phoebus alone, and none but he,\n  Should unto men the prophet be.\n\nTherefore, when he makes use of mortal prophets and agents, of whom it\nbehooves him to take a more especial care that they be not destroyed\nin his service, he does not altogether go about to suppress the truth,\nbut only eclipses the manifestation of it, like a light divided into\nsundry reflections, rendering it by the means of poetic umbrage less\nsevere and ungrateful in the delivery. For it is not convenient that\nprinces or their enemies should presently know what is by Fate decreed\nto their disadvantage. Therefore he so envelops his answers with doubts\nand ambiguities as to conceal from others the true understanding of\nwhat was answered; though to them that came to the oracle themselves,\nand gave due attention to the deliverer, the meaning of the answer\nis transparently obvious. Most impertinent therefore are they who,\nconsidering the present alteration of things, accuse and exclaim\nagainst the Deity for not assisting in the same manner as before.\n\n27. And this may be farther said, that poetry brings no other advantage\nto the answer than this, that the sentence being comprised and confined\nwithin a certain number of words and syllables bounded by poetic\nmeasure is more easily carried away and retained in memory. Therefore\nit behooved those that formerly lived to have extraordinary memories,\nto retain the marks of places, the times of such and such transactions,\nthe ceremonies of deities beyond the sea, the hidden monuments of\nheroes, hard to be found in countries far from Greece. For in those\nexpeditions of Phalanthus and several other admirals of great navies,\nhow many signs were they forced to observe, how many conjectures to\nmake, ere they could find the seat of rest allotted by the oracle! In\nthe observance of which there were some nevertheless that failed, as\nBattus among others. For he said that he failed because he had not\nlanded in the right place to which he was sent; and therefore returning\nback he complained to the oracle. But Apollo answered:\n\n  As well as I thou knowest, who ne\u2019er hast been\n  In Libya covered o\u2019er with sheep and kine;\n  If this is true, thy wisdom I admire:\n\nand so sent him back again. Lysander also, ignorant of the hillock\nArchelides, also called Alopecus, and the river Hoplites, nor\napprehensive of what was meant by\n\n  The earth-born dragon, treacherous foe behind,\n\nbeing overthrown in battle, was there slain by Neochorus the\nHaliartian, who bare for his device a dragon painted upon his shield.\nBut it is needless to recite any more of these ancient examples of\noracles, difficult to be retained in memory, especially to you that are\nso well read.\n\n28. And now, God be praised, there is an end of all those questions\nwhich were the grounds of consulting the oracle. For now we repose\naltogether in the soft slumbers of peace, all our wars are at an\nend. There are now no tumults, no civil seditions, no tyrannies, no\npestilences nor calamities depopulating Greece, no epidemic diseases\nneeding powerful and choice drugs and medicines. Now, when there is\nnothing of variety, nothing of mystery, nothing dangerous, but only\nbare and ordinary questions about small trifles and vulgar things, as\nwhether a man may marry, whether take a voyage by sea, or lend his\nmoney safely at interest,\u2014and when the most important enquiries of\ncities are concerning the next harvest, the increase of their cattle,\nor the health of the inhabitants,\u2014there to make use of verses,\nambiguous words, and confounding obscurities, where the questions\nrequire short and easy answers, causes us to suspect that the sacred\nminister studies only cramp expressions, like some ambitious sophister,\nto wrest admiration from the ignorant. But the Pythian priestess is\nnaturally of a more generous disposition; and therefore, when she is\nbusy with the Deity, she has more need of truth than of satisfying her\nvain-glory, or of minding either the commendations or the dispraise of\nmen.\n\n29. And well it were, that we ourselves should be so affected. But on\nthe contrary, being in a quandary and jealousy lest the oracle should\nlose the reputation it has had for these three thousand years, and lest\npeople should forsake it and forbear going to it, we frame excuses to\nourselves, and feign causes and reasons of things which we do not know,\nand which it is not convenient for us to know; out of a fond design to\npersuade the persons thus oddly dissatisfied, whom it became us rather\nto let alone. For certainly the mistake must redound to ourselves,[35]\nwhen we shall have such an opinion of our Deity as to approve and\nesteem those ancient and pithy proverbs of wise men, written at the\nentrance into the temple, \u201cKnow thyself,\u201d \u201cNothing to excess,\u201d as\ncontaining in few words a full and close compacted sentence, and yet\nfind fault with the modern oracle for delivering answers concise and\nplain. Whereas those apophthegms are like waters crowded and pent up\nin a narrow room or running between contracted banks, where we can\nno more discern the bottom of the water than we can the depth and\nmeaning of the sentence. And yet, if we consider what has been written\nand said concerning those sentences by such as have dived into their\nsignification with an intent to clear their abstruseness, we shall\nhardly find disputes more prolix than those are. But the language of\nthe Pythian priestess is such as the mathematicians define a right\nline to be, that is to say, the shortest that may be drawn betwixt\ntwo points. So likewise doth she avoid all winding and circles, all\ndouble meanings and abstruse ambiguities, and proceed directly to the\ntruth. And though she has been obnoxious to strict examination, yet is\nshe not to be misconstrued without danger, nor could ever any person\nto this very day convict her of falsehood; but on the other side, she\nhas filled the temple with presents, gifts, and offerings, not only of\nthe Greeks but barbarians, and adorned the seat of the oracle with the\nmagnificent structures and fabrics of the Amphictyons. And we find many\nadditions of new buildings, many reparations of the old ones that were\nfallen down or decayed by time. And as we see from trees overgrown with\nshade and verdant boughs other lesser shoots sprout up; thus has the\nDelphian concourse afforded growth and grandeur to the assembly of the\nAmphictyons, which is fed and maintained by the abundance and affluence\narising from thence, and has the form and show of magnificent temples,\nstately meetings, and sacred waters; which, but for the ceremonies of\nthe altar, would not have been brought to perfection in a thousand\nyears. And to what other cause can we attribute the fertility of the\nGalaxian Plains in Boeotia but to their vicinity to this oracle, and\nto their being blessed with the neighboring influences of the Deity,\nwhere from the well-nourished udders of the bleating ewes milk flows in\ncopious streams, like water from so many fountain-heads?\n\n  Their pails run o\u2019er, and larger vessels still\n  With rich abundance all their dairies fill.\n\nTo us appear yet more clear and remarkable signs of the Deity\u2019s\nliberality, while we behold the glory of far-famed store and plenty\noverflowing former penury and barrenness. And I cannot but think much\nthe better of myself for having in some measure contributed to these\nthings with Polycrates and Petraeus. Nor can I less admire the first\nauthor and promoter of this good order and management. And yet it is\nnot to be thought that such and so great change should come to pass\nin so small a time by human industry, without the favor of the Deity\nassisting and blessing his oracle.\n\n30. But although there were some formerly who blamed the ambiguity and\nobscurity of the oracle, and others who at this day find fault with its\nmodern plainness and perspicuity, yet are they both alike unjust and\nfoolish in their passion; for, like children better pleased with the\nsight of rainbows, comets, and those halos that encircle the sun and\nmoon, than to see the sun and moon themselves in their splendor, they\nare taken with riddles, abstruse words, and figurative speeches, which\nare but the reflections of oracular divination to the apprehension\nof our mortal understanding. And because they are not able to make a\nsatisfactory judgment of this change, they find fault with the God\nhimself, not considering that neither we nor they are able by discourse\nof reason to reach unto the hidden counsels and designs of the Deity.\n\n\n\n\nOF THOSE SENTIMENTS CONCERNING NATURE WITH WHICH PHILOSOPHERS WERE\nDELIGHTED.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK I.\n\n\nIt being our determination to discourse of Natural Philosophy, we\njudge it necessary, in the first place and chiefly, to divide the body\nof philosophy into its proper members, that we may know what is that\nwhich is called philosophy, and what part of it is physical, or the\nexplanation of natural things. The Stoics affirm that wisdom is the\nknowledge of things human and divine; that philosophy is the exercise\nof that art which is expedient to this knowledge; that virtue is the\nsole and sovereign art which is thus expedient; and this distributes\nitself into three general parts,\u2014natural, moral, and logical. By\nwhich just reason (they say) philosophy is tripartite; of which one\nis natural, the other moral, the third logical. The natural is when\nour enquiries are concerning the world and all things contained in\nit; the ethical is the employment of our minds in those things which\nconcern the manners of man\u2019s life; the logical (which they also call\ndialectical) regulates our conversation with others in speaking.\nAristotle, Theophrastus, and after them almost all the Peripatetics\ngive the following division of philosophy. It is absolutely requisite\nthat the complete person be contemplator of things which have a being,\nand the practiser of those things which are decent; and this easily\nappears by the following instances. If the question be proposed,\nwhether the sun, which is so conspicuous to us, be informed with a\nsoul or inanimate, he that makes this disquisition is the thinking\nman; for he proceeds no farther than to consider the nature of that\nthing which is proposed. Likewise, if the question be proposed,\nwhether the world be infinite, or whether beyond the system of this\nworld there is any real being, all these things are the objects about\nwhich the understanding of man is conversant. But if these be the\nquestions,\u2014what measures must be taken to compose the well ordered\nlife of man, what are the best methods to govern and educate children,\nor what are the exact rules whereby sovereigns may command and\nestablish laws,\u2014all these queries are proposed for the sole end of\naction, and the man conversant therein is the moral and practical man.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nWHAT IS NATURE?\n\n\nSince we have undertaken to make a diligent search into Nature, I\ncannot but conclude it necessary to declare what Nature is. It is very\nabsurd to attempt a discourse of the essence of natural things, and\nnot to understand what is the power and sphere of Nature. If Aristotle\nbe credited, Nature is the principle of motion and rest, in that thing\nin which it exists principally and not by accident. For all things\nthat are conspicuous to our eyes, which are neither fortuitous nor\nnecessary, nor have a divine original, nor acknowledge any such like\ncause, are called natural and enjoy their proper nature. Of this sort\nare earth, fire, water, air, plants, animals; to these may be added all\nthings produced from them, such as showers, hail, thunders, hurricanes,\nand winds. All these confess they had a beginning, none of these were\nfrom eternity, but had something as the origin of them; and likewise\nanimals and plants have a principle whence they are produced. But\nNature, which in all these things hath the priority, is the principle\nnot only of motion but of repose; whatsoever enjoys the principle of\nmotion, the same has a possibility to find a dissolution. Therefore on\nthis account it is that Nature is the principle of motion and rest.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nWHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PRINCIPLE AND AN ELEMENT?\n\n\nThe followers of Aristotle and Plato conclude that the elements are\ndiscriminated from a principle. Thales the Milesian supposeth that\na principle and the elements are one and the same thing, but it is\nevident that they vastly differ one from another. For the elements\nare things compounded; but we do pronounce that principles admit not\nof a composition, nor are the effects of any other being. Those which\nwe call elements are earth, water, air, and fire. But we term those\nprinciples which have nothing precedent to them out of which they are\nproduced; for otherwise not these themselves, but rather those things\nwhereof they are produced, would be the principles. Now there are\nsome things which have a pre-existence to earth and water, from which\nthey are begotten; to wit, matter, which is without form or shape;\nthen form, which we call \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 (_actuality_); and lastly,\nprivation. Thales therefore is very peccant, by affirming that water is\nboth an element and a principle.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nOF PRINCIPLES, AND WHAT THEY ARE.\n\n\nThales the Milesian doth affirm that water is the principle whence all\nthings in the universe spring. This person appears to be the first of\nphilosophers; from him the Ionic sect took its denomination, for there\nare many families and successions amongst philosophers. After he had\nprofessed philosophy in Egypt, when he was very old, he returned to\nMiletus. He pronounced, that all things had their original from water,\nand into water all things are resolved. His first reason was, that\nwhatsoever was the prolific seed of all animals was a principle, and\nthat is moist; so that it is probable that all things receive their\noriginal from humidity. His second reason was, that all plants are\nnourished and fructified by that thing which is moist, of which being\ndeprived they wither away. Thirdly, that that fire of which the sun and\nstars are made is nourished by watery exhalations,\u2014yea, and the world\nitself; which moved Homer to sing that the generation of it was from\nwater:\u2014\n\n                        The ocean is\n  Of all things the kind genesis.[36]\n\nAnaximander, who himself was a Milesian, assigns the principle of all\nthings to the Infinite, from whence all things flow, and into the same\nare corrupted; hence it is that infinite worlds are framed, and those\nvanish again into that whence they have their original. And thus he\nfarther proceeds, For what other reason is there of an Infinite but\nthis, that there may be nothing deficient as to the generation or\nsubsistence of what is in nature? There is his error, that he doth not\nacquaint us what this Infinite is, whether it be air, or water, or\nearth, or any other such like body. Besides he is peccant, in that,\ngiving us the material cause, he is silent as to the efficient cause of\nbeings; for this thing which he makes his Infinite can be nothing but\nmatter; but operation cannot take place in the sphere of matter, except\nan efficient cause be annexed.\n\nAnaximenes his fellow-citizen pronounceth, that air is the principle\nof all beings; from it all receive their original, and into it all\nreturn. He affirms that our soul is nothing but air; it is that which\nconstitutes and preserves; the whole world is invested with spirit\nand air. For spirit and air are synonymous. This person is in this\ndeficient, that he concludes that of pure air, which is a simple body\nand is made of one only form, all animals are composed. It is not\npossible to think that a single principle should be the matter of all\nthings, from whence they receive their subsistence; besides this there\nmust be an operating cause. Silver (for example) is not of itself\nsufficient to frame a drinking cup; an operator also is required, which\nis the silversmith. The like may be applied to vessels made of wood,\nbrass, or any other material.\n\nAnaxagoras the Clazomenian asserted Homoeomeries (or parts similar or\nhomogeneous) to be the original cause of all beings; it seemed to him\nimpossible that any thing could arise of nothing or be resolved into\nnothing. Let us therefore instance in nourishment, which appears simple\nand uniform, such as bread which we owe to Ceres, and water which we\ndrink. Of this very nutriment, our hair, our veins, our arteries,\nnerves, bones, and all our other parts are nourished. These things\nthus being performed, it must be granted that the nourishment which\nis received by us contains all those things by which these parts of\nus are increased. In it there are those particles which are producers\nof blood, bones, nerves, and all other parts; which particles (as he\nthought) reason discovers for us. For it is not necessary that we\nshould reduce all things under the objects of sense; for bread and\nwater are fitted to the senses, yet in them there are those particles\nlatent which are discoverable only by reason. It being therefore\nevident that there are particles in the nourishment similar to what is\nproduced thereby, he terms these homogeneous parts, averring that they\nare the principles of beings. Matter is according to him these similar\nparts, and the efficient cause is a Mind, which orders all things\nthat have an existence. Thus he begins his discourse: \u201cAll things\nwere confused one among another; but Mind divided and reduced them to\norder.\u201d In this he is to be commended, that he yokes together matter\nand an intellectual agent.\n\nArchelaus the son of Apollodorus, the Athenian, pronounceth, that the\nprinciples of all things have their original from an infinite air\nrarefied or condensed. Air rarefied is fire, condensed is water.\n\nThese philosophers, the followers of Thales, succeeding one another,\nmade up that sect which takes to itself the denomination of the Ionic.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPythagoras the Samian, the son of Mnesarchus, from another origin\ndeduces the principles of all things; it was he who first gave\nphilosophy its name. He assigns the first principles to be numbers,\nand those symmetries resulting from them which he styles harmonies;\nand the result of both combined he terms elements, called geometrical.\nAgain, he enumerates unity and the indefinite binary number amongst the\nprinciples. One of these principles tends to an efficient and forming\ncause, which is Mind, and that is God; the other to the passive and\nmaterial part, and that is the visible world. Moreover the nature of\nnumber (he saith) consists in the ten; for all people, whether Grecians\nor barbarians, reckon from one to ten, and thence return to one\nagain. Farther he avers the virtue of ten consists in the quaternion;\nthe reason whereof is this,\u2014if any person reckon from one, and by\naddition place his numbers so as to take in the quaternary, he shall\ncomplete the number ten; if he exceed the four, he shall go beyond\nthe ten; for one, two, three, and four being cast up together make\nup ten. The nature of numbers, therefore, if we regard the units,\nresteth in the ten; but if we regard its power, in the four. Therefore\nthe Pythagoreans say that their most sacred oath is by that God who\ndelivered to them the quaternary.\n\n  By th\u2019 founder of the sacred number four,\n  Eternal Nature\u2019s font and root, they swore.\n\nOf this number the soul of man is composed; for mind, knowledge,\nopinion, and sense are the four that complete the soul, from which all\nsciences, all arts, all rational faculties derive themselves. For what\nour mind perceives, it perceives after the manner of a thing that is\none, the soul itself being a unity; as for instance, a multitude of\npersons are not the object of our sense nor are comprehended by us, for\nthey are infinite; our understanding gives the general notion of _a\nman_, in which all individuals agree. The number of individuals is\ninfinite; the generic or specific nature of all being is a unit, or\nto be apprehended as one only thing; from this one conception we give\nthe genuine measures of all existence, and therefore we affirm that\na certain class of beings are rational and discoursive beings. But\nwhen we come to give the nature of a horse, it is that animal which\nneighs; and this being common to all horses, it is manifest that the\nunderstanding, which hath such like conceptions, is in its nature\nunity. The number which is called the infinite binary must needs be\nscience; in every demonstration or belief belonging to science, and in\nevery syllogism, we draw that conclusion which is the question doubted\nof, from those propositions which are by all granted, by which means\nanother proposition is demonstrated. The comprehension of these we call\nknowledge; for which reason science is the binary number. But opinion\nis the ternary; for that rationally follows from comprehension. The\nobjects of opinion are many things, and the ternary number denotes a\nmultitude, as \u201cThrice happy Grecians;\u201d for which reason Pythagoras\nadmits the ternary. This sect of philosophers is called the Italic, by\nreason Pythagoras opened his school in Italy; his hatred of the tyranny\nof Polycrates enforced him to leave his native country Samos.\n\nHeraclitus and Hippasus of Metapontum suppose that fire gives the\norigination to all beings, that they all flow from fire, and in fire\nthey all conclude; for of fire when first quenched the world was\nconstituted. The first part of the world, being most condensed and\ncontracted within itself, made the earth; but part of that earth being\nloosened and made thin by fire, water was produced; afterwards this\nwater being exhaled and rarefied into vapors became air; after all this\nthe world itself, and all other corporeal beings, shall be dissolved by\nfire in the universal conflagration. By them therefore it appears that\nfire is what gives beginning to all things, and is that in which all\nthings receive their period.\n\nEpicurus the son of Neocles, the Athenian, his philosophical sentiments\nbeing the same with those of Democritus, affirms that the principles of\nall being are bodies which are perceptible only by reason; they admit\nnot of a vacuity, nor of any original, but being of a self-existence\nare eternal and incorruptible; they are not liable to any diminution,\nthey are indestructible, nor is it possible for them to receive any\ntransformation of parts, or admit of any alterations; of these reason\nonly is the discoverer; they are in a perpetual motion in vacuity,\nand by means of the empty space; for the vacuum itself is infinite,\nand the bodies that move in it are infinite. Those bodies acknowledge\nthese three accidents, figure, magnitude, and gravity. Democritus\nacknowledged but two, magnitude and figure. Epicurus added the third,\nto wit, gravity; for he pronounced that it is necessary that bodies\nreceive their motion from that impression which springs from gravity,\notherwise they could not be moved. The figures of atoms cannot be\napprehended by our senses, but they are not infinite. These figures\nare neither hooked nor trident-shaped nor ring-shaped, such figures as\nthese being easily broken; but the atoms are impassible, impenetrable;\nthey have indeed figures proper to themselves, which are discovered\nonly by reason. It is called an atom, by reason not of its smallness\nbut of its indivisibility; in it no vacuity, no passible affection is\nto be found. And that there is an atom is perfectly clear; for there\nare elements which have a perpetual duration, and there are animals\nwhich admit of a vacuity, and there is a unity.\n\nEmpedocles the Agrigentine, the son of Meton, affirms that there are\nfour elements, fire, air, earth, and water, and two powers which bear\nthe greatest command in nature, concord and discord, of which one is\nthe union, the other the division of beings. Thus he sings,\n\n  Mark the four roots of all created things:\u2014\n  Bright shining Jove, Juno that giveth life,\n  Pluto beneath the earth, and Nestis who\n  Doth with her tears supply the mortal fount.\n\nBy Jupiter he means fire and aether, by Juno that gives life he means\nthe air, by Pluto the earth, by Nestis and the fountain of all mortals\n(as it were) seed and water.\n\nSocrates the son of Sophroniscus, and Plato son of Ariston, both\nnatives of Athens, entertain the same opinion concerning the universe;\nfor they suppose three principles, God, matter, and the idea. God\nis the universal understanding; matter is that which is the first\nsubstratum, accommodated for the generation and corruption of beings;\nthe idea is an incorporeal essence, existing in the cogitations and\napprehensions of God; for God is the soul and mind of the world.\n\nAristotle the son of Nichomachus, the Stagirite, constitutes three\nprinciples; Entelecheia (which is the same with form), matter, and\nprivation. He acknowledges four elements, and adds a certain fifth\nbody, which is ethereal and not obnoxious to mutation.\n\nZeno son of Mnaseas, the native of Citium, avers these principles to be\nGod and matter, the first of which is the efficient cause, the other\nthe passible and receptive. Four elements he likewise confesses.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nHOW WAS THIS WORLD COMPOSED IN THAT ORDER AND AFTER THAT MANNER IT IS?\n\n\nThe world being broken and confused, after this manner it was reduced\ninto figure and composure as now it is. The insectible bodies or\natoms, by a wild and fortuitous motion, without any governing power,\nincessantly and swiftly were hurried one amongst another, many bodies\nbeing jumbled together; upon this account they have a diversity in\nthe figures and magnitude. These therefore being so jumbled together,\nthose bodies which were the greatest and heaviest sank into the lowest\nplace; they that were of a lesser magnitude, being round, smooth,\nand slippery, meeting with those heavier bodies were easily broken\ninto pieces, and were carried into higher places. But when that force\nwhereby these variously figured particles fought with and struck one\nanother, and forced the lighter upwards, did cease, and there was no\nfarther power left to drive them into superior regions, yet they were\nwholly hindered from descending downwards, and were compelled to reside\nin those places capable to receive them; and these were the heavenly\nspaces, unto which a multitude of these little bodies were whirled,\nand these being thus shivered fell into coherence and mutual embraces,\nand by this means the heaven was produced. Then a various and great\nmultitude of atoms enjoying the same nature, as it is before asserted,\nbeing hurried aloft, did form the stars. The multitude of these\nexhaled bodies, having struck and broke the air in shivers, forced a\npassage through it; this being converted into wind invested the stars,\nas it moved, and whirled them about, by which means to this present\ntime that circulary motion which these stars have in the heavens is\nmaintained. Much after the same manner the earth was made; for by those\nlittle particles whose gravity made them to reside in the lower places\nthe earth was formed. The heaven, fire, and air were constituted of\nthose particles which were carried aloft. But a great deal of matter\nremaining in the earth, this being condensed by the forcible driving\nof the winds and the breathings from the stars, every little part and\nform of it was broken in pieces, which produced the element of water;\nbut this being fluidly disposed did run into those places which were\nhollow, and these places were those that were capable to receive and\nprotect it; or else the water, subsisting by itself, did make the lower\nplaces hollow. After this manner the principal parts of the world were\nconstituted.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nWHETHER THE UNIVERSE IS ONE.\n\n\nThe Stoics pronounce that the world is one thing, and this they say is\nthe universe and is corporeal.\n\nEmpedocles\u2019s opinion is, that the world is one; yet by no means the\nsystem of this world must be styled the universe, but that it is a\nsmall part of it, and the remainder is idle matter.\n\nWhat to Plato seems the truest he thus declares, that there is one\nworld, and that world is the universe; and this he endeavors to evince\nby three arguments. First, that the world could not be complete and\nperfect, if it did not within itself include all beings. Secondly,\nnor could it give the true resemblance of its original and exemplar,\nif it were not the one only begotten thing. Thirdly, it could not be\nincorruptible, if there were any being out of its compass to whose\npower it might be obnoxious. But to Plato it may be thus returned.\nFirst, that the world is not complete and perfect, nor doth it contain\nall things within itself. And if man is a perfect being, yet he doth\nnot encompass all things. Secondly, that there are many exemplars and\noriginals of statues, houses, and pictures. Thirdly, how is the world\nperfect, if any thing beyond it is possible to be moved about it? But\nthe world is not incorruptible, nor can it be so conceived, because it\nhad an original.\n\nTo Metrodorus it seems absurd, that in a large field one only stalk\nshould grow, and in an infinite space one only world exist; and that\nthis universe is infinite is manifest by this, that there are causes\ninfinite. Now if this world were finite and the causes which produced\nit infinite, it is necessary that the worlds likewise be infinite; for\nwhere all causes do concur, there the effects also must appear, let the\ncauses be what they will, either atoms or elements.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nWHENCE DID MEN OBTAIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXISTENCE AND ESSENCE OF A\nDEITY?\n\n\nThe Stoics thus define the essence of a God. It is a spirit\nintellectual and fiery, which acknowledges no shape, but is continually\nchanged into what it pleases, and assimilates itself to all things. The\nknowledge of this Deity they first received from the pulchritude of\nthose things which so visibly appeared to us; for they concluded that\nnothing beauteous could casually or fortuitously be formed, but that\nit was framed from the art of a great understanding that produced the\nworld. That the world is very resplendent is made perspicuous from the\nfigure, the color, the magnitude of it, and likewise from the wonderful\nvariety of those stars which adorn this world. The world is spherical;\nthe orbicular hath the pre-eminence above all other figures, for being\nround itself it hath its parts likewise round. (On this account,\naccording to Plato, the understanding, which is the most sacred part\nof man, is in the head.) The color of it is most beauteous; for it is\npainted with blue; which, though little blacker than purple, yet hath\nsuch a shining quality, that by reason of the vehement efficacy of its\ncolor it cuts through such an interval of air; whence it is that at so\ngreat a distance the heavens are to be contemplated. And in this very\ngreatness of the world the beauty of it appears. View all things: that\nwhich contains the rest carries a beauty with it, as an animal or a\ntree. Also all things which are visible to us accomplish the beauty of\nthe world. The oblique circle called the Zodiac in the heaven is with\ndifferent images painted and distinguished:\n\n  There\u2019s Cancer, Leo, Virgo, and the Claws;\n  Scorpio, Arcitenens, and Capricorn;\n  Amphora, Pisces, then the Ram, and Bull;\n  The lovely pair of Brothers next succeed.[37]\n\nThere are a thousand others that give us the suitable reflections of\nthe beauty of the world. Thus Euripides:\n\n  The starry splendor of the skies,\n  The wondrous work of that most wise\n  Creator, Time.[38]\n\nFrom this the knowledge of a God is conveyed to man; that the sun, the\nmoon, and the rest of the stars, being carried under the earth, rise\nagain in their proper color, magnitude, place, and times. Therefore\nthey who by tradition delivered to us the knowledge and veneration of\nthe Gods did it by these three manner of ways:\u2014first, from Nature;\nsecondly, from fables; thirdly, from the testimony given by the laws\nof commonwealths. Philosophers taught the natural way; poets, the\nfabulous; and the political way is received from the constitutions of\neach commonwealth. All sorts of this learning are distinguished into\nthese seven parts. The first is from things that are conspicuous, and\nthe observation of those bodies which are in places superior to us. To\nmen the heavenly bodies that are so visible did give the knowledge of\nthe Deity; when they contemplated that they are the causes of so great\nan harmony, that they regulate day and night, winter and summer, by\ntheir rising and setting, and likewise considered those things which\nby their influences in the earth do receive a being and do likewise\nfructify. It was manifest to men that the Heaven was the father of\nthose things, and the Earth the mother; that the Heaven was the father\nis clear, since from the heavens there is the pouring down of waters,\nwhich have their spermatic faculty; the Earth the mother, because she\nreceives them and brings forth. Likewise men considering that the stars\nare running (\u03b8\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2) in a perpetual motion, that the sun and moon give\nus the power to view and contemplate (\u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd), they call them all Gods\n(\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2).\n\nIn the second and third place, they thus distinguished the Deities into\nthose which are beneficial and those that are injurious to mankind.\nThose which are beneficial they call Jupiter, Juno, Mercury, Ceres;\nthose who are mischievous the Dirae, Furies, and Mars. These, which\nthreaten dangers and violence, men endeavor to appease and conciliate\nby sacred rites. The fourth and the fifth order of Gods they assign to\nthings and passions; to passions, Love, Venus, and Desire; the Deities\nthat preside over things, Hope, Justice, and Eunomia.\n\nThe sixth order of deities are those made by the poets; Hesiod, willing\nto find out a father for those Gods that acknowledge an original,\ninvented their progenitors,\n\n  Hyperion, Coeus, and Iapetus,\n  With Creius:[39]\n\nupon which account this is called the fabulous. The seventh rank of\nthe deities added to the rest are those which, by their beneficence\nto mankind, were honored with a divine worship, though they were\nborn of mortal race; of this sort were Hercules, Castor and Pollux,\nand Bacchus. These are reputed to be of a human species; for of all\nbeings that which is divine is most excellent, and man amongst all\nanimals is adorned with the greatest beauty, and is also the best,\nbeing distinguished by virtue above the rest because of his intellect:\ntherefore it was thought that those who were admirable for goodness\nshould resemble that which is the best and most beautiful.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nWHAT IS GOD?\n\n\nSome of the philosophers, such as Diagoras the Melian, Theodorus the\nCyrenean, and Euemerus the Tegeatan, did unanimously deny there were\nany Gods; and Callimachus the Cyrenean discovered his mind touching\nEuemerus in these Iambic verses, thus writing:\n\n  To th\u2019 ante-mural temple flock apace,\n  Where he that long ago composed of brass[40]\n  Great Jupiter, Thrasonic old bald pate,\n  Now writes his impious books,\u2014a boastful ass!\n\nmeaning books which denote there are no Gods. Euripides the tragedian\ndurst not openly declare his sentiment; the court of Areopagus\nterrified him. Yet he sufficiently manifested his thoughts by this\nmethod. He presented in his tragedy Sisyphus, the first and great\npatron of this opinion, and introduced himself as one agreeing with him:\n\n  Disorder in those days did domineer,\n  And brutal power kept the world in fear.\n\nAfterwards by the sanction of laws wickedness was suppressed; but by\nreason that laws could prohibit only public villanies, yet could not\nhinder many persons from acting secret impieties, some wise persons\ngave this advice, that we ought to blind truth with lying disguises,\nand to persuade men that there is a God:\n\n  There\u2019s an eternal God does hear and see\n  And understand every impiety;\n  Though it in dark recess or thought committed be.\n\nBut this poetical fable ought to be rejected, he thought, together with\nCallimachus, who thus saith:\n\n  If you believe a God, it must be meant\n  That you conceive this God omnipotent.\n\nBut God cannot do every thing; for, if it were so, then God could\nmake snow black, and the fire cold, and him that is in a posture of\nsitting to be upright, and so on the contrary. The brave-speaking Plato\npronounceth that God formed the world after his own image; but this\nsmells rank of the old dotages, old comic poets would say; for how did\nGod, casting his eye upon himself, frame this universe? Or how can God\nbe spherical, and not be inferior to man?\n\nAnaxagoras avers that bodies did consist from all eternity, but the\ndivine intellect did reduce them into their proper orders, and effected\nthe origination of all beings. Plato did not suppose that the primary\nbodies had their consistence and repose, but that they were moved\nconfusedly and in disorder; but God, knowing that order was better\nthan confusion, did digest them into the best methods. Both these were\nequally peccant; for both suppose God to be the great moderator of\nhuman affairs, and for that cause to have formed this present world;\nwhen it is apparent that an immortal and blessed being, replenished\nwith all his glorious excellencies, and not at all obnoxious to any\nsort of evil, but being wholly occupied with his own felicity and\nimmortality, would not employ himself with the concerns of men; for\ncertainly miserable is the being which, like a laborer or artificer,\nis molested by the troubles and cares which the forming and governing\nof this world must give him. Add to this, that the God whom these men\nprofess was either not at all existing previous to this present world\n(when bodies were either reposed or in a disordered motion), or that\nthen God did either sleep, or else was in a perpetual watchfulness, or\nthat he did neither of these. Now neither the first nor the second can\nbe entertained, because they suppose God to be eternal; if God from\neternity was in a continual sleep, he was in an eternal death,\u2014and\nwhat is death but an eternal sleep?\u2014but no sleep can affect a Deity,\nfor the immortality of God and alliance to death are vastly different.\nBut if God was in a continual vigilance, either there was something\nwanting to make him happy, or else his beatitude was perfectly\ncomplete; but according to neither of these can God be said to be\nblessed; not according to the first, for if there be any deficiency\nthere is no perfect bliss; not according to the second, for, if there\nbe nothing wanting to the felicity of God, it must be a useless\nenterprise for him to busy himself in human affairs. And how can it be\nsupposed that God administers by his own providence human concerns,\nwhen to vain and trifling persons prosperous things happen, to great\nand high adverse? Agamemnon was both\n\n  A virtuous prince, for warlike acts renowned,[41]\n\nand by an adulterer and adulteress was vanquished and perfidiously\nslain. Hercules, after he had freed the life of man from many things\nthat were pernicious to it, perished by the witchcraft and poison of\nDeianira.\n\nThales said that the intelligence of the world was God.\n\nAnaximander concluded that the stars were heavenly Deities.\n\nDemocritus said that God, being a globe of fire, is intelligence and\nthe soul of the world.\n\nPythagoras says that, of his principles, unity is God; and the perfect\ngood, which is indeed the nature of a unity, is mind itself; but the\nbinary number, which is infinite, is a devil, and in its own nature\nevil,\u2014about which the multitude of material beings, and this world\nwhich is the object of our eyes, are conversant.\n\nSocrates and Plato agree that God is that which is one, hath its\noriginal from its own self, is of a singular subsistence, is one only\nbeing perfectly good; all these various names signifying goodness do\nall centre in mind; hence God is to be understood as that mind and\nintellect, which is a separate idea, that is to say, pure and unmixed\nof all matter, and not twisted with any thing obnoxious to passions.\n\nAristotle\u2019s sentiment is, that God hath his residence in superior\nregions, and hath placed his throne in the sphere of the universe, and\nis a separate idea; which sphere is an ethereal body, which is by him\nstyled the fifth essence or quintessence. For there is a division of\nthe universe into spheres, which are contiguous by their nature but\nappear to reason to be separated; and he concludes that each of the\nspheres is an animal, composed of a body and soul; the body of them is\nethereal, moved orbicularly, the soul is the rational form, which is\nunmoved, and yet is the cause that the sphere is actually in motion.\n\nThe Stoics affirm that God is a thing more common and obvious, and is\na mechanic fire which every way spreads itself to produce the world; it\ncontains in itself all seminal virtues, and by this means all things by\na fatal necessity were produced. This spirit, passing through the whole\nworld, received various names from the mutations in the matter through\nwhich it ran in its journey. God therefore is the world, the stars, the\nearth, and (highest of all) the supreme mind in the heavens.\n\nIn the judgment of Epicurus all the Gods are anthropomorphites, or have\nthe shape of men; but they are perceptible only by reason, for their\nnature admits of no other manner of being apprehended, their parts\nbeing so small and fine that they give no corporeal representations.\nThe same Epicurus asserts that there are four other natural beings\nwhich are immortal: of this sort are atoms, the vacuum, the infinite,\nand the similar parts; and these last are called Homoeomeries and\nlikewise elements.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nOF THOSE THAT ARE CALLED GENIUSES AND HEROES.\n\n\nHaving treated of the essence of the deities in a just order, it\nfollows that we discourse of daemons and heroes. Thales, Pythagoras,\nPlato, and the Stoics do conclude that daemons are essences which are\nendowed with souls; that the heroes are the souls separated from their\nbodies, some are good, some are bad; the good are those whose souls are\ngood, the evil those whose souls are wicked. All this is rejected by\nEpicurus.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nOF MATTER.\n\n\nMatter is that first being which is substrate for generation,\ncorruption, and all other alterations.\n\nThe disciples of Thales and Pythagoras, with the Stoics, are of opinion\nthat matter is changeable, mutable, convertible, and sliding through\nall things.\n\nThe followers of Democritus aver that the vacuum, the atom, and the\nincorporeal substance are the first beings, and not obnoxious to\npassions.\n\nAristotle and Plato affirm that matter is of that species which is\ncorporeal, void of any form, species, figure, and quality, but apt to\nreceive all forms, that she may be the nurse, the mother, and origin\nof all other beings. But they that do say that water, earth, air, and\nfire are matter do likewise say that matter cannot be without form, but\nconclude it is a body; but they that say that individual particles and\natoms are matter do say that matter is without form.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nOF IDEAS.\n\n\nAn idea is a being incorporeal, which has no subsistence by itself, but\ngives figure and form unto shapeless matter, and becomes the cause of\nits manifestation.\n\nSocrates and Plato conjecture that these ideas are essences separate\nfrom matter, having their existence in the understanding and fancy of\nthe Deity, that is, of mind.\n\nAristotle objected not to forms and ideas; but he doth not believe them\nseparated from matter, or patterns of what God has made.\n\nThose Stoics, that are of the school of Zeno, profess that ideas are\nnothing else but the conceptions of our own mind.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nOF CAUSES.\n\n\nA cause is that by which any thing is produced, or by which any thing\nis effected.\n\nPlato gives this triple division of causes,\u2014the material, the\nefficient, and the final cause; the principal cause he judges to be the\nefficient, which is the mind and intellect.\n\nPythagoras and Aristotle judge the first causes are incorporeal beings,\nbut those that are causes by accident or participation become corporeal\nsubstances; by this means the world is corporeal.\n\nThe Stoics grant that all causes are corporeal, inasmuch as they are\nbreath.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nOF BODIES.\n\n\nA body is that being which hath these three dimensions, breadth,\ndepth, and length;\u2014or a bulk which makes a sensible resistance;\u2014or\nwhatsoever of its own nature possesseth a place.\n\nPlato saith that it is neither heavy nor light in its own nature, when\nit exists in its own place; but being in the place where another should\nbe, then it has an inclination by which it tends to gravity or levity.\n\nAristotle saith that, if we simply consider things in their own nature,\nthe earth only is to be judged heavy, and fire light; but air and water\nare sometimes heavy and sometimes light.\n\nThe Stoics think that of the four elements two are light, fire and air;\ntwo ponderous, earth and water; that which is naturally light doth by\nits own nature, not by any inclination, recede from its own centre; but\nthat which is heavy doth by its own nature tend to its centre; for the\ncentre is not a heavy thing of itself.\n\nEpicurus thinks that bodies are not to be limited; but the first\nbodies, which are simple bodies, and all those composed of them, all\nacknowledge gravity; that all atoms are moved, some perpendicularly,\nsome obliquely; some are carried aloft either by direct impulse or with\nvibrations.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nOF THOSE THINGS THAT ARE LEAST IN NATURE.\n\n\nEmpedocles, precedent to the four elements, introduceth the most minute\nbodies which resemble elements; but they did exist before the elements,\nhaving similar parts and orbicular.\n\nHeraclitus brings in the smallest fragments, and those indivisible.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nOF FIGURES.\n\n\nA figure is the exterior appearance, the circumscription, and the\nboundary of a body.\n\nThe Pythagoreans say that the bodies of the four elements are\nspherical, fire being in the supremest place only excepted, whose\nfigure is conical.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nOF COLORS.\n\n\nColor is the visible quality of a body.\n\nThe Pythagoreans called color the outward appearance of a body.\nEmpedocles, that which is consentaneous to the passages of the eye.\nPlato, that they are fires emitted from bodies, which have parts\nharmonious for the sight. Zeno the Stoic, that colors are the first\nfigurations of matter. The Pythagoreans, that colors are of four sorts,\nwhite and black, red and pale; and they derive the variety of colors\nfrom the diversity of the elements, and that seen in animals also from\nthe variety of food and the air in which they live and are bred.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nOF THE DIVISION OF BODIES.\n\n\nThe disciples of Thales and Pythagoras grant that all bodies are\npassible and divisible unto infinity. Others hold that atoms and\nindivisible parts are there fixed, and admit not of a division into\ninfinity. Aristotle, that all bodies are potentially but not actually\ndivisible into infinity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nHOW BODIES ARE MIXED AND CONTEMPERATED ONE WITH ANOTHER.\n\n\nThe ancient philosophers held that the mixture of elements proceeded\nfrom the alteration of qualities; but the disciples of Anaxagoras\nand Democritus say it is done by apposition. Empedocles composes the\nelements of still smaller bulks, those which are the most minute and\nmay be termed the elements of elements. Plato assigns three bodies (but\nhe will not allow these to be elements, nor properly so called), air,\nfire, and water, which are mutable into one another; but the earth is\nmutable into none of these.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nOF A VACUUM.\n\n\nAll the natural philosophers from Thales to Plato rejected a vacuum.\nEmpedocles says that there is nothing of a vacuity in nature, nor any\nthing superabundant. Leucippus, Democritus, Demetrius, Metrodorus,\nEpicurus, that the atoms are infinite in number; and that a vacuum\nis infinite in magnitude. The Stoics, that within the compass of\nthe world there is no vacuum, but beyond it the vacuum is infinite.\nAristotle,[42] that the vacuum beyond the world is so great that the\nheaven has liberty to breathe into it, for the heaven is fiery.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nOF PLACE.\n\n\nPlato, to define place, calls it that thing which in its own bosom\nreceives forms and ideas; by which metaphor he signifies matter, being\n(as it were) a nurse or receptacle of beings. Aristotle, that it is\nthe ultimate superficies of the circumambient body, contiguous to that\nwhich it doth encompass.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\nOF SPACE.\n\n\nThe Stoics and Epicureans make a place, a vacuum, and a space to\ndiffer. A vacuum is that which is void of any thing that may be called\na body; place is that which is possessed by a body; a space that which\nis partly filled with a body, as a cask with wine.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\nOF TIME.\n\n\nIn the sense of Pythagoras, time is that sphere which encompasses the\nworld. Plato says that it is a movable image of eternity, or the\ninterval of the world\u2019s motion. Eratosthenes, that it is the solar\nmotion.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\nOF THE ESSENCE AND NATURE OF TIME.\n\n\nPlato says that the heavenly motion is time. Most of the Stoics affirm\nthat motion itself is time. Most philosophers think that time had no\nbeginning; Plato, that time had only an ideal beginning.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n\nOF MOTION.\n\n\nPlato and Pythagoras say that motion is a change and alteration in\nmatter. Aristotle, that it is the actual operation of that which may be\nmoved. Democritus, that there is but one sort of motion, and it is that\nwhich is vibratory. Epicurus, that there are two species of motion,\none perpendicular, and the other oblique. Herophilus, that one species\nof motion is obvious only to reason, the other to sense. Heraclitus\nutterly denies that there is any thing of quiet or repose in nature;\nfor that is the state of the dead; one sort of motion is eternal, which\nhe assigns to beings eternal, the other perishable, to those things\nwhich are perishable.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n\nOF GENERATION AND CORRUPTION.\n\n\nParmenides, Melissus, and Zeno deny that there are any such things\nas generation and corruption, for they suppose that the universe is\nunmovable. Empedocles, Epicurus, and other philosophers that combine\nin this, that the world is framed of small corporeal particles meeting\ntogether, affirm that corruption and generation are not so properly to\nbe accepted; but there are conjunctions and separations, which do not\nconsist in any alteration according to their qualities, but are made\naccording to quantity by coalition or disjunction. Pythagoras, and all\nthose who take for granted that matter is subject to mutation, say that\ngeneration and corruption are to be accepted in their proper sense, and\nthat they are accomplished by the alteration, mutation, and dissolution\nof elements.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV.\n\nOF NECESSITY.\n\n\nThales says that necessity is omnipotent, and that it exerciseth\nan empire over every thing. Pythagoras, that the world is invested\nby necessity. Parmenides and Democritus, that there is nothing in\nthe world but what is necessarily, and that this same necessity is\notherwise called fate, justice, providence, and the architect of the\nworld.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVI.\n\nOF THE NATURE OF NECESSITY.\n\n\nPlato distinguisheth and refers some things to Providence, others to\nnecessity. Empedocles makes the nature of necessity to be that cause\nwhich employs principles and elements. Democritus makes it to be a\nresistance, impulse, and force of matter. Plato sometimes says that\nnecessity is matter; at other times, that it is the habitude or respect\nof the efficient cause towards matter.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVII.\n\nOF DESTINY OR FATE.\n\n\nHeraclitus, who attributes all things to fate, makes necessity to\nbe the same thing with it. Plato admits of a necessity in the minds\nand the actions of men, but yet he introduceth a cause which flows\nfrom ourselves. The Stoics, in this agreeing with Plato, say that\nnecessity is a cause invincible and violent; that fate is the ordered\ncomplication of causes, in which there is an intexture of those things\nwhich proceed from our own determination, so that some things are to be\nattributed to fate, others not.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVIII.\n\nOF THE NATURE OF FATE.\n\n\nAccording to Heraclitus, the essence of fate is a certain reason which\npenetrates the substance of all being; and this is an ethereal body,\ncontaining in itself that seminal faculty which gives an original to\nevery being in the universe. Plato declares that it is the eternal\nreason and the eternal law of the nature of the universe. Chrysippus,\nthat it is a spiritual faculty, which in due order doth manage and rule\nthe universe. Again, in his book styled the Definitions, that fate is\nthe reason of the world, or that it is that law whereby Providence\nrules and administers every thing that is in the world; or it is that\nreason by which all things past have been, all things present are,\nand all things future will be. The Stoics say that it is a chain of\ncauses, that is, it is an order and connection of causes which cannot\nbe resisted. Posidonius, that it is a being the third in degree from\nJupiter; the first of beings is Jupiter, the second nature, and the\nthird fate.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIX.\n\nOF FORTUNE.\n\n\nPlato says, that it is an accidental cause and a casual consequence\nin things which proceed from the election and counsel of men.\nAristotle, that it is an accidental cause in those things which are\ndone by an impulse to a certain end; and this cause is uncertain and\nunstable: there is a great deal of difference betwixt that which flows\nfrom chance and that which falls out by Fortune; for that which is\nfortuitous admits also of chance, and belongs to things practical; but\nwhat is by chance cannot be also by Fortune, for it belongs to things\nwithout action: Fortune, moreover, belongs to rational beings, but\nchance to rational and irrational beings alike, and even to inanimate\nthings. Epicurus, that it is a cause not always consistent, but various\nas to persons, times, and manners. Anaxagoras and the Stoics, that it\nis that cause which human reason cannot comprehend; for there are some\nthings which proceed from necessity, some things from Fate, some from\nchoice and free-will, some from Fortune, some from chance.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXX.\n\nOF NATURE.\n\n\nEmpedocles believes that Nature is nothing else but the mixture and\nseparation of the elements; for thus he writes in the first book of his\nnatural philosophy:\n\n  Nature gives neither life nor death,\n  Mutation makes us die or breathe.\n  The elements first are mixed, then all\n  Do separate: this mortals Nature call.\n\nAnaxagoras is of the same opinion, that Nature is coalition and\nseparation, that is, generation and corruption.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK II.\n\n\nHaving finished my dissertation concerning principles and elements and\nthose things which chiefly appertain to them, I will turn my pen to\ndiscourse of those things which are produced by them, and will take my\nbeginning from the world, which contains and encompasseth all beings.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nOF THE WORLD.\n\n\nPythagoras was the first philosopher that gave the name of \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 to\nthe world, from the order and beauty of it; for so that word signifies.\nThales and his followers say the world is one. Democritus, Epicurus,\nand their scholar Metrodorus affirm that there are infinite worlds\nin an infinite space, for that infinite vacuum in its whole extent\ncontains them. Empedocles, that the circle which the sun makes in its\nmotion circumscribes the world, and that circle is the utmost bound of\nthe world. Seleucus, that the world knows no limits. Diogenes, that\nthe universe is infinite, but this world is finite. The Stoics make a\ndifference between that which is called the universe, and that which is\ncalled the whole world;\u2014the universe is the infinite space considered\nwith the vacuum, the vacuity being removed gives the right conception\nof the world; so that the universe and the world are not the same\nthing.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nOF THE FIGURE OF THE WORLD.\n\n\nThe Stoics say that the figure of the world is spherical, others that\nit is conical, others oval. Epicurus, that the figure of the world may\nbe globular, or that it may admit of other shapes.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nWHETHER THE WORLD BE AN ANIMAL.\n\n\nDemocritus, Epicurus, and those philosophers who introduced atoms and\na vacuum, affirm that the world is not an animal, nor governed by any\nwise Providence, but that it is managed by a nature which is void of\nreason. All the other philosophers affirm that the world is informed\nwith a soul, and governed by reason and Providence. Aristotle is\nexcepted, who is somewhat different; he is of opinion, that the whole\nworld is not acted by a soul in every part of it, nor hath it any\nsensitive, rational, or intellectual faculties, nor is it guided by\nreason and Providence in every part of it; of all which the heavenly\nbodies are made partakers, for the circumambient spheres are animated\nand are living beings; but those things which are about the earth are\nvoid of those endowments; and though those terrestrial bodies are of an\norderly disposition, yet that is casual and not primogenial.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nWHETHER THE WORLD IS ETERNAL AND INCORRUPTIBLE.\n\n\nPythagoras [and Plato], with the Stoics, affirm that the world was\nframed by God, and being corporeal is obvious to the senses, and in\nits own nature is obnoxious to destruction; but it shall never perish,\nit being preserved by the providence of God. Epicurus, that the world\nhad a beginning, and so shall have an end, as plants and animals have.\nXenophanes, that the world never had a beginning, is eternal and\nincorruptible. Aristotle, that the part of the world which is sublunary\nis obnoxious to change, and there terrestrial beings find a decay.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nWHENCE DOES THE WORLD RECEIVE ITS NUTRIMENT?\n\n\nAristotle says that, if the world be nourished, it will likewise be\ndissolved; but it requires no aliment, and will therefore be eternal.\nPlato, that this very world prepares for itself a nutriment, by the\nalteration of those things which are corruptible in it. Philolaus\nbelieves that a destruction happens to the world in two ways; either\nby fire falling from heaven, or by the lunary water being poured down\nthrough the whirling of the air; and the exhalations proceeding from\nthence are the aliment of the world.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nFROM WHAT ELEMENT GOD DID BEGIN TO RAISE THE FABRIC OF THE WORLD.\n\n\nThe natural philosophers pronounce that the forming of this world took\nits original from the earth, it being its centre, for the centre is\nthe principal part of the globe. Pythagoras, from the fire and the\nfifth element. Empedocles determines, that the first and principal\nelement separated from the rest was the ether, then fire, after that\nthe earth, which earth being strongly compacted by the force of a\nviolent revolution, water springs from it, the exhalations of which\nwater produce the air; the heaven took its origin from the ether, and\nfire gave a being to the sun; those things that belong to the earth\nare condensed from the remainders. Plato, that the visible world was\nframed after the exemplar of the intellectual world; the soul of the\nvisible world was first produced, then the corporeal figure, first that\nwhich came from fire and earth, afterwards that which came from air\nand water. Pythagoras, that the world was formed of five solid figures\nwhich are called mathematical; the earth was produced by the cube,\nthe fire by the pyramid, the air by the octahedron, the water by the\nicosahedron, and the globe of the universe by the dodecahedron. In all\nthese Plato hath the same sentiments with Pythagoras.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nIN WHAT FORM AND ORDER THE WORLD WAS COMPOSED.\n\n\nParmenides believes that there are small coronets alternately twisted\none within another, some made up of a thin, others of a condensed\nmatter; and there are others between them mixed mutually together of\nlight and of darkness, and about them all there is a solid substance,\nwhich like a firm wall surrounds these coronets. Leucippus and\nDemocritus wrap the world round about, as with a garment and membrane.\nEpicurus says that that which bounds some worlds is thin, and that\nwhich limits others is gross and condensed; and of these worlds some\nare in motion, others are fixed. Plato, that fire takes the first place\nin the world, the second the ether, after that the air, under that\nthe water; the last place the earth possesseth: sometimes he puts the\nether and the fire in the same place. Aristotle gives the first place\nto the ether, as that which is impassible, it being a kind of fifth\nbody; after which he placeth those that are passible, fire, air, and\nwater, and last of all the earth. To those bodies that are accounted\ncelestial he assigns a motion that is circular, but to those that are\nseated under them, if they be light bodies, an ascending, if heavy, a\ndescending motion. Empedocles, that the places of the elements are not\nalways fixed and determined, but they all succeed one another in their\nrespective stations.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nWHAT IS THE CAUSE OF THE WORLD\u2019S INCLINATION.\n\n\nDiogenes and Anaxagoras affirm that, after the world was composed and\nthe earth had produced living creatures, the world out of its own\npropensity made an inclination towards the south. Perhaps this may be\nattributed to a wise Providence (they say), that thereby some parts\nof the world may be habitable, others uninhabitable, according as the\nvarious climates are affected with a rigorous cold, or a scorching\nheat, or a just temperament of cold and heat. Empedocles, that the air\nyielding to the impetuous force of the solar rays, the pole received an\ninclination; whereby the northern parts were exalted and the southern\ndepressed, by which means the whole world received its inclination.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nOF THAT THING WHICH IS BEYOND THE WORLD, AND WHETHER IT BE A VACUUM OR\nNOT.\n\n\nPythagoras and his followers say that beyond the world there is a\nvacuum, into which and out of which the world hath its respiration.\nThe Stoics, that there is a vacuum into which the infinite world by a\nconflagration shall be dissolved. Posidonius, not an infinite vacuum,\nbut as much as suffices for the dissolution of the world; and this he\nasserts in his first book concerning the Vacuum. Aristotle affirms,\nthat there is no vacuum. Plato concludes that neither within nor\nwithout the world there is any vacuum.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nWHAT PARTS OF THE WORLD ARE ON THE RIGHT HAND, AND WHAT PARTS ARE ON\nTHE LEFT.\n\n\nPythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle say that the eastern parts of the\nworld, from whence motion commences, are of the right, those of the\nwestern are of the left-hand of the world. Empedocles, that those that\nare of the right-hand are towards the summer solstice, those of the\nleft towards the winter solstice.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nOF HEAVEN, WHAT IS ITS NATURE AND ESSENCE.\n\n\nAnaximenes declares that the circumference of heaven is the limit\nof the earth\u2019s revolution. Empedocles, that the heaven is a solid\nsubstance, and hath the form and hardness of crystal, it being composed\nof the air compacted by fire, and that in both hemispheres it invests\nthe elements of air and fire. Aristotle, that it is formed by the fifth\nbody, and by the mixture of extreme heat and cold.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nINTO HOW MANY CIRCLES IS THE HEAVEN DISTINGUISHED; OR, OF THE DIVISION\nOF HEAVEN.\n\n\nThales, Pythagoras, and the followers of Pythagoras do distribute the\nuniversal globe of heaven into five circles which they denominate\nzones; one of which is called the arctic circle, which is always\nconspicuous to us, another is the summer tropic, another is the\nequinoctial, another is the winter tropic, another is the antarctic\ncircle, which is always invisible. The circle called the zodiac is\nplaced under the three that are in the midst, and lies obliquely,\ngently touching them all. Likewise, they are all cut in right angles\nby the meridian, which runs from pole to pole. It is supposed that\nPythagoras made the first discovery of the obliquity of the zodiac, but\none Oenopides of Chios challenges to himself the invention of it.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nWHAT IS THE ESSENCE OF THE STARS, AND HOW THEY ARE COMPOSED.\n\n\nThales believes that they are globes of earth set on fire. Empedocles,\nthat they are fiery bodies arising from that fire which the ether\nembraced within itself, and did shatter in pieces when the elements\nwere first separated one from another. Anaxagoras, that the\ncircumambient ether is of a fiery substance, which, by a vehement\nforce in its whirling about, did tear stones from the earth, and by\nits own power set them on fire, and establish them as stars in the\nheavens. Diogenes thinks they resemble pumice stones, and that they are\nthe breathings of the world; again he supposeth that there are some\ninvisible stones, which sometimes fall from heaven upon the earth, and\nare there quenched; as it happened at Aegos-potami, where a stony star\nresembling fire did fall. Empedocles, that the fixed stars are fastened\nto the crystal, but the planets are loosened. Plato, that the stars\nfor the most part are of a fiery nature, but they are made partakers\nof another element, with which they are mixed after the resemblance of\nglue. Xenophanes, that they are composed of inflamed clouds, which\nin the daytime are quenched, and in the night are kindled again. The\nlike we see in coals; for the rising and setting of the stars is\nnothing else but the quenching and kindling of them. Heraclides and\nthe Pythagoreans, that every star is a world in an infinite ether, and\nitself encompasseth air, earth, and ether; this opinion is current\namong the followers of Orpheus, for they suppose that each of the stars\ndoes make a world. Epicurus condemns none of these opinions, for he\nembraces any thing that is possible.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nOF WHAT FIGURE THE STARS ARE.\n\n\nThe Stoics say that the stars are of a circular form, like the sun,\nthe moon, and the world. Cleanthes, that they are of a conical figure.\nAnaximenes, that they are fastened as nails in the crystalline\nfirmament; some others, that they are fiery plates of gold, resembling\npictures.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nOF THE ORDER AND PLACE OF THE STARS.\n\n\nXenocrates says that the stars are moved in one and the same\nsuperficies. The other Stoics say that they are moved in various\nsuperficies, some being superior, others inferior. Democritus, that the\nfixed stars are in the highest place; after those the planets; after\nwhich the sun, Venus, and the moon, in their order. Plato, that the\nfirst after the fixed stars that makes its appearance is Phaenon, the\nstar of Saturn; the second Pha\u00ebton, the star of Jupiter; the third the\nfiery, which is the star of Mars; the fourth the morning star, which is\nthe star of Venus the fifth the shining star, and that is the star of\nMercury; in the sixth place is the sun, in the seventh the moon. Plato\nand some of the mathematicians conspire in the same opinion; others\nplace the sun as the centre of the planets. Anaximander, Metrodorus of\nChios, and Crates assign to the sun the superior place, after him they\nplace the moon, after them the fixed stars and planets.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nOF THE MOTION AND CIRCULATION OF THE STARS.\n\n\nAnaxagoras, Democritus, and Cleanthes say that all the stars have their\nmotion from east to west. Alcmaeon and the mathematicians, that the\nplanets have a contrary motion to the fixed stars, and in opposition\nto them are carried from the west to the east. Anaximander, that they\nare moved by those circles and spheres on which they are placed.\nAnaximenes, that they are turned under and about the earth. Plato\nand the mathematicians, that the sun, Venus, and Mercury have equal\nmeasures in their motions.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nWHENCE DO THE STARS RECEIVE THEIR LIGHT?\n\n\nMetrodorus says that all the fixed stars derive their light from the\nsun. Heraclitus and the Stoics, that earthly exhalations are those by\nwhich the stars are nourished. Aristotle, that the heavenly bodies\nrequire no nutriment, for they being eternal cannot be obnoxious to\ncorruption. Plato and the Stoics, that the whole world and the stars\nare fed by the same things.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nWHAT ARE THOSE STARS WHICH ARE CALLED THE DIOSCURI, THE TWINS, OR\nCASTOR AND POLLUX?\n\n\nXenophanes says that those which appear as stars in the tops of ships\nare little clouds shining by their peculiar motion. Metrodorus, that\nthe eyes of frighted and astonished people emit those lights which are\ncalled the Twins.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nHOW STARS PROGNOSTICATE, AND WHAT IS THE CAUSE OF WINTER AND SUMMER.\n\n\nPlato says that the summer and winter indications proceed from the\nrising and setting of the stars, that is, from the rising and setting\nof the sun, the moon, and the fixed stars. Anaximenes, that the others\nin this are not at all concerned, but that it is wholly performed by\nthe sun. Eudoxus and Aratus assign it in common to all the stars, for\nthus Aratus sings:\n\n  Thund\u2019ring Jove stars in heaven hath fixed,\n  And them in such beauteous order mixed,\n  Which yearly future things predict.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\nOF THE ESSENCE OF THE SUN.\n\n\nAnaximander says, that the sun is a circle eight and twenty times\nbigger than the earth, and has a circumference which very much\nresembles that of a chariot-wheel, which is hollow and full of fire;\nthe fire of which appears to us through its mouth, as by a hole in a\npipe; and this is the sun. Xenophanes, that the sun is constituted\nof small bodies of fire compact together and raised from a moist\nexhalation, which collected together make the body of the sun; or that\nit is a cloud enfired. The Stoics, that it is an intelligent flame\nproceeding from the sea. Plato, that it is composed of abundance of\nfire. Anaxagoras, Democritus, and Metrodorus, that it is an enfired\nstone, or a burning mass. Aristotle, that it is a sphere formed out\nof the fifth body. Philolaus the Pythagorean, that the sun shines as\ncrystal, which receives its splendor from the fire of the world and so\nreflecteth its light upon us; so that first, the body of fire which\nis celestial belongs to the sun; and secondly, the fiery reflection\nthat proceeds from it, in the form of a mirror; and lastly, the light\nwhich is spread upon us by way of reflection from that mirror; and\nthis last we call the sun, which is (as it were) an image of an image.\nEmpedocles, that there are two suns; the one the prototype, which is\na fire placed in the other hemisphere, which it totally fills, and is\nalways ordered in a direct opposition to the reflection of its own\nlight; and the sun which is visible to us, formed by the reflection of\nthat splendor in the other hemisphere (which is filled with air mixed\nwith heat), the light reflected from the circular sun in the opposite\nhemisphere falling upon the crystalline sun; and this reflection is\ncarried round with the motion of the fiery sun. To give briefly the\nfull sense, the sun is nothing else but the light and brightness of\nthat fire which encompasseth the earth. Epicurus, that it is an earthy\nbulk well compacted, with hollow passages like a pumice-stone or a\nsponge, which is kindled by fire.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\nOF THE MAGNITUDE OF THE SUN.\n\n\nAnaximander says, that the sun itself in greatness is equal to the\nearth, but that the circle from whence it receives its respiration and\nin which it is moved is seven and twenty times larger than the earth.\nAnaxagoras, that it is far greater than Peloponnesus. Heraclitus, that\nit is no broader than a man\u2019s foot. Epicurus, that he equally embraceth\nall the foresaid opinions,\u2014that the sun may be of magnitude as it\nappears, or it may be somewhat greater or somewhat less.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\nWHAT IS THE FIGURE OR SHAPE OF THE SUN.\n\n\nAnaximenes affirms that in its dilatation it resembles a leaf.\nHeraclitus, that it hath the shape of a boat, and is somewhat crooked.\nThe Stoics, that it is spherical, and it is of the same figure with the\nworld and the stars. Epicurus, that the recited dogmas may be defended.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n\nOF THE TURNING AND RETURNING OF THE SUN, OR THE SUMMER AND WINTER\nSOLSTICE.\n\n\nAnaximenes thinks that the stars are forced by a condensed and\nresisting air. Anaxagoras, by the repelling force of the northern\nair, which is violently pushed on by the sun, and thus rendered more\ncondensed and powerful. Empedocles, that the sun is hindered from\na continual direct course by its spherical vehicle and by the two\ncircular tropics. Diogenes, that the sun, when it comes to its utmost\ndeclination, is extinguished, a rigorous cold damping the heat. The\nStoics, that the sun maintains its course only through that space in\nwhich its aliment is seated, let it be the ocean or the earth; by the\nexhalations proceeding from these it is nourished. Plato, Pythagoras,\nand Aristotle, that the sun receives a transverse motion from the\nobliquity of the zodiac, which is guarded by the tropics; all these the\nglobe clearly manifests.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n\nOF THE ECLIPSES OF THE SUN.\n\n\nThales was the first who affirmed that the eclipse of the sun was\ncaused by the moon\u2019s running in a perpendicular line between it and\nthe earth; for the moon in its own nature is terrestrial. And by\nmirrors it is made perspicuous that, when the sun is eclipsed, the moon\nis in a direct line below it. Anaximander, that the sun is eclipsed\nwhen the fiery mouth of it is stopped and hindered from expiration.\nHeraclitus, that it is after the manner of the turning of a boat, when\nthe concave appears uppermost to our sight, and the convex nethermost.\nXenophanes, that the sun is eclipsed when it is extinguished; and that\na new sun is created to rise in the east. He gives a farther account\nof an eclipse of the sun which remained for a whole month, and again\nof a total eclipse which changed the day into night. Some say that the\ncause of an eclipse is the invisible concourse of condensed clouds\nwhich cover the orb of the sun. Aristarchus placeth the sun amongst\nthe fixed stars, and believeth that the earth [the moon?] is moved\nabout the sun, and that by its inclination and vergency it intercepts\nits light and shadows its orb. Xenophanes, that there are many suns\nand many moons, according as the earth is distinguished by climates,\ncircles, and zones. At some certain times the orb of the sun, falling\nupon some part of the world which is uninhabited, wanders in a vacuum\nand becomes eclipsed. The same person affirms that the sun, proceeding\nin its motion in the infinite space, appears to us to move orbicularly,\nreceiving that representation from its infinite distance from us.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV.\n\nOF THE ESSENCE OF THE MOON.\n\n\nAnaximander affirms that the circle of the moon is nineteen times\nbigger than the earth, and resembles the sun, its orb being full of\nfire; and it suffers an eclipse when the wheel turneth,\u2014which he\ndescribes by the divers turnings of a chariot-wheel, in the midst of it\nthere being a hollow replenished with fire, which hath but one way of\nexpiration. Xenophanes, that it is a condensed cloud. The Stoics, that\nit is mixed of fire and air. Plato, that it is a body of the greatest\npart earthy. Anaxagoras and Democritus, that it is a solid, condensed,\nand fiery body, in which there are champaign countries, mountains,\nand valleys. Heraclitus, that it is an earth covered with a cloud.\nPythagoras, that the body of the moon was of a nature like a mirror.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVI.\n\nOF THE MAGNITUDE OF THE MOON.\n\n\nThe Stoics declare, that in magnitude it exceeds the earth, as the sun\nitself doth. Parmenides, that it is equal to the sun, from whom it\nreceives its light.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVII.\n\nOF THE FIGURE OF THE MOON.\n\n\nThe Stoics believe that it is of the same figure with the sun,\nspherical. Empedocles, that the figure of it resembles a quoit.\nHeraclitus, a boat. Others, a cylinder.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVIII.\n\nFROM WHENCE IS IT THAT THE MOON RECEIVES HER LIGHT?\n\n\nAnaximander thinks that she gives light to herself, but it is very\nslender and faint. Antiphon, that the moon shines by its own proper\nlight; but when it absconds itself, the solar beams darting on it\nobscure it. Thus it naturally happens, that a more vehement light\nputs out a weaker; the same is seen in other stars. Thales and his\nfollowers, that the moon borrows all her light of the sun. Heraclitus,\nthat the sun and moon are after the same manner affected; in their\nconfigurations both are shaped like boats, and are made conspicuous to\nus, receiving their light from moist exhalations. The sun appears to us\nmore refulgent, by reason it is moved in a clearer and purer air; the\nmoon appears more duskish, it being carried in an air more troubled and\ngross.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIX.\n\nOF THE ECLIPSE OF THE MOON.\n\n\nAnaximenes believes that the mouth of the hollow wheel, about which\nthe moon is turned, being stopped is the cause of an eclipse. Berosus,\nthat it proceeds from the turning of the dark side of the lunar orb\ntowards us. Heraclitus, that it is performed just after the manner of\na boat turned upside downwards. Some of the Pythagoreans say, that the\nsplendor arises from the earth, its obstruction from the Antichthon\n(or _counter-earth_). Some of the later philosophers, that\nthere is such a distribution of the lunar flame, that it gradually\nand in a just order burns until it be full moon; in like manner,\nthat this fire decays by degrees, until its conjunction with the sun\ntotally extinguisheth it. Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, and all the\nmathematicians agree in this, that the obscurity with which the moon is\nevery month affected ariseth from a conjunction with the sun, by whose\nmore resplendent beams she is darkened; and the moon is then eclipsed\nwhen she falls upon the shadow of the earth, the earth interposing\nbetween the sun and moon, or (to speak more properly) the earth\nintercepting the light of the moon.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXX.\n\nOF THE PHASES OF THE MOON, OR THE LUNAR ASPECTS; OR HOW IT COMES TO\nPASS THAT THE MOON APPEARS TO US TERRESTRIAL.\n\n\nThe Pythagoreans say, that the moon appears to us terraneous, by reason\nit is inhabited as our earth is, and in it there are animals of a\nlarger size and plants of a rarer beauty than our globe affords; that\nthe animals in their virtue and energy are fifteen degrees superior to\nours; that they emit nothing excrementitious; and that the days are\nfifteen times longer. Anaxagoras, that the reason of the inequality\nariseth from the commixture of things earthy and cold; and that fiery\nand caliginous matter is jumbled together, whereby the moon is said to\nbe a star of a counterfeit aspect. The Stoics, that by reason of the\ndiversity of her substance the composition of her body is subject to\ncorruption.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXI.\n\nHOW FAR THE MOON IS REMOVED FROM THE SUN.\n\n\nEmpedocles affirms, that the distance of the moon from the sun is\ndouble her remoteness from the earth. The mathematicians, that her\ndistance from the sun is eighteen times her distance from the earth.\nEratosthenes, that the sun is remote from the earth seven hundred and\neighty thousand furlongs.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXII.\n\nOF THE YEAR, AND HOW MANY CIRCULATIONS MAKE UP THE GREAT YEAR OF EVERY\nPLANET.\n\n\nThe year of Saturn is completed when he has had his circulation in the\nspace of thirty solar years; of Jupiter in twelve; of Mars in two, of\nthe sun in twelve months; in so many Mercury and Venus, the spaces of\ntheir circulation being equal; of the moon in thirty days, in which\ntime her course from her prime to her conjunction is finished. As to\nthe great year, some make it to consist of eight years solar, some\nof nineteen, others of fifty-nine. Heraclitus, of eighteen thousand.\nDiogenes, of three hundred and sixty-five such years as Heraclitus\nassigns. Others there are who lengthen it to seven thousand seven\nhundred and seventy-seven years.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK III.\n\n\nIn my two precedent treatises having in due order taken a compendious\nview and given an account of the celestial bodies, and of the moon\nwhich divides between them and the terrestrial, I must now convert my\npen to discourse in this third book of Meteors, which are beings above\nthe earth and below the moon, and are extended to the site and position\nof the earth, which is supposed to be the centre of the sphere of this\nworld; and from thence will I take my beginning.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nOF THE GALAXY, OR THE MILKY WAY.\n\n\nIt is a cloudy circle, which continually appears in the air, and by\nreason of the whiteness of its colors is called the galaxy, or the\nmilky way. Some of the Pythagoreans say that, when Pha\u00ebton set the\nworld on fire, a star falling from its own place in its circular\npassage through the region caused an inflammation. Others say that\noriginally it was the first course of the sun; others, that it is an\nimage as in a looking-glass, occasioned by the sun\u2019s reflecting its\nbeams towards the heavens, and this appears in the clouds and in the\nrainbow. Metrodorus, that it is merely the solar course, or the motion\nof the sun in its own circle. Parmenides, that the mixture of a thick\nand thin substance gives it a color which resembles milk. Anaxagoras,\nthat the sun moving under the earth and not being able to enlighten\nevery place, the shadow of the earth, being cast upon the part of\nthe heavens, makes the galaxy. Democritus, that it is the splendor\nwhich ariseth from the coalition of many small bodies, which, being\nfirmly united amongst themselves, do mutually enlighten one another.\nAristotle, that it is the inflammation of dry, copious, and coherent\nexhalations, by which the fiery train, whose seat is beneath the ether\nand the planets, is produced. Posidonius, that it is a combination of\nfire, of rarer substance than the stars, but denser than light.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nOF COMETS AND SHOOTING FIRES, AND THOSE WHICH RESEMBLE BEAMS.\n\n\nSome of the Pythagoreans say, that a comet is one of those stars which\ndo not always appear, but after they have run through their determined\ncourse, they then rise and are visible to us. Others, that it is the\nreflection of our sight upon the sun, which gives the resemblance of\ncomets much after the same manner as images are reflected in mirrors.\nAnaxagoras and Democritus, that two or more stars being in conjunction\nby their united light make a comet. Aristotle, that it is a fiery\ncoalition of dry exhalations. Strato, that it is the light of the star\ndarting through a thick cloud that hath invested it; this is seen in\nlight shining through lanterns. Heraclides, native of Pontus, that\nit is a lofty cloud inflamed by a sublime fire. The like causes he\nassigns to the bearded comet, to those circles that are seen about the\nsun or stars, or those meteors which resemble pillars or beams, and\nall others which are of this kind. This way unanimously go all the\nPeripatetics, believing that these meteors, being formed by the clouds,\ndo differ according to their various configurations. Epigenes, that a\ncomet arises from an elevation of spirit or wind, mixed with an earthy\nsubstance and set on fire. Bo\u00ebthus, that it is a phantasy presented to\nus by inflamed air. Diogenes, that comets are stars. Anaxagoras, that\nthose styled shooting stars fall down from the ether like sparks, and\ntherefore are soon extinguished. Metrodorus, that it is a forcible\nillapse of the sun upon clouds which makes them to sparkle as fire.\nXenophanes, that all such fiery meteors are nothing else but the\nconglomeration of the enfired clouds, and the flashing motions of them.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nOF VIOLENT ERUPTION OF FIRE OUT OF THE CLOUDS. OF LIGHTNING. OF\nTHUNDER. OF HURRICANES. OF WHIRLWINDS.\n\n\nAnaximander affirms that all these are produced by the wind after this\nmanner: the wind being enclosed by condensed clouds, by reason of its\nminuteness and lightness it violently endeavors to make its passage;\nand in breaking through the cloud it gives the noise; and the rending\nthe cloud, because of the blackness of it, gives a resplendent flame.\nMetrodorus, that when the wind falls upon a cloud whose densing firmly\ncompacts it, by breaking the cloud it causeth a great noise, and by\nstriking and rending the cloud it gives the flame; and in the swiftness\nof its motion, the sun imparting heat to it, it throws out the\nthunderbolt. The weak declining of the thunderbolt ends in a violent\ntempest. Anaxagoras, that when heat and cold meet and are mixed\ntogether (that is, ethereal parts with airy), thereby a great noise\nof thunder is produced, and the color seen against the blackness of\nthe cloud causes the flashing of fire; the full and great splendor is\nlightning, the more enlarged and embodied fire becomes a whirlwind, the\ncloudiness of it gives the hurricane. The Stoics, that thunder is the\nclashing of clouds one upon another, the flash of lightning is their\nfiery inflammation; their more rapid splendor is the thunderbolt, the\nfaint and weak the whirlwind. Aristotle, that all these proceed from\ndry exhalations, which, if they meet with moist vapors, force their\npassage, and the breaking of them gives the noise of thunder; they,\nbeing very dry, take fire and make lightning; tempests and hurricanes\narise from the plenitude of matter which each draw to themselves, the\nhotter parts attracted make the whirlwinds, the duller the tempests.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nOF CLOUDS, RAIN, SNOW, AND HAIL.\n\n\nAnaximenes thinks that by the air being very much condensed clouds are\nformed; this air being more compacted, rain is compressed through it;\nwhen water in its falling down freezeth, then snow is generated; when\nit is encompassed with a moist air, it is hail. Metrodorus, that a\ncloud is composed of a watery exhalation carried into a higher place.\nEpicurus, that they are made of vapors; and that hail and rain are\nformed in a round figure, being in their long descent pressed upon by\nthe circumambient air.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nOF THE RAINBOW.\n\n\nThose things which affect the air in the superior places of it are\nof two sorts. Some have a real subsistence, such are rain and hail;\nothers not. Those which enjoy not a proper subsistence are only in\nappearance; of this sort is the rainbow. Thus the continent to us that\nsail seems to be in motion.\n\nPlato says, that men admiring it feigned that it took origination from\none Thaumas, which word signifies admiration. Homer says:\n\n  Jove paints the rainbow with a purple dye,\n  Alluring man to cast his wandering eye.[43]\n\nOthers therefore fabled that the bow hath a head like a bull, by which\nit swallows up rivers.\n\nBut what is the cause of the rainbow? It is evident that what apparent\nthings we see come to our eyes in right or in crooked lines, or by\nreflection: these last are incorporeal and to sense obscure, but to\nreason they are obvious. Those which are seen in right lines are those\nwhich we see through the air or horn or transparent stones, for all\nthe parts of these things are very fine and tenuious; but those which\nappear in crooked lines are in water, the thickness of the water\npresenting them bended to our sight. This is the reason that oars in\nthemselves straight, when put into the sea, appear to us crooked. The\nthird manner of our seeing is by reflection, and this is perspicuous\nby mirrors. After this third sort the rainbow is affected. We conceive\nit is a moist exhalation converted into a cloud, and in a short space\nit is dissolved into small and moist drops. The sun declining towards\nthe west, it will necessarily follow that the whole bow is seen\nopposite to the sun; for the eye being directed to those drops receives\na reflection, and by this means the bow is formed. The eye doth not\nconsider the figure and form, but the color of these drops; the first\nof which colors is a shining red, the second a purple, the third is\nblue and green. Let us consider whether the reason of this shining red\ncolor be the splendor of the sun falling upon these small drops, the\nwhole body of light being reflected, by which this bright red color is\nproduced; the second part being troubled, and the light languishing\nin the drops, the color becomes purple (for the purple is the faint\nred); but the third part, being more and more troubled, is changed\ninto the green color. And this is proved by other effects of Nature;\nif any one shall put water in his mouth and spit it out so opposite to\nthe sun that its rays may be reflected on the drops, he shall see the\nresemblance of a rainbow; the same appears to men that are blear-eyed,\nwhen they fix their watery eyes upon a candle.\n\nAnaximenes thinks the bow is thus formed; the sun casting its splendor\nupon a thick, black, and gross cloud, and the rays not being in a\ncapacity to penetrate beyond the superficies. Anaxagoras, that, the\nsolar rays being reflected from a condensed cloud, the sun being\nplaced directly opposite to it forms the bow after the mode of the\nrepercussion of a mirror; after the same manner he assigns the natural\ncause of the Parhelia or mock-suns, which are often seen in Pontus.\nMetrodorus, that when the sun casts its splendor through a cloud, the\ncloud gives itself a blue, and the light a red color.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nOF METEORS WHICH RESEMBLE RODS, OR OF RODS.\n\n\nThese rods and the mock-suns are constituted of a double nature, a real\nsubsistence, and a mere appearance;\u2014of a real subsistence, because\nthe clouds are the object of our eyes; of a mere appearance, for their\nproper color is not seen, but that which is adventitious. The like\naffections, natural and adventitious, in all such things do happen.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nOF WINDS.\n\n\nAnaximander believes that wind is a fluid air, the sun putting into\nmotion or melting the moist subtle parts of it. The Stoics, that all\nwinds are a flowing air, and from the diversity of the regions whence\nthey have their origin receive their denomination; as, from darkness\nand the west the western wind; from the sun and its rising the eastern;\nfrom the north the northern, and from the south the southern winds.\nMetrodorus, that moist vapors heated by the sun are the cause of the\nimpetuousness of violent winds. The Etesian, or those winds which\nannually commence about the rising of the Little Dog, the air about the\nnorthern pole being more compacted, blow vehemently following the sun\nwhen he returns from the summer solstice.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nOF WINTER AND SUMMER.\n\n\nEmpedocles and the Stoics believe that winter is caused by the\nthickness of the air prevailing and mounting upwards; and summer by\nfire, it falling downwards.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThis description being given by me of Meteors, or those things that are\nabove us, I must pass to those things which are terrestrial.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nOF THE EARTH, WHAT IS ITS NATURE AND MAGNITUDE.\n\n\nThales and his followers say that there is but one earth. Hicetes the\nPythagorean, that there are two earths, this and the Antichthon, or\nthe earth opposite to it. The Stoics, that this earth is one, and that\nfinite and limited. Xenophanes, that the earth, being compacted of fire\nand air, in its lowest parts hath laid a foundation in an infinite\ndepth. Metrodorus, that the earth is mere sediment and dregs of water,\nas the sun is of the air.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nOF THE FIGURE OF THE EARTH.\n\n\nThales, the Stoics, and their followers say that the earth is globular.\nAnaximander, that it resembles a smooth stony pillar. Anaximenes, that\nit hath the shape of a table. Leucippus, of a drum. Democritus, that it\nis like a quoit in its surface, and hollow in the middle.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nOF THE SITE AND POSITION OF THE EARTH.\n\n\nThe disciples of Thales say that the earth is the centre of the\nuniverse. Xenophanes, that it is first, being rooted in the infinite\nspace. Philolaus the Pythagorean gives to fire the middle place, and\nthis is the hearth-fire of the universe; the second place to the\nAntichthon; the third to that earth which we inhabit, which is seated\nin opposition unto and whirled about the opposite,\u2014which is the reason\nthat those which inhabit that earth cannot be seen by us. Parmenides\nwas the first that confined the habitable world to the two solstitial\n(or temperate) zones.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nOF THE INCLINATION OF THE EARTH.\n\n\nLeucippus affirms that the earth vergeth towards the southern parts, by\nreason of the thinness and fineness that is in the south; the northern\nparts are more compacted, they being congealed by a rigorous cold, but\nthose parts of the world that are opposite are enfired. Democritus,\nbecause, the southern parts of the atmosphere being the weaker, the\nearth as it enlarges bends towards the south; the northern parts are\nof an unequal, the southern of an equal temperament; and this is the\nreason that the earth bends towards those parts where the earth is\nladen with fruits and its own increase.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nOF THE MOTION OF THE EARTH.\n\n\nMost of the philosophers say that the earth remains fixed in the same\nplace. Philolaus the Pythagorean, that it is moved about the element of\nfire, in an oblique circle, after the same manner of motion that the\nsun and moon have. Heraclides of Pontus and Ecphantus the Pythagorean\nassign a motion to the earth, but not progressive, but after the manner\nof a wheel being carried on its own axis; thus the earth (they say)\nturns itself upon its own centre from west to east. Democritus, that\nwhen the earth was first formed it had a motion, the parts of it being\nsmall and light; but in process of time the parts of it were condensed,\nso that by its own weight it was poised and fixed.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nINTO HOW MANY ZONES IS THE EARTH DIVIDED?\n\n\nPythagoras says that, as the celestial sphere is distributed into\nfive zones, into the same number is the terrestrial; which zones are\nthe arctic and antarctic, the summer and winter tropics (or temperate\nzones), and the equinoctial; the middle of which zones equally divides\nthe earth and constitutes the torrid zone; but that part which is in\nthe middle of the summer and winter tropics is habitable, by reason the\nair is there temperate.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nOF EARTHQUAKES.\n\n\nThales and Democritus assign the cause of earthquakes to water. The\nStoics say that it is a moist vapor contained in the earth, making an\nirruption into the air, that makes the earthquake. Anaximenes, that\nthe dryness and rarety of the earth are the cause of earthquakes, the\none of which is produced by extreme drought, the other by immoderate\nshowers. Anaxagoras, that the air endeavoring to make a passage out of\nthe earth, meeting with a thick superficies, is not able to force its\nway, and so shakes the circumambient earth with a trembling. Aristotle,\nthat a cold vapor encompassing every part of the earth prohibits the\nevacuation of vapors; for those which are hot, being in themselves\nlight, endeavor to force a passage upwards, by which means the dry\nexhalations, being left in the earth, use their utmost endeavor to make\na passage out, and being wedged in, they suffer various circumvolutions\nand shake the earth. Metrodorus, that whatsoever is in its own place\nis incapable of motion, except it be pressed upon or drawn by the\noperation of another body; the earth being so seated cannot naturally\nbe removed, yet divers parts and places of the earth may move one\nupon another. Parmenides and Democritus, that the earth being so\nequally poised hath no sufficient cause why it should incline rather\nto one side than to the other; so that it may be shaken, but cannot be\nremoved. Anaximenes, that the earth by reason of its latitude is borne\nupon the air which presseth upon it. Others opine that the earth swims\nupon the waters, as boards and broad planks, and by that reason is\nmoved. Plato, that motion is by six manner of ways, upwards, downwards,\non the right-hand and on the left, behind and before; therefore it is\nnot possible that the earth should be moved in any of these modes,\nfor it is altogether seated in the lowest place; it therefore cannot\nreceive a motion, since there is nothing about it so peculiar as to\nmake it incline any way; but some parts of it are so rare and thin\nthat they are capable of motion. Epicurus, that the possibility of the\nearth\u2019s motion ariseth from a thick and aqueous air beneath the earth,\nwhich may, by moving or pushing it, be capable of its quaking; or that\nbeing so compassed, and having many passages, it is shaken by the wind\nwhich is dispersed through the hollow dens of it.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nOF THE SEA, AND HOW IT IS COMPOSED, AND HOW IT BECOMES TO THE TASTE\nBITTER.\n\n\nAnaximander affirms that the sea is the remainder of the primogenial\nhumidity, the greatest part of which being dried up by the fire, the\ninfluence of the great heat altered its quality. Anaxagoras, that in\nthe beginning water did not flow, but was as a standing pool; and that\nit was burnt by the motion of the sun about it, by which the oily\npart of the water being exhaled, the residue became salt and bitter.\nEmpedocles, that the sea is the sweat of the earth burnt by the sun.\nAntiphon, that the sweat of that which was hot was separated from the\nother parts which were moist; these by seething and boiling became\nbitter, as happens in all sweats. Metrodorus, that the sea was strained\nthrough the earth, and retained some part of the density thereof; the\nsame is observed in all those things which are strained through ashes.\nThe schools of Plato, that the element of water being compacted by the\nrigor of the air became sweet, but that part which was exhaled from the\nearth, being enfired, became of a brackish taste.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nOF TIDES, OR OF THE EBBING AND FLOWING OF THE SEA.\n\n\nAristotle and Heraclides say, they proceed from the sun, which moves\nand whirls about the winds; and these falling with a violence upon the\nAtlantic, it is pressed and swells by them, by which means the sea\nflows; and their impression ceasing, the sea retracts, hence they ebb.\nPytheas the Massilian, that the fulness of the moon gives the flow, the\nwane the ebb. Plato attributes it all to a certain oscillation of the\nsea, which by means of a mouth or orifice causes the alternate ebb and\nflow; and by this means the seas do rise and flow contrarily. Timaeus\nbelieves that those rivers which fall from the mountains of the Celtic\nGaul into the Atlantic produce a tide. For upon their entering upon\nthat sea, they violently press upon it, and so cause the flow; but they\ndisemboguing themselves, there is a cessation of the impetuousness, by\nwhich means the ebb is produced. Seleucus the mathematician attributes\na motion to the earth; and thus he pronounceth that the moon in its\ncircumlation meets and repels the earth in its motion; between these\ntwo, the earth and the moon, there is a vehement wind raised and\nintercepted, which rushes upon the Atlantic Ocean, and gives us a\nprobable argument that it is the cause the sea is troubled and moved.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nOF THE HALO, OR A CIRCLE ABOUT A STAR.\n\n\nThe halo or circle is thus formed. A thick and dark air intervening\nbetween the moon or any other star and our eye, by which means our\nsight is dilated and reflected, when now our sight is incident upon the\noutward circumference of the orb of that star, there presently seems\na circle to appear. This circle thus appearing is called the \u1f05\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 or\n_halo_; and there is constantly such a circle seen by us, when\nsuch a density of sight happens.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK IV.\n\n\nHaving taken a survey of the general parts of the world, I will take a\nview of the particular members of it.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nOF THE OVERFLOWING OF THE NILE.\n\n\nThales conjectures that the Etesian or anniversary northern winds\nblowing strongly against Egypt heighten the swelling of the Nile, the\nmouth of that river being obstructed by the force of the sea rushing\ninto it. Euthymenes the Massilian concludes that the Nile is filled by\nthe ocean and that sea which is outward from it, this being naturally\nsweet. Anaxagoras, that the snow in Ethiopia which is frozen in winter\nis melted in summer, and this makes the inundation. Democritus, that\nthe snows which are in the northern climates when the sun enters the\nsummer solstice are dissolved and diffused; from those vapors clouds\nare compacted, and these are forcibly driven by the Etesian winds\ninto the southern parts and into Egypt, from whence violent showers\nare poured; and by this means the fens of Egypt are filled with water,\nand the river Nile hath its inundation. Herodotus the historian, that\nthe waters of the Nile receive from their fountain an equal portion of\nwater in winter and in summer; but in winter the water appears less,\nbecause the sun, making its approach nearer to Egypt, draws up the\nrivers of that country into exhalations. Ephorus the historiographer,\nthat in summer all Egypt seems to be melted and sweats itself\ninto water, to which the thin and sandy soils of Arabia and Lybia\ncontribute. Eudoxus relates that the Egyptian priests affirm that, when\nit is summer to us who dwell under the northern tropic, it is winter\nwith them that inhabit under the southern tropic; by this means there\nis a various contrariety and opposition of the seasons in the year,\nwhich cause such showers to fall as make the water to overflow the\nbanks of the Nile and diffuse itself throughout all Egypt.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nOF THE SOUL.\n\n\nThales first pronounced that the soul is that being which is in\na perpetual motion, or that whose motion proceeds from itself.\nPythagoras, that it is a number moving itself; he takes a number to be\nthe same thing with a mind. Plato, that it is an intellectual substance\nmoving itself, and that motion is in a numerical harmony. Aristotle,\nthat it is the first actuality (\u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1) of a natural organical body\nwhich has life potentially; and this actuality must be understood to be\nthe same thing with energy or operation. Dicaearchus, that it is the\nharmony of the four elements. Asclepiades the physician, that it is the\nconcurrent exercitation of the senses.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nWHETHER THE SOUL BE A BODY, AND WHAT IS THE NATURE AND ESSENCE OF IT.\n\n\nAll those that have been named by me do affirm that the soul itself is\nincorporeal, and by its own nature is in a perpetual motion, and in its\nown essence is an intelligent substance, and the actuality of a natural\norganical body which has life. The followers of Anaxagoras, that it is\nairy and a body. The Stoics, that it is a hot breath. Democritus, that\nit is a fiery composition of things which are perceptible by reason,\nthe same having their forms spherical and without an inflaming faculty;\nand it is a body. Epicurus, that it is constituted of four qualities,\nof a fiery quality, of an aerial quality, a pneumatical, and of a\nfourth quality which hath no name, but it contains the virtue of the\nsense. Heraclitus, that the soul of the world is the exhalation which\nproceeds from the moist parts of it; but the soul of animals, arising\nfrom exhalations that are exterior and from those that are within them,\nis homogeneous to it.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nOF THE PARTS OF THE SOUL.\n\n\nPlato and Pythagoras, according to their former account distribute the\nsoul into two parts, the rational and irrational. By a more accurate\nand strict account the soul is branched into three parts; they divide\nthe unreasonable part into the concupiscible and the irascible. The\nStoics say the soul is constituted of eight parts; five of which are\nthe senses, hearing, seeing, tasting, touching, smelling, the sixth\nis the faculty of speaking, the seventh of generating, the eighth of\ncommanding; this is the principal of all, by which all the other are\nguided and ordered in their proper organs, as we see the arms of a\npolypus aptly disposed. Democritus and Epicurus divide the soul into\ntwo parts, the rational, which hath its residence in the breast, and\nthe irrational, which is diffused through the whole structure of the\nbody. Democritus, that the quality of the soul is communicated to every\nthing, yea, to the dead corpses; for they are partakers of heat and\nsome sense, when the most of both is expired out of them.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nWHAT IS THE PRINCIPAL PART OF THE SOUL, AND IN WHAT PART OF THE BODY IT\nRESIDES.\n\n\nPlato and Democritus place its residence in the whole head. Strato,\nin that part of the forehead where the eyebrows are separated.\nErasistratus, in the Epikranis, or membrane which involves the brain.\nHerophilus, in that sinus of the brain which is the basis of it.\nParmenides, in the whole breast; which opinion is embraced by Epicurus.\nThe Stoics are generally of this opinion, that the seat of the soul is\nthroughout the heart, or in the spirit which is about it. Diogenes, in\nthe arterial ventricle of the heart, which is also filled with vital\nspirit. Empedocles, in the mass of the blood. There are that say it\nis in the neck of the heart, others in the pericardium, others in\nthe midriff. Certain of the Neoterics, that the seat of the soul is\nextended from the head to the diaphragm. Pythagoras, that the animal\npart of the soul resides in the heart, the intellectual in the head.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nOF THE MOTION OF THE SOUL.\n\n\nPlato believes that the soul is in perpetual motion, but that the mind\nis immovable with respect to motion from place to place. Aristotle,\nthat the soul is not naturally moved, but its motion is accidental,\nresembling that which is in the forms of bodies.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nOF THE SOUL\u2019S IMMORTALITY.\n\n\nPlato and Pythagoras say that the soul is immortal; when it departs\nout of the body, it retreats to the soul of the world, which is a\nbeing of the same nature with it. The Stoics, when the souls leave the\nbodies, they are carried to divers places; the souls of the unlearned\nand ignorant descend to the coagmentation of earthly things, but\nthe learned and vigorous endure till the general fire. Epicurus and\nDemocritus, the soul is mortal, and it perisheth with the body. Plato\nand Pythagoras, that part of the soul of man which is rational is\neternal; for though it be not God, yet it is the product of an eternal\nDeity; but that part of the soul which is divested of reason dies.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nOF THE SENSES, AND OF THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE OBJECTS OF THE SENSES.\n\n\nThe Stoics give this definition of sense: Sense is the apprehension\nor comprehension of an object by means of an organ. There are several\nways of expressing what sense is; it is either a habit, a faculty, an\noperation, or an imagination which apprehends by means of an organ of\nsense,\u2014and also the eighth principal thing, from whence the senses\nare derived. The instruments of sense are intelligent spirits, which\nfrom the said commanding part reach unto all the organs of the body.\nEpicurus, that sense is a faculty, and that which is perceived\nby the sense is the product of it; so that sense hath a double\nacceptation,\u2014sense which is the faculty, and the thing received by\nthe sense, which is the effect. Plato, that sense is that commerce\nwhich the soul and body have with those things that are exterior to\nthem; the power of which is from the soul, the organ by which is from\nthe body; but both of them apprehend exterior objects by means of the\nimagination. Leucippus and Democritus, that sense and intelligence\narise from external images; so neither of them can operate without the\nassistance of an image falling upon us.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nWHETHER WHAT APPEARS TO OUR SENSES AND IMAGINATIONS BE TRUE OR NOT.\n\n\nThe Stoics say that what the senses represent is true; what the\nimagination, is partly false, partly true. Epicurus, that every\nimpression which either the sense or fancy gives us is true, but of\nthose things that fall under the account of opinion, some are true,\nsome false: sense gives us a false representation of those things\nonly which are the objects of our understanding; but the fancy gives\nus a double error, both of things sensible and things intellectual.\nEmpedocles and Heraclides, that the senses perceive by a just\naccommodation of the pores in every case; every thing that is perceived\nby the sense being congruously adapted to its proper organ.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nHOW MANY SENSES ARE THERE?\n\n\nThe Stoics say that there are five senses properly so called, seeing,\nhearing, smelling, tasting, and touching. Aristotle indeed doth not\nadd a sixth sense; but he assigns a common sense, which is the judge\nof all compounded species; into this each sense casts its proper\nrepresentation, in which is discovered a transition of one thing into\nanother, like as we see in figure and motion where there is a change of\none into another. Democritus, that there are several species of senses,\nwhich appertain to beings destitute of reason, to the Gods, and to wise\nmen.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nHOW THE ACTIONS OF THE SENSES, THE CONCEPTIONS OF OUR MINDS, AND THE\nHABIT OF OUR REASON ARE FORMED.\n\n\nThe Stoics affirm that every man, as soon as he is born, has the\nprincipal and commanding part of his soul, which is in him like a sheet\nof writing-paper, to which he commits all his notions. The first manner\nof his inscribing is by denoting those notions which flow from the\nsenses. Suppose it be of a thing that is white; when the present sense\nof it is vanished, there is yet retained the remembrance; when many\nmemorative notions of the same similitude do concur, then he is said to\nhave an experience; for experience is nothing else but the abundance of\nnotions that are of the same form met together. Some of these notions\nare naturally begotten according to the aforesaid manner, without the\nassistance of art; the others are produced by discipline, learning,\nand industry; these only are properly called notions, the others are\nprenotions. But reason, which gives us the denomination of rational,\nis completed by prenotions in the first seven years. The conception\nof the mind is the vision that the intelligence of a rational animal\nhath received; when that vision falls upon the rational soul, then it\nis called the conception of the mind, for it hath derived its name\nfrom the mind (\u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03cc\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 from \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2). Therefore these visions are not\nto be found in any other animals; they are appropriated only to Gods\nand to us men. If these we consider generally, they are phantasms; if\nspecifically, they are notions. As pence or staters, if you consider\nthem according to their own value, are merely pence and staters; but if\nyou give them as a price for a naval voyage, they are called not merely\npence, &c., but your fraught.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nWHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IMAGINATION (\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1[** \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1]),\nIMAGINABLE (\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd), FANCY (\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd), AND PHANTOM (\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1)?\n\n\nChrysippus affirms, these four are different one from another.\nImagination (he says) is that passion raised in the soul which\ndiscovers itself and that which was the efficient of it; for example,\nafter the eye hath looked upon a thing that is white, the sight of\nwhich produceth in the mind a certain impression, this gives us\nreason to conclude that the object of this impression is white, which\naffecteth us. So is it with touching and smelling.\n\nPhantasy or imagination is denominated from \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2, which denotes\nlight; for as light discovers itself and all other things which it\nilluminates, so this imagination discovers itself and that which is\nthe cause of it. The imaginable is the efficient cause of imagination;\nas any thing that is white, or any thing that is cold, or every thing\nthat may make an impression upon the imagination. Fancy is a vain\nimpulse upon the mind of man, proceeding from nothing which is really\nimaginable; this is experienced in those that whirl about their idle\nhands and fight with shadows; for to the imagination there is always\nsome real imaginable thing presented, which is the efficient cause of\nit; but to the fancy nothing. A phantom is that to which we are led by\nsuch a fanciful and vain attraction; this is to be seen in melancholy\nand distracted persons. Of this sort was Orestes in the tragedy,\npronouncing these words:\n\n  Mother, these maids with horror me affright;\n  Oh hurl them not, I pray, into my sight!\n  They\u2019re smeared with blood, and cruel, dragon-like,\n  Skipping about with deadly fury strike.\n\nThese rave as frantic persons, they see nothing, and yet imagine they\nsee. Thence Electra thus returns to him:\n\n  O wretched man, securely sleep in bed;\n  Nothing thou seest, thy fancy\u2019s vainly led.[44]\n\nAfter the same manner Theoclymenus in Homer.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nOF OUR SIGHT, AND BY WHAT MEANS WE SEE.\n\n\nDemocritus and Epicurus suppose that sight is caused by the insinuation\nof little images into the visive organ, and by the entrance of certain\nrays which return to the eye after striking upon the object. Empedocles\nsupposes that images are mixed with the rays of the eye; these he\nstyles the rays of images. Hipparchus, that the visual rays extend\nfrom both the eyes to the superficies of bodies, and give to the sight\nthe apprehension of those same bodies, after the same manner in which\nthe hand touching the extremity of bodies gives the sense of feeling.\nPlato, that the sight is the splendor of united rays; there is a light\nwhich reaches some distance from the eyes into a congruous air, and\nthere is likewise a light emitted from bodies, which meets and is\njoined with the fiery visual light in the intermediate air (which is\nliquid and mutable); and the conjunction of these rays gives the sense\nof seeing. This is Plato\u2019s corradiancy, or splendor of united rays.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nOF THOSE IMAGES WHICH ARE PRESENTED TO OUR EYES IN MIRRORS.\n\n\nEmpedocles says that these images are caused by certain effluvias\nwhich, meeting together and insisting upon the superficies of the\nmirror, are perfected by that fiery quality emitted by the said mirror,\nwhich transmutes withal the air that surrounds it. Democritus and\nEpicurus, that the specular appearances are formed by the subsistence\nof the images which flow from our eyes; these fall upon the mirror\nand remain, while the light rebounds to the eye. The followers of\nPythagoras explain it by the reflection of the sight; for our sight\nbeing extended (as it were) to the brass, and meeting with the smooth\ndense surface thereof it is struck back, and caused to return upon\nitself: the same appears in the hand, when it is stretched out and then\nbrought back again to the shoulder. Any one may apply these instances\nto explain the manner of seeing.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nWHETHER DARKNESS CAN BE VISIBLE TO US.\n\n\nThe Stoics say that darkness is seen by us, for out of our eyes there\nissues out some light into it; and our eyes do not impose upon us,\nfor they really perceive there is darkness. Chrysippus says that we\nsee darkness by the striking of the intermediate air; for the visual\nspirits which proceed from the principal part of the soul and reach to\nthe ball of the eye pierce this air, which, after they have made those\nstrokes upon it, presses conically on the surrounding air, where this\nis homogeneous. For from the eyes those rays are poured forth which are\nneither black nor cloudy. Upon this account darkness is visible to us\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nOF HEARING.\n\n\nEmpedocles says that hearing is formed by the insidency of the air\nupon the spiral, which it is said hangs within the ear as a bell, and\nis beat upon by the air. Alcmaeon, that the vacuity that is within\nthe ear makes us to have the sense of hearing, for the air forcing a\nvacuum gives the sound; every inanity affords a ringing. Diogenes, the\nair which is in the head, being struck upon by the voice, gives the\nhearing. Plato and his followers, the air which exists in the head\nbeing struck upon, is reflected to the principal part of the soul, and\nthis causeth the sense of hearing.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nOF SMELLING.\n\n\nAlcmaeon believes that the principal part of the soul, residing in the\nbrain, draws to itself odors by respiration. Empedocles, that scents\ninsert themselves into the breathing of the lungs; for, when there is a\ngreat difficulty in breathing, odors are not perceived by reason of the\nsharpness; and this we experience in those who have the defluxion of\nrheum.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nOF TASTE.\n\n\nAlcmaeon says that a moist warmth in the tongue, joined with the\nsoftness of it, gives the difference of taste. Diogenes, that by the\nsoftness and sponginess of the tongue, and because the veins of the\nbody are joined in it, tastes are diffused by the tongue; for they are\nattracted from it to that sense and to the commanding part of the soul,\nas from a sponge.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nOF THE VOICE.\n\n\nPlato thus defines a voice,\u2014that it is a breath drawn by the mind\nthrough the mouth, and a blow given to the air and through the\near, brain, and blood transmitted to the soul. Voice is abusively\nattributed to irrational and inanimate beings; thus we improperly\ncall the neighing of horses or any other sound by the name of voice.\nBut properly a voice (\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03ae) is an articulate sound, which illustrates\n(\u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9) the understanding of man. Epicurus says that it is an efflux\nemitted from things that are vocal, or that give sounds or great\nnoises; this is broken into those fragments which are after the same\nconfiguration. Like figures are round figures with round, and irregular\nand triangular with those of the same nature. These falling upon the\nears produce the sense of hearing. This is seen in leaking vessels, and\nin fullers when they fan or blow their cloths.\n\nDemocritus, that the air is broken into bodies of similar\nconfiguration, and these are rolled up and down with the fragments of\nthe voice; as it is proverbially said, One daw lights with another, or,\nGod always brings like to like. Thus we see upon the shore, that stones\nlike to one another are found in the same place, in one place the\nlong-shaped, in another the round are seen. So in sieves, things that\nare of the same form meet together, but those that are different are\ndivided; as pulse and beans falling from the same sieve are separated\none from another. To this it may be objected: How can some fragments of\nair fill a theatre in which there is an infinite company of persons?\nThe Stoics, that the air is not composed of small fragments, but is a\ncontinued body and nowhere admits a vacuum; and being struck with the\nbreath, it is infinitely moved in waves and in right circles, until it\nfill that air which invests it; as we see in a fish-pool which we smite\nby a falling stone cast upon it; yet the air is moved spherically, the\nwater orbicularly. Anaxagoras says a voice is then formed, when upon a\nsolid air the breath is incident, which being repercussed is carried to\nthe ears; after the same manner the echo is produced.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\nWHETHER THE VOICE IS INCORPOREAL. WHAT IS IT THAT GIVES THE ECHO?\n\n\nPythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle say that the voice is incorporeal; for\nit is not the air that makes the voice, but the figure which compasseth\nthe air and its superficies, having received a stroke, give the voice.\nBut every superficies of itself is incorporeal. True it is that it\nmoveth with the body, but of itself it hath no body; as we perceive\nin a staff that is bended, the matter only admits of an inflection,\nwhile the superficies doth not. According to the Stoics, a voice is\ncorporeal, since every thing that is an agent or operates is a body; a\nvoice acts and operates, for we hear it and are sensible of it; for it\nfalls and makes an impression on the ear, as a seal of a ring gives its\nsimilitude upon the wax. Moreover, every thing that creates a delight\nor molestation is a body; harmonious music affects with delight, but\ndiscord is tiresome. And every thing that is moved is a body; and the\nvoice moves, and having its illapse upon smooth places is reflected, as\nwhen a ball is cast against a wall it rebounds. A voice spoken in the\nEgyptian pyramids is so broken, that it gives four or five echoes.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\nBY WHAT MEANS THE SOUL IS SENSIBLE, AND WHAT IS THE PRINCIPAL AND\nCOMMANDING PART OF IT.\n\n\nThe Stoics say that the highest part of the soul is the commanding\npart of it: this is the cause of sense, imagination, consents, and\ndesires; and this we call the rational part. From this principal and\ncommander there are produced seven parts of the soul, which are spread\nthrough the body, as the seven arms in a polypus. Of these seven parts,\nfive are assigned to the senses, seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting,\ntouching. Sight is a spirit which is extended from the commanding\npart to the eyes; hearing is that spirit which from the principal\nreacheth to the ears; smelling a spirit drawn from the principal to the\nnostrils; tasting a spirit extended from the principal to the tongue;\ntouching is a spirit which from the principal is drawn to the extremity\nof those bodies which are obnoxious to a sensible touch. Of the rest,\nthe one called the spermatical is a spirit which reacheth from the\nprincipal to the generating vessels; the other, which is the vocal\nand termed the voice, is a spirit extended from the principal to the\nthroat, tongue, and other proper organs of speaking. And this principal\npart itself hath that place in our spherical head which God hath in the\nworld.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\nOF RESPIRATION OR BREATHING.\n\n\nEmpedocles thinks, that the first breath the first animal drew was\nwhen the moisture in unborn infants was separated, and by that means\nan entrance was given to the external air into the gaping vessels, the\nmoisture in them being evacuated. After this the natural heat, in a\nviolent force pressing upon the external air for a passage, begets an\nexpiration; but this heat returning to the inward parts, and the air\ngiving way to it, causeth an inspiration. The respiration that now is\narises when the blood is carried to the exterior surface, and by this\nfluxion drives the airy substance through the nostrils; thus in its\nrecess it causeth expiration, but the air being again forced into those\nplaces which are emptied of blood, it causeth an inspiration. To evince\nwhich, he proposeth the instance of a water-clock which gives the\naccount of time by the running of water.\n\nAsclepiades supposeth the lungs to be in the manner of a tunnel, and\nmaketh the cause of breathing to be the fineness of the inward parts of\nthe breast; for thither the outward air which is more gross hastens,\nbut is forced backward, the breast not being capable either to receive\nor want it. But there being always some of the more tenuous parts of\nthe air left, so that all of it is not exploded, to that which there\nremains the more ponderous external air with equal violence is forced;\nand this he compares to cupping-glasses. All spontaneous breathings are\nformed by the contracting of the smaller pores of the lungs, and to the\nclosing up of the pipes in the neck; for these are at our command.\n\nHerophilus attributes a moving faculty to the nerves, arteries, and\nmuscles, but believes that the lungs are affected only with a natural\ndesire of enlarging and contracting themselves. Farther, there is the\nfirst operation of the lungs by attraction of the outward air, which is\ndrawn in because of the abundance of the external air. Next to this,\nthere is a second natural appetite of the lungs; the breast, pouring in\nupon itself the breath, and being filled, is no longer able to make an\nattraction, and throws the superfluity of it upon the lungs, whereby\nit is in turn sent forth by way of expiration; the parts of the body\nmutually concurring to this function by the alternate participation of\nfulness and emptiness. So that to lungs pertain four motions;\u2014first,\nwhen the lungs receive the outward air; secondly, when the outward air\nthus entertained is transmitted to the breast; thirdly, when the lungs\nagain receive that air which they imparted to the breast; fourthly,\nwhen this air then received from the breast is thrown outwards. Of\nthese four motions two are dilatations, one when the lungs attract the\nexternal air, another when the breast dischargeth itself of it upon the\nlungs; two are contractions, one when the breast draws into itself the\nair, the second when it expels this which was insinuated into it. The\nbreast admits only of two motions;\u2014of dilatation, when it draws from\nthe lungs the breath, and of contraction, when it returns what it did\nreceive.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n\nOF THE PASSIONS OF THE BODY, AND WHETHER THE SOUL HATH A SYMPATHETICAL\nCONDOLENCY WITH IT.\n\n\nThe Stoics say that all the passions are seated in those parts of\nthe body which are affected, the senses have their residence in the\ncommanding part of the soul. Epicurus, that all the passions and all\nthe senses are in those parts which are affected, but the commanding\npart is subject to no passion. Strato, that all the passions and senses\nof the soul are in the rational or commanding part of it, and are not\nfixed in those places which are affected; for in this part patience\ntakes its residence, and this is apparent in terrible and dolorous\nthings, as also in timorous and valiant persons.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK V.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nOF DIVINATION.\n\n\nPlato and the Stoics introduce divination as a divine enthusiasm, the\nsoul itself being of a divine constitution, and this prophetic faculty\nbeing an inspiration, or an illapse of the divine knowledge into man;\nand so likewise they explain interpretation by dreams. And these same\nadmit many divisions of the art of divination. Xenophanes and Epicurus\nutterly refuse any such art of foretelling future contingencies.\nPythagoras rejects all manner of divination which is by sacrifices.\nAristotle and Dicaearchus admit only these two kinds of it, a fury by a\ndivine inspiration, and dreams; they deny the immortality of the soul,\nyet they affirm that the mind of man hath a participation of something\nthat is divine.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nWHENCE DREAMS DO ARISE.\n\n\nDemocritus says that dreams are formed by the illapse of adventitious\nrepresentations. Strato, that the irrational part of the soul in sleep\nbecoming more sensible is moved by the rational part of it. Herophilus,\nthat dreams which are caused by divine instinct have a necessary cause;\nbut dreams which have their origin from a natural cause arise from\nthe soul\u2019s forming within itself the images of those things which are\nconvenient for it, and which will happen; those dreams which are of a\nconstitution mixed of both these have their origin from the fortuitous\nappulse of images, as when we see those things which please us; thus\nit happens many times to those persons who in their sleep imagine they\nembrace their mistresses.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nOF THE NATURE OF GENERATIVE SEED.\n\n\nAristotle says, that seed is that thing which contains in itself a\npower of moving, whereby it is enabled to produce a being like unto\nthat from whence it was emitted. Pythagoras, that seed is the sediment\nof that which nourisheth us, the froth of the purest blood, of the\nsame nature as the blood and marrow of our bodies. Alcmaeon, that it\nis a part of the brain. Plato, that it is the deflux of the spinal\nmarrow. Epicurus, that it is a fragment torn from the body and soul.\nDemocritus, that it proceeds from all the parts of the body, and\nchiefly from the principal parts, as the flesh and muscles.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nWHETHER THE SPERM BE A BODY.\n\n\nLeucippus and Zeno say, that it is a body and a fragment of the\nsoul. Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle, that the spermatic faculty\nis incorporeal, as the mind is which moves the body; but the effused\nmatter is corporeal. Strato and Democritus, that the very power is a\nbody; for it is like spirit.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nWHETHER WOMEN DO GIVE A SPERMATIC EMISSION AS MEN DO.\n\n\nPythagoras, Epicurus, and Democritus say, that women have a seminal\nprojection, but their spermatic vessels are inverted; and it is this\nthat makes them have a venereal appetite. Aristotle and Plato, that\nthey emit a material moisture, as sweat we see produced by exercise and\nlabor; but that moisture has no spermatic power. Hippo, that women\nhave a seminal emission, but not after the mode of men; it contributes\nnothing to generation, for it falls without the matrix; and therefore\nsome women without coition, especially widows, give the seed. The same\nalso asserts that from men the bones, from women the flesh proceeds.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nHOW IT IS THAT CONCEPTIONS ARE MADE.\n\n\nAristotle says, that conception takes place when the womb is drawn\nforward by the natural purgation, and the monthly terms attract from\nthe whole bulk part of the purest blood, and this is met by the genital\nseed of man. On the contrary, there is a failure by the impurity and\ninflation of the womb, by the passions of fear and grief, by the\nweakness of women, or the decay of strength in men.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nAFTER WHAT MANNER MALES AND FEMALES ARE GENERATED.\n\n\nEmpedocles affirms, that heat and cold give the difference in the\ngeneration of males and females. Hence is it, as histories acquaint us,\nthat the first men had their original from the earth in the eastern and\nsouthern parts, and the first females in the northern parts thereof.\nParmenides is of opinion perfectly contrariant. He affirms that men\nfirst sprouted out of the northern earth, for their bodies are more\ndense; women out of the southern, for theirs are more rare and fine.\nHippo, that the more compacted and strong sperm, and the more fluid and\nweak, discriminate the sexes. Anaxagoras and Parmenides, that the seed\nof the man is naturally cast from his right side into the right side\nof the womb, or from the left side of the man into the left side of\nthe womb; when there is an alteration in this course of nature, females\nare generated. Cleophanes, whom Aristotle makes mention of, assigns\nthe generation of men to the right testicle, of women to the left.\nLeucippus gives the reason of it to the alteration or diversity of\nparts, according to which the man hath a yard, the female the matrix;\nas to any other reason he is silent. Democritus, that the parts which\nare common to both sexes are engendered indifferently by one or the\nother; but the peculiar parts by the one that is more prevalent. Hippo,\nthat if the spermatic faculty be more effectual, the male, if the\nnutritive aliment, the female is generated.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nBY WHAT MEANS IT IS THAT MONSTROUS BIRTHS ARE EFFECTED.\n\n\nEmpedocles believes that monsters receive their origination from the\nabundance or defect of seed, or from its division into parts which are\nsuperabundant, or from some perturbation in the motion, or else that\nthere is an error by a lapse into an improper receptacle; and thus he\npresumes he hath given all the causes of monstrous conceptions. Strato,\nthat it comes from addition, subtraction, or transposition of the seed,\nor the distension or inflation of the matrix. And some physicians say\nthat the matrix suffers distortion, being distended with wind.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nHOW IT COMES TO PASS THAT A WOMAN\u2019S TOO FREQUENT CONVERSATION WITH A\nMAN HINDERS CONCEPTION.\n\n\nDiocles the physician says that either no genital sperm is projected,\nor, if there be, it is in a less quantity than nature requires, or\nthere is no prolific faculty in it; or there is a deficiency of a\ndue proportion of heat, cold, moisture, and dryness; or there is a\nresolution of the generative parts. The Stoics attribute sterility to\nthe obliquity of the yard, by which means it is not able to ejaculate\nin a due manner, or to the unproportionable magnitude of the parts,\nthe matrix being so contracted as not to be in a capacity to receive.\nErasistratus assigns it to the womb\u2019s being more callous or more\ncarneous, thinner or smaller, than nature does require.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nWHENCE IT IS THAT ONE BIRTH GIVES TWO OR THREE CHILDREN.\n\n\nEmpedocles affirms, that the superabundance of sperm and the division\nof it causes the bringing forth of two or three infants. Asclepiades,\nthat it is performed from the excellent quality of the sperm, after\nthe manner that from the root of one barleycorn two or three stalks do\ngrow; sperm that is of this quality is the most prolific. Erasistratus,\nthat superfetation may happen to women as to irrational creatures; for,\nif the womb be well purged and very clean, then there may be divers\nbirths. The Stoics, that it ariseth from the various receptacles that\nare in the womb: when the seed illapses into the first and second of\nthem at once, then there are conceptions upon conception; and so two or\nthree infants are born.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nWHENCE IT IS THAT CHILDREN REPRESENT THEIR PARENTS AND PROGENTITORS.\n\n\nEmpedocles says, that the similitude of children to their parents\nproceeds from the vigorous prevalency of the generating sperm; the\ndissimilitude from the evaporation of the natural heat contained in\nthe same. Parmenides, that when the sperm descends from the right side\nof the womb, then the infant gives the resemblance of the father; if\nfrom the left, it is stamped with the similitude of the mother. The\nStoics, that the whole body and soul give the sperm; and hence arise\nthe resemblances in the characters and figures of the children, as a\npainter in his copy imitates the colors which are in the picture before\nhim. Women have a concurrent emission of seed; if the feminine seed\nhave the predominancy, then the child resembles the mother; if the\nmasculine, the father.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nHOW IT COMES TO PASS THAT CHILDREN HAVE A GREATER SIMILITUDE WITH\nSTRANGERS THAN WITH THEIR PARENTS.\n\n\nThe greatest part of physicians affirm, that this happens casually and\nfortuitously; for, when the sperm of the man and woman is too much\nrefrigerated, then children carry a dissimilitude to their parents.\nEmpedocles, that a woman\u2019s imagination when she conceives impresses\na shape upon the infant; for women have been enamored with images\nand statues, and the children which were born of them gave their\nsimilitudes. The Stoics, that the resemblances flow from the sympathy\nand consent of minds, by the insertion of effluvias and rays, not of\nimages or pictures.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nWHENCE ARISETH BARRENNESS IN WOMEN, AND IMPOTENCY IN MEN?\n\n\nThe physicians maintain, that sterility in women may arise from the\nwomb; for if it be after any ways thus affected, there will be\nbarrenness,\u2014if it be more condensed, or more spongy, or more hardened,\nor more callous, or more carneous; or it may be from low spirits,\nor from an atrophy or vicious distemper of body; or, lastly, it may\narise from a twisted or distorted configuration. Diocles holds that\nthe sterility in men ariseth from some of these causes,\u2014either that\nthey cannot at all ejaculate any sperm, or if they do, it is less\nthan nature doth require, or else there is no generative faculty in\nthe sperm, or the genital members are flagging; or from the obliquity\nof the yard. The Stoics attribute the cause of sterility to the\ncontrariant qualities and dispositions of those who lie with one\nanother; but if it chance that these persons are separated, and there\nhappen a conjunction of those who are of a suitable temperament, then\nthere is a commixture according to nature, and by this means an infant\nis formed.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nHOW IF COMES TO PASS THAT MULES ARE BARREN.\n\n\nAlcmaeon says, that the barrenness of the male mules ariseth from the\nthinness of the genital sperm, that is, the seed is too chill; the\nfemale mules are barren, for their womb does not open its mouth (as\nhe expresses it). Empedocles, the matrix of the mule is so small, so\ndepressed, so narrow, so invertedly growing to the belly, that the\nsperm cannot be regularly cast into it, and if it could, there would be\nno capacity to receive it. Diocles concurs in this opinion with him;\nfor, saith he, in our anatomical dissection of mules we have seen that\ntheir matrices are of such configurations; and it is possible that\nthere may be the same reason why some women are barren.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nWHETHER THE INFANT IN THE MOTHER\u2019S WOMB BE AN ANIMAL.\n\n\nPlato says, that the embryo is an animal; for, being contained in the\nmother\u2019s womb, motion and aliment are imparted to it. The Stoics say\nthat it is not an animal, but to be accounted part of the mother\u2019s\nbelly; like as we see the fruit of trees is esteemed part of the\ntrees, until it be full ripe; then it falls and ceaseth to belong to\nthe tree; and thus it is with the embryo. Empedocles, that the embryo\nis not an animal, yet whilst it remains in the belly it breathes. The\nfirst breath that it draws as an animal is when the infant is newly\nborn; then the child having its moisture separated, the extraneous\nair making an entrance into the empty places, a respiration is caused\nin the infant by the empty vessels receiving of it. Diogenes, that\ninfants are bred in the matrix inanimate, yet they have a natural\nheat; but presently, when the infant is cast into the open air, its\nheat draws air into the lungs, and so it becomes an animal. Herophilus\nacknowledgeth that infants have a natural, but not a respiratory\nmotion, and that the nerves are the cause of that motion; that then\nthey become animals, when being first born they suck in something of\nthe air.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nHOW EMBRYOS ARE NOURISHED, OR HOW THE INFANT IN THE BELLY RECEIVES ITS\nALIMENT.\n\n\nDemocritus and Epicurus say, that the embryos in the womb receive their\naliment by the mouth, for we perceive, as soon as ever the infant is\nborn, it applies its mouth to the breast; in the wombs of women (our\nunderstanding concludes) there are little dugs, and the embryos have\nsmall mouths by which they receive their nutriment. The Stoics, that\nby the secundines and navel they partake of aliment, and therefore the\nmidwife instantly after their birth binds the navel, and opens the\ninfant\u2019s mouth, that it may receive another sort of aliment. Alcmaeon,\nthat they receive their nourishment from every part of the body; as a\nsponge sucks in water.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nWHAT PART OF THE BODY IS FIRST FORMED IN THE WOMB.\n\n\nThe Stoics believe that the greater part is formed at the same time.\nAristotle, as the keel of a ship is first made, so the first part that\nis formed is the loins. Alcmaeon, the head, for that is the commanding\nand the principal part of the body. The physicians, the heart, in which\nare the veins and arteries. Some think the great toe is first formed;\nothers affirm the navel.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nWHENCE IS IT THAT INFANTS BORN IN THE SEVENTH MONTH ARE BORN ALIVE.\n\n\nEmpedocles says, that when the human race took first its original from\nthe earth, the sun was so slow in its motion that then one day in its\nlength was equal to ten months, as now they are; in process of time one\nday became as long as seven months are; and there is the reason that\nthose infants which are born at the end of seven months or ten months\nare born alive, the course of nature so disposing that the infant\nshall be brought to maturity in one day after that night in which it\nis begotten. Timaeus says, that we count not ten months but nine, by\ntreason that we reckon the first conception from the retention of\nthe menstruas; and so it may generally pass for seven months when\nreally there are not seven; for it sometimes happens that even after\nconception a woman is purged in some degree. Polybus, Diocles, and the\nEmpirics acknowledge that the eighth month gives a vital birth to the\ninfant, though the life of it is more faint and languid; many therefore\nwe see born in that month die out of mere weakness. Though we see many\nborn in that month arrive at the state of man, yet (they affirm) if\nchildren be born in that month, none are willing to rear them.\n\nAristotle and Hippocrates, that if the womb is grown full in seven\nmonths, then the child falls from the mother and is born alive; but if\nit falls from her but is not properly nourished, the navel being weak\non account of the heavy burden of the infant, then it doth not thrive;\nbut if the infant continues nine months in the womb, and then breaks\nforth from the woman, it is entire and perfect. Polybus, that a hundred\nand eighty-two days and a half suffice for the bringing forth of a\nliving child; that is, six months, in which space of time the sun moves\nfrom one tropic to the other; and this is called seven months, for the\ndays which are overplus in the sixth are accounted to give the seventh\nmonth. Those children which are born in the eighth month cannot live,\nfor, the infant then falling from the womb, the navel, which is the\ncause of nourishment, is thereby too much stretched; and is the reason\nthat the infant languishes and hath an atrophy. The astrologers, that\neight months are enemies to every birth, seven are friends and kind\nto it. The signs of the zodiac are then enemies, when they fall upon\nthose stars which are lords of houses; whatever infant is then born\nwill have a life short and unfortunate. Those signs of the zodiac which\nare malevolent and injurious to generation are those pairs of which\nthe last is reckoned the eighth from the first, as the first and the\neighth, the second and the ninth, &c.; so is the Ram unsociable with\nScorpio, the Bull with Sagittarius, the Twins with the Goat, the Crab\nwith Aquarius, the Lion with Pisces, the Virgin with the Ram. Upon this\nreason those infants that are born in the seventh or tenth months are\nlike to live, but those in the eighth month will die.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nOF THE GENERATION OF ANIMALS, HOW ANIMALS ARE BEGOTTEN, AND WHETHER\nTHEY ARE OBNOXIOUS TO CORRUPTION.\n\n\nThose philosophers who entertain the opinion that the world had\nan original do likewise assert that all animals are generated and\ncorruptible. The followers of Epicurus, who gives an eternity to the\nworld, affirm the generation of animals ariseth from the various\npermutation of parts mutually among themselves, for they are parts of\nthis world. With them Anaxagoras and Euripides concur:\n\n                            For nothing dies,\n  But different changes give their various forms.\n\nAnaximander\u2019s opinion is, that the first animals were generated in\nmoisture, and were enclosed in bark on which thorns grew; but in\nprocess of time they came upon dry land, and this thorny bark with\nwhich they were covered being broken, they lived for a short space of\ntime. Empedocles says, that the first generation of animals and plants\nwas by no means completed, for the parts were disjoined and would not\nadmit of a union; the second preparation for their being generated was\nwhen their parts were united and appeared in the form of images; the\nthird preparation for generation was when their parts mutually amongst\nthemselves gave a being to one another; the fourth, when there was no\nlonger a mixture of similar elements (like earth and water), but a\nunion of animals among themselves,\u2014in some the nourishment being made\ndense, in others female beauty provoking a lust of spermatic motion.\nAll sorts of animals are discriminated by their proper temperament and\nconstitution; some are carried by a proper appetite and inclination to\nwater; some, which partake of a more fiery quality, to breathe in the\nair; those that are heavier incline to the earth; but those animals\nwhose parts are of a just and equal temperament are fitted equally for\nall places.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\nHOW MANY SPECIES OF ANIMALS THERE ARE, AND WHETHER ALL ANIMALS HAVE THE\nENDOWMENTS OF SENSE AND REASON.\n\n\nThere is a certain treatise of Aristotle, in which animals are\ndistributed into four kinds, terrestrial, aqueous, fowl, and heavenly;\nand he calls the stars and the world also animals, yea, and God himself\nhe defines to be an animal endowed with reason and immortal. Democritus\nand Epicurus esteem all animals rational which have their residence in\nthe heavens. Anaxagoras says that animals have only that reason which\nis operative, but not that which is passive, which is justly styled the\ninterpreter of the mind, and is like the mind itself. Pythagoras and\nPlato, that the souls of all those who are styled brutes are rational;\nbut by the evil constitution of their bodies, and because they have\na want of a discoursive faculty, they do not act rationally. This is\nmanifested in apes and dogs, which have voice but not speech. Diogenes,\nthat this sort of animals are partakers of intelligence and air, but\nby reason of the density in some parts of them, and by the superfluity\nof moisture in others, they enjoy neither understanding nor sense; but\nthey are affected as madmen are, the commanding rational part being\ndefectuous and impeached.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\nWHAT TIME IS REQUIRED TO SHAPE THE PARTS OF ANIMALS IN THE WOMB.\n\n\nEmpedocles believes, that the joints of men begin to be formed from\nthe thirty-sixth day, and their shape is completed in the nine and\nfortieth. Asclepiades, that male embryos, by reason of a greater\nnatural heat, have their joints begun to be formed in the twenty-sixth\nday,\u2014many even sooner,\u2014and that they are completed in all their parts\non the fiftieth day; the parts of the females are articulated in two\nmonths, but by the defect of heat are not consummated till the fourth;\nbut the members of brutes are completed at various times, according to\nthe commixture of the elements of which they consist.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\nOF WHAT ELEMENTS EACH OF THE MEMBERS OF US MEN IS COMPOSED.\n\n\nEmpedocles says, that the fleshy parts of us are constituted by the\ncontemperation of the four elements in us; earth and fire mixed with a\ndouble proportion of water make the nerves; but when it happens that\nthe nerves are refrigerated where they meet the air, then the nails are\nmade; the bones are produced by two parts of water and the same of air,\nwith four parts of fire and the same of earth, duly mixed together;\nsweat and tears flow from the liquefaction of these bodies of ours.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n\nWHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF SLEEP AND DEATH?\n\n\nAlcmaeon says, that sleep is caused when the blood retreats to the\nconcourse of the veins, but when the blood diffuses itself, then we\nawake; and when there is a total retirement of the blood, then men die.\nEmpedocles, that a moderate cooling of the blood causeth sleep, but a\ntotal remotion of heat from blood causeth death. Diogenes, that when\nall the blood is so diffused as that it fills all the veins, and forces\nthe air contained in them to the back and to the belly that is below\nit, the breast being thereby more heated, thence sleep arises; but if\nevery thing that is airy in the breast forsakes the veins, then death\nsucceeds. Plato and the Stoics, that sleep ariseth from the relaxation\nof the sensitive spirit, it not receiving such total remission as if\nit fell to the earth, but so that that spirit is carried about the\nintestine parts of the eyebrows, in which the principal part has its\nresidence; but when there is a total remission of the sensitive spirit,\nthen death ensues.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n\nWHEN AND FROM WHENCE THE PERFECTION OF A MAN COMMENCES.\n\n\nHeraclitus and the Stoics say, that men begin their completeness when\nthe second septenary of years begins, about which time the seminal\nserum is emitted. Trees first begin their perfection when they give\ntheir seeds; till then they are immature, imperfect, and unfruitful.\nAfter the same manner a man is completed in the second septenary\nof years, and is capable of learning what is good and evil, and of\ndiscipline therein.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV.\n\nWHETHER SLEEP OR DEATH APPERTAINS TO THE SOUL OR BODY.\n\n\nAristotle\u2019s opinion is, that both the soul and body sleep; and this\nproceeds from the moisture in the breast, which doth steam and arise\nin the manner of a vapor into the head, and from the aliment in the\nstomach, whose natural heat is cooled in the heart. Death is the\nperfect refrigeration of all heat in the body; but death is only of\nthe body, and not of the soul, for the soul is immortal. Anaxagoras\nthinks, that sleep makes the operations of the body to cease; it is a\ncorporeal passion and affects not the soul. Death is the separation of\nthe soul from the body. Leucippus, that sleep is only of the body; but\nwhen the smaller particles cause immoderate evaporation from the soul\u2019s\nheat, this makes death; but these affections of death and sleep are of\nthe body, not of the soul. Empedocles, that death is nothing else but\nseparation of those fiery parts by which man is composed, and according\nto this sentiment both body and soul die; but sleep is only a smaller\nseparation of the fiery qualities.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVI.\n\nHOW PLANTS GROW, AND WHETHER THEY ARE ANIMALS.\n\n\nPlato and Empedocles believe, that plants are animals, and are informed\nwith a soul; of this there are clear arguments, for they have tossing\nand shaking, and their branches are extended; when the woodmen bend\nthem they yield, but they return to their former straightness and\nstrength again when they are let loose, and even draw up weights that\nare laid upon them. Aristotle doth grant that they live, but not that\nthey are animals; for animals are affected with appetite, sense, and\nreason. The Stoics and Epicureans deny that they are informed with a\nsoul; by reason that all sorts of animals have either sense, appetite,\nor reason; but plants move fortuitously, and not by means of any soul.\nEmpedocles, that the first of all animals were trees, and they sprang\nfrom the earth before the sun in its glory enriched the world, and\nbefore day and night were distinguished; but by the harmony which is\nin their constitution they partake of a masculine and feminine nature;\nand they increase by that heat which is exalted out of the earth, so\nthat they are parts belonging to it, as embryos in the womb are parts\nof the womb. Fruits in plants are excrescences proceeding from water\nand fire; but the plants which have a deficiency of water, when this\nis dried up by the heat of summer, lose their leaves; whereas they\nthat have plenty thereof keep their leaves on still, as the olive,\nlaurel, and palm. The differences of their moisture and juice arise\nfrom the difference of particles and various other causes, and they\nare discriminated by the various particles that feed them. And this\nis apparent in vines; for the excellence of wine flows not from the\ndifference in the vines, but from the soil from whence they receive\ntheir nutriment.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVII.\n\nOF NOURISHMENT AND GROWTH.\n\n\nEMPEDOCLES believes, that animals are nourished by the\nremaining in them of that which is proper to their own nature; they are\naugmented by the application of heat; and the subtraction of either\nof these makes them to languish and decay. The stature of men in this\npresent age, if compared with the magnitude of those men which were\nfirst produced, is no other than a mere infancy.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVIII.\n\nWHENCE IT IS THAT IN ANIMALS THERE ARE APPETITES AND PLEASURES.\n\n\nEmpedocles says that the want of those elements which compose animals\ngives to them appetite, and pleasures spring from humidity. As to the\nmotions of dangers and such like things, as perturbations, &c....\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIX.\n\nWHAT IS THE CAUSE OF A FEVER, OR WHETHER IT IS AN AFFECTION OF THE BODY\nANNEXED TO A PRIMARY PASSION.\n\n\nErasistratus gives this definition of a fever: A fever is a quick\nmotion of blood, not produced by our consent, which enters into the\nvessels proper unto the vital spirits. This we see in the sea; it is\nin a serene calm when nothing disturbs it, but is in motion when a\nviolent preternatural wind blows upon it, and then it rageth and is\ncircled with waves. After this manner it is in the body of man; when\nthe blood is in a nimble agitation, then it falls upon those vessels\nin which the spirits are, and there being in an extraordinary heat,\nit fires the whole body. The opinion that a fever is an appendix to a\npreceding affection pleaseth him. Diocles proceeds after this manner:\nThose things which are internal and latent are manifested by those\nwhich externally break forth and appear; and it is clear to us that a\nfever is annexed to certain outward affections, for example, to wounds,\ninflaming tumors, inguinary abscesses.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXX.\n\nOF HEALTH, SICKNESS, AND OLD AGE.\n\n\nAlcmaeon says that the preserver of health is an equal proportion of\nthe qualities of heat, moisture, cold, dryness, bitterness, sweetness,\nand the other qualities; on the contrary, the prevailing empire of one\nabove the rest is the cause of diseases and author of destruction. The\nefficient cause of disease is the excess of heat or cold, the material\ncause is superabundance or defect, the place is the blood or brain.\nBut health is the harmonious commixture of the elements. Diocles, that\nsickness for the most part proceeds from the irregular disposition of\nthe elements in the body, for that makes an ill habit or constitution\nof it. Erasistratus, that sickness is caused by the excess of food,\nindigestion, and corruptions; on the contrary, health is the moderation\nof the diet, and the taking that which is convenient and sufficient for\nus. It is the unanimous opinion of the Stoics that the want of heat\nbrings old age, for (they say) those persons in whom heat more abounds\nlive the longer. Asclepiades, that the Ethiopians soon grow old, and\nat thirty years of age are ancient men, their bodies being excessively\nheated and scorched by the sun; in Britain persons live a hundred and\ntwenty years, on account of the coldness of the country, and because\nthe people contain the fiery element within their bodies; for the\nbodies of the Ethiopians are more fine and thin, because they are\nrelaxed by the sun\u2019s heat, while they who live in northern countries\nhave a contrary state of their bodies, for they are condensed and\nrobust, and by consequence live the longer.\n\n\n\n\n  A BREVIATE OF A DISCOURSE, SHOWING THAT THE STOICS SPEAK GREATER\n  IMPROBABILITIES THAN THE POETS.\n\n\n1. Pindar\u2019s Caeneus hath been taken to task by several, being\nimprobably feigned, impenetrable by steel and impassible in his body,\nand so\n\n  Descending into hell without a wound,\n  And with sound foot parting in two the ground.\n\nBut the Stoics\u2019 Lapithes, as if they had carved him out of the\nvery adamantine matter of impassibility itself, though he is not\ninvulnerable, nor exempt from either sickness or pain, yet remains\nfearless, regretless, invincible, and unconstrainable in the midst\nof wounds, dolors, and torments, and in the very subversions of the\nwalls of his native city, and other such like great calamities. Again,\nPindar\u2019s Caeneus is not wounded when struck; but the Stoics\u2019 wise\nman is not detained when shut up in a prison, suffers no compulsion\nby being thrown down a precipice, is not tortured when on the rack,\ntakes no hurt by being maimed, and when he catches a fall in wrestling\nhe is still unconquered; when he is encompassed with a rampire,\nhe is not besieged; and when sold by his enemies, he is still not\nmade a prisoner. The wonderful man is like to those ships that have\ninscribed upon them A PROSPEROUS VOYAGE, or PROTECTING\nPROVIDENCE, or A PRESERVATIVE AGAINST DANGERS, and yet\nfor all that endure storms, and are miserably shattered and overturned.\n\n2. Euripides\u2019s Iolaus of a feeble, superannuated old man, by means of\na certain prayer, became on a sudden youthful and strong for battle;\nbut the Stoics\u2019 wise man was yesterday most detestable and the worst of\nvillains, but to-day is changed on a sudden into a state of virtue, and\nis become of a wrinkled, pale fellow, and, as Aeschylus speaks,\n\n  Of an old sickly wretch with stitch in\u2019s back,\n  Distent with rending pains as on a rack,\n\na gallant, god-like, and beauteous person.\n\n3. The Goddess Minerva took from Ulysses his wrinkles, baldness,\nand deformity, to make him appear a handsome man. But these men\u2019s\nwise man, though old age quits not his body, but contrariwise still\nlays on and heaps more upon it, though he remains (for instance)\nhump-backed, toothless, one-eyed, is yet neither deformed, disfigured,\nnor ill-favored. For as beetles are said to relinquish perfumes and to\npursue after ill scents; so Stoical love, having used itself to the\nmost foul and deformed persons, if by means of philosophy they change\ninto good form and comeliness, becomes presently disgusted.\n\n4. He that in the Stoics\u2019 account was in the forenoon (for example) the\nworst man in the world is in the afternoon the best of men; and he that\nfalls asleep a very sot, dunce, miscreant, and brute, nay, by Jove, a\nslave and a beggar to boot, rises up the same day a prince, a rich and\na happy man, and (which is yet more) a continent, just, determined,\nand unprepossessed person;\u2014not by shooting forth out of a young and\ntender body a downy beard or the sprouting tokens of mature youth,\nbut by having in a feeble, soft, unmanful, and undetermined mind, a\nperfect intellect, a consummate prudence, a godlike disposition, an\nunprejudiced science, and an unalterable habit. All this time his\nviciousness gives not the least ground in order to it, but he becomes\nin an instant, I had almost said, of the vilest brute, a sort of hero,\ngenius, or God. For he that receives his virtue from the Stoics\u2019\nportico may say,\n\n  Ask what thou wilt, it shall be granted thee.[45]\n\nIt brings wealth along with it, it contains kingship in it, it confers\nfortune; it renders men prosperous, and makes them to want nothing and\nto have a sufficiency of every thing, though they have not one drachm\nof silver in the house.\n\n5. The fabular relations of the poets are so careful of decorum, that\nthey never leave a Hercules destitute of necessaries; but those still\nspring, as out of some fountain, as well for him as for his companions.\nBut he that hath received of the Stoics Amalthaea becomes indeed a rich\nman, but he begs his victuals of other men; he is a king, but resolves\nsyllogisms for hire; he is the only man that hath all things, but yet\nhe pays rent for the house he lives in, and oftentimes buys bread with\nborrowed money, or else begs it of those that have nothing themselves.\n\n6. The king of Ithaca begs with a design that none may know who he is,\nand makes himself\n\n  As like a dirty sorry beggar[46]\n\nas he can. But he that is of the Portico, while he bawls and cries out,\nIt is I only that am a king, It is I only that am a rich man, is yet\nmany times seen at other people\u2019s doors saying:\n\n  On poor Hipponax, pray, some pity take.\n  Bestow an old cast coat for heaven\u2019s sake;\n  I\u2019m well nigh dead with cold, and all o\u2019er quake.\n\n\n\n\nPLUTARCH\u2019S SYMPOSIACS.\n\n\nBOOK I.\n\nSome, my dear Sossius Senecio, imagine that this sentence, \u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03ad\u03c9\n\u03bc\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd, was principally designed against the stewards of\na feast, who are usually troublesome and press liquor too much upon\nthe guests. For the Dorians in Sicily (as I am informed) called the\nsteward \u03bc\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1, _a remembrancer_. Others think that this\nproverb admonisheth the guests to forget every thing that is spoken\nor done in company; and agreeably to this, the ancients used to\nconsecrate forgetfulness with a ferula to Bacchus, thereby intimating\nthat we should either not remember any irregularity committed in\nmirth and company, or apply a gentle and childish correction to the\nfaults. But because you are of opinion that to forget absurdities is\nindeed (as Euripides says) a piece of wisdom, but to deliver over to\noblivion all sort of discourse that merry meetings do usually produce\nis not only repugnant to that endearing quality that most allow to\nan entertainment, but against the known practice of the greatest\nphilosophers (for Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, Speusippus, Epicurus,\nPrytanis, Hieronymus, Dion the Academic, have thought it a worthy\nand noble employment to deliver down to us those discourses they had\nat table), and since it is your pleasure that I should gather up the\nchiefest of those scattered topics which both at Rome and Greece\namidst our cups and feasting we have disputed on, in obedience to your\ncommands I have sent three books, each containing ten problems; and\nthe rest shall quickly follow, if these find good acceptance and do not\nseem altogether foolish and impertinent.\n\n_QUESTION I._\n\nWHETHER MIDST OUR CUPS IT IS FIT TO TALK LEARNEDLY AND\nPHILOSOPHIZE?\n\nSOSSIUS SENECIO, ARISTO, PLUTARCH, CRATO, AND OTHERS.\n\n1. The first question is, Whether at table it is allowable to\nphilosophize? For I remember at a supper at Athens this doubt was\nstarted, whether at a merry meeting it was fit to use philosophical\ndiscourse, and how far it might be used? And Aristo presently cried\nout: What then, for heaven\u2019s sake, are there any that banish philosophy\nfrom company and wine? And I replied: Yes, sir, there are, and such\nas with a grave scoff tell us that philosophy, like the matron of the\nhouse, should never be heard at a merry entertainment; and commend\nthe custom of the Persians, who never let their wives appear, but\ndrink, dance, and wanton with their whores. This they propose for us\nto imitate; they permit us to have mimics and music at our feasts, but\nforbid philosophy; she, forsooth, being very unfit to be wanton with\nus, and we in a bad condition to be serious. Isocrates the rhetorician,\nwhen at a drinking bout some begged him to make a speech, only\nreturned: With those things in which I have skill the time doth not\nsuit; and in those things with which the time suits I have no skill.\n\n2. And Crato cried out: By Bacchus, he was right in forswearing\ntalk, if he designed to make such long-winded discourses as would\nhave spoiled all mirth and conversation; but I do not think there is\nthe same reason to forbid philosophy as to take away rhetoric from\nour feasts. For philosophy is quite of another nature; it is an art\nof living, and therefore must be admitted into every part of our\nconversation, into all our gay humors and our pleasures, to regulate\nand adjust them, to proportion the time, and keep them from excess;\nunless, perchance, upon the same scoffing pretence of gravity, they\nwould banish temperance, justice, and moderation. It is true, were we\nto feast in a court-room, as those that entertained Orestes, and were\nsilence enjoined by law, that might prove a not unlucky cloak of our\nignorance; but if Bacchus is really \u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 (_a looser_ of\nevery thing), and chiefly takes off all restraints and bridles from the\ntongue, and gives the voice the greatest freedom, I think it is foolish\nand absurd to deprive that time in which we are usually most talkative\nof the most useful and profitable discourse; and in our schools to\ndispute of the offices of company, in what consists the excellence\nof a guest, how mirth, feasting, and wine are to be used, and yet\ndeny philosophy a place in these feasts, as if not able to confirm by\npractice what by precepts it instructs.\n\n3. And when you affirmed that none ought to oppose what Crato said, but\ndetermine what sorts of philosophical topics were to be admitted as fit\ncompanions at a feast, and so avoid that just and pleasant taunt put\nupon the wrangling disputers of the age.\n\n  Come now to supper, that we may contend;\n\nand when you seemed concerned and urged us to speak to that head, I\nfirst replied: Sir, we must consider what company we have; for if\nthe greater part of the guests are learned men,\u2014as for instance,\nat Agatho\u2019s entertainment, men like Socrates, Phaedrus, Pausanias,\nEuryximachus; or at Callias\u2019s board, Charmides, Antisthenes,\nHermogenes, and the like,\u2014we will permit them to philosophize, and to\nmix Bacchus with the Muses as well as with the Nymphs; for the latter\nmake him wholesome and gentle to the body, and the other pleasant\nand agreeable to the soul. And if there are some few illiterate\npersons present, they, as mute consonants with vowels, in the midst\nof the other learned, will participate in a voice not altogether\ninarticulate and insignificant. But if the greater part consists of\nsuch who can better endure the noise of any bird, fiddle-string, or\npiece of wood than the voice of a philosopher, Pisistratus hath shown\nus what to do; for being at difference with his sons, when he heard\nhis enemies rejoiced at it, in a full assembly he declared that he had\nendeavored to persuade his sons to submit to him, but since he found\nthem obstinate, he was resolved to yield and submit to their humors.\nSo a philosopher, midst those companions that slight his excellent\ndiscourse, will lay aside his gravity, follow them, and comply with\ntheir humor as far as decency will permit; knowing very well that\nmen cannot exercise their rhetoric unless they speak, but may their\nphilosophy even whilst they are silent or jest merrily, nay, whilst\nthey are piqued upon or repartee. For it is not only (as Plato says)\nthe highest degree of injustice not to be just and yet seem so; but\nit is the top of wisdom to philosophize, yet not appear to do it; and\nin mirth to do the same with those that are serious, and yet seem in\nearnest. For as in Euripides, the Bacchae, though unprovided of iron\nweapons and unarmed, wounded their invaders with their boughs, thus the\nvery jests and merry talk of true philosophers move and correct in some\nsort those that are not altogether insensible.\n\n4. I think there are topics fit to be used at table, some of which\nreading and study give us, others the present occasion; some to incite\nto study, others to piety and great and noble actions, others to make\nus rivals of the bountiful and kind; which if a man cunningly and\nwithout any apparent design inserts for the instruction of the rest,\nhe will free these entertainments from many of those considerable\nevils which usually attend them. Some that put borage into the wine,\nor sprinkle the floor with water in which verbena and maiden-hair have\nbeen steeped, as good to raise mirth and jollity in the guests (in\nimitation of Homer\u2019s Helen, who with some medicament diluted the pure\nwine she had prepared), do not understand that that fable, coming round\nfrom Egypt, after a long way ends at last in easy and fit discourse.\nFor whilst they were drinking, Helen relates the story of Ulysses,\n\n  How Fortune\u2019s spite the hero did control,\n  And bore his troubles with a manly soul.[47]\n\nFor that, in my opinion, was the Nepenthe, the care-dissolving\nmedicament,\u2014that story exactly fitted to the then disasters and\njuncture of affairs. The pleasing men, though they designedly and\napparently instruct, draw on their maxims with persuasive and smooth\narguments, rather than the violent force of demonstrations. You see\nthat even Plato in his Symposium, where he disputes of the chief end,\nthe chief good, and is altogether on subjects theological, doth not\nlay down strong and close demonstrations; he doth not prepare himself\nfor the contest (as he is wont) like a wrestler, that he may take the\nfaster hold of his adversary and be sure of giving him the trip; but he\ndraws men on by more soft and pliable attacks, by pleasant fictions and\npat examples.\n\n5. Besides, the questions should be easy, the problems known, the\ninterrogations plain and familiar, not intricate and dark, that they\nmight neither vex the unlearned, nor fright them from the disquisition.\nFor\u2014as it is allowable to dissolve our entertainment into a dance, but\nif we force our guests to pitch quoits or play at cudgels, we shall\nnot only make our feast unpleasant, but hurtful and unnatural\u2014thus\nlight and easy disquisitions do pleasantly and profitably excite us,\nbut we must forbear all contentious and (to use Democritus\u2019s word)\nwrangling disputes, which perplex the proposers with intricate and\ninexplicable doubts, and trouble all the others that are present. Our\ndiscourse should be like our wine, common to all, and of which every\none may equally partake; and they that propose hard problems seem no\nbetter fitted for society than Aesop\u2019s fox and crane. For the fox vexed\nthe crane with thin broth poured out upon a flat stone, and laughed at\nher when he saw her, by reason of the narrowness of her bill and the\nthinness of the broth, incapable of partaking what he had prepared;\nand the crane, in requital, inviting the fox to supper, brought forth\nher dainties in a pot with a long and narrow neck, which she could\nconveniently thrust her bill into, whilst the fox could not reach one\nbit. Just so, when philosophers midst their cups dive into minute\nand logical disputes, they are very troublesome to those that cannot\nfollow them through the same depths; and those that bring in idle\nsongs, trifling disquisitions, common talk, and mechanical discourse\ndestroy the very end of conversation and merry entertainments, and\nabuse Bacchus. Therefore, as when Phrynichus and Aeschylus brought\ntragedy to discourse of fables and misfortunes, it was asked, What is\nthis to Bacchus?\u2014so methinks, when I hear some pedantically drawing\na syllogism into table-talk, I have reason to cry out, Sir, what is\nthis to Bacchus? Perchance one, the great bowl standing in the midst,\nand the chaplets given round, which the God in token of the liberty\nhe bestows sets on every head, sings one of those songs called \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ac\n(_crooked_ or _obscure_); this is not fit nor agreeable\nto a feast. Though some say these  \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ac were not dark and\nintricate composures; but that the guests sang the first song all\ntogether, praising Bacchus and describing the power of the God; and the\nsecond each man sang singly in his turn, a myrtle bough being delivered\nto every one in order, which they call an \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd because he that\nreceived it was obliged to sing (\u1f84\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd); and after this a harp being\ncarried round the company, the skilful took it, and fitted the music\nto the song; this when the unskilful could not perform, the song was\ncalled \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd, because it was hard to them, and one in which they\ncould not bear a part. Others say this myrtle bough was not delivered\nin order, but from bed to bed; and when the uppermost of the first\ntable had sung, he sent it to the uppermost of the second, and he to\nthe uppermost of the third; and so the second in like manner to the\nsecond; and from these many windings and this circuit it was called\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd, _crooked_.\n\n_QUESTION II._\n\nWHETHER THE ENTERTAINER SHOULD SEAT THE GUESTS, OR LET EVERY MAN\nTAKE HIS OWN PLACE.\n\nTIMON, A GUEST, PLUTARCH, PLUTARCH\u2019S FATHER, LAMPRIAS, AND OTHERS.\n\n1. My brother Timon, making a great entertainment, desired the guests\nas they came to seat themselves; for he had invited strangers and\ncitizens, neighbors and acquaintance, and all sorts of persons to the\nfeast. A great many being already come, a certain stranger at last\nappeared, dressed as fine as hands could make him, his clothes rich,\nand an unseemly train of foot-boys at his heels; he walked up to the\nparlor-door, and, staring round upon those that were already seated,\nturned his back and scornfully retired; and when a great many stepped\nafter him and begged him to return, he said, I see no fit place left\nfor me. At that, the other guests (for the glasses had gone round)\nlaughed abundantly, and desired his room rather than his company.\n\n2. But after supper, my father addressing himself to me, who sat at\nanother quarter of the table,\u2014Timon, said he, and I have a dispute,\nand you are to be judge, for I have been upon his skirts already about\nthat stranger; for if according to my directions he had seated every\nman in his proper place, we had never been thought unskilful in this\nmatter, by one\n\n  Whose art is great in ordering horse and foot.[48]\n\nAnd story says that Paulus Aemilius, after he had conquered Perseus\nthe king of Macedon, making an entertainment, besides his costly\nfurniture and extraordinary provision, was very critical in the order\nof his feast; saying, It is the same man\u2019s task to order a terrible\nbattle and a pleasing entertainment, for both of them require skill\nin the art of disposing right. Homer often calls the stoutest and the\ngreatest princes \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b1\u1ff6\u03bd, _disposers of the people_; and\nyou use to say that the great Creator, by this art of disposing, turned\ndisorder into beauty, and neither taking away nor adding any new being,\nbut setting every thing in its proper place, out of the most uncomely\nfigure and confused chaos produced this beauteous, this surprising\nface of nature that appears. In these great and noble doctrines indeed\nyou instruct us; but our own observation sufficiently assures us,\nthat the greatest profuseness in a feast appears neither delightful\nnor genteel, unless beautified by order. And therefore it is absurd\nthat cooks and waiters should be solicitous what dish must be brought\nfirst, what next, what placed in the middle, and what last; and that\nthe garlands, and ointment, and music (if they have any) should have\na proper place and order assigned, and yet that the guests should be\nseated promiscuously, and no respect be had to age, honor, or the like;\nno distinguishing order by which the man in dignity might be honored,\nthe inferior learn to give place, and the disposer be exercised in\ndistinguishing what is proper and convenient. For it is not rational\nthat, when we walk or sit down to discourse, the best man should have\nthe best place, and that the same order should not be observed at\ntable; or that the entertainer should in civility drink to one before\nanother, and yet make no difference in their seats, at the first dash\nmaking the whole company one Myconus[49] (as they say), a hodge-podge\nand confusion. This my father brought for his opinion.\n\n3. And my brother said: I am not so much wiser than Bias, that, since\nhe refused to be arbitrator between two only of his friends, I should\npretend to be a judge between so many strangers and acquaintance;\nespecially since it is not a money matter, but about precedence and\ndignity, as if I invited my friends not to treat them kindly, but to\nabuse them. Menelaus is accounted absurd and passed into a proverb,\nfor pretending to advise when unasked; and sure he would be more\nridiculous that instead of an entertainer should set up for a judge,\nwhen nobody requests him or submits to his determination which is the\nbest and which the worst man in the company; for the guests do not\ncome to contend about precedency, but to feast and be merry. Besides,\nit is no easy task for him to distinguish; for some claim respect by\nreason of their age, others from their familiarity and acquaintance;\nand, like those that make declamations consisting of comparisons, he\nmust have Aristotle\u2019s \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 and Thrasymachus\u2019s \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (books\nthat furnish him with heads of argument) at his fingers\u2019 end; and all\nthis to no good purpose or profitable effect, but to bring vanity from\nthe bar and the theatre into our feasts and entertainments, and, whilst\nby good fellowship we endeavor to remit all other passions, to intend\npride and arrogance, from which, in my opinion, we should be more\ncareful to cleanse our souls than to wash our feet from dirt, that our\nconversation may be free, simple, and full of mirth. And while by such\nmeetings we strive to end all differences that have at any time risen\namongst the invited, we should make them flame anew, and kindle them\nagain by emulation, by thus debasing some and puffing up others. And\nif, according as we seat them, we should drink oftener and discourse\nmore with some than others, and set daintier dishes before them,\ninstead of being friendly we should be lordly in our feasts. And if\nin other things we treat them all equally, why should we not begin at\nthe first part, and bring it into fashion for all to take their seats\npromiscuously, without ceremony or pride, and to let them see, as soon\nas they enter, that they are invited to a dinner whose order is free\nand democratical, and not as particular chosen men to the government of\na city where aristocracy is the form; since the richest and the poorest\nsit promiscuously together.\n\n4. When this had been offered on both sides, and all present required\nmy determination, I said: Being an arbitrator and not a judge, I shall\nclose strictly with neither side, but go indifferently in the middle\nbetween both. If a man invites young men, citizens, or acquaintance,\nthey should (as Timon says) be accustomed to be content with any\nplace, without ceremony or concernment; and this good-nature and\nunconcernedness would be an excellent means to preserve and increase\nfriendship. But if we use the same method to strangers, magistrates,\nor old men, I have just reason to fear that, whilst we seem to thrust\nour pride at the fore-door, we bring it in again at the back, together\nwith a great deal of indifferency and disrespect. But in this, custom\nand the established rules of decency must guide; or else let us abolish\nall those modes of respect expressed by drinking to or saluting first;\nwhich we do not use promiscuously to all the company, but according to\ntheir worth we honor every one\n\n  With better places, meat, and larger cups,[50]\n\nas Agamemnon says, naming the place first, as the chiefest sign of\nhonor. And we commend Alcinous for placing his guest next himself:\n\n  He stout Laomedon his son removed,\n  Who sat next him, for him he dearly loved;[51]\n\nFor to place a suppliant stranger in the seat of his beloved son was\nwonderful kind, and extreme courteous. Nay, even amongst the Gods\nthemselves this distinction is observed; for Neptune, though he came\nlast into the assembly,\n\n  Sat in the middle seat,[52]\n\nas if that was his proper place. And Minerva seems to have that\nassigned her which is next Jupiter himself; and this the poet\nintimates, when speaking of Thetis he says,\n\n  She sat next Jove, Minerva giving place.[53]\n\nAnd Pindar plainly says,\n\n  She sits just next the thunder-breathing flames\n\nIndeed Timon urges, we ought not to rob many to honor one. Now it\nseems to me that he does this very thing himself, even more than\nothers; for he robs that makes something that is proper common; and\nsuitable honor to his worth is each man\u2019s property. And he gives\nthat pre-eminence to running fast and making haste, which is due to\nvirtue, kindred, magistracies, and such other qualities; and whilst he\nendeavors not to affront his guests, he necessarily falls into that\nvery inconvenience; for he must affront every one by defrauding them\nof their proper honor. Besides, in my opinion it is no hard matter to\nmake this distinction, and seat our guests according to their quality;\nfor first, it very seldom happens that many of equal honor are invited\nto the same banquet; and then, since there are many honorable places,\nyou have room enough to dispose them according to content, if you can\nbut guess that this man must be seated uppermost, that in the middle,\nanother next to yourself, or with his friend, acquaintance, tutor, or\nthe like, appointing every one some place of honor; and as for the\nrest, I would supply their want of honor with some little presents,\naffability, and kind discourse. But if their qualities are not easy to\nbe distinguished, and the men themselves hard to be pleased, see what\ndevice I have in that case; for I seat in the most honorable place my\nfather, if invited; if not, my grandfather, father-in-law, uncle, or\nsomebody whom the entertainer hath a more particular reason to esteem.\nAnd this is one of the many rules of decency that we have from Homer;\nfor in his poem, when Achilles saw Menelaus and Antilochus contending\nabout the second prize of the horse-race, fearing that their strife and\nfury would increase, he gave the prize to another, under pretence of\ncomforting and honoring Eumelus, but indeed to take away the cause of\ntheir contention.\n\n5. When I had said this, Lamprias, sitting (as he always doth) upon\na low bed, cried out: Sirs, will you give me leave to correct this\nsottish judge? And the company bidding him speak freely and tell me\nroundly of my faults, and not spare, he said: And who can forbear that\nphilosopher, who disposes of places at a feast according to the birth,\nwealth, or offices of the guests, as if they were seats in a theatre or\nthe Amphictyonic Council, so that pride and arrogance must be admitted\neven into our mirth and entertainments? In seating our guests we should\nnot have respect to honor, but mirth and conversation; not look after\nevery man\u2019s quality, but their agreement and harmony with one another,\nas those do that join several different things in one composure. Thus\na mason doth not set an Athenian or a Spartan stone, because formed in\na more noble country, before an Asian or a Spanish; nor does a painter\ngive the most costly color the chiefest place; nor a shipwright the\nCorinthian fir or Cretan cypress; but they so distribute them as will\nbest serve to the common end, and make the whole composure strong,\nbeautiful, and fit for use. Nay, you see even the Deity himself (by our\nPindar named the most skilful artificer) doth not everywhere place the\nfire above and the earth below; but, as Empedocles hath it,\n\n  The oysters, murets of the sea, and shell-fish every one,\n  With massy coat, the tortoise eke, with crust as hard as stone,\n  And vaulted back, which archwise he aloft doth hollow rear,\n  Show all that heavy earth they do above their bodies bear;\n\nthe earth not having that place that Nature appoints, but that which\nis necessary to compound bodies and serviceable to the common end, the\npreservation of the whole. Disorder is in every thing an evil; but then\nits badness is principally discovered, when it is amongst men whilst\nthey are making merry; for then it breeds contentions and a thousand\nunspeakable mischiefs, which to foresee and hinder shows a man well\nskilled in good order and disposing right.\n\n6. We all agreed that he said well, but asked him why he would not\ninstruct us how to order things aright, and communicate his skill. I\nam content, says he, to instruct you, if you will permit me to change\nthe present order of the feast, and will yield as ready obedience to\nme as the Thebans to Epaminondas when he altered the order of their\nbattle. We gave him full power; and he, having turned all the servants\nout, looked round upon every one, and said: Hear (for I will tell you\nfirst) how I design to order you together. In my mind, the Theban\nPammenes justly taxeth Homer as unskilful in love matters, for setting\ntogether, in his description of an army, tribe and tribe, family and\nfamily; for he should have joined the lover and the beloved, so that\nthe whole body being united in their minds might perfectly agree. This\nrule will I follow, not set one rich man by another, a youth by a\nyouth, a magistrate by a magistrate, and a friend by a friend; for such\nan order is of no force, either to beget or increase friendship and\ngood-will. But fitting that which wants with something that is able\nto supply it, next one that is willing to instruct I will place one\nthat is as desirous to be instructed; next a morose, one good-natured;\nnext a talkative old man, a youth patient and eager for a story;\nnext a boaster, a jeering smooth companion; and next an angry man, a\nquiet one. If I see a wealthy fellow bountiful and kind, I will take\nsome poor honest man from his obscure place, and set him next, that\nsomething may run out of that full vessel into the other empty one. A\nsophister I will forbid to sit by a sophister, and one poet by another;\n\n  For beggars beggars, poets poets, envy[54]\n\nI separate the clamorous scoffers and the testy, by putting some\ngood-nature between them, that they may not justle so roughly on one\nanother; but wrestlers, hunters, and farmers I put in one company. For\nsome of the same nature, when put together, fight as cocks; others\nare very sociable as daws. Drinkers and lovers I set together, not\nonly those who (as Sophocles says) feel the sting of masculine love,\nbut those that are mad after virgins or married women; for they being\nwarmed with the like fire, as two pieces of iron to be joined, will\nmore readily agree; unless perhaps they both fancy the same person.\n\n_QUESTION III._\n\nUPON WHAT ACCOUNT IS THE PLACE AT THE TABLE CALLED CONSULAR\nESTEEMED HONORABLE.\n\nTHE SAME.\n\nThis raised a dispute about the dignity of places, for the same place\nis not accounted honorable amongst all nations; in Persia the midst,\nfor that is the place proper to the king himself; in Greece the\nuppermost; at Rome the lowermost of the middle bed, and this is called\nthe consular; the Greeks about Pontus, as those of Heraclea, reckon\nthe uppermost of the middle bed to be the chief. But we were most\npuzzled about the place called consular; for though it is esteemed most\nhonorable, yet it is not for any well-defined reason, as if it were\neither the first or the midst; and its other circumstances are either\nnot proper to that alone, or very frivolous. Though I confess three of\nthe reasons alleged seemed to have something in them. The first was,\nthat the consuls, having dissolved the monarchy, and reduced every\nthing to a more equal level and popular estate, left the middle, the\nkingly place, and sat in a lower seat; that by this means their power\nand authority might be less subject to envy, and not so grievous to\ntheir fellow-citizens. The second was, that, two beds being appointed\nfor the invited guests, the third\u2014and the first place in this\u2014is most\nconvenient for the master of the feast, whence, like a coachman or a\npilot, he can guide and order every thing, and readily overlook the\nmanagement of the whole affair. Besides, he is not so far removed but\nthat he may easily discourse, talk to, and compliment his guests; for\nnext below him his wife and children usually are placed; next above\nhim the most honorable of the invited, that being the most proper\nplace, as near the master of the feast. The third reason was, that it\nis peculiar to this place to be most convenient for the despatch of\nany sudden business; for the Roman consul is not such a one as Archias\nthe governor of Thebes, so as to say, when letters of importance are\nbrought to him at dinner, \u201cserious things to-morrow,\u201d and then throw\naside the packet and take the great bowl; but he will be careful,\ncircumspect, and mind it at that very instant. For not only (as the\ncommon saying hath it)\n\n  Each throw doth make the skilful dicer fear,\n\nbut even midst his feasting and his pleasure a magistrate should be\nintent on intervening business; and he hath this place appointed, as\nthe most convenient for him to receive any message, answer it, or\nsign a bill; for there the second bed joining with the third,[55] the\nturning at the corner leaves a vacant space, so that a notary, servant,\nguardsman, or a messenger from the army might approach, deliver the\nmessage, and receive commands; and the consul, having room enough to\nspeak or use his hand, neither troubles any one, nor is hindered by any\nof the guests.\n\n_QUESTION IV._\n\nWHAT MANNER OF MAN SHOULD A STEWARD OF A FEAST BE?\n\nCRATO, THEON, PLUTARCH, AND OTHERS.\n\n1. Crato a relative of ours, and Theon my acquaintance, at a certain\nbanquet, where the glasses had gone round freely, and a little stir\narose but was suddenly appeased, began to discourse of the office of\nthe steward of a feast; declaring that it was my duty to wear the\nchaplet, assert the decaying privilege, and restore that office which\nshould take care for the decency and good order of the banquet. This\nproposal pleased every one, and they were all an end begging me to do\nit. Well then, said I, since you will have it so, I make myself steward\nand director of you all, and command the rest of you to drink every\none what he will, but Crato and Theon, the first proposers and authors\nof this decree, I enjoin to declare in short what qualifications fit a\nman for this office, what he should principally aim at, and how behave\nhimself towards those under his command. This is the subject, and let\nthem agree amongst themselves which head each shall manage.\n\n2. They made some slight excuse at first; but the whole company urging\nthem to obey, Crato began thus. A captain of a watch (as Plato says)\nought to be most watchful and diligent himself, and the director of\nmerry companions ought to be the best. And such a one he is, that will\nnot be easily overtaken or apt to refuse a glass; but as Cyrus in his\nepistle to the Spartans says, that in many other things he was more\nfit than his brother to be a king, and chiefly because he could bear\nabundance of wine. For one that is drunk must have an ill carriage and\nbe apt to affront; and he that is perfectly sober, must be unpleasant,\nand fitter to be a governor of a school than of a feast. Pericles,\nas often as he was chosen general, when he first put on his cloak,\nused to say to himself, as it were to refresh his memory, Take heed,\nPericles, thou dost govern free-men, thou dost govern Greeks, thou dost\ngovern Athenians. So let our director say privately to himself, Thou\nart a governor over friends, that he may remember to neither suffer\nthem to be debauched nor stint their mirth. Besides, he ought to have\nsome skill in the serious studies of the guests, and not be altogether\nignorant of mirth and humor; yet I would have him (as pleasant wine\nought to be) a little severe and rough, for the liquor will soften and\nsmooth him, and make his temper pleasant and agreeable. For as Xenophon\nsays, that Clearchus\u2019s rustic and morose humor in a battle, by reason\nof his bravery and heat, seemed pleasant and surprising; thus one that\nis not of a very sour nature, but grave and severe, being softened by\na chirping cup, becomes more pleasant and complaisant. But chiefly\nhe should be acquainted with every one of the guests\u2019 humors, what\nalteration the liquor makes in him, what passion he is most subject\nto, and what quantity he can bear; for it is not to be supposed the\nwater bears various proportions to different sorts of wine (which\nkings\u2019 cup-bearers understanding sometimes pour in more, sometimes\nless) and that man hath no such relation to them. This our director\nought to know, and knowing, punctually observe; so that like a good\nmusician, screwing up one and letting down another, he may make between\nthese different natures a pleasing harmony and agreement; so that he\nshall not proportion his wine by measure, but give every one what was\nproper and agreeable, according to the present circumstances of time\nand strength of body. But if this is too difficult a task, yet it is\nnecessary that a steward should know the common accidents of age and\nnature, such as these,\u2014that an old man will be sooner overtaken than a\nyouth, one that leaps about or talks sooner than he that is silent or\nsits still, the thoughtful and melancholy sooner than the cheerful and\nthe brisk. And he that understands these things is much more able to\npreserve quietness and order, than one that is perfectly ignorant and\nunskilful. Besides, I think none will doubt but that the steward ought\nto be a friend, and have no pique at any of the guests; for otherwise\nin his injunctions he will be intolerable, in his distributions\nunequal, in his jests apt to scoff and give offence. Such a figure,\nTheon, as out of wax, hath my discourse framed for the steward of a\nfeast; and now I deliver him to you.\n\n3. And Theon replied: He is welcome,\u2014a very well-shaped gentleman,\nand fitted for the office; but whether I shall not spoil him in my\nparticular application, I cannot tell. In my opinion he seems such a\none as will keep an entertainment to its primitive institution, and\nnot suffer it to be changed, sometimes into a mooting hall, sometimes\na school of rhetoric, now and then a dicing-room, a play house, or a\nstage. For do not you observe some making fine orations and putting\ncases at a supper, others declaiming or reading some of their own\ncompositions, and others proposing prizes to dancers and mimics?\nAlcibiades and Theodorus turned Polition\u2019s banquet into a place of\ninitiation, representing there the sacred procession and mysteries\nof Ceres; now such things as these, in my opinion, ought not to be\nsuffered by a steward, but he must permit such discourse only, such\nshows, such merriment, as promote the particular end and design of\nsuch entertainments; and that is, by pleasant conversation either to\nbeget or maintain friendship and good-will among the guests; for an\nentertainment is only a pleasant recreation at the table with a glass\nof wine, aiming to contract friendship through mutual good-will.\n\nBut now because things pure and unmixed are usually surfeiting and\nodious, and the very mixture itself, unless the simples be well\nproportioned and opportunely put together, spoils the sweetness and\ngoodness of the composition; it is evident that there ought to be a\ndirector who shall take care that the mirth and jollity of the guests\nbe exactly and opportunely tempered. It is a common saying, that a\nvoyage near the land and a walk near the sea are the best recreation.\nThus our steward should place seriousness and gravity next jollity and\nhumor; that, when they are merry, they should be on the very borders of\ngravity itself, and when grave and serious, they might be refreshed as\nsea-sick persons, having an easy and short prospect to the mirth and\njollity on the shore. For mirth may be exceeding useful, and make our\ngrave discourses smooth and pleasant,\u2014\n\n  As near the bramble oft the lily grows,\n  And neighboring rue commends the blushing rose.\n\nBut against vain and empty humors, that wantonly break in upon our\nfeasts, like henbane mixed with the wine, he must caution the guests,\nlest scoffing and affronts creep in under these, lest in their\nquestions or commands they grow scurrilous and abuse, as for instance\nby enjoining stutterers to sing, bald-pates to comb their heads, or\na cripple to rise and dance. So the company once abused Agapestor\nthe Academic, one of whose legs was lame and withered, when in a\nridiculing frolic they ordained that every man should stand upon his\nright leg and take off his glass, or pay a forfeit; and he, when it\nwas his turn to command, enjoined the company to follow his example\nand drink as he did, and having a narrow earthen pitcher brought in,\nhe put his withered leg into it, and drank his glass, and every one in\nthe company, after a fruitless endeavor to imitate, paid his forfeit.\nIt was a good humor of Agapestor\u2019s, and thus every little merry abuse\nmust be as merrily revenged. Besides, he must give such commands as\nwill both please and profit, putting such as are familiar and easy to\nthe person, and when performed will be for his credit and reputation. A\nsongster must be enjoined to sing, an orator to speak, a philosopher to\nsolve a problem, and a poet to make a song; for every one very readily\nand willingly undertakes that\n\n  In which he may outdo himself.\n\nAn Assyrian king by public proclamation promised a reward to him\nthat would find out any new sort of luxury and pleasure. And let\nthe governor, the king of an entertainment, propose some pleasant\nreward for any one that introduceth inoffensive merriment, profitable\ndelight and laughter, such as attends not scoffs and abusive jests,\nbut kindness, pleasant humor, and good-will; for these matters not\nbeing well looked after and observed spoil and ruin most of our\nentertainments. It is the office of a prudent man to hinder all sort\nof anger and contention; in the exchange, that which springs from\ncovetousness; in the fencing and wrestling schools, from emulation;\nin offices and state affairs, from ambition; and in a feast or\nentertainment, from pleasantness and joke.\n\n_QUESTION V._\n\nWHY IT IS COMMONLY SAID THAT LOVE MAKES A MAN A POET.\n\nSOSSIUS, PLUTARCH, AND OTHERS.\n\n1. One day when Sossius entertained us, after singing some Sapphic\nverses, this question was started, how it could be true\n\n  That love in all doth vigorous thoughts inspire,\n  And teaches ignorants to tune the lyre?[56]\n\nSince Philoxenus, on the contrary, asserts, that the Cyclops\n\n  With sweet-tongued Muses cured his love.\n\nSome said that love was bold and daring, venturing at new contrivances,\nand eager to accomplish, upon which account Plato calls it the\nenterpriser of every thing; for it makes the reserved man talkative,\nthe modest complimental, the negligent and sluggish industrious and\nobservant; and, what is the greatest wonder, a close, hard, and\ncovetous fellow, if he happens to be in love, as iron in fire, becomes\npliable and soft, easy, good-natured, and very pleasant; as if there\nwere something in that common jest, A lover\u2019s purse is tied with\nthe blade of a leek. Others said that love was like drunkenness; it\nmakes men warm, merry, and dilated; and, when in that condition, they\nnaturally slide down to songs and words in measure; and it is reported\nof Aeschylus, that he wrote tragedies after he was heated with a glass\nof wine; and my grandfather Lamprias in his cups seemed to outdo\nhimself in starting questions and smart disputing, and usually said\nthat, like frankincense, he exhaled more freely after he was warmed.\nAnd as lovers are extremely pleased with the sight of their beloved,\nso they praise with as much satisfaction as they behold; and as love\nis talkative in every thing, so more especially in commendation; for\nlovers themselves believe, and would have all others think, that the\nobject of their passion is pleasing and excellent; and this made\nCandaules the Lydian force Gyges into his chamber to behold the beauty\nof his naked wife. For they delight in the testimony of others, and\ntherefore in all composures upon the lovely they adorn them with\nsongs and verses, as we dress images with gold, that more may hear of\nthem, and that they may be remembered the more. For if they present a\ncock, horse, or any other thing to the beloved, it is neatly trimmed\nand set off with all the ornaments of art; and therefore, when they\nwould present a compliment, they would have it curious, pleasing, and\nmajestic, as verse usually appears.\n\n2. Sossius applauding these discourses added: Perhaps we may make a\nprobable conjecture from Theophrastus\u2019s discourse of Music, for I\nhave lately read the book. Theophrastus lays down three causes of\nmusic,\u2014grief, pleasure, and enthusiasm; for each of these changes\nthe usual tone, and makes the voice slide into a cadence; for deep\nsorrow has something tunable in its groans, and therefore we perceive\nour orators in their conclusions, and actors in their complaints, are\nsomewhat melodious, and insensibly fall into a tune. Excess of joy\nprovokes the more airy men to frisk and dance and keep their steps,\nthough unskilful in the art; and, as Pindar hath it,\n\n  They shout, and roar, and wildly toss their heads.\n\nBut the graver sort are excited only to sing, raise their voice, and\ntune their words into a sonnet. But enthusiasm quite changes the body\nand the voice, and makes it far different from its usual constitution.\nHence the very Bacchae use measure, and the inspired give their oracles\nin measure. And we shall see very few madmen but are frantic in rhyme\nand rave in verse. This being certain, if you will but anatomize love\na little, and look narrowly into it, it will appear that no passion in\nthe world is attended with more violent grief, more excessive joy, or\ngreater ecstasies and fury; a lover\u2019s soul looks like Sophocles\u2019s city:\n\n  At once \u2019tis full of sacrifice,\n  Of joyful songs, of groans and cries.[57]\n\nAnd therefore it is no wonder, that since love contains all the causes\nof music,\u2014grief, pleasure, and enthusiasm,\u2014and is besides industrious\nand talkative, it should incline us more than any other passion to\npoetry and songs.\n\n_QUESTION VI._\n\nWHETHER ALEXANDER WAS A GREAT DRINKER.\n\nPHILINUS, PLUTARCH, AND OTHERS.\n\n1. Some said that Alexander did not drink much, but sat long in\ncompany, discoursing with his friends; but Philinus showed this to be\nan error from the king\u2019s diary, where it was very often registered that\nsuch a day, and sometimes two days together, the king slept after a\ndebauch; and this course of life made him cold in love, but passionate\nand angry, which argues a hot constitution. And some report his sweat\nwas fragrant and perfumed his clothes; which is another argument of\nheat, as we see the hottest and driest climates bear frankincense and\ncassia; for a fragrant smell, as Theophrastus thinks, proceeds from a\ndue concoction of the humors, when the noxious moisture is conquered\nby the heat. And it is thought probable, that he took a pique at\nCalisthenes for avoiding his table because of the hard drinking, and\nrefusing the great bowl called Alexander\u2019s in his turn, adding, I will\nnot drink of Alexander\u2019s cup, to stand in need of Aesculapius\u2019s. And\nthus much of Alexander\u2019s drinking.\n\n2. Story tells us, that Mithridates, the famous enemy of the Romans,\namong other trials of skill that he instituted, proposed rewards to\nthe greatest eater and to the stoutest drinker in his kingdom. He\nwon both the prizes himself; he out-drank every man living, and for\nhis excellency that way he was called Bacchus. But this reason for\nhis surname is a vain fancy and an idle story; for whilst he was an\ninfant a flash of lightning burnt his cradle, but did his body no harm,\nand only left a little mark on his forehead, which his hair covered\nwhen he was grown a boy; and after he came to be a man, another flash\nbroke into his bed-chamber, and burnt the arrows in a quiver that was\nhanging under him; from whence his diviners presaged, that archers and\nlight-armed men should win him considerable victories in his wars;\nand the vulgar gave him this name, because in those many dangers by\nlightning he bore some resemblance to the Theban Bacchus.\n\n3. From hence great drinkers were the subject of our discourse; and\nthe wrestler Heraclides (or, as the Alexandrians mince it, Heraclus),\nwho lived but in the last age, was accounted one. He, when he could\nget none to hold out with him, invited some to take their morning\u2019s\ndraught, others to dinner, to supper others, and others after, to take\na merry glass of wine; so that as the first went off, the second came,\nand the third and fourth company, and he all the while without any\nintermission took his glass round, and outsat all the four companies.\n\n4. Amongst the retainers to Drusus, the Emperor Tiberius\u2019s son, there\nwas a physician that drank down all the court; he, before he sat down,\nwould usually take five or six bitter almonds to prevent the operation\nof the wine; but whenever he was forbidden that, he knocked under\npresently, and a single glass dozed him. Some think these almonds have\na penetrating, abstersive quality, are able to cleanse the face, and\nclear it from the common freckles; and therefore, when they are eaten,\nby their bitterness vellicate and fret the pores, and by that means\ndraw down the ascending vapors from the head. But, in my opinion,\na bitter quality is a drier, and consumes moisture; and therefore a\nbitter taste is the most unpleasant. For, as Plato says, dryness, being\nan enemy to moisture, unnaturally contracts the spongy and tender\nnerves of the tongue. And green ulcers are usually drained by bitter\ninjections. Thus Homer:\n\n  He squeezed his herbs, and bitter juice applied;\n  And straight the blood was stanched, the sore was dried.[58]\n\nAnd he guesses well, that what is bitter to the taste is a drier.\nBesides, the powders women use to dry up their sweat are bitter, and by\nreason of that quality astringent. This then being certain, it is no\nwonder that the bitterness of the almonds hinders the operation of the\nwine, since it dries the inside of the body and keeps the veins from\nbeing overcharged; for from their distention and disturbance they say\ndrunkenness proceeds. And this conjecture is much confirmed from that\nwhich usually happens to a fox; for if he eats bitter almonds without\ndrinking, his moisture suddenly fails, and it is present death.\n\n_QUESTION VII._\n\nWHY OLD MEN LOVE PURE WINE.\n\nPLUTARCH AND OTHERS.\n\nIt was debated why old men loved the strongest liquors. Some, fancying\nthat their natural heat decayed and their constitution grew cold, said,\nsuch liquors were most necessary and agreeable to their age; but this\nwas mean and obvious, and besides, neither a sufficient nor a true\nreason; for the like happens to all their other senses. They are not\neasily moved or wrought on by any qualities, unless they are in intense\ndegrees and make a vigorous impression; but the reason is the laxity\nof the habit of their body, for that, being grown lax and weak, loves\na smart stroke. Thus their taste is pleased most with strong sapors,\ntheir smelling with brisk odors; for strong and unalloyed qualities\nmake a more pleasing impression on the sense. Their touch is almost\nsenseless to a sore, and a wound generally raises no sharp pain. The\nlike also in their hearing may be observed; for old musicians play\nlouder and sharper than others, that they may move their own dull\ntympanum with the sound. For what steel is to the edge in a knife, that\nspirit is to the sense in the body; and therefore, when the spirits\nfail, the sense grows dull and stupid, and cannot be raised, unless by\nsomething, such as strong wine, that makes a vigorous impression.\n\n_QUESTION VIII._\n\nWHY OLD MEN READ BEST AT A DISTANCE.\n\nPLUTARCH, LAMPRIAS, AND OTHERS.\n\n1. To my discourse in the former problem some objection may be drawn\nfrom the sense of seeing in old men; for, if they hold a book at a\ndistance, they will read pretty well, nearer they cannot see a letter.\nThis Aeschylus means by these verses:\n\n  Behold from far; for near thou canst not see;\n  A good old scribe thou mayst much sooner be.\n\nAnd Sophocles more plainly:\n\n  Old men are slow in talk, they hardly hear;\n  Far off they see; but all are blind when near\n\nAnd therefore, if old men\u2019s organs are more obedient to strong and\nintense qualities, why, when they read, do they not take the reflection\nnear at hand, but, holding the book a good way off, mix and weaken it\nby the intervening air, as wine by water?\n\n2. Some answered, that they did not remove the book to lessen the\nlight, but to receive more rays, and let all the space between the\nletters and their eyes be filled with lightsome air. Others agreed\nwith those that imagine the rays of vision mix with one another; for\nsince there is a cone stretched between each eye and the object, whose\npoint is in the eye and whose basis is the object, it is probable\nthat for some way each cone extends apart and by itself; but, when\nthe distance increases, they mix and make but one common light; and\ntherefore every object appears single and not two, though it is seen\nby both eyes at once; for the conjunction of the cones makes these\ntwo appearances but one. These things supposed, when old men hold the\nletters near to their eyes, the cones not being joined, but each apart\nand by itself, their sight is weak; but when they remove it farther,\nthe two lights being mingled and increased, they see better, as a man\nwith both hands can hold that for which either singly is too weak.\n\n3. But my brother Lamprias, though unacquainted with Hieronymus\u2019s\nnotions, gave us the same reason. We see, said he, some species that\ncome from the object to the eye, which at their first rise are thick\nand great, and therefore when near disturb old men, whose eyes are\nstiff and not easily penetrated; but when they are separated and\ndiffused into the air, the thick obstructing parts are easily removed,\nand the subtile remainders coming to the eye slide gently and easily\ninto the pores; and so the disturbance being less, the sight is more\nvigorous and clear. Thus a rose smells most fragrant at a distance; but\nif you bring it near the nose, it is not so pure and delightful; and\nthe reason is this,\u2014many earthy disturbing particles are carried with\nthe smell, and spoil the fragrancy when near, but in a longer passage\nthose are lost, and the pure brisk odor, by reason of its subtility,\nreaches and acts upon the sense.\n\n4. But we, according to Plato\u2019s opinion, assert that a bright spirit\ndarted from the eye mixes with the light about the object, and those\ntwo are perfectly blended into one similar body; now these must be\njoined in due proportion one to another; for one part ought not wholly\nto prevail on the other, but both, being proportionally and amicably\njoined, should agree in one third common power. Now this (whether flux,\nilluminated spirit, or ray) in old men being very weak, there can be no\ncombination, no mixture with the light about the object; but it must\nbe wholly consumed, unless, by removing the letters from their eyes,\nthey lessen the brightness of the light, so that it comes to the sight\nnot too strong or unmixed, but well proportioned and blended with the\nother. And this explains that common affection of creatures seeing in\nthe dark; for their eye-sight being weak is overcome and darkened by\nthe splendor of the day; because the little light that flows from their\neyes cannot be proportionably mixed with the stronger and more numerous\nbeams; but it is proportionable and sufficient for the feeble splendor\nof the stars, and so can join with it, and co-operate to move the sense.\n\n_QUESTION IX._\n\nWHY FRESH WATER WASHES CLOTHES BETTER THAN SALT.\n\nTHEON, THEMISTOCLES, METRIUS FLORUS, PLUTARCH, AND OTHERS.\n\n1. Theon the grammarian, when Metrius Florus gave us an entertainment,\nasked Themistocles the Stoic, why Chrysippus, though he frequently\nmentioned some strange phenomena in nature (as that salt fish soaked in\nsalt water grows fresher than before, fleeces of wool are more easily\nseparated by a gentle than a quick and violent force, and men that are\nfasting eat slower than those who took a breakfast), yet never gave any\nreason for the appearance. And Themistocles replied, that Chrysippus\nonly proposed such things by the by, as instances to correct us,\nwho easily and without any reason assent to what seems likely, and\ndisbelieve every thing that seems unlikely at the first sight. But why,\nsir, are you concerned at this? For if you are speculative and would\nenquire into the causes of things, you need not want subjects in your\nown profession; but pray tell me why Homer makes Nausicaa wash in the\nriver rather than the sea, though it was near, and in all likelihood\nhotter, clearer, and fitter to wash with than that?\n\n2. And Theon replied: Aristotle hath already given an account for\nthis from the grossness of the sea water; for in this an abundance of\nrough earthy particles is mixed, and those make it salt; and upon this\naccount swimmers or any other weights sink not so much in sea water as\nin fresh, for the latter, being thin and weak, yields to every pressure\nand is easily divided, because it is pure and unmixed; and by reason of\nthis subtility of parts it penetrates better than salt water, and so\nlooseneth from the clothes the sticking particles of the spot. And is\nnot this discourse of Aristotle very probable?\n\n3. Probable indeed, I replied, but not true; for I have observed that\nwith ashes, gravel, or, if these are not to be gotten, with dust itself\nthey usually thicken the water, as if the earthy particles being rough\nwould scour better than fair water, whose thinness makes it weak and\nineffectual. Therefore he is mistaken when he says the thickness of\nthe sea water hinders the effect, since the sharpness of the mixed\nparticles very much conduces to make it cleansing; for that opens the\npores, and draws out the stain. But since all oily matter is most\ndifficult to be washed out and spots a cloth, and the sea is oily,\nthat is the reason why it doth not scour as well as fresh; and that it\nis oily, even Aristotle himself asserts, for salt in his opinion hath\nsome oil in it, and therefore makes candles, when sprinkled on them,\nburn the better and clearer than before. And sea water sprinkled on a\nflame increaseth it, and is more easily kindled than any other; and\nthis, in my opinion, makes it hotter than the fresh. Besides, I may\nurge another cause; for the end of washing is drying, and that seems\ncleanest which is driest; and the moisture that scours (as hellebore,\nwith the humors that it purges) ought to fly away quickly together\nwith the stain. The sun quickly draws out the fresh water, because it\nis so light; but the salt water being rough lodges in the pores, and\ntherefore is not easily dried.\n\n4. And Theon replied: You say just nothing, sir; for Aristotle in the\nsame book affirms that those that wash in the sea, if they stand in the\nfresh sun, are sooner dried than those that wash in the fresh streams.\nIt is true, I answered, he says so; but I hope that Homer asserting the\ncontrary will, by you especially, be more easily believed; for Ulysses\n(as he writes) after his shipwreck meeting Nausicaa,\n\n  A frightful sight, and with the salt besmeared,\n\nsaid to her maidens,\n\n  Retire a while, till I have washed my skin.\n\nAnd when he had leaped into the river,\n\n  He from his head did scour the foaming sea.[59]\n\nThe poet knew very well what happens in such a case; for when those\nthat come wet out of the sea stand in the sun, the subtilest and\nlightest parts suddenly exhale, but the salt and rough particles stick\nupon the body in a crust, till they are washed away by the fresh water\nof a spring.\n\n_QUESTION X._\n\nWHY AT ATHENS THE CHORUS OF THE TRIBE AEANTIS WAS NEVER DETERMINED\nTO BE THE LAST.\n\nPHILOPAPPUS, MARCUS, MILO, GLAUCIAS, PLUTARCH, AND OTHERS.\n\n1. When we were feasting at Serapion\u2019s, who gave an entertainment after\nthe chorus of the tribe Leontis under his order and direction had\nwon the prize (for we were citizens and free of that tribe), a very\npertinent discourse, and proper to the then occasion, happened. It had\nbeen a very notable trial of skill, the king Philopappus being very\ngenerous and magnificent in his rewards, and defraying the expenses\nof all the tribes. He was at the same feast with us, and being a very\ngood-humored man and eager for instruction, he would now and then\nfreely discourse of ancient customs, and as freely hear.\n\n2. Marcus the grammarian began thus: Neanthes the Cyzicenian, in his\nbook called the Fabulous Narrations of the City, affirms that it was\na privilege of the tribe Aeantis that their chorus should never be\ndetermined to be the last. It is true, he brings some stories for\nconfirmation of what he says; but if he falsifies, the matter is open,\nand let us all enquire after the reason of the thing. But, says Milo,\nsuppose it be a mere tale. It is no strange thing, replied Philopappus,\nif in our disquisitions after truth we meet now and then with such\na thing as Democritus the philosopher did; for he one day eating a\ncucumber, and finding it of a honey taste, asked his maid where she\nbought it; and she telling him such a garden, he rose from table and\nbade her direct him to the place. The maid surprised asked him what he\nmeant; and he replied, I must search after the cause of the sweetness\nof the fruit, and shall find it the sooner if I see the place. The maid\nwith a smile replied, Sit still, pray sir, for I unwittingly put it\ninto a honey barrel. And he, as it were discontented, cried out, Shame\ntake thee, yet I will pursue my purpose, and seek after the cause,\nas if this sweetness were a taste natural and proper to the fruit.\nTherefore neither will we admit Neanthes\u2019s credulity and inadvertency\nin some stories as an excuse and a good reason for avoiding this\ndisquisition; for we shall exercise our thoughts by it, though no other\nadvantage rises from that enquiry.\n\n3. Presently every one poured out something in commendation of that\ntribe, mentioning every matter that made for its credit and reputation.\nMarathon was brought in as belonging to it, and Harmodius with his\nassociates, by birth Aphidneans, were also produced as glorious\nmembers of that tribe. The orator Glaucias proved that that tribe\nmade up the right wing in the battle at Marathon, from the elegies of\nAeschylus, who had himself fought valiantly in the same encounter;\nand farther evinced that Callimachus the field marshal was of that\ntribe, who behaved himself very bravely, and was the principal cause\nnext to Miltiades, with whose opinion he concurred, that that battle\nwas fought. To this discourse of Glaucias I added, that the edict\nwhich impowered Miltiades to lead forth the Athenians, was made when\nthe tribe Aeantis was chief of the assembly, and that in the battle\nof Plataea the same tribe acquired the greatest glory; and upon that\naccount, as the oracle directed, that tribe offered a sacrifice for\nthis victory to the nymphs Sphragitides, the city providing a victim\nand all other necessaries belonging to it. But you may observe (I\ncontinued) that other tribes likewise have their peculiar glories; and\nyou know that mine, the tribe Leontids, yields to none in any point\nof reputation. Besides, consider whether it is not more probable that\nthis was granted out of a particular respect, and to please Ajax, from\nwhom this tribe received its name; for we know he could not endure to\nbe outdone, but was easily hurried on to the greatest enormities by his\ncontentious and passionate humor; and therefore to comply with him and\nafford him some comfort in his disasters, they secured him from the\nmost vexing grievance that follows the misfortune of the conquered, by\nordering that his tribe should never be determined to be last.\n\n\nBOOK II.\n\nOf the several things that are provided for an entertainment, some, my\nSossius Senecio, are absolutely necessary; such are wine, bread, meat,\ncouches, and tables. Others are brought in, not for necessity, but\npleasure; such are songs, shows, mimics, and buffoons (like Philip who\ncame from the house of Callias); which, when present, delight indeed,\nbut when absent, are not eagerly desired; nor is the entertainment\nlooked upon as mean because such are wanting. Just so of discourses;\nsome the sober men admit as necessary to a banquet, and others for\ntheir pretty speculations, as more profitable and agreeable than a\nfiddle and a pipe. My former book gives you examples of both sorts. Of\nthe first are these, Whether we should philosophize at table?\u2014Whether\nthe entertainer should appoint proper seats, or leave the guests to\nagree upon their own? Of the second, Why lovers are inclined to poetry?\nand the question about the tribe Aeantis. The former I call properly\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac, _table-talk_, but both together I comprehend\nunder the general name of Symposiacs. They are promiscuously set down,\nnot in any exact method, but as each singly occurred to memory. And let\nnot my readers wonder that I dedicate these collections to you, which I\nhave received from others or your own mouth; for if all learning is not\nbare remembrance, yet to learn and to remember are very commonly one\nand the same thing.\n\n_QUESTION I._\n\nWHAT, AS XENOPHON INTIMATES, ARE THE MOST AGREEABLE QUESTIONS AND\nMOST PLEASANT RAILLERY AT AN ENTERTAINMENT?\n\nSOSSIUS SENECIO AND PLUTARCH.\n\n1. Now each book being divided into ten questions, that shall make the\nfirst in this, which Socratical Xenophon hath as it were proposed;\nfor he tells us that, Gobryas banqueting with Cyrus, amongst other\nthings that he found admirable in the Persians, he was surprised to\nhear them ask one another such questions that it was more delightful\nto be interrogated than to be let alone, and pass such jests on one\nanother that it was more pleasant to be jested on than not. For if\nsome, even whilst they praise, offend, why should not their polite\nand neat facetiousness be admired, whose very raillery is delightful\nand pleasant to him that is the subject of it? Once when you were\nentertaining us at Patrae, you said: I wish I could learn what kind\nof questions those are; for to be skilled in and make right use of\napposite questions and pleasant raillery, I think is no small part of\nconversation.\n\n2. A considerable one, I replied; but pray observe whether Xenophon\nhimself, in his descriptions of Socrates\u2019s and the Persian\nentertainments, hath not sufficiently explained them. But if you would\nhave my thoughts,\u2014first, men are pleased to be asked those questions\nto which they have an answer ready; such are those in which the persons\nasked have some skill and competent knowledge; for when the enquiry\nis above their reach, those that can return nothing are troubled, as\nif requested to give something beyond their power; and those that do\nanswer, producing some crude and insufficient demonstration, must\nneeds be very much concerned, and apt to blunder on the wrong. Now, if\nthe answer not only is easy but hath something not common, it is more\npleasing to them that make it; and this happens, when their knowledge\nis greater than that of the vulgar, as suppose they are well skilled\nin points of astrology or logic. For not only in action and serious\nmatters, but also in discourse, every one hath a natural disposition to\nbe pleased (as Euripides hath it)\n\n  To seem far to outdo himself.[60]\n\nAnd all are delighted when men put such questions as they understand,\nand would have others know that they are acquainted with; and therefore\ntravellers and merchants are most satisfied when their company is\ninquisitive about other countries, the unknown ocean, and the laws and\nmanners of the barbarians; they are ready to inform them, and describe\nthe countries and the creeks, imagining this to be some recompense\nfor their toil, some comfort for the dangers they have passed. In\nshort, whatever we are wont to discourse of though unrequested, we\nare desirous to be asked; because then we seem to gratify those whom\notherwise our prattle would disturb and force from our conversation.\nAnd this is the common disease of navigators. But more genteel and\nmodest men love to be asked about those things which they have bravely\nand successfully performed, and which modesty will not permit to be\nspoken by themselves before company; and therefore Nestor did well\nwhen, being acquainted with Ulysses\u2019s desire of reputation, he said,\n\n  Tell, brave Ulysses, glory of the Greeks,\n  How you the horses seized.[61]\n\nFor man cannot endure the insolence of those who praise themselves\nand repeat their own exploits, unless the company desires it and they\nare forced to a relation; therefore it tickles them to be asked about\ntheir embassies and administrations of the commonwealth, if they have\ndone any thing notable in either. And upon this account the envious\nand ill-natured start very few questions of that sort; they thwart\nand hinder all such kind of motions, being very unwilling to give any\noccasion or opportunity for that discourse which shall tend to the\nadvantage of the relator. In short, we please those to whom we put\nthem, when we start questions about those matters which their enemies\nhate to hear.\n\n3. Ulysses says to Alcinous,\n\n  You bid me tell what various ills I bore,[62]\n  That the sad tale might make me grieve the more.\n\nAnd Oedipus says to the chorus,\n\n  \u2019Tis pain to raise again a buried grief.[63]\n\nBut Euripides on the contrary,\n\n  How sweet it is, when we are lulled in ease,\n  To think of toils!\u2014when well, of a disease![64]\n\nTrue indeed, but not to those that are still tossed, still under\na misfortune. Therefore be sure never to ask a man about his own\ncalamities; it is irksome to relate his losses of children or estate,\nor any unprosperous adventure by sea or land; but ask a man how he\ncarried the cause, how he was caressed by the King, how he escaped such\na storm, such an assault, thieves, and the like; this pleaseth him, he\nseems to enjoy it over again in his relation, and is never weary of\nthe topic. Besides, men love to be asked about their happy friends,\nor children that have made good progress in philosophy or the law, or\nare great at court; as also about the disgrace and open conviction of\ntheir enemies; for of such matters they are most eager to discourse,\nyet are cautious of beginning it themselves, lest they should seem to\ninsult over and rejoice at the misery of others. You please a hunter\nif you ask him about dogs, a wrestler about exercise, and an amorous\nman about beauties; the ceremonious and superstitious man discourses\nabout dreams, and what success he hath had by following the directions\nof omens or sacrifices, and by the kindness of the Gods; and questions\nconcerning those things will extremely please him. He that enquires any\nthing of an old man, though the story doth not at all concern him, wins\nhis heart, and urges one that is very willing to discourse:\n\n  Nelides Nestor, faithfully relate\n  How great Atrides died, what sort of fate;\n  And where was Menelaus largely tell?\n  Did Argos hold him when the hero fell?[65]\n\nHere is a multitude of questions and variety of subjects; which is much\nbetter than to confine and cramp his answers, and so deprive the old\nman of the most pleasant enjoyment he can have. In short, they that\nhad rather please than distaste will still propose such questions, the\nanswers to which shall rather get the praise and good-will than the\ncontempt and hatred of the hearers. And so much of questions.\n\n4. As for raillery, those that cannot use it cautiously with art, and\ntime it well, should never venture at it. For as in a slippery place,\nif you but just touch a man as you pass by, you throw him down; so when\nwe are in drink, we are in danger of tripping at every little word that\nis not spoken with due address. And we are sometimes more offended with\na joke than a plain and scurrilous abuse; for we see the latter often\nslip from a man unwittingly in passion, but consider the former as a\nthing voluntary, proceeding from malice and ill-nature; and therefore\nwe are generally more offended at a sharp jeerer than a whistling\nsnarler. Such a jeer has indeed something artfully malicious about it,\nand often seems to be an insult devised and thought of beforehand.\nFor instance, he that calls thee salt-fish monger plainly and openly\nabuseth; but he that says, I remember when you wiped your nose upon\nyour sleeve, maliciously jeers. Such was Cicero\u2019s to Octavius, who\nwas thought to be descended from an African; for when Cicero spoke\nsomething, and Octavius said he did not hear him, Cicero rejoined,\nStrange, for you have a hole through your ear. And Melanthius, when\nhe was ridiculed by a comedian, said, You pay me now something that\nyou do not owe me. And upon this account jeers vex more; for like\nbearded arrows they stick a long while, and gall the wounded sufferer.\nTheir smartness is pleasant, and delights the company; and those that\nare pleased with the saying seem to believe the detracting speaker.\nFor, according to Theophrastus, a jeer is a figurative reproach for\nsome fault or misdemeanor; and therefore he that hears it supplies the\nconcealed part, as if he knew and gave credit to the thing. For he that\nlaughs and is tickled at what Theocritus said to one whom he suspected\nof a design upon his purse, and who asked him if he went to supper at\nsuch a place,\u2014Yes, he replied, I go, but shall likewise lodge there\nall night,\u2014doth, as it were confirm the accusation, and believe the\nfellow was a thief. Therefore an impertinent jeerer makes the whole\ncompany seem ill-natured and abusive, as being pleased with and\nconsenting to the scurrility of the jeer. It was one of the excellent\nrules in Sparta, that none should be bitter in their jests, and the\njeered should patiently endure; but if he took offence, the other\nwas to forbear, and pursue the frolic no farther. How is it possible\ntherefore to determine such raillery as shall delight and please the\nperson that is jested on, when to be smart without offence is no mean\npiece of cunning and address?\n\n5. First then, such as will vex and gall the conscious must please\nthose that are clean, innocent, and not suspected of the matter.\nSuch a joke is Xenophon\u2019s, when he pleasantly brings in a very ugly\nill-looking fellow, and is smart upon him for being Sambaulas\u2019s minion.\nSuch was that of Aufidius Modestus, who, when our friend Quintius in\nan ague complained his hands were cold, replied, Sir, you brought them\nwarm from your province; for this made Quintius laugh, and extremely\npleased him; yet it had been a reproach and abuse to a covetous and\noppressing governor. Thus Socrates, pretending to compare faces with\nthe beauteous Critobulus, rallied only, and not abused. And Alcibiades\nagain was smart on Socrates, as his rival in Agatho\u2019s affection. Kings\nare pleased when jests are put upon them as if they were private and\npoor men. Such was the flatterer\u2019s to Philip, who chided him: Sir,\ndon\u2019t I keep you? For those that mention faults of which the persons\nare not really guilty intimate those virtues with which they are\nreally adorned. But then it is requisite that those virtues should be\nevident and certainly belong to them; otherwise the discourse will\nbreed disturbance and suspicion. He that tells a very rich man that\nhe will procure him a sum of money,\u2014a temperate sober man, and one\nthat drinks water only, that he is foxed, or hath taken a cup too\nmuch,\u2014a hospitable, generous, good-humored man, that he is a niggard\nand pinch-penny,\u2014or threatens an excellent lawyer to meet him at the\nbar,\u2014must make the persons smile and please the company. Thus Cyrus\nwas very obliging and complaisant, when he challenged his play-fellows\nat those sports in which he was sure to be overcome. And Ismenias\npiping at a sacrifice, when no good omens appeared, the man that hired\nhim snatched the pipe, and played very ridiculously himself; and when\nall found fault, he said: To play satisfactorily is the gift of Heaven.\nAnd Ismenias with a smile replied: Whilst I played, the Gods were so\nwell pleased that they were careless of the sacrifice; but to be rid of\nthy noise they presently received it.\n\n6. But more, those that jocosely put scandalous names upon things\ncommendable, if it be opportunely done, please more than he that\nplainly and openly commends; for those that cover a reproach under\nfair and respectful words (as he that calls an unjust man Aristides, a\ncoward Achilles) gall more than those that openly abuse. Such is that\nof Oedipus, in Sophocles,\n\n  The faithful Creon, my most constant friend.[66]\n\nThe familiar irony in commendations answers to this on the other side.\nSuch Socrates used, when he called the kind endeavor and industry of\nAntisthenes to make men friends pimping, bawds-craft, and allurement;\nand others that called Crates the philosopher, who wherever he went was\ncaressed and honored, the door-opener.\n\n7. Again, a complaint that implies thankfulness for a received favor is\npleasant raillery. Thus Diogenes of his master Antisthenes:\n\n  That man that made me leave my precious ore,\n  Clothed me with rags, and forced me to be poor;\n  That man that made me wander, beg my bread,\n  And scorn to have a house to hide my head.\n\nFor it had not been half so pleasant to have said, that man that made\nme wise, content, and happy. And thus a Spartan, making as if he would\nfind fault with the master of the exercises for giving him wood that\nwould not smoke, said, He will not permit us even to shed a tear. So he\nthat calls a hospitable man, and one that treats often, a kidnapper,\nand a tyrant who for a long time would not permit him to see his own\ntable; and he whom the King hath raised and enriched, that says he had\na design upon him and robbed him of his sleep and quiet. So if he that\nhath an excellent vintage should complain of Aeschylus\u2019s Cabeiri for\nmaking him want vinegar, as they had jocosely threatened. For such as\nthese have a pungent pleasantness, so that the praised are not offended\nnor take it ill.\n\n8. Besides, he that would be civilly facetious must know the difference\nbetween a vice and a commendable study or recreation; for instance,\nbetween the love of money or contention and of music or hunting; for\nmen are grieved if twitted with the former, but take it very well if\nthey are laughed at for the latter. Thus Demosthenes the Mitylen\u00e6an was\npleasant enough when, knocking at a man\u2019s door that was much given\nto singing and playing on the harp, and being bid come in, he said, I\nwill, if you will tie up your harp. But the flatterer of Lysimachus was\noffensive; for being frighted at a wooden scorpion that the king threw\ninto his lap, and leaping out of his seat, he said after he knew the\nhumor, And I\u2019ll fright your majesty too; give me a talent.\n\n9. In several things about the body too the like caution is to be\nobserved. Thus he that is jested on for a flat or hooked nose usually\nlaughs at the jest. Thus Cassander\u2019s friend was not at all displeased\nwhen Theophrastus said to him, \u2019Tis strange, sir, that your eyes don\u2019t\nsing, since your nose is so near to give them the tune; and Cyrus\ncommanded a long hawk-nosed fellow to marry a flat-nosed girl, for\nthen they would very well agree. But a jest on any for his stinking\nbreath or filthy nose is irksome; for baldness it may be borne, but\nfor blindness or infirmity in the eyes it is intolerable. It is true,\nAntigonus would joke upon himself, and once, receiving a petition\nwritten in great letters, he said, This a man may read if he were\nstark blind. But he killed Theocritus the Chian for saying,\u2014when one\ntold him that as soon as he appeared before the King\u2019s eyes he would\nbe pardoned,\u2014Sir, then it is impossible for me to be saved. And\nthe Byzantine to Pasiades saying, Sir, your eyes are weak, replied,\nYou upbraid me with this infirmity, not considering that thy son\ncarries the vengeance of Heaven on his back: now Pasiades\u2019s son was\nhunch-backed. And Archippus the popular Athenian was much displeased\nwith Melanthius for being smart on his crooked back; for Melanthius\nhad said that he did not stand at the head of the state (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9)\nbut bowed down before it (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c5\u03c6\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9). It is true, some are not much\nconcerned at such jeers. Thus Antigonus\u2019s friend, when he had begged\na talent and was denied, desired a guard, lest somebody should rob\nhim of that talent he was now to carry home. Different tempers make\nmen differently affected, and that which troubles one is not regarded\nby another. Epaminondas feasting with his fellow-magistrates drank\nvinegar; and some asking if it was good for his health, he replied,\nI cannot tell that, but I know it makes me remember what I drink at\nhome. Therefore it becomes every man that would rally, to look into the\nhumors of his company, and take heed to converse without offence.\n\n10. Love, as in most things else, so in this matter causes different\neffects; for some lovers are pleased and some displeased at a merry\njest. Therefore in this case a fit time must be accurately observed;\nfor as a blast of wind puffs out a fire whilst it is weak and little,\nbut when thoroughly kindled strengthens and increaseth it; so love,\nbefore it is evident and confessed, is displeased at a discoverer,\nbut when it breaks forth and blazes in everybody\u2019s eyes, then it is\ndelighted and gathers strength by the frequent blasts of joke and\nraillery. When their beloved is present it will gratify them most\nto pass a jest upon their passion, but to fall on any other subject\nwill be counted an abuse. If they are remarkably loving to their\nown wives, or entertain a generous affection for a hopeful youth,\nthen are they proud, then tickled when jeered for such a love. And\ntherefore Arcesilaus, when an amorous man in his school laid down this\nproposition, In my opinion one thing cannot touch another, replied,\nSir, you touch this person, pointing to a lovely boy that sat near him.\n\n11. Besides, the company must be considered; for what a man will only\nlaugh at when mentioned amongst his friends and familiar acquaintance,\nhe will not endure to be told of before his wife, father, or tutor,\nunless perhaps it be something that will please those too; as for\ninstance, if before a philosopher one should jeer a man for going\nbarefoot or studying all night; or before his father, for carefulness\nand thrift; or in the presence of his wife, for being cold to his\ncompanions and doating upon her. Thus Tigranes, when Cyrus asked him,\nWhat will your wife say when she hears that you are put to servile\noffices? replied, Sir, she will not hear it, but be present herself and\nsee it.\n\n12. Again, those jokes are accounted less affronting which reflect\nsomewhat also on the man that makes them; as when one poor man,\nbase-born fellow, or lover jokes upon another. For whatever comes\nfrom one in the same circumstances looks more like a piece of mirth\nthan a designed affront; but otherwise it must needs be irksome and\ndistasteful. Upon this account, when a slave whom the King had lately\nfreed and enriched behaved himself very impertinently in the company\nof some philosophers, asking them, how it came to pass that the broth\nof beans, whether white or black, was always green, Aridices putting\nanother question, why, let the whips be white or not, the wales and\nmarks they made were still red, displeased him extremely, and made him\nrise from the table in a great rage and discontent. But Amphias the\nTarsian, who was supposed to be sprung from a gardener, joking upon\nthe governor\u2019s friend for his obscure and mean birth, and presently\nsubjoining, But \u2019tis true, I sprung from the same seed, caused much\nmirth and laughter. And the harper very facetiously put a check to\nPhilip\u2019s ignorance and impertinence; for when Philip pretended to\ncorrect him, he cried out, God forbid, sir, that ever you should be\nbrought so low as to understand these things better than I. For by this\nseeming joke he instructed him without giving any offence. Therefore\nsome of the comedians seem to lay aside their bitterness in every jest\nthat may reflect upon themselves; as Aristophanes, when he is merry\nupon a bald-pate; and Cratinus in his play Pytine upon drunkenness and\nexcess.\n\n13. Besides, you must be very careful that the jest should seem to\nbe extempore, taken from some present question or merry humor; not\nfar fetched, as if premeditate and designed. For as men are not much\nconcerned at the anger and debates among themselves at table while they\nare in the midst of their cups, but if any stranger should come in and\noffer abuse to any of the guests, they would hate and look upon him as\nan enemy; so they will easily pardon and indulge a jest if undesignedly\ntaken from any present circumstance; but if it is nothing to the matter\nin hand but fetched from another thing, it must look like a design and\nbe resented as an affront. Such was that of Timagenes to the husband\nof a woman that often vomited,\u2014\u201cThou beginnest thy troubles when thou\nbringest home this vomiting woman,\u201d[67]\u2014saying \u03c4\u03ae\u03bd\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd (_this\nvomiting woman_), when the poet had written \u03c4\u03ae\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5 \u039c\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd (_this\nMuse_); and also his question to Athenodorus the philosopher,\u2014Is\nthe affection to our children natural? For when the raillery is not\nfounded on some present circumstance, it is an argument of ill-nature\nand a mischievous temper; and such as delight in jests like these do\noften for a mere word, the lightest thing in the world (as Plato says),\nsuffer the heaviest punishment. But those that know how to time and\napply a jest confirm Plato\u2019s opinion, that to rally pleasantly and\nfacetiously is the business of a scholar and a wit.\n\n_QUESTION II._\n\nWHY IN AUTUMN MEN HAVE BETTER STOMACHS THAN IN OTHER SEASONS OF THE\nYEAR.\n\nGLAUCIAS, XENOCLES, LAMPRIAS, PLUTARCH, AND OTHERS.\n\nIn Eleusis, after the solemn celebration of the sacred mysteries,\nGlaucias the orator entertained us at a feast; where, after the rest\nhad done, Xenocles of Delphi, as his humor is, began to be smart upon\nmy brother Lamprias for his good Boeotian stomach. I in his defence\nopposing Xenocles, who was an Epicurean, said, Pray, sir, do not all\nplace the very essence of pleasure in privation of pain and suffering?\nBut Lamprias, who prefers the Lyceum before the Garden, ought by his\npractice to confirm Aristotle\u2019s doctrine; for he affirms that every\nman hath a better stomach in the autumn than in other seasons of the\nyear, and gives the reason, which I cannot remember at present. So much\nthe better (says Glaucias), for when supper is done, we will endeavor\nto discover it ourselves. That being over, Glaucias and Xenocles drew\nvarious reasons from the autumnal fruit. One said, that it scoured the\nbody, and by this evacuation continually raised new appetites. Xenocles\naffirmed, that ripe fruit had usually a pleasing vellicating sapor,\nand thereby provoked the appetite better than sauces or sweetmeats;\nfor sick men of a vitiated stomach usually recover it by eating fruit.\nBut Lamprias said, that our natural heat, the principal instrument of\nnutrition, in the midst of summer is scattered and becomes rare and\nweak, but in autumn it unites again and gathers strength, being shut\nin by the ambient cold and contraction of the pores. I for my part\nsaid: In summer we are more thirsty and use more moisture than in other\nseasons; and therefore Nature, observing the same method in all her\noperations, at this change of seasons employs the contrary and makes us\nhungry; and to maintain an equal temper in the body, she gives us dry\nfood to countervail the moisture taken in the summer. Yet none can deny\nbut that the food itself is a partial cause; for not only new fruit,\nbread, or corn, but flesh of the same year, is better tasted than that\nof the former, more forcibly provokes the guests, and enticeth them to\neat on.\n\n_QUESTION III._\n\nWHICH WAS FIRST, THE BIRD OR THE EGG?\n\nPLUTARCH, ALEXANDER, SYLLA, FIRMUS, SOSSIUS SENECIO, AND OTHERS.\n\n1. When upon a dream I had forborne eggs a long time, on purpose\nthat in an egg (as in a Carian[68]) I might make experiment of a\nnotable vision that often troubled me; some at Sossius Senecio\u2019s table\nsuspected that I was tainted with Orpheus\u2019s or Pythagoras\u2019s opinions,\nand refused to eat an egg (as some do the heart and brain) imagining\nit to be the principle of generation. And Alexander the Epicurean\nridiculingly repeated,\u2014\n\n  To feed on beans and parents\u2019 heads\n  Is equal sin;\n\nas if the Pythagoreans covertly meant eggs by the word \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\n(_beans_), deriving it from \u03ba\u03cd\u03c9 or \u03ba\u03c5\u03ad\u03c9 (_to conceive_), and\nthought it as unlawful to feed on eggs as on the animals that lay them.\nNow to pretend a dream for the cause of my abstaining, to an Epicurean,\nhad been a defence more irrational than the cause itself; and therefore\nI suffered jocose Alexander to enjoy his opinion, for he was a pleasant\nman and excellently learned.\n\n2. Soon after he proposed that perplexed question, that plague of the\ninquisitive, Which was first, the bird or the egg? And my friend Sylla,\nsaying that with this little question, as with an engine, we shook\nthe great and weighty question (whether the world had a beginning),\ndeclared his dislike of such problems. But Alexander deriding the\nquestion as slight and impertinent, my relation Firmus said: Well, sir,\nat present your atoms will do me some service; for if we suppose that\nsmall things must be the principles of greater, it is likely that the\negg was before the bird; for an egg amongst sensible things is very\nsimple, and the bird is more mixed, and contains a greater variety of\nparts. It is universally true, that a principle is before that whose\nprinciple it is; now the seed is a principle, and the egg is somewhat\nmore than the seed, and less than the bird; for as a disposition or a\nprogress in goodness is something between a tractable mind and a habit\nof virtue, so an egg is as it were a progress of Nature tending from\nthe seed to a perfect animal. And as in an animal they say the veins\nand arteries are formed first, upon the same account the egg should be\nbefore the bird, as the thing containing before the thing contained.\nThus art first makes rude and ill-shapen figures, and afterwards\nperfects every thing with its proper form; and it was for this reason\nthat the statuary Polycletus said, Then our work is most difficult,\nwhen the clay comes to be fashioned by the nail. So it is probable that\nmatter, not readily obeying the slow motions of contriving Nature,\nat first frames rude and indefinite masses, as the egg, and of these\nmoulded anew, and joined in better order, the animal afterward is\nformed. As the canker is first, and then growing dry and cleaving\nlets forth a winged animal, called psyche; so the egg is first as it\nwere the subject matter of the generation. For it is certain that,\nin every change, that out of which the thing changes must be before\nthe thing changing. Observe how worms and caterpillars are bred in\ntrees from the moisture corrupted or concocted; now none can say but\nthat the engendering moisture is naturally before all these. For (as\nPlato says) matter is as a mother or nurse in respect of the bodies\nthat are formed, and we call that matter out of which any thing that\nis is made. And with a smile continued he, I speak to those that are\nacquainted with the mystical and sacred discourse of Orpheus, who not\nonly affirms the egg to be before the bird, but makes it the first\nbeing in the whole world. The other parts, because deep mysteries (as\nHerodotus would say), we shall now pass by; but let us look upon the\nvarious kinds of animals, and we shall find almost every one beginning\nfrom an egg,\u2014fowls and fishes; land animals, as lizards; amphibious,\nas crocodiles; some with two legs, as a cock; some without any, as a\nsnake; and some with many, as a locust. And therefore in the solemn\nfeast of Bacchus it is very well done to dedicate an egg, as the emblem\nof that which begets and contains every thing in itself.\n\n3. To this discourse of Firmus, Senecio replied: Sir, your last\nsimilitude contradicts your first, and you have unwittingly opened the\nworld (instead of the door, as the saying is) against yourself. For\nthe world was before all, being the most perfect; and it is rational\nthat the perfect in Nature should be before the imperfect, as the\nsound before the maimed, and the whole before the part. For it is\nabsurd that there should be a part when there is nothing whose part\nit is; and therefore nobody says the seed\u2019s man or egg\u2019s hen, but the\nman\u2019s seed and hen\u2019s egg; because those being after these and formed\nin them, pay as it were a debt to Nature, by bringing forth another.\nFor they are not in themselves perfect, and therefore have a natural\nappetite to produce such a thing as that out of which they were first\nformed; and therefore seed is defined as a thing produced that is to\nbe perfected by another production. Now nothing can be perfected by\nor want that which as yet is not. Everybody sees that eggs have the\nnature of a concretion or consistence in some animal or other, but\nwant those organs, veins, and muscles which animals enjoy. Therefore\nno story delivers that ever any egg was formed immediately from earth;\nand the poets themselves tell us, that the egg out of which came the\nTyndaridae fell down from heaven. But even till this time the earth\nproduceth some perfect and organized animals, as mice in Egypt, and\nsnakes, frogs, and grasshoppers almost everywhere, some external and\ninvigorating principle assisting in the production. And in Sicily,\nwhere in the servile war much blood was shed, and many carcasses rotted\non the ground, whole swarms of locusts were produced, and spoiled the\ncorn over the whole isle. Such spring from and are nourished by the\nearth; and seed being formed in them, pleasure and titillation provoke\nthem to mix, upon which some lay eggs, and some bring forth their\nyoung alive; and this evidently proves that animals first sprang from\nearth, and afterwards by copulation, after different ways, propagated\ntheir several kinds. In short, it is the same thing as if you said\nthe womb was before the woman; for as the womb is to the egg, the egg\nis to the chick that is formed in it; so that he that inquires how\nbirds should be when there were no eggs, might ask as well how men\nand women could be before any organs of generation were formed. Parts\ngenerally have their subsistence together with the whole; particular\npowers follow particular members, and operations follow those powers,\nand effects those operations. Now the effect of the generative power\nis the seed and egg; so that these must be after the formation of the\nwhole. Therefore consider, as there can be no digestion of food before\nthe animal is formed, so there can be no seed nor egg; for those, it\nis likely, are made by some digestion and alterations; nor can it be\nthat, before the animal is, the superfluous parts of the food of the\nanimal should have a being. Besides, though seed may perhaps pretend\nto be a principle, the egg cannot; for it doth not subsist first, nor\nhath it the nature of a whole, for it is imperfect. Therefore we do not\naffirm that the animal is produced without a principle of its being;\nbut we call the principle that power which changes, mixes, and tempers\nthe matter, so that a living creature is regularly produced; but the\negg is an after-production, as the blood or milk of an animal after the\ntaking in and digestion of the food. For we never see an egg formed\nimmediately of mud, for it is produced in the bodies of animals alone;\nbut a thousand living creatures rise from the mud. What need of many\ninstances? None ever found the spawn or egg of an eel; yet if you empty\na pit and take out all the mud, as soon as other water settles in it,\neels likewise are presently produced. Now that must exist first which\nhath no need of any other thing that it may exist, and that after,\nwhich cannot be without the concurrence of another thing. And of this\npriority is our present discourse. Besides, birds build nests before\nthey lay their eggs; and women provide cradles, swaddling-clothes,\nand the like; yet who says that the nest is before the egg, or the\nswaddling-clothes before the infant? For the earth (as Plato says) doth\nnot imitate a woman, but a woman, and so likewise all other females,\nthe earth. Moreover it is probable that the first production out of the\nearth, which was then vigorous and perfect, was self-sufficient and\nentire, nor stood in need of those secundines, membranes, and vessels,\nwhich now Nature forms to help the weakness and supply the defects of\nbreeders.\n\n_QUESTION IV._\n\nWHETHER OR NO WRESTLING IS THE OLDEST EXERCISE.\n\nSOSICLES, LYSIMACHUS, PLUTARCH, PHILINUS.\n\nSosicles of Coronea having at the Pythian games won the prize from all\nthe poets, we gave him an entertainment. And the time for running,\ncuffing, wrestling, and the like drawing on, there was a great talk of\nthe wrestlers; for there were many and very famous men, who came to\ntry their skill. Lysimachus, one of the company, a procurator of the\nAmphictyons, said he heard a grammarian lately affirm that wrestling\nwas the most ancient exercise of all, as even the very name witnessed;\nfor some modern things have the names of more ancient transferred to\nthem; thus tuning a pipe is called fitting it, and playing on it is\ncalled striking; both these being transferred to it from the harp.\nThus all places of exercise they call wrestling schools, wrestling\nbeing the oldest exercise, and therefore denominating the newer sorts.\nThat, said I, is no good argument, for these palaestras or wrestling\nschools are called so from wrestling (\u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7), not because it is the\nmost ancient exercise, but because it is the only sort in which they\nuse clay (\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2), dust, and oil; for in these there is neither racing\nnor cuffing, but wrestling only, and that part of the pancratium in\nwhich they struggle on the ground,\u2014for the pancratium comprises both\nwrestling and cuffing. Besides, it is unlikely that wrestling, being\nmore artificial and methodical than any other sort of exercise, should\nlikewise be the most ancient; for mere want or necessity, putting us\nupon new inventions, produces simple and inartificial things first, and\nsuch as have more of force in them than sleight and skill. This ended,\nSosicles said: You speak right, and I will confirm your discourse from\nthe very name; for, in my opinion, \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7, wrestling, is derived from\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c5\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, i. e. to throw down by sleight and artifice. And Philinus\nsaid, it seems to me to be derived from \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae, the palm of the\nhand, for wrestlers use that part most, as cuffers do the \u03c0\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u03ae, fist;\nand hence both these sorts of exercises have their proper names, the\none \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7, the other \u03c0\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u03ae. Besides, since the poets use the word\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd for \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd and \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, to sprinkle, and this action\nis most frequent amongst wrestlers, this exercise \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 may receive\nits name from that word. But more, consider that racers strive to be\ndistant from one another; cuffers, by the judges of the field, are not\npermitted to take hold; and none but wrestlers come up close breast\nto breast, and clasp one another round the waist, and most of their\nturnings, liftings, lockings, bring them very close. It is probable\ntherefore that this exercise is called \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 from \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd or \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, to come up close or to be near together.\n\n_QUESTION V._\n\nWHY, IN RECKONING UP DIFFERENT KINDS OF EXERCISES, HOMER PUTS\nCUFFING FIRST, WRESTLING NEXT, AND RACING LAST.\n\nLYSIMACHUS, CRATES, TIMON, PLUTARCH.\n\n1. This discourse being ended, and Philinus hummed, Lysimachus began\nagain, What sort of exercise then shall we imagine to be first? Racing,\nas at the Olympian games? For here in the Pythian, as every exercise\ncomes on, all the contenders are brought in, the boy wrestlers first,\nthen the men, and the same method is observed when the cuffers and\nfencers are to exercise; but there the boys perform all first, and then\nthe men. But, says Timon interposing, pray consider whether Homer hath\nnot determined this matter; for in his poems cuffing is always put in\nthe first place, wrestling next, and racing last. At this Menecrates\nthe Thessalian surprised cried out, Good God, what things we skip over!\nBut, pray sir, if you remember any of his verses to that purpose,\ndo us the favor to repeat them. And Timon replied: That the funeral\nsolemnities of Patroclus had this order I think every one hath heard;\nbut the poet, all along observing the same order, brings in Achilles\nspeaking to Nestor thus:\n\n  With this reward I Nestor freely grace,\n  Unfit for cuffing, wrestling, or the race.\n\nAnd in his answer he makes the old man impertinently brag:\n\n  I cuffing conquered Oinop\u2019s famous son,\n  With Anceus wrestled, and the garland won,\n  And outran Iphiclus.[69]\n\nAnd again he brings in Ulysses challenging the Phaeacians\n\n  To cuff, to wrestle, or to run the race;\n\nand Alcinous answers:\n\n  Neither in cuffing nor in wrestling strong,\n  But swift of foot are we.[70]\n\nSo that he doth not carelessly confound the order, and, according to\nthe occasion, now place one sort first and now another; but he follows\nthe then custom and practice, and is constant in the same. And this was\nso as long as the ancient order was observed.\n\n2. To this discourse of my brother\u2019s I subjoined, that I liked what\nhe said, but could not see the reason of this order. And some of the\ncompany, thinking it unlikely that cuffing or wrestling should be a\nmore ancient exercise than racing, desired me to search farther into\nthe matter; and thus I spake upon the sudden. All these exercises seem\nto me to be representations of feats of arms and training therein;\nfor after all, a man armed at all points is brought in to show that\nthat is the end at which all these exercises and trainings aim. And\nthe privilege granted to the conquerors\u2014as they rode into the city,\nto throw down some part of the wall\u2014hath this meaning, that walls\nare but a small advantage to that city which hath men able to fight\nand overcome. In Sparta those that were victors in any of the crowned\ngames had an honorable place in the army, and were to fight near\nthe King\u2019s person. Of all creatures a horse only can have a part in\nthese games and win the crown, for that alone is designed by nature\nto be trained to war, and to prove assisting in a battle. If these\nthings seem probable, let us consider farther, that it is the first\nwork of a fighter to strike his enemy and ward the other\u2019s blows; the\nsecond, when they come up close and lay hold of one another, to trip\nand overturn him; and in this, they say, our countrymen being better\nwrestlers very much distressed the Spartans at the battle of Leuctra.\nAeschylus describes a warrior thus,\n\n  One stout, and skilled to wrestle in his arms;\n\nand Sophocles somewhere says of the Trojans,\n\n  They rid the horse, they could the bow command,\n  And wrestle with a rattling shield in hand.\n\nBut it is the third and last, either when conquered to fly, or when\nconquerors to pursue. And therefore it is likely that cuffing is\nset first, wrestling next, and racing last; for the first bears the\nresemblance of charging or warding the blows; the second, of close\nfighting and repelling; and the third, of flying a victorious, or\npursuing a routed enemy.\n\n_QUESTION VI._\n\nWHY FIR-TREES, PINE-TREES, AND THE LIKE WILL NOT BE GRAFTED\nUPON.\n\nSOCLARUS, CRATO, PHILO.\n\n1. Soclarus entertaining us in his gardens, round which the river\nCephissus runs, showed us several trees strangely varied by the\ndifferent grafts upon their stocks. We saw an olive upon a mastic, a\npomegranate upon a myrtle, pear grafts on an oak, apple upon a plane, a\nmulberry on a fig, and a great many such like, which were grown strong\nenough to bear. Some joked on Soclarus as nourishing stranger kinds\nof things than the poets\u2019 Sphinxes or Chimaeras; but Crato set us to\nenquire why those stocks only that are of an oily nature will not admit\nsuch mixtures, for we never see a pine, fir, or cypress bear a graft of\nanother kind.\n\n2. And Philo subjoined: There is, Crato, a reason for this amongst the\nphilosophers, which the gardeners confirm and strengthen. For they say,\noil is very hurtful to all plants, and any plant dipped in it, like\na bee, will soon die. Now these trees are of a fat and oily nature,\ninsomuch that they weep pitch and rosin; and, if you cut them gore (as\nit were) appears presently in the wound. Besides, a torch made of them\nsends forth an oily smoke, and the brightness of the flame shows it to\nbe fat; and upon this account these trees are as great enemies to all\nother kinds of grafts as oil itself. To this Crato added, that the bark\nwas a partial cause; for that, being rare and dry, could not afford\neither convenient room or sufficient nourishment to the grafts; but\nwhen the bark is moist, it quickly joins with those grafts that are let\ninto the body of the tree.\n\n3. Then Soclarus added: This too ought to be considered, that that\nwhich receives a graft of another kind ought to be easy to be changed,\nthat the graft may prevail, and make the sap in the stock fit and\nnatural to itself. Thus we break up the ground and soften it, that\nbeing thus broken it may more easily be wrought upon, and applied to\nwhat we plant in it; for things that are hard and rigid cannot be so\nquickly wrought upon nor so easily changed. Now those trees, being of\nvery light wood, do not mix well with the grafts, because they are very\nhard either to be changed or overcome. But more, it is manifest that\nthe stock which receives the graft should be instead of a soil to it,\nand a soil should have a breeding faculty; and therefore we choose the\nmost fruitful stocks to graft on, as women that are full of milk, when\nwe would put out a child to nurse. But everybody knows that the fir,\ncypress, and the like are no great bearers. For as men very fat have\nfew children (for, the whole nourishment being employed in the body,\nthere remains no overplus to make seed), so these trees, spending all\ntheir sap in their own stock, flourish indeed and grow great; but as\nfor fruit, some bear none at all, some very little, and that too slowly\nripens; therefore it is no wonder that they will not nourish another\u2019s\nfruit, when they are so very sparing to their own.\n\n_QUESTION VII._\n\nABOUT THE FISH CALLED REMORA OR ECHENEIS.\n\nCHAEREMONIANUS, PLUTARCH, AND OTHERS.\n\n1. Chaeremonianus the Trallian, when we were at a very noble fish\ndinner, pointing to a little, long, sharp-headed fish, said the\necheneis (ship-stopper) was like that, for he had often seen it as he\nsailed in the Sicilian sea, and wondered at its strange force; for it\nstopped the ship when under full sail, till one of the seamen perceived\nit sticking to the outside of the ship, and took it off. Some laughed\nat Chaeremonianus for believing such an incredible and unlikely story.\nOthers on this occasion talked very much of antipathies, and produced a\nthousand instances of such strange effects; for example, the sight of\na ram quiets an enraged elephant; a viper lies stock-still, if touched\nwith a beechen leaf; a wild bull grows tame, if bound with the twigs of\na fig-tree; amber draws all light things to it, except basil and such\nas are dipped in oil; and a loadstone will not draw a piece of iron\nthat is rubbed with garlic. Now all these, as to matter of fact, are\nvery evident; but it is hard, if not altogether impossible, to find the\ncause.\n\n2. Then said I: This is a mere shift and avoiding of the question,\nrather than a declaration of the cause; but if we please to consider,\nwe shall find a great many accidents that are only consequents of the\neffect to be unjustly esteemed the causes of it; as for instance, if we\nshould fancy that by the blossoming of the chaste-tree the fruit of the\nvine is ripened; because this is a common saying,\n\n  The chaste-tree blossoms, and the grapes grow ripe;\n\nor that the little protuberances in the candle-snuff thicken the air\nand make it cloudy; or the hookedness of the nails is the cause and\nnot an accident consequential to an internal ulcer. Therefore as those\nthings mentioned are but consequents to the effect, though proceeding\nfrom one and the same cause, so one and the same cause stops the ship,\nand joins the echeneis to it; for the ship continuing dry, not yet\nmade heavy by the moisture soaking into the wood, it is probable that\nit glides lightly, and as long as it is clean, easily cuts the waves;\nbut when it is thoroughly soaked, when weeds, ooze, and filth stick\nupon its sides, the stroke of the ship is more obtuse and weak; and the\nwater, coming upon this clammy matter, doth not so easily part from\nit; and this is the reason why they usually scrape the sides of their\nships. Now it is likely that the echeneis in this case, sticking upon\nthe clammy matter, is not thought an accidental consequent to this\ncause, but the very cause itself.\n\n_QUESTION VIII._\n\nWHY THEY SAY THOSE HORSES CALLED \u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 ARE VERY\nMETTLESOME.\n\nPLUTARCH, HIS FATHER, AND OTHERS.\n\nSome say the horses called \u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 received that name from the\nfashion of their bridles (called \u03bb\u03cd\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9), that had prickles like the\nteeth on the wolf\u2019s jaw; for being fiery and hard-mouthed, the riders\nused such to tame them. But my father, who seldom speaks but on good\nreason, and breeds excellent horses, said, those that were set upon\nby wolves when colts, if they escaped, grew swift and mettlesome, and\nwere called \u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2. Many agreeing to what he said, it began to be\nenquired why such an accident as that should make them more mettlesome\nand fierce; and many of the company thought that, from such an assault,\nfear and not courage was produced; and that thence growing fearful\nand apt to start at every thing, their motions became more quick and\nvigorous, as they are in wild beasts when entangled in a net. But, said\nI, it ought to be considered whether the contrary be not more probable;\nfor the colts do not become more swift by escaping the assault of a\nwild beast, but they had never escaped unless they had been swift and\nmettlesome before. As Ulysses was not made wise by escaping from the\nCyclops, but he escaped by being wise before.\n\n_QUESTION IX._\n\nWHY THE FLESH OF SHEEP BITTEN BY WOLVES IS SWEETER THAN THAT OF\nOTHERS, AND THE WOOL MORE APT TO BREED LICE.\n\nPATROCLIAS, THE SAME.\n\nAfter the former discourse, mention was made of those sheep that wolves\nhave bitten; for it is commonly said of them, that their flesh is very\nsweet, and their wool breeds lice. Our relation Patroclias seemed to\nbe pretty happy in his reasoning upon the first part, saying, that\nthe beast by biting it did mollify the flesh; for wolves\u2019 spirits are\nso hot and fiery, that they soften and digest the hardest bones; and\nfor the same reason things bitten by wolves rot sooner than others.\nBut concerning the wool we could not agree, being not fully resolved\nwhether it breeds those lice, or only opens a passage for them,\nseparating the flesh by its fretting roughness or proper warmth; and\nit seemed that this power proceeded from the bite of the wolf, which\nalters even the very hair of the creature that it kills. And this some\nparticular instances seem to confirm; for we know some huntsmen and\ncooks will kill a beast with one stroke, so that it never breathes\nafter, whilst others repeat their blows, and scarce do it with a great\ndeal of trouble. But (what is more strange) some, as they kill it,\ninfuse such a quality that the flesh rots presently and cannot be kept\nsweet above a day; yet others that despatch it as soon find no such\nalteration, but the flesh will keep sweet a long while. And that by the\nmanner of killing a great alteration is made even in the skins, nails,\nand hair of a beast, Homer seems to witness, when, speaking of a good\nhide, he says,\n\n  An ox\u2019s hide that fell by violent blows;[71]\n\nfor those that fell not by a disease or old age, but by a violent\ndeath, leave us tough and strong hides; but when they are bitten by\nwild beasts, their hoofs grow black, their hair falls, their skins\nputrefy and are good for nothing.\n\n_QUESTION X._\n\nWHETHER THE ANCIENTS, WHO PROVIDED EVERY ONE HIS MESS, DID BETTER\nTHAN WE, WHO SET MANY TO THE SAME DISH.\n\nPLUTARCH, HAGIAS.\n\n1. When I was chief magistrate, most of the suppers consisted of\ndistinct messes, where every particular guest had his portion of the\nsacrifice allowed him. Some were wonderfully well pleased with this\norder; others blamed it as unsociable and ungenteel, and were of\nthe opinion that, as soon as I was out of my office, the manner of\nentertainments ought to be reformed; for, says Hagias, we invite one\nanother not barely to eat and drink, but to eat and drink together. Now\nthis division into messes takes away all society, makes many suppers,\nand many eaters, but no one sups with another; but every man takes\nhis pound of beef, as from the market, sets it before himself, and\nfalls on. And is it not the same thing to provide a different cup and\ndifferent table for every guest (as the Demophontidae treated Orestes),\nas now to set each man his loaf of bread and mess of meat, and feed\nhim, as it were, out of his own proper manger? Only, it is true, we are\nnot (as those that treated Orestes were) obliged to be silent and not\ndiscourse. Besides, to show that all the guests should have a share in\nevery thing, we may draw an argument from hence;\u2014the same discourse is\ncommon to us all, the same songstress sings, the same musician plays\nto all. So, when the same cup is set in the midst, not appropriated to\nany, it is a large spring of good-fellowship, and each man may take as\nmuch as his appetite requires; not like this most unjust distribution\nof bread and meat, which prides itself forsooth in being equal to\nall, though unequal, stomachs; for the same portion to a man of a\nsmall appetite is too much; to one of a greater, too little. And, sir,\nas he that administers the very same dose of physic to all sorts of\npatients must be very ridiculous; so likewise must that entertainer\nwho, inviting a great many guests that can neither eat nor drink alike,\nsets before every one an equal mess, and measures what is just and fit\nby an arithmetical not geometrical proportion. When we go to a shop to\nbuy, we all use, it is true, one and the same public measure; but to an\nentertainment each man brings his own belly, which is satisfied with a\nportion, not because it is equal to that which others have, but because\nit is sufficient for itself. Those entertainments where every one\nhad his single mess Homer mentions amongst soldiers and in the camp,\nwhich we ought not to bring into fashion amongst us; but we should\nrather imitate the good friendship of the ancients, who, to show what\nreverence they had for all kinds of societies, not only honored those\nthat lived with them or under the same roof, but also those that drank\nout of the same cup or ate out of the same dish. Let us never mind\nHomer\u2019s entertainments; they were good for nothing but to starve a man,\nand the makers of them were kings, more stingy and observant than the\nItalian cooks; insomuch that in the midst of a battle, whilst they were\nat handy-blows with their enemies, they could exactly reckon up how\nmany glasses each man drank at his table. Those that Pindar describes\nare much better,\n\n  Where heroes mixed sat round the noble board,\n\nbecause they maintained society and good fellowship; for the latter\ntruly mixed and joined friends, but this modern custom divides and\nasperses them as persons who, though seemingly very good friends,\ncannot so much as eat with one another out of the same dish.\n\n2. To this polite discourse of Hagias they urged me to reply. And I\nsaid: Hagias, it is true, hath reason to be troubled at this unusual\ndisappointment, because having so great a belly (for he was an\nexcellent trencher-man) he had no larger mess than others; for in a\nfish eaten in common, Democritus says, there are no bones. But that\nvery thing is especially apt to bring us a share beyond our own proper\nallowance. For it is equality, as the old woman in Euripides hath it,\n\n  That fastens towns to towns, and friends to friends;[72]\n\nand entertainments chiefly stand in need of this. The necessity is from\nnature as well as custom, and is not lately introduced or founded only\non opinion. For when the same dish lies in common before all, the man\nthat is slow and eats little must be offended at the other that is too\nquick for him, as a slow ship at the swift sailer. Besides, snatching,\ncontention, shoving, and the like, are not, in my mind, neighborly\nbeginnings of mirth and jollity; but they are absurd, doggish, and\noften end in anger or reproaches, not only against one another, but\nalso against the entertainer himself or the carvers of the feast. But\nas long as Moera and Lachesis (_division_ and _distribution_)\nkept an equality in feasts, nothing uncivil or disorderly appeared, and\nthey called the feasts \u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, _distributions_, the entertained\n\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03c5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, and the carvers \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03af, _distributers_, from dividing\nand distributing to every man his proper mess. The Lacedaemonians\nhad officers called distributers of the flesh, no mean men, but\nthe chief of the city; for Lysander himself by King Agesilaus was\nconstituted one of these in Asia. But when luxury crept into our\nfeasts, distributing was thrown out; for I suppose they had not\nleisure to divide these numerous tarts, cheese-cakes, pies, and other\ndelicate varieties; but, surprised with the pleasantness of the taste\nand tired with the variety, they left off cutting it into portions,\nand left all in common. This is confirmed from the present practice;\nfor in our religious or public feasts, where the food is simple and\ninartificial, each man hath his mess assigned him; so that he that\nendeavors to retrieve the ancient custom will likewise recover thrift\nand almost lost frugality again. But, you object, where only property\nis, community is lost. True indeed, where equality is not; for not\nthe possession of what is proper and our own, but the taking away of\nanother\u2019s and coveting that which is common, is the cause of all injury\nand contention; and the laws, restraining and confining these within\nthe bounds of propriety, receive their name from their office, being\na power distributing equality to every[*P1: no hyphen in image|P3 not\nneeded see next line] one in order to the common good. Thus every\none is not to be honored by the entertainer with the garland or the\nchiefest place; but if any one brings with him his sweet-heart or a\nminstrel-wench, they must be common to him and his friends, that all\nthings may be huddled together in one mass, as Anaxagoras would have\nit. Now if propriety in these things doth not in the least hinder but\nthat things of greater moment, and the only considerable, as discourse\nand civility, may be still common, let us leave off disgracing\ndistributions or the lot, the son of Fortune (as Euripides hath it),\nwhich hath no respect either to riches or honor, but which in its\ninconsiderate wheel now and then raiseth up the humble and the poor,\nand makes him master of himself, and, by accustoming the great and rich\nto endure and not be offended at equality, pleasingly instructs.\n\n\nBOOK III.\n\nSimonides the poet, my Sossius Senecio, seeing one of the company sit\nsilent and discourse nobody, said: Sir, if you are a fool, it is wisely\ndone; if a wise man, very foolishly. It is good to conceal a man\u2019s\nfolly, but (as Heraclitus says) it is very hard to do it over a glass\nof wine,\n\n  Which doth the gravest men to mirth advance,\n  And let them loose to sing, to laugh, and dance,\n  And speak what had been better left unsaid.[73]\n\nIn which lines the poet in my mind shows the difference between being\na little heated and downright drunk; for to sing, laugh, and dance may\nagree very well with those that have gone no farther than a merry cup;\nbut to prattle, and speak what had been better left unsaid, argues a\nman to be quite gone. Therefore Plato thinks that wine is the most\ningenious discoverer of men\u2019s humors; and Homer, when he says,\n\n  At feasts they had not known each other\u2019s minds,[74]\n\nevidently shows that he knew wine was powerful to open men\u2019s thoughts,\nand was full of new discoveries. It is true from the bare eating and\ndrinking, if they say nothing, we can give no guess at the tempers of\nthe men; but because drinking leads them on to discourse, and discourse\nlays a great many things open and naked which were secret and hid\nbefore, therefore to sport a glass of wine together lets us into one\nanother\u2019s humors. And therefore a man may reasonably fall foul on\nAesop: Why, sir, would you have a window in every man\u2019s breast, through\nwhich we may look in upon his thoughts? Wine opens and exposes all, it\nwill not suffer us to be silent, but takes off all mask and visor, and\nmakes us regardless of the severe precepts of decency and custom. Thus\nAesop, or Plato, or any other that designs to look into a man, may have\nhis desires satisfied by the assistance of a bottle; but those that are\nnot solicitous to pump one another, but to be sociable and pleasant,\ndiscourse of such matters and handle such questions as make no\ndiscovery of the bad parts of the soul, but such as comfort the good,\nand, by the help of neat and polite learning, lead the intelligent part\ninto an agreeable pasture and garden of delight. This made me collect\nand dedicate to you this third dedication of table discourses, the\nfirst of which is about chaplets made of flowers.\n\n_QUESTION I._\n\nWHETHER IT IS BECOMING TO WEAR CHAPLETS OF FLOWERS AT TABLE.\n\nERATO, AMMONIUS, TRYPHO, PLUTARCH, AND OTHERS.\n\n1. At Athens Erato the musician keeping a solemn feast to the Muses,\nand inviting a great many to the treat, the company was full of talk,\nand the subject of the discourse garlands. For after supper many of\nall sorts of flowers being presented to the guests, Ammonius began to\njeer me for choosing a rose chaplet before a laurel, saying that those\nmade of flowers were effeminate, and fitted toyish girls and women\nmore than grave philosophers and men of music. And I admire that our\nfriend Erato, that abominates all flourishing in songs, and blames good\nAgatho, who first in his tragedy of the Mysians ventured to introduce\nthe chromatic airs, should himself fill his entertainment with such\nvarious and such florid colors, and that, while he shuts out all the\nsoft delights that through the ears can enter to the soul, he should\nintroduce others through the eyes and through the nose, and make these\ngarlands, instead of signs of piety, to be instruments of pleasure.\nFor it must be confessed that this ointment gives a better smell than\nthose trifling flowers, which wither even in the hands of those that\nwreathe them. Besides, all pleasure must be banished the company of\nphilosophers, unless it is of some use or desired by natural appetite;\nfor as those that are carried to a banquet by some of their invited\nfriends (as, for instance, Socrates carried Aristodemus to Agatho\u2019s\ntable) are as civilly entertained as the bidden guests, but he that\ngoes on his own account is shut out of doors; thus the pleasures of\neating and drinking, being invited by natural appetite, should have\nadmission; but all the others which come on no account, and have only\nluxury to introduce them, ought in reason to be denied.\n\n2. At this some young men, not thoroughly acquainted with Ammonius\u2019s\nhumor, being abashed, privately tore their chaplets; but I, perceiving\nthat Ammonius proposed this only for discourse and disputation\u2019s sake,\napplying myself to Trypho the physician, said: Sir, you must put off\nthat sparkling rosy chaplet as well as we, or declare, as I have often\nheard you, what excellent preservatives these flowery garlands are\nagainst the strength of liquor. But here Erato putting in said: What,\nis it decreed that no pleasure must be admitted without profit? And\nmust we be angry with our delight, unless hired to endure it? Perhaps\nwe may have reason to be ashamed of ointments and purple vests, because\nso costly and expensive, and to look upon them as (in the barbarian\u2019s\nphrase) treacherous garments and deceitful odors; but these natural\nsmells and colors are pure and simple as fruits themselves, and without\nexpense or the curiosity of art. And I appeal to any one, whether it\nis not absurd to receive the pleasant tastes Nature gives us, and\nreject those smells and colors that the seasons afford us, because\nforsooth they blossom with delight, if they have no other external\nprofit or advantage. Besides, we have an axiom against you, for if (as\nyou affirm) Nature makes nothing vain, those things that have no other\nuse were designed on purpose to please and to delight. Besides, observe\nthat to thriving trees Nature hath given leaves, for the preservation\nof the fruit and of the stock itself; for those sometimes warming\nsometimes cooling it, the seasons creep on by degrees, and do not\nassault it with all their violence at once. But now the flower, whilst\nit is on the plant, is of no profit at all, unless we use it to delight\nour nose with the admirable smell, and to please our eyes when it opens\nthat inimitable variety of colors. And therefore, when the leaves are\nplucked off, the plants as it were suffer injury and grief. There is a\nkind of an ulcer raised, and an unbecoming nakedness attends them; and\nwe must not only (as Empedocles says)\n\n  By all means spare the leaves that grace the palm,\n\nbut likewise the leaves of all other trees, and not injuriously against\nNature robbing them of their leaves, bring deformity on them to adorn\nourselves. But to pluck the flowers doth no injury at all. It is like\ngathering of grapes at the time of vintage; unless plucked when ripe,\nthey wither of themselves and fall. And therefore, like the barbarians\nwho clothe themselves with the skins more commonly than with the wool\nof sheep, those that wreathe leaves rather than flowers into garlands\nseem to me to use the plants according to neither the dictates of\nreason nor the design of Nature. And thus much I say in defence of\nthose who sell chaplets of flowers; for I am not grammarian enough\nto remember those poems which tell us that the old conquerors in the\nsacred games were crowned with flowers. Yet, now I think of it, there\nis a story of a rosy crown that belongs to the Muses; Sappho mentions\nit in a copy of verses to a woman unlearned and unacquainted with the\nMuses:\n\n  Dead thou shalt lie forgotten in thy tomb,\n  Since not for thee Pierian roses bloom.[75]\n\nBut if Trypho can produce any thing to our advantage from physic, pray\nlet us have it.\n\n3. Then Trypho taking the discourse said: The ancients were very\ncurious and well acquainted with all these things, because plants\nwere the chief ingredients of their physic. And of this some signs\nremain till now; for the Tyrians offer to the son of Agenor, and the\nMagnesians to Chiron, the first supposed practitioners of physic, as\nthe first fruits, the roots of those plants which have been successful\non a patient. And Bacchus was counted a physician not only for finding\nwine, the most pleasing and most potent remedy, but for bringing ivy,\nthe greatest opposite imaginable to wine, into reputation, and for\nteaching his drunken followers to wear garlands of it, that by that\nmeans they might be secured against the violence of a debauch, the heat\nof the liquor being remitted by the coldness of the ivy. Besides, the\nnames of several plants sufficiently evidence the ancients\u2019 curiosity\nin this matter; for they named the walnut-tree \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03cd\u03b1, because it sends\nforth a heavy and drowsy (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd) spirit, which affects their heads\nwho sleep beneath it; and the daffodil, \u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2, because it benumbs\nthe nerves and causes a stupid narcotic heaviness in the limbs; and\ntherefore Sophocles calls it the ancient garland flower of the great\n(that is, the earthy) Gods. And some say rue was called \u03c0\u03ae\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd from\nits astringent quality; for, by its dryness proceeding from its\nheat, it fixes (\u03c0\u03ae\u03b3\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9) or coagulates the seed, and is very hurtful\nto great-bellied women. But those that imagine the herb amethyst\n(\u1f00\u03bc\u03ad\u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2), and the precious stone of the same name, are called so\nbecause powerful against the force of wine are much mistaken; for both\nreceive their names from their color; for its leaf is not of the color\nof strong wine, but resembles that of weak diluted liquor. And indeed\nI could mention a great many which have their names from their proper\nvirtues. But the care and experience of the ancients sufficiently\nappears in those of which they made their garlands when they designed\nto be merry and frolic over a glass of wine; for wine, especially when\nit seizes on the head, and strains the body just at the very spring\nand origin of the sense, disturbs the whole man. Now the effluvia of\nflowers are an admirable preservative against this, they secure the\nbrain, as it were a citadel, against the efforts of drunkenness; for\nthose that are hot open the pores and give the fumes free passage to\nexhale, and those that are moderately cold repel and keep down the\nascending vapors. Of this last nature are the violet and rose; for\nthe odors of both these are prevalent against any ache and heaviness\nin the head. The flowers of privet and crocus bring those that have\ndrunk freely into a gentle sleep; for they send forth a smooth and\ngentle effluvia, which softly takes off all asperities that arise in\nthe body of the drunken; and so all things being quiet and composed,\nthe violence of the noxious humor is abated and thrown off. The smells\nof some flowers being received into the brain cleanse the organs and\ninstruments of sense, and gently by their heat, without any violence\nor force, dissolve the humors, and warm and cherish the brain itself,\nwhich is naturally cold. Upon this account, they called those little\nposies they hung about their necks \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2, and anointed their\nbreasts with the oils that were squeezed from them; and of this Alcaeus\nis a witness, when he bids his friends,\n\n  Pour ointment o\u2019er his laboring temples, pressed\n  With various cares, and o\u2019er his aged breast.\n\nHence the odors by means of the heat shoot upward into the very brain,\nbeing caught up by the nostrils. For they did not call those garlands\nhung about the neck \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 because they thought the heart was the\nseat and citadel of the mind (\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2), for on that account they should\nrather have called them \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2; but, as I said before, from their\nvapor and exhalation. Besides, it is no strange thing that these smells\nof garlands should be of so considerable a virtue; for some tell us\nthat the shadow of the yew, especially when it blossoms, kills those\nthat sleep under it; and a subtile spirit ariseth from pressed poppy,\nwhich suddenly overcomes the unwary squeezers. And there is an herb\ncalled alyssus, which to some that take it in their hands, to others\nthat do but look on it, is found a present remedy against the hiccough;\nand some affirm that planted near the stalls it preserves sheep and\ngoats from the rot and mange. And the rose is called \u1fe5\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd, probably\nbecause it sends forth a stream (\u1fe5\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1) of odors; and for that reason\nit withers presently. It is a cooler, yet fiery to look upon; and no\nwonder, for upon the surface a subtile heat, being driven out by the\ninward cold, looks vivid and appears.\n\n_QUESTION II._\n\nWHETHER IVY IS OF A HOT OR COLD NATURE.\n\nAMMONIUS, TRYPHO, ERATO.\n\n1. Upon this discourse, when we all hummed Trypho, Ammonius with a\nsmile said: It is not decent by any contradiction to pull in pieces,\nlike a chaplet, this various and florid discourse of Trypho\u2019s. Yet\nmethinks the ivy is a little oddly interwoven, and unjustly said by its\ncold powers to temper the heat of strong wine; for it is rather fiery\nand hot, and its berries steeped in wine make the liquor more apt to\ninebriate and inflame. And from this cause, as in sticks warped by\nthe fire, proceeds the crookedness of the boughs. And snow, that for\nmany days will lie on other trees, presently melts from the branches of\nthe ivy, and wastes all around, as far as the warmth reaches. But the\ngreatest evidence is this. Theophrastus tells us, that when Alexander\ncommanded Harpalus to plant some Grecian trees in the Babylonian\ngardens, and\u2014because the climate is very hot and the sun violent\u2014such\nas were leafy, thick, and fit to make a shade, the ivy only would not\ngrow; though all art and diligence possible was used, it withered and\ndied. For being hot itself, it could not agree with the fiery nature of\nthe soil; for excess in similar qualities is destructive, and therefore\nwe see every thing as it were affects its contrary; a cold plant\nflourishes in a hot ground, and a hot plant is delighted with a cold.\nUpon which account it is that bleak mountains, exposed to cold winds\nand snow, bear firs, pines, and the like, full of pitch, fiery, and\nexcellent to make a torch. But besides, Trypho, trees of a cold nature,\ntheir little feeble heat not being able to diffuse itself but retiring\nto the heart, shed their leaves; but their natural oiliness and warmth\npreserve the laurel, olive, and cypress always green; and the like too\nin the ivy may be observed. And therefore it is not likely our dear\nfriend Bacchus, who called wine \u03bc\u03ad\u03b8\u03c5 (_intoxicating_) and himself\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, should bring ivy into reputation for being a preservative\nagainst drunkenness and an enemy to wine. But in my opinion, as lovers\nof wine, when they have not any juice of the grape ready, drink\nale, mead, cider, or the like; thus he that in winter would have a\nvine-garland on his head, finding the vine naked and without leaves,\nused the ivy that is like it; for its boughs are twisted and irregular,\nits leaves moist and disorderly confused, but chiefly the berries, like\nripening clusters, make an exact representation of the vine. But grant\nthe ivy to be a preservative against drunkenness,\u2014that to please you,\nTrypho, we may call Bacchus a physician,\u2014still I affirm that power to\nproceed from its heat, which either opens the pores or helps to digest\nthe wine.\n\n2. Upon this Trypho sat silent, studying for an answer. Erato\naddressing himself to us youths, said: Trypho wants your assistance;\nhelp him in this dispute about the garlands, or be content to sit\nwithout any. Ammonius too bade us not be afraid, for he would not reply\nto any of our discourses; and Trypho likewise urging me to propose\nsomething, I said: To demonstrate that the ivy is cold is not so proper\na task for me as Trypho, for he often useth coolers and binders; but\nthat proposition, that wine in which ivy berries have been is more\ninebriating, is not true; for that disturbance which it raiseth in\nthose that drink it is not so properly called drunkenness as alienation\nof mind or madness, such as hyoscyamus and a thousand other things\nthat set men beside themselves usually produce. The crookedness of the\nbough is no argument at all, for such violent and unnatural effects\ncannot be supposed to proceed from any natural quality or power. Now\nsticks are bent by the fire, because that draws the moisture, and so\nthe crookedness is a violent distortion; but the natural heat nourishes\nand preserves the body. Consider therefore, whether it is not the\nweakness and coldness of the body that makes it wind, bend, and creep\nupon the ground; for those qualities check its rise, and depress it in\nits ascent, and render it like a weak traveller, that often sits down\nand then goes on again. Therefore the ivy requires something to twine\nabout, and needs a prop; for it is not able to sustain and direct its\nown branches, because it wants heat, which naturally tends upward.\nThe snow is melted by the wetness of the leaf, for water destroys it\neasily, passing through the thin contexture, it being nothing but\na congeries of small bubbles; and therefore in very cold but moist\nplaces the snow melts as soon as in hot. That it is continually green\ndoth not proceed from its heat, for to shed its leaves doth not argue\nthe coldness of a tree. Thus the myrtle and maiden-hair, though not\nhot, but confessedly cold, are green all the year. Some imagine this\ncomes from the equal and duly proportioned mixture of the qualities\nin the leaf, to which Empedocles hath added a certain aptness of\npores, through which the nourishing juice is orderly transmitted, so\nthat there is still supply sufficient. But now it is otherwise in\ntrees whose leaves fall, by reason of the wideness of their higher\nand narrowness of their lower pores; for the latter do not send juice\nenough, nor do the former keep it, but pour it out as soon as a small\nstock is received. This may be illustrated from the usual watering of\nour gardens; for when the distribution is unequal, the plants that are\nalways watered have nourishment enough, seldom wither, and look always\ngreen. But you further argue, that being planted in Babylon it would\nnot grow. It was well done of the plant, methinks, being a particular\nfriend and familiar of the Boeotian God, to scorn to live amongst the\nbarbarians, or imitate Alexander in following the manners of those\nnations; but it was not its heat but cold that was the cause of this\naversion, for that could not agree with the contrary quality. For one\nsimilar quality doth not destroy but cherish another. Thus dry ground\nbears thyme, though it is naturally hot. Now at Babylon they say the\nair is so suffocating, so intolerably hot, that many of the merchants\nsleep upon skins full of water, that they may lie cool.\n\n_QUESTION III._\n\nWHY WOMEN ARE HARDLY, OLD MEN EASILY, FOXED.\n\nFLORUS, SYLLA.\n\nFlorus thought it strange that Aristotle in his discourse of\nDrunkenness, affirming that old men are easily, women hardly,\novertaken, did not assign the cause, since he seldom failed on such\noccasions. He therefore proposed it to us (we were a great many\nacquaintance met at supper) as a fit subject for our enquiry. Sylla\nbegan: One part will conduce to the discovery of the other; and if\nwe rightly hit the cause in relation to the women, the difficulty,\nas it concerns the old men, will be easily despatched; for their two\nnatures are quite contrary. Moistness, smoothness, and softness belong\nto the one; and dryness, roughness, and hardness are the accidents of\nthe other. As for women, I think the principal cause is the moistness\nof their temper; this produceth a softness in the flesh, a shining\nsmoothness, and their usual purgations. Now when wine is mixed with\na great deal of weak liquor, it is overpowered by that, loses its\nstrength, and becomes flat and waterish. Some reason likewise may be\ndrawn from Aristotle himself; for he affirms that those that drink\nfast, and take a large draught without drawing breath, are seldom\novertaken, because the wine doth not stay long in their bodies, but\nhaving acquired an impetus by this greedy drinking, suddenly runs\nthrough; and women are generally observed to drink after that manner.\nBesides, it is probable that their bodies, by reason of the continual\ndefluction of the moisture in order to their usual purgations, are very\nporous, and divided as it were into many little pipes and conduits;\ninto which when the wine falls, it is quickly conveyed away, and\ndoth not lie and fret the principal parts, from whose disturbance\ndrunkenness proceeds. But that old men want the natural moisture,\neven the name \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, in my opinion, intimates; for that name was\ngiven them not as inclining to the earth (\u1fe5\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd), but as\nbeing in the habit of their body \u03b3\u03b5\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 and \u03b3\u03b5\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03af, _earthlike_\nand _earthy_. Besides, the stiffness and roughness prove the\ndryness of their nature. Therefore it is probable that, when they\ndrink, their body, being grown spongy by the dryness of its nature,\nsoaks up the wine, and that lying in the vessels it affects the senses\nand prevents the natural motions. For as floods of water glide over\nthe close grounds, nor make them slabby, but quickly sink into the\nopen and chapped fields; thus wine, being sucked in by the dry parts,\nlies and works in the bodies of old men. But besides, it is easy to\nobserve, that age of itself hath all the symptoms of drunkenness. These\nsymptoms every body knows; shaking of the joints, faltering of the\ntongue, babbling, passion, forgetfulness, and distraction of the mind;\nmany of which being incident to old men, even whilst they are well\nand in perfect health, are heightened by any little irregularity and\naccidental debauch. So that drunkenness doth not beget in old men any\nnew and proper symptoms, but only intend and increase the common ones.\nAnd an evident sign of this is, that nothing is so like an old man as a\nyoung man drunk.\n\n_QUESTION IV._\n\nWHETHER THE TEMPER OF WOMEN IS COLDER OR HOTTER THAN THAT OF\nMEN.\n\nAPOLLONIDES, ATHRYILATUS.\n\n1. Thus Sylla said, and Apollonides the marshal subjoined: Sir, what\nyou discoursed of old men I willingly admit; but in my opinion you have\nomitted a considerable reason in relation to the women, the coldness of\ntheir temper, which quencheth the heat of the strongest wine, and makes\nit lose all its destructive force and fire. This reflection seeming\nreasonable, Athryilatus the Thasian, a physician, kept us from a hasty\nconclusion in this matter, by saying that some supposed the female sex\nwas not cold, but hotter than the male; and others thought wine rather\ncold than hot.\n\n2. When Florus seemed surprised at this discourse, Athryliatus\ncontinued: Sir, what I mention about wine I shall leave to this man\nto make out (pointing to me, for a few days before we had handled the\nsame matter). But that women are of a hot constitution, some suppose,\nmay be proved, first, from their smoothness, for their heat wastes all\nthe superfluous nourishment which breeds hair; secondly from their\nabundance of blood, which seems to be the fountain and source of all\nthe heat that is in the body;\u2014now this abounds so much in females,\nthat they would be all on fire, unless relieved by frequent and sudden\nevacuations. Thirdly, from a usual practice of the sextons in burning\nthe bodies of the dead, it is evident that females are hotter than\nmales; for the beds-men are wont to put one female body with ten males\nupon the same pile, for that contains some inflammable and oily parts,\nand serves for fuel to the rest. Besides, if that that is soonest fit\nfor generation is hottest, and a maid begins to be furious sooner than\na boy, this is a strong proof of the hotness of the female sex. But a\nmore convincing proof follows: women endure cold better than men, they\nare not so sensible of the sharpness of the weather, and are contented\nwith a few clothes.\n\n3. And Florus replied: Methinks, sir, from the same topics I could\ndraw conclusions against your assertion. For, first, they endure cold\nbetter, because one similar quality doth not so readily act upon\nanother; and then again, their seed is not active in generation, but\npassive matter and nourishment to that which the male injects. But\nmore, women grow effete sooner than men; that they burn better than the\nmales proceeds from their fat, which is the coldest part of the body;\nand young men, or such as use exercise, have but little fat. Their\nmonthly purgations do not prove the abundance, but the corruption and\nbadness, of their blood; for being the superfluous and undigested part,\nand having no convenient vessel in the body, it flows out, and appears\nlanguid and feculent, by reason of the weakness of its heat. And the\nshivering that seizes them at the time of their purgations sufficiently\nproves that which flows from them is cold and undigested. And who will\nbelieve their smoothness to be an effect of heat rather than cold, when\nevery body knows that the hottest parts of a man\u2019s body are the most\nhairy? For all such excrements are thrust out by the heat, which opens\nand makes passages through the skin; but smoothness is a consequent\nof that closeness of the superficies which proceeds from condensing\ncold. And that the flesh of women is closer than that of men, you may\nbe informed by those that lie with women that have anointed themselves\nwith oil or other perfumes; for though they do not touch the women, yet\nthey find themselves perfumed, their bodies by reason of their heat and\nrarety drawing the odor to them. But I think we have disputed plausibly\nand sufficiently of this matter....\n\n_QUESTION V._\n\nWHETHER WINE IS POTENTIALLY COLD.\n\nATHRYILATUS, PLUTARCH.\n\n1. But now I would fain know upon what account you can imagine that\nwine is cold. Then, said I, do you believe this to be my opinion? Yes,\nsaid he, whose else? And I replied: I remember a good while ago I met\nwith a discourse of Aristotle\u2019s upon this very question. And Epicurus,\nin his Banquet, hath a long discourse, the sum of which is that wine\nof itself is not hot, but that it contains some atoms that cause heat,\nand others that cause cold; now, when it is taken into the body, it\nloses one sort of particles and takes the other out of the body itself,\naccording to the person\u2019s nature and constitution; so that some when\nthey are drunk are very hot, and others very cold.\n\n2. This way of talking, said Florus, leads us by Protagoras directly\nto Pyrrho; for it is evident that, suppose we were to discourse of\noil, milk, honey, or the like, we shall avoid all enquiry into their\nparticular natures, by saying that things are so and so by their mutual\nmixture with one another. But how do you prove that wine is cold? And\nI, being forced to speak extempore, replied: By two arguments. The\nfirst I draw from the practice of physicians, for when their patients\u2019\nstomachs grow very weak, they prescribe no hot things, and yet give\nthem wine as an excellent remedy. Besides, they stop looseness and\nimmoderate sweating by wine; and this shows that they think it more\nbinding and constipating than snow itself. Now if it were potentially\nhot, I should think it as wise a thing to apply fire to snow as wine to\nthe stomach.\n\nAgain, most teach that sleep proceeds from the coolness of the parts;\nand most of the narcotic medicines, as mandrake and opium, are coolers.\nThose indeed work violently, and forcibly condense, but wine cools by\ndegrees; it gently stops the motion, according as it hath more or less\nof such narcotic qualities. Besides, heat is generative; for owing to\nheat the moisture flows easily, and the vital spirit gains intensity\nand a stimulating force. Now the great drinkers are very dull, inactive\nfellows, no women\u2019s men at all; they eject nothing strong, vigorous,\nand fit for generation, but are weak and unperforming, by reason of the\nbad digestion and coldness of their seed. And it is farther observable\nthat the effects of cold and drunkenness upon men\u2019s bodies are the\nsame,\u2014trembling, heaviness, paleness, shivering, faltering of tongue,\nnumbness, and cramps. In many, a debauch ends in a dead palsy, when\nthe wine stupefies and extinguisheth all the heat. And the physicians\nuse this method in curing the qualms and diseases gotten by debauch;\nat night they cover them well and keep them warm; and at day they\nanoint and bathe, and give them such food as shall not disturb, but\nby degrees recover the heat which the wine hath scattered and driven\nout of the body. Thus, I added, in these appearances we trace obscure\nqualities and powers; but as for drunkenness, it is easily discerned\nwhat it is. For, in my opinion, as I hinted before, those that are\ndrunk are very much like old men; and therefore great drinkers grow old\nsoonest, and they are commonly bald and gray before their time; and all\nthese accidents certainly proceed from want of heat. But mere vinegar\nis of a vinous nature and strength, and nothing quenches fire so soon\nas that; its extreme coldness overcomes and kills the flame presently.\nAnd of all fruits physicians use the vinous as the greatest coolers, as\npomegranates and apples. Besides, do they not make wine by mixing honey\nwith rain-water or snow; for the cold, because those two qualities are\nnear akin, if it prevails, changes the luscious into a poignant taste?\nAnd did not the ancients of all the creeping beasts consecrate the\nsnake to Bacchus, and of all the plants the ivy, because they were of\na cold and frozen nature? Now, lest any one should think this is an\nevidence of its heat, that if a man drinks juice of hemlock, a large\ndose of wine cures him, I shall on the contrary affirm that wine and\nhemlock juice mixed are an incurable poison, and kill him that drinks\nit presently. So that we can no more conclude it to be hot because it\nresists, than to be cold because it assists, the poison. For cold is\nthe only quality by which hemlock juice works and kills.\n\n_QUESTION VI._\n\nWHICH IS THE FITTEST TIME FOR A MAN TO KNOW HIS WIFE?\n\nYOUTHS, ZOPYRUS, OLYMPICHUS, SOCLARUS.\n\n1. Some young students, that had not gone far in the learning of\nthe ancients, inveighed against Epicurus for bringing in, in his\nSymposium, an impertinent and unseemly discourse, about what time was\nbest to lie with a woman; for (they said) for an old man at supper in\nthe company of youths to talk of such a subject, and dispute whether\nafter or before supper was the most convenient time, argued him to be\na very loose and debauched man. To this some said that Xenophon, after\nhis entertainment was ended, sent all his guests home on horseback,\nto lie with their wives. But Zopyrus the physician, a man very well\nread in Epicurus, said, that they had not duly weighed that piece;\nfor he did not propose that question at first, and then discourse of\nthat matter on purpose; but after supper he desired the young men to\ntake a walk, and then discourse upon it, that he might induce them\nto continence, and persuade them to abate their desires and restrain\ntheir appetites; showing them that it was very dangerous at all\ntimes, but especially after they had been eating or making merry. But\nsuppose he had proposed this as the chief topic for discourse, doth\nit never become a philosopher to enquire which is the convenient and\nproper time? Ought we not to time it well, and direct our embrace by\nreason? Or may such discourses be otherwise allowed, and must they\nbe thought unseemly problems to be proposed at table? Indeed I am of\nanother mind. It is true, I should blame a philosopher that in the\nmiddle of the day, in the schools, before all sorts of men, should\ndiscourse of such a subject; but over a glass of wine between friends\nand acquaintance, when it is necessary to propose something beside dull\nserious discourse, why should it be a fault to hear or speak any thing\nthat may inform our judgments or direct our practice in such matters?\nAnd I protest I had rather that Zeno had inserted his loose topics in\nsome merry discourses and agreeable table-talk, than in such a grave,\nserious piece as his politics.\n\n2. The youth, startled at this free declaration, sat silent; and the\nrest of the company desired Zopyrus to deliver Epicurus\u2019s sentiment.\nHe said: The particulars I cannot remember; but I believe he feared\nthe violent agitations of such exercises, because the bodies employed\nin them are so violently disturbed. For it is certain that wine is a\nvery great disturber, and puts the body out of its usual temper; and\ntherefore, when thus disquieted, if quiet and sleep do not compose it\nbut other agitations seize it, it is likely that those parts which knit\nand join the members may be loosened, and the whole frame be as it were\nunsettled from its foundation and overthrown. For then likewise the\nseed cannot freely pass, but is confusedly and forcibly thrown out,\nbecause the liquor hath filled the vessels of the body, and stopped its\nway. Therefore, says Epicurus, we must use those sports when the body\nis at quiet, when the meat hath been thoroughly digested, carried about\nand applied to several parts of the body, but before we begin to want\na fresh supply of food. To this of Epicurus we might join an argument\ntaken from physic. At day time, while our digestion is performing, we\nare not so lusty nor eager to embrace; and presently after supper to\nendeavor it is dangerous, for the crudity of the stomach, the food\nbeing yet undigested, may be increased by a disorderly motion upon this\ncrudity, and so the mischief be double.\n\n3. Olympicus, continuing the discourse, said: I very much like what\nClinias the Pythagorean delivers. For story goes that, being asked\nwhen a man should lie with a woman, he replied, when he hath a mind\nto receive the greatest mischief that he can. For Zopyrus\u2019s discourse\nseems rational, and other times as well as those he mentions have their\npeculiar inconveniences. And therefore,\u2014as Thales the philosopher, to\nfree himself from the pressing solicitations of his mother who advised\nhim to marry, said at first, \u2019tis not yet time; and when, now he was\ngrowing old, she repeated her admonition, replied, nor is it now\ntime,\u2014so it is best for every man to have the same mind in relation to\nthose sports of Venus; when he goes to bed, let him say, \u2019tis not yet\ntime; and when he rises, \u2019tis not now time.\n\n4. What you say, Olympicus, said Soclarus interposing, befits wrestlers\nindeed; it smells, methinks, of their cottabus, and their meals of\nflesh and casks of wine, but is not suitable to the present company,\nfor there are some young married men here.\n\n  Whose duty \u2019tis to follow Venus\u2019 sports.\n\nNay, we ourselves seem to have some relation to Venus still, when in\nour hymns to the Gods we pray thus to her,\n\n  Fair Venus, keep off feeble age.\n\nBut waving this, let us enquire (if you think fit) whether Epicurus\ndoes well, when contrary to all right and equity he separates Venus\nand the Night, though Menander, a man well skilled in love matters,\nsays that she likes her company better than that of any of the Gods.\nFor, in my opinion, night is a very convenient veil, spread over those\nthat give themselves to that kind of pleasure; for it is not fit that\nday should be the time, lest modesty should be banished from our eyes,\neffeminacy grow bold, and such vigorous impressions on our memories\nbe left, as might still possess us with the same fancies and raise\nnew inclinations. For the sight (according to Plato) receives a more\nvigorous impression than any other bodily organ, and joining with\nimagination, that lies near it, works presently upon the soul, and\never raises a new and fresh desire by those images of pleasure which\nit brings. But the night, hiding many and the most furious of the\nactions, quiets and lulls nature, and doth not suffer it to be carried\nto intemperance by the eye. But besides this, how absurd is it, that a\nman returning from an entertainment, merry perhaps and jocund, crowned\nand perfumed, should cover himself up, turn his back to his wife, and\ngo to sleep; and then at day-time, in the midst of his business, send\nfor her out of her apartment to come to him for such a matter; or in\nthe morning, as a cock treads his hens. No, sir, the evening is the end\nof our labor, and the morning the beginning. Bacchus the Loosener and\nTerpsichore and Thalia preside over the former; and the latter raiseth\nus up betimes to attend on Minerva the Work-mistress, and Mercury\nthe merchandiser. And therefore songs, dances, and epithalamiums,\nmerry-meetings, with balls and feasts, and sounds of pipes and flutes,\nare the entertainment of the one; but in the other, nothing but the\nnoise of hammers and anvils, the scratching of saws, the morning cries\nof noisy tax-gatherers, citations to court or to attend this or that\nprince and magistrate, are heard.\n\n  Then all the sports of pleasure disappear.\n  Then Venus, then gay youth removes;\n  No Thyrsus then which Bacchus loves;\n  But all is clouded and o\u2019erspread with care.\n\nBesides, Homer makes not one of the heroes lie with his wife or\nmistress in the daytime, but only Paris, who, having shamefully fled\nfrom the battle, sneaked into the embraces of his wife; intimating that\nsuch lasciviousness by day did not befit the sober temper of a man,\nbut the mad lust of an adulterer. But, moreover, the body will not (as\nEpicurus fancies) be injured more after supper than at any other time,\nunless a man be drunk or overcharged,\u2014for in those cases, no doubt, it\nis very dangerous and hurtful. But if a man is only raised and cheered,\nnot overpowered by liquor, if his body is pliable, his mind agreeing,\nif he interposes some reasonable time between, and then he sports, he\nneed not fear any disturbance from the load he has within him; he need\nnot fear catching cold, or too great a transportation of atoms, which\nEpicurus makes the cause of all the ensuing harm. For if he lies quiet\nhe will quickly fill again, and new spirits will supply the vessels\nthat are emptied. But this is especially to be taken care of, that,\nthe body being then in a ferment and disturbed, no cares of the soul,\nno business about necessary affairs, no labor, should distract and\nseize it, lest they should corrupt and sour its humors, Nature not\nhaving time enough for settling what has been disturbed. For, sir, all\nmen have not the command of that happy ease and tranquillity which\nEpicurus\u2019s philosophy procured him; for many great incumbrances seize\nalmost upon every one every day, or at least some disquiets; and it\nis not safe to trust the body with any of these, when it is in such a\ncondition and disturbance, presently after the fury and heat of the\nembrace is over. Let, according to his opinion, the happy and immortal\nDeity sit at ease and never mind us; but if we regard the laws of our\ncountry, we must not dare to enter into the temple and offer sacrifice,\nif but a little before we have done any such thing. It is fit therefore\nto let night and sleep intervene, and after there is a sufficient\nspace of time past between, to rise as it were pure and new, and (as\nDemocritus was wont to say) \u201cwith new thoughts upon the new day.\u201d\n\n_QUESTION VII._\n\nWHY NEW WINE DOTH NOT INEBRIATE AS SOON AS OTHER.\n\nPLUTARCH, HIS FATHER, HAGIAS, ARISTAENETUS, AND OTHER YOUTH.\n\n1. At Athens on the eleventh day of February (thence called \u03a0\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u03af\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1,\n(_the barrel-opening_), they began to taste their new wine; and\nin old times (as it appears), before they drank, they offered some\nto the Gods, and prayed that that cordial liquor might prove good\nand wholesome. By us Thebans the month is named \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, and it\nis our custom upon the sixth day to sacrifice to our good Genius and\ntaste our new wine, after the zephyr has done blowing; for that wind\nmakes wine ferment more than any other. and the liquor that can bear\nthis fermentation is of a strong body and will keep well. My father\noffered the usual sacrifice, and when after supper the young men, my\nfellow-students, commended the wine, he started this question: Why\ndoes not new wine inebriate as soon as other? This seemed a paradox\nand incredible to most of us; but Hagias said, that luscious things\nwere cloying and would presently satiate, and therefore few could drink\nenough to make them drunk; for when once the thirst is allayed, the\nappetite would be quickly palled by that unpleasant liquor; for that a\nluscious is different from a sweet taste, even the poet intimates, when\nhe says,\n\n  With luscious wine, and with sweet milk and cheese.[76]\n\nWine at first is sweet; afterward, as it grows old, it ferments and\nbegins to be pricked a little; then it gets a sweet taste.\n\n2. Aristaenetus the Nicaean said, that he remembered he had read\nsomewhere that sweet things mixed with wine make it less heady, and\nthat some physicians prescribe to one that hath drunk freely, before he\ngoes to bed, a crust of bread dipped in honey. And therefore, if sweet\nmixtures weaken strong wine, it is reasonable that new wine should not\nbe heady till it hath lost its sweetness.\n\n3. We admired the acuteness of the young philosophers, and were\nwell pleased to see them propose something out of the common road,\nand give us their own sentiments on this matter. Now the common and\nobvious reason is the heaviness of new wine,\u2014which (as Aristotle\nsays) violently presseth the stomach,\u2014or the abundance of airy and\nwatery parts that lie in it; the former of which, as soon as they are\npressed, fly out; and the watery parts are naturally fit to weaken the\nspirituous liquor. Now, when it grows old, the juice is improved, and\nthough by the separation of the watery parts it loses in quantity, it\ngets in strength.\n\n_QUESTION VIII._\n\nWHY THOSE THAT ARE STARK DRUNK SEEM NOT SO MUCH DEBAUCHED AS THOSE\nTHAT ARE BUT HALF FOXED.\n\nPLUTARCH, HIS FATHER.\n\n1. Well then, said my father, since we have fallen upon Aristotle, I\nwill endeavor to propose something of my own concerning those that are\nhalf drunk; for, in my mind, though he was a very acute man, he is not\naccurate enough in such matters. They usually say, I think, that a\nsober man\u2019s understanding apprehends things right and judges well; the\nsense of one quite drunk is weak and enfeebled; but of them that are\nhalf drunk the fancy is vigorous and the understanding weakened, and\ntherefore, following their own fancies, they judge, but judge ill. But\npray, sirs, what is your opinion in these matters?\n\n2. This reason, I replied, would satisfy me upon a private\ndisquisition; but if you will have my own sentiments, let us first\nconsider, whether this difference doth not proceed from the different\ntemper of the body. For of those that are only half drunk, the mind\nalone is disturbed, but the body not being quite overwhelmed is yet\nable to obey its motions; but when it is too much oppressed and the\nwine has overpowered it, it betrays and frustrates the motions of the\nmind, for men in such a condition never go so far as action. But those\nthat are half drunk, having a body serviceable to the absurd motions of\nthe mind, are rather to be thought to have greater ability to comply\nwith those they have, than to have worse inclinations than the others.\nNow if, proceeding on another principle, we consider the strength of\nthe wine itself, nothing hinders but that this may be different and\nchangeable, according to the quantity that is drunk. As fire, when\nmoderate, hardens a piece of clay, but if very strong, makes it brittle\nand crumble into pieces; and the heat of the spring fires our blood\nwith fevers, but as the summer comes on, the disease usually abates;\nwhat hinders then but that the mind, being naturally raised by the\npower of the wine, when it is come to a pitch, should by pouring on\nmore be weakened again, and its force abated? Thus hellebore, before\nit purges, disturbs the body; but if too small a dose be given, it\ndisturbs only and purges not at all; and some taking too little of an\nopiate are more restless than before; and some taking too much sleep\nwell. Besides, it is probable that this disturbance into which those\nthat are half drunk are put, when it comes to a pitch, conduces to that\ndecay. For a great quantity being taken inflames the body and consumes\nthe frenzy of the mind; as a mournful song and melancholy music at a\nfuneral raises grief at first and forces tears, but as it continues, by\nlittle and little it takes away all dismal apprehensions and consumes\nour sorrows. Thus wine, after it hath heated and disturbed, calms the\nmind again and quiets the frenzy; and when men are dead drunk, their\npassions are at rest.\n\n_QUESTION IX.[77]_\n\nWHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE SAYING: DRINK EITHER FIVE OR THREE, BUT\nNOT FOUR?\n\nARISTO, PLUTARCH, PLUTARCH\u2019S FATHER.\n\n1. When I had said this, Aristo cried out aloud, as his manner was,\nand said: I see well now that there is opened a return again of\nmeasures unto feasts and banquets; which measures, although they are\nmost just and democratical, have for a long time (I wot not by what\nsober reason) been banished from thence, as by a tyrant. For, as\nthey who profess a canonical harmony in sounding of the harp do hold\nand say, that the sesquialteral proportion produceth the symphony\n_diapente_ (\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5), the double proportion the _diapason_\n(\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd), and that the accord called _diatessaron_ (\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd), which is of all most obscure and dull, consisteth in the\nepitrite proportion; even so they that make profession of skill in\nthe harmonies of Bacchus have observed, that three symphonies or\naccords there are between wine and water, namely, _diapente_,\n_diatrion_ (\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd), and _diatessaron_; and so they say\nand sing,\u2014Drink either five or three, but not four. For the fifth has\nthe sesquialteral proportion, three cups of water being mingled with\ntwo of wine; the third has the double proportion, two cups of water\nbeing put to one of wine; but the fourth answereth to the epitrite\nproportion of three parts of water poured into one of wine. Now this\nlast proportion may be fit for some grave magistrates sitting in the\ncouncil-hall, or for logicians who pull up their brows when they are\nbusy in watching the unfolding of their arguments; for surely it is\na mixture sober and weak enough. As for the other twain; that medley\nwhich carrieth the proportion of two for one bringeth in that turbulent\ntone of those who are half-drunk,\n\n  Which stirs the heart-strings never moved before;\n\nfor it suffereth a man neither to be fully sober, nor yet to drench\nhimself so deep in wine as to be altogether witless and past his sense;\nbut the other, standing upon the proportion of three to two, is of all\nthe most musical accord, causing a man to sleep peaceably and forget\nall cares, and, like the corn-field which Hesiod speaks of,\n\n  Which doth from man all curses drive,\n  And children cause to rest and thrive,\n\nstilling and appeasing all proud and disordered passions within the\nheart, and inducing instead of them a peaceable calm and tranquillity.\n\n2. These speeches of Aristo no one there would contradict, for it was\nwell known that he spoke in jest. But I willed him to take a cup, and,\nas if it were a harp, to set and tune it to that accord and harmony\nwhich he so highly praised. Then came a boy close unto him, and offered\nhim strong wine; but he refused it, saying with laughter, that his\nmusic consisted in theory, and not in practice of the instrument. Then\nmy father added to what had been said, that the ancient poets gave two\nnurses to Jupiter, namely, Ite and Adrastea; one to Juno, Euboea; two,\nmoreover, to Apollo, Alethea and Corythalea; while they gave many more\nto Bacchus. For, as it seemed to him, Bacchus was nursed and suckled\nby many Nymphs, because he had need of many measures of _water_\n(\u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9), to make him more tame, gentle, witty, and wise.\n\n_QUESTION X._\n\nWHY FLESH STINKS SOONER WHEN EXPOSED TO THE MOON, THAN TO THE\nSUN.\n\nEUTHYDEMUS, SATYRUS.\n\n1. Euthydemus of Sunium gave us at an entertainment a very large boar.\nThe guests wondering at the bigness of the beast, he said that he\nhad one a great deal larger, but in the carriage the moon had made\nit stink; he could not imagine how this should happen, for it was\nprobable that the sun, being much hotter than the moon, should make it\nstink sooner. But, said Satyrus, this is not so strange as the common\npractice of the hunters; for, when they send a boar or a doe to a city\nsome miles distant, they drive a brazen nail into it to keep it from\nstinking.\n\n2. After supper Euthydemus bringing the question into play again,\nMoschio the physician said, that putrefaction was a colliquation of\nthe flesh, and that every thing that putrefied grew moister than\nbefore, and that all heat, if gentle, did stir the humors, though\nnot force them out but if strong, dry the flesh; and that from these\nconsiderations an answer to the question might be easily deduced.\nFor the moon gently warming makes the body moist; but the sun by his\nviolent beams dries rather, and draws all moisture from them. Thus\nArchilochus spoke like a naturalist,\n\n  I hope hot Sirius\u2019s beams will many drain.\n\nAnd Homer more plainly concerning Hector, over whose body Apollo spread\na thick cloud,\n\n  Lest the hot sun should scorch his naked limbs.[78]\n\nNow the moon\u2019s rays are weaker; for, as Ion says,\n\n  They do not ripen well the clustered grapes.\n\n3. When he had done, I said: The rest of the discourse I like very\nwell, but I cannot consent when you ascribe this effect to the strength\nand degree of heat, and chiefly in the hot seasons; for in winter every\none knows that the sun warms little, yet in summer it putrefies most.\nNow the contrary should happen, if the gentleness of the heat were the\ncause of putrefaction. And besides, the hotter the season is, so much\nthe sooner meat stinks; and therefore this effect is not to be ascribed\nto the want of heat in the moon, but to some particular proper quality\nin her beams. For heat is not different only by degrees; but in fires\nthere are some proper qualities very much unlike one another, as a\nthousand obvious instances will prove. Goldsmiths heat their gold in\nchaff fires; physicians use fires of vine-twigs in their distillations;\nand tamarisk is the best fuel for a glass-house. Olive-boughs in a\nvapor-bath warm very well, but hurt other baths: they spoil the\ntimbers, and weaken the foundation; and therefore the most skilful of\nthe public officers forbid those that rent the baths to burn olive-tree\nwood, or throw darnel seed into the fire, because the fumes of it dizzy\nand bring the headache to those that bathe. Therefore it is no wonder\nthat the moon differs in her qualities from the sun; and that the sun\nshould shed some drying, and the moon some dissolving, influence upon\nflesh. And upon this account it is that nurses are very cautious of\nexposing their infants to the beams of the moon; for they being full\nof moisture, as green plants, are easily wrested and distorted. And\neverybody knows that those that sleep abroad under the beams of the\nmoon are not easily waked, but seem stupid and senseless; for the\nmoisture that the moon sheds upon them oppresses their faculty and\ndisables their bodies. Besides, it is commonly said, that women brought\nto bed when the moon is a fortnight old, have easy labors; and for this\nreason I believe that Diana, which was the same with the moon, was\ncalled the goddess of childbirth. And Timotheus appositely says,\n\n  By the blue heaven that wheels the stars,\n  And by the moon that eases women\u2019s pains.\n\nEven in inanimate bodies the power of the moon is very evident. Trees\nthat are cut in the full of the moon carpenters refuse, as being soft,\nand, by reason of their moistness, subject to corruption; and in its\nwane farmers usually thresh their wheat, that being dry it may better\nendure the flail; for the corn in the full of the moon is moist, and\ncommonly bruised in threshing. Besides, they say dough will be leavened\nsooner in the full, for then, though the leaven is scarce proportioned\nto the meal, yet it rarefies and leavens the whole lump. Now when\nflesh putrefies, the combining spirit is only changed into a moist\nconsistence, and the parts of the body separate and dissolve. And this\nis evident in the very air itself, for when the moon is full, most dew\nfalls; and this Alcman the Poet intimates, when he somewhere calls dew\nthe air\u2019s and moon\u2019s daughter, saying,\n\n  See how the daughter of the Moon and Jove\n  Does nourish all things.\n\nThus a thousand instances do prove that the light of the moon is moist,\nand carries with it a softening and corrupting quality. Now the brazen\nnail that is driven through the flesh, if, as they say, it keeps the\nflesh from putrefying, doth it by an astringent quality proper to the\nbrass. The rust of brass physicians use in astringent medicines, and\nthey say those that dig brass ore have been cured of a rheum in their\neyes, and that the hair upon their eyelids hath grown again; for the\ndust rising from the ore, being insensibly applied to the eyes, stops\nthe rheum and dries up the humor. Upon this account, perhaps, Homer\ncalls brass \u03b5\u1f50\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1 and \u03bd\u1ff6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c8. Aristotle says, that wounds made by a\nbrazen dart or a brazen sword are less painful and sooner cured than\nthose that are made of iron weapons, because brass hath something\nmedicinal in itself, which in the very instant is applied to the\nwound. Now it is manifest that astringents are contrary to putrefying,\nand healing to corrupting qualities. Some perhaps may say, that the\nnail driven through draws all the moisture to itself, for the humor\nstill flows to the part that is hurt; and therefore it is said that\nby the nail there always appears some speck and tumor; and therefore\nit is rational that the other parts should remain sound, when all the\ncorruption gathers about that.\n\n\nBOOK IV.\n\nPolybius, my Sossius Senecio, advised Scipio Africanus never to return\nfrom the Forum, where he was conversant about the affairs of the city,\nbefore he had gained one new friend. Where I suppose the word friend\nis not to be taken too nicely, to signify a lasting and unchangeable\nacquaintance; but, as it vulgarly means, a well-wisher, and as\nDicearchus takes it, when he says that we should endeavor to make all\nmen well-wishers, but only good men friends. For friendship is to be\nacquired by time and virtue; but good-will is produced by a familiar\nintercourse, or by mirth and trifling amongst civil and genteel men,\nespecially if opportunity assists their natural inclinations to\ngood-nature. But consider whether this advice may not be accommodated\nto an entertainment as well as the Forum; so that we should not\nbreak up the meeting before we had gained one of the company to be a\nwell-wisher and a friend. Other occasions draw men into the Forum, but\nmen of sense come to an entertainment as well to get new friends as\nto make their old ones merry; indeed to carry away any thing else is\nsordid and uncivil, but to depart with one friend more than we had is\npleasing and commendable. And so, on the contrary, he that doth not\naim at this renders the meeting useless and unpleasant to himself,\nand departs at last, having been a partaker of an entertainment with\nhis belly but not with his mind. For he that makes one at a feast\ndoth not come only to enjoy the meat and drink, but likewise the\ndiscourse, mirth, and genteel humor which ends at last in friendship\nand good-will. The wrestlers, that they may hold fast and lock better,\nuse dust; and so wine mixed with discourse is of extraordinary use to\nmake us hold fast of, and fasten upon, a friend. For wine tempered with\ndiscourse carries gentle and kind affections out of the body into the\nmind; otherwise, it is scattered through the limbs, and serves only to\nswell and disturb. Thus as a marble, by cooling red-hot iron, takes\naway its softness and makes it hard, fit to be wrought and receive\nimpression; thus discourse at an entertainment doth not permit the men\nthat are engaged to become altogether liquid by the wine, but confines\nand makes their jocund and obliging tempers very fit to receive an\nimpression from the seal of friendship if dexterously applied.\n\n_QUESTION I._\n\nWHETHER DIFFERENT SORTS OF FOOD, OR ONE SINGLE DISH FED UPON AT\nONCE, IS MORE EASILY DIGESTED.\n\nPHILO, PLUTARCH, MARCION.\n\n1. The first question of my fourth decade of Table Discourses shall be\nconcerning different sorts of food eaten at one meal. When we came to\nHyampolis at the feast called Elaphebolia, Philo the physician gave\nus a very sumptuous entertainment; and seeing some boys who came with\nPhilinus feeding upon dry bread and calling for nothing else, he cried\nout, O Hercules, well I see the proverb is verified,\n\n  They fought midst stones, but could not take up one;\n\nand presently went out to fetch them some agreeable food. He staid some\ntime, and at last brought them dried figs and cheese; upon which I\nsaid: It is usually seen that those that provide costly and superfluous\ndainties neglect, or are not well furnished with, useful and necessary\nthings. I protest, said Philo, I did not mind that Philinus designs to\nbreed us a young Sosastrus, who (they say) never all his lifetime drank\nor ate any thing beside milk, although it is probable that it was some\nchange in his constitution that made him use this sort of diet; but\nour Chiron here,\u2014quite contrary to the old one that bred Achilles\nfrom his very birth,\u2014feeding his son with unbloody food, gives people\nreason to suspect that like a grasshopper he keeps him on dew and air.\nIndeed, said Philinus, I did not know that we were to meet with a\nsupper of a hundred beasts, such as Aristomenes made for his friends;\notherwise I had come with some poor and wholesome food about me, as\na specific against such costly and unwholesome entertainments. For I\nhave often heard that simple diet is not only more easily provided, but\nlikewise more easily digested, than such variety. At this Marcion said\nto Philo: Philinus hath spoiled your whole provision by deterring the\nguests from eating; but, if you desire it, I will be surety for you,\nthat such variety is more easily digested than simple food, so that\nwithout fear or distrust they may feed heartily. Philo desired him to\ndo so.\n\n2. When after supper we begged Philinus to discover what he had to\nurge against variety of food, he thus began: I am not the author of\nthis opinion, but our friend Philo here is ever now and then telling\nus, first, that wild beasts, feeding on one sort only and simple diet,\nare much more healthy than men are; and that those which are kept in\npens are much more subject to diseases and crudities, by reason of\nthe prepared variety we usually give them. Secondly, no physician is\nso daring, so venturous at new experiments, as to give a feverish\npatient different sorts of food at once. No, simple food, and without\nsauce, as more easy to be digested, is the only diet they allow. Now\nfood must be wrought on and altered by our natural powers; in dyeing,\ncloth of the most simple color takes the tincture soonest; the most\ninodorous oil is soonest by perfumes changed into an essence; and\nsimple diet is soonest changed, and soonest yields to the digesting\npower. For many and different qualities, having some contrariety, when\nthey meet disagree and corrupt one another; as in a city, a mixed\nrout are not easily reduced into one body, nor brought to follow the\nsame concerns; for each works according to its own nature, and is very\nhardly brought to side with another\u2019s quality. Now this is evident in\nwine; mixed wine inebriates very soon, and drunkenness is much like a\ncrudity rising from undigested wine; and therefore the drinkers hate\nmixed liquors, and those that do mix them do it privately, as afraid\nto have their design upon the company discovered. Every change is\ndisturbing and injurious, and therefore musicians are very careful how\nthey strike many strings at once; though the mixture and variety of\nthe notes would be the only harm that would follow. This I dare say,\nthat belief and assent can be sooner procured by disagreeing arguments,\nthan concoction by various and different qualities. But lest I should\nseem jocose, waving this, I will return to Philo\u2019s observations again.\nWe have often heard him declare that it is the quality that makes meat\nhard to be digested; that to mix many things together is hurtful, and\nbegets unnatural qualities; and that every man should take that which\nby experience he finds most agreeable to his temper.\n\nNow if nothing is by its own nature hard to be digested, but it is the\nquantity that disturbs and corrupts, I think we have still greater\nreason to forbear that variety with which Philo\u2019s cook, as it were in\nopposition to his master\u2019s practice, would draw us on to surfeits and\ndiseases. For, by the different sorts of food and new ways of dressing,\nhe still keeps up the unwearied appetite, and leads it from one dish to\nanother, till tasting of every thing we take more than is sufficient\nand enough; as Hypsipyle\u2019s foster-child,\n\n  Who, in a garden placed, plucked up the flowers,\n  One after one, and spent delightful hours;\n  But still his greedy appetite goes on,\n  And still he plucked till all the flowers were gone.[79]\n\nBut more, methinks, Socrates is here to be remembered who adviseth us\nto forbear those junkets which provoke those that are not hungry to\neat; as if by this he cautioned us to fly variety of meats. For it is\nvariety that in every thing draws us on to use more than bare necessity\nrequires. This is manifest in all sorts of pleasures, either of the\neye, ear, or touch; for it still proposeth new provocatives; but in\nsimple pleasures, and such as are confined to one sort, the temptation\nnever carries us beyond nature\u2019s wants. In short, in my opinion, we\nshould more patiently endure to hear a musician praise a disagreeing\nvariety of notes, or a perfumer mixed ointments, than a physician\ncommend the variety of dishes; for certainly such changes and turnings\nas must necessarily ensue will force us out of the right way of health.\n\n3. Philinus having ended his discourse, Marcion said: In my opinion,\nnot only those that separate profit from honesty are obnoxious to\nSocrates\u2019s curse, but those also that separate pleasure from health,\nas if it were its enemy and opposite, and not its great friend and\npromoter. Pain we use but seldom and unwillingly, as the most violent\ninstrument. But from all things else, none, though he would willingly,\ncan remove pleasure. It still attends when we eat, sleep, bathe, or\nanoint, and takes care of and nurses the diseased; dissipating all\nthat is hurtful and disagreeable, by applying that which is proper,\npleasing, and natural. For what pain, what want, what poison so quickly\nand so easily cures a disease as seasonable bathing? A glass of wine,\nwhen a man wants it, or a dish of palatable meat, presently frees us\nfrom all disturbing particles, and settles nature in its proper state,\nthere being as it were a calm and serenity spread over the troubled\nhumors. But those remedies that are painful do hardly and only by\nlittle and little promote the cure, every difficulty pushing on and\nforcing Nature. And therefore let not Philinus blame us, if we do not\nmake all the sail we can to fly from pleasure, but more diligently\nendeavor to make pleasure and health, than other philosophers do to\nmake pleasure and honesty, agree. Now, in my opinion, Philinus, you\nseem to be out in your first argument, where you suppose the beasts\nuse more simple food and are more healthy than men; neither of which\nis true. The first the goats in Eupolis confute, for they extol their\npasture as full of variety and all sorts of herbs, in this manner,\n\n  We feed almost on every kind of trees,\n  Young firs, the ilex, and the oak we crop.\n  Sweet trefoil, fragrant juniper, and yew,\n  Wild olives, thyme,\u2014all freely yield their store.\n\nThese that I have mentioned are very different in taste, smell, and\nother qualities, and he reckons more sorts which I have omitted. The\nsecond Homer skilfully refutes, when he tells us that the plague\nfirst began amongst the beasts. Besides, the shortness of their lives\nproves that they are very subject to diseases; for there is scarce any\nirrational creature long lived, besides the crow and the chough; and\nthose two every one knows do not confine themselves to simple food, but\neat any thing. Besides, you take no good rule to judge what is easy and\nwhat is hard of digestion from the diet of those that are sick; for\nlabor and exercise, and even to chew our meat well, contribute very\nmuch to digestion, neither of which can agree with a man in a fever.\nAgain, that the variety of meats, by reason of the different qualities\nof the particulars, should disagree and spoil one another, you have no\nreason to fear. For if Nature chooses from dissimilar bodies what is\nfit and agreeable, the diverse nourishment transmits many and sundry\nqualities into the mass and bulk of the body, applying to every part\nthat which is meet and fit; so that, as Empedocles words it,\n\n  The sweet runs to the sweet, the sour combines\n  With sour, the sharp with sharp, the hot with hot;\n\nand after the mixture is spread through the mass by the heat which\nis in the spirit, the proper parts are separated and applied to the\nproper members. Indeed, it is very probable that such bodies as ours,\nconsisting of parts of different natures, should be nourished and built\nup rather of various than of simple matter. But if by concoction there\nis an alteration made in the food, this will be more easily performed\nwhen there are different sorts of meat, than when there is only one,\nin the stomach; for similars cannot work upon similars, and the very\ncontrariety in the mixture considerably promotes the alteration of the\nenfeebled qualities. But if, Philinus, you are against all mixture,\ndo not chide Philo only for the variety of his dishes and sauces, but\nalso for using mixture in his sovereign antidotes, which Erasistratus\ncalls the Gods\u2019 hands. Convince him of absurdity and vanity, when he\nmixes things vegetable, mineral, and animal, and things from sea and\nland, in one potion; and advise him to let these alone, and to confine\nall physic to barley-broth, gourds, and oil mixed with water. But you\nurge farther, that variety enticeth the appetite that hath no command\nover itself. That is, good sir, cleanly, wholesome, sweet, palatable,\npleasing diet makes us eat and drink more than ordinary. Why then,\ninstead of fine flour, do not we thicken our broth with coarse bran?\nAnd instead of asparagus, why do we not dress nettle-tops and thistles;\nand leaving this fragrant and pleasant wine, drink sour harsh liquor\nthat gnats have been buzzing about along while? Because, perhaps you\nmay reply, wholesome feeding doth not consist in a perfect avoiding of\nall that is pleasing, but in moderating the appetite in that respect,\nand making it prefer profit before pleasure. But, sir, as a mariner\nhas a thousand ways to avoid a stiff gale of wind, but when it is\nclear down and a perfect calm, cannot raise it again; thus to correct\nand restrain our extravagant appetite is no hard matter, but when it\ngrows weak and faint, when it fails as to its proper objects, then\nto raise it and make it vigorous and active again is, sir, a very\ndifficult and hard task. And therefore variety of viands is as much\nbetter than simple food, which is apt to satisfy by being but of one\nsort, as it is easier to stop Nature when she makes too much speed,\nthan to force her on when languishing and faint. Beside, what some say,\nthat fulness is more to be avoided than emptiness, is not true; but,\non the contrary, fulness then only hurts when it ends in a surfeit or\ndisease; but emptiness, though it doth no other mischief, is of itself\nunnatural. And let this suffice as an answer to what you proposed. But\nyou who stick to salt and cummin have forgot, that variety is sweeter\nand more desired by the appetite, unless too sweet. For, the sight\npreparing the way, it is soon assimilated to the eager receiving body;\nbut that which is not desirable Nature either throws off again, or\nkeeps it in for mere want. But pray observe this, that I do not plead\nfor variety in tarts, cakes, or sauces;\u2014those are vain, insignificant,\nand superfluous things;\u2014but even Plato allowed variety to those fine\ncitizens of his, setting before them onions, olives, leeks, cheese, and\nall sorts of meat and fish, and besides these, allowed them some dried\nfruits.\n\n_QUESTION II._\n\n  WHY MUSHROOMS ARE THOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED BY THUNDER, AND WHY IT\n  IS BELIEVED THAT MEN ASLEEP ARE NEVER THUNDERSTRUCK.\n\nAGEMACHUS, PLUTARCH, DOROTHEUS.\n\n1. At a supper in Elis, Agemachus set before us very large mushrooms.\nAnd when all admired at them, one with a smile said, These are worthy\nthe late thunder, as it were deriding those who imagine mushrooms are\nproduced by thunder. Some said that thunder did split the earth,\nusing the air as a wedge for that purpose, and that by those chinks\nthose that sought after mushrooms were directed where to find them;\nand thence it grew a common opinion, that thunder engenders mushrooms,\nand not only makes them a passage to appear; as if one should imagine\nthat a shower of rain breeds snails, and not rather makes them creep\nforth and be seen abroad. Agemachus stood up stiffly for the received\nopinion, and told us, we should not disbelieve it only because it\nwas strange, for there are a thousand other effects of thunder and\nlightning and a thousand omens deduced from them, whose causes it\nis very hard, if not impossible, to discover; for this laughed-at,\nthis proverbial mushroom doth not escape the thunder because it is so\nlittle, but because it hath some antipathetical qualities that preserve\nit from blasting; as likewise a fig-tree, the skin of a sea-calf (as\nthey say), and that of the hyena, with which sailors cover the ends of\ntheir sails. And husbandmen call thunder-showers fertilizing, and think\nthem to be so. Indeed, it is absurd to wonder at these things, when we\nsee the most incredible things imaginable in thunder, as flame rising\nout of moist vapors, and from soft clouds such astonishing noises.\nThus, he continued, I prattle, exhorting you to enquire after the\ncause; and I shall accept this as your club for these mushrooms.\n\n2. Then I began: Agemachus himself helps us exceedingly toward this\ndiscovery; for nothing at the present seems more probable than that,\ntogether with the thunder, oftentimes generative waters fall, which\nreceive that quality from the heat mixed with them. For the piercing\npure parts of the fire break away in lightning; but the grosser\nflatulent part, being wrapped up in the cloud, changes its nature,\ntaking away the coldness and rendering the moisture mild and gentle,\nand altering and being altered with it, warms it so that it is made\nfit to enter the pores of plants, and is easily assimilated to them.\nBesides, such rain gives those things which it waters a peculiar\ntemperature and difference of juice. Thus dew makes the grass sweeter\nto the sheep, and the clouds from which a rainbow is reflected\nmake those trees on which they fall fragrant. And our priests,\ndistinguishing it by this, call the wood of those trees rainbow-struck,\nimagining that Iris, or the rainbow, hath rested on them. Now it is\nprobable that when these thunder and lightning showers with a great\ndeal of warmth and spirit descend forcibly into the caverns of the\nearth, the ground is moved thereby, and knobs and tumors are formed\nlike those produced by heat and noxious humors in our bodies, which we\ncall wens or kernels. For a mushroom is not like a plant, neither is\nit produced without rain; it hath no root nor sprouts, it depends on\nnothing, but is a being by itself, having the consistence only of the\nearth, which hath been a little changed and altered. If this discourse\nseems frivolous, I assure you that such are most of the effects of\nthunder and lightning which we see; and upon that account men think\nthem to be immediately directed by Heaven, and not depending on natural\ncauses.\n\n3. Dorotheus the rhetorician, one of our company, said: You speak\nright, sir, for not only the vulgar and illiterate, but even some of\nthe philosophers, have been of that opinion. I remember here in this\ntown lightning broke into a house, and did a great many strange things.\nIt let the wine out of a vessel, though the earthen vessel remained\nwhole; and falling upon a man asleep, it neither hurt him nor blasted\nhis clothes, but melted certain pieces of money that he had in his\npocket, defaced them quite, and made them run into a lump. Upon this\nhe went to a philosopher, a Pythagorean, that sojourned in the town,\nand asked the reason; the philosopher directed him to some expiating\nrites, and advised him to consider seriously with himself, and go to\nprayers. And I have been told, that lightning falling upon a sentinel\nat Rome, as he stood to guard the temple, burned the latchet of his\nshoe, and did no other harm; and several silver candlesticks lying in\nwooden boxes, the silver was melted while the boxes lay untouched.\nThese stories you may believe or not as you please. But that which is\nmost wonderful, and which everybody knows, is this,\u2014the bodies of\nthose that are killed by lightning never putrefy. For many neither burn\nnor bury such bodies, but let them lie above ground with a fence about\nthem, so that every one may see they remain uncorrupted, confuting by\nthis Euripides\u2019s Clymene, who says thus of Pha\u00ebton,\n\n  My best beloved, but now he lies\n  And putrefies in some dark vale.\n\nAnd I believe brimstone is called \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd (_divine_), because its\nsmell is like that fiery offensive scent which rises from bodies that\nare thunderstruck. And I suppose that, because of this scent, dogs and\nbirds will not prey on such carcasses. Thus far have I gone; let him\nproceed, since he hath been applauded for his discourse of mushrooms,\nlest the same jest might be put upon us that was upon Androcydes the\npainter. For when in his landscape of Scylla he painted fish the best\nand most to the life of any thing in the whole draught, he was said to\nuse his appetite more than his art, for he naturally loved fish. So\nsome may say that we philosophize about mushrooms, the cause of whose\nproduction is confessedly doubtful, for the pleasure we take in eating\nthem....\n\n4. And when I put in my advice, saying that it was as seasonable to\ndiscourse of thunder and lightning amidst our cups as it would be in a\ncomedy to bring in engines to throw out lightning, the company agreed\nto set aside all other questions relating to the subject, and desired\nme only to proceed on this head, Why are men asleep never blasted\nwith lightning? And I, though I knew I should get no great credit by\nproposing a cause whose reason was common to other things, said thus:\nLightning is wonderfully piercing and subtile, partly because it rises\nfrom a very pure substance, and partly because by the swiftness of its\nmotion it purges itself and throws off all gross earthy particles that\nare mixed with it. Nothing, says Democritus, is blasted with lightning,\nthat cannot resist and stop the motion of the pure flame. Thus the\nclose bodies, as brass, silver, and the like, which stop it, feel its\nforce and are melted, because they resist; whilst rare, thin bodies,\nand such as are full of pores, are passed through and not hurted, as\nclothes or dry wood. It blasts green wood or grass, the moisture within\nthem being seized and kindled by the flame. Now, if it is true that men\nasleep are never killed by lightning, from what we have proposed, and\nnot from any thing else, we must endeavor to draw the cause. Now the\nbodies of those that are awake are stiffer and more apt to resist, all\nthe parts being full of spirits; which as it were in a harp, distending\nand screwing up the organs of sense, makes the body of the animal\nfirm, close, and compacted. But when men are asleep, the organs are\nlet down, and the body becomes rare, lax, and loose; and the spirits\nfailing, it hath abundance of pores, through which small sounds and\nsmells do flow insensibly. For in that case, there is nothing that can\nresist, and by this resistance receive any sensible impression from\nany objects that are presented, much less from such as are so subtile\nand move so swiftly as lightning. Things that are weak Nature shields\nfrom harm, fencing them about with some hard thick covering; but those\nthings that cannot be resisted do less harm to the bodies that yield\nthan to those that oppose their force. Besides, those that are asleep\nare not startled at the thunder; they have no consternation upon them,\nwhich kills a great many that are no otherwise hurt, and we know that\nthousands die with the very fear of being killed. Even shepherds teach\ntheir sheep to run together into a flock when it thunders, for whilst\nthey lie scattered they die with fear; and we see thousands fall, which\nhave no marks of any stroke or fire about them, their souls (as it\nseems), like birds, flying out of their bodies at the fright. For many,\nas Euripides says,\n\n  A clap hath killed, yet ne\u2019er drew drop of blood.\n\nFor certainly the hearing is a sense that is soonest and most\nvigorously wrought upon, and the fear that is caused by any astonishing\nnoise raiseth the greatest commotion and disturbance in the body; from\nall which men asleep, because insensible, are secure. But those that\nare awake are oftentimes killed with fear before they are touched;\nand fear contracts and condenses the body, so that the stroke must be\nstrong, because there is so considerable a resistance.\n\n_QUESTION III._\n\nWHY MEN USUALLY INVITE MANY GUESTS TO A WEDDING SUPPER.\n\nSOSSIUS SENECIO, PLUTARCH, THEO.\n\n1. At my son Autobulus\u2019s marriage, Sossius Senecio from Chaeronea\nand a great many other noble persons were present at the same feast;\nwhich gave occasion to this question (Senecio proposed it), why to\na marriage feast more guests are usually invited than to any other.\nNay even those law-givers that chiefly opposed luxury and profuseness\nhave particularly confined marriage feasts to a set number. Indeed,\nin my opinion, he continued, Hecataeus the Abderite, one of the old\nphilosophers, hath said nothing to the purpose in this matter, when\nhe tells us that those that marry wives invite a great many to the\nentertainment, that many may see and be witnesses that they being\nfree born take to themselves wives of the same condition. For, on the\ncontrary, the comedians reflect on those who revel at their marriages,\nwho make a great ado and are pompous in their feasts, as such who are\nmarrying with no great confidence and courage. Thus, in Menander, one\nreplies to a bridegroom that bade him beset the house with dishes,...\n\n  Your words are great, but what\u2019s this to your bride?\n\n2. But lest I should seem to find fault with those reasons others give,\nonly because I have none of my own to produce, continued he, I begin by\ndeclaring that there is no such evident or public notice given of any\nfeast as there is of one at a marriage. For when we sacrifice to the\nGods, when we take leave of or receive a friend, a great many of our\nacquaintance need not know it. But a marriage dinner is proclaimed by\nthe loud sound of the wedding song, by the torches and the music, which\nas Homer expresseth it,\n\n  The women stand before the doors to see and hear.[80]\n\nAnd therefore when everybody knows it, the persons are ashamed to omit\nthe formality of an invitation, and therefore entertain their friends\nand kindred, and every one that they are any way acquainted with.\n\n3. This being generally approved, Well, said Theo, speaking next,\nlet it be so, for it looks like truth; but let this be added, if you\nplease, that such entertainments are not only friendly, but also\nkindredly, the persons beginning to have a new relation to another\nfamily. But there is something more considerable, and that is this;\nsince by this marriage two families join in one, the man thinks it his\nduty to be civil and obliging to the woman\u2019s friends, and the woman\u2019s\nfriends think themselves obliged to return the same to him and his; and\nupon this account the company is doubled. And besides, since most of\nthe little ceremonies belonging to the wedding are performed by women,\nit is necessary that, where they are entertained, their husbands should\nbe likewise invited.\n\n_QUESTION IV._\n\nWHETHER THE SEA OR LAND AFFORDS BETTER FOOD.\n\nCALLISTRATUS, SYMMACHUS, POLYCRATES.\n\n1. Aedepsus in Euboea, where the baths are, is a place by nature every\nway fitted for free and gentle pleasures, and withal so beautified\nwith stately edifices and dining rooms, that one would take it for no\nother than the common place of repast for all Greece. Here, though the\nearth and air yield plenty of creatures for the service of men, the\nsea no less furnisheth the table with variety of dishes, nourishing a\nstore of delicious fish in its deep and clear waters. This place is\nespecially frequented in the spring; for hither at this time of year\nabundance of people resort, solacing themselves in the mutual enjoyment\nof all those pleasures the place affords, and at spare hours pass away\nthe time in many useful and edifying discourses. When Callistratus the\nsophist lived here, it was a hard matter to dine at any place besides\nhis house; for he was so extremely courteous and obliging, that no\nman whom he invited to dinner could have the face to say him nay. One\nof his best humors was to pick up all the pleasant fellows he could\nmeet with, and put them in the same room. Sometimes he did, as Cimon\none of the ancients used to do, and satisfactorily treated men of\nall sorts and fashions. But he always (so to speak) followed Celeus,\nwho was the first man, it is said, that daily assembled a number of\nhonorable persons of good mark, and called the place where they met the\nPrytaneum.\n\n2. Several times at these public meetings divers agreeable discourses\nwere raised; and it fell out that once a very splendid treat, adorned\nwith variety of dainties, gave occasion for enquiries concerning food,\nwhether the land or sea yielded better. Here when a great part of the\ncompany were highly commending the land, as abounding with many choice,\nnay, an infinite variety of all sorts of creatures, Polycrates calling\nto Symmachus, said to him: But you, sir, being an animal bred between\ntwo seas, and brought up among so many which surround your sacred\nNicopolis, will not you stand up for Neptune? Yes, I will, replied\nSymmachus, and therefore command you to stand by me, who enjoy the\nmost pleasant part of all the Achaean Sea. Well, says Polycrates, the\nbeginning of my discourse shall be grounded upon custom; for as of a\ngreat number of poets we usually give one, who far excels the rest, the\nfamous name of poet; so though there be many sorts of dainties, yet\ncustom has so prevailed, that the fish alone, or above all the rest, is\ncalled \u1f44\u03c8\u03bf\u03bd, because it is more excellent than all others. For we do\nnot call those gluttonous and great eaters who love beef, as Hercules,\nwho after flesh used to eat green figs; nor those that love figs, as\nPlato; nor lastly, those that are for grapes, as Arcesilaus; but those\nwho frequent the fish-market, and soonest hear the market-bell. Thus\nwhen Demosthenes told Philocrates that the gold he got by treachery\nwas spent upon whores and fish, he upbraids him as a gluttonous and\nlascivious fellow. And Ctesiphon said pat enough, when a certain\nglutton cried aloud in the Senate that he should burst asunder: No, by\nno means let us be baits for your fish! And what was his meaning, do\nyou think, who made this verse,\n\n  You capers gnaw, when you may sturgeon eat?\n\nAnd what, for God\u2019s sake, do those men mean who, inviting one another\nto sumptuous collations, usually say: To-day we will dine upon the\nshore? Is it not that they suppose what is certainly true, that a\ndinner upon the shore is of all others most delicious? Not by reason of\nthe waves and stones in that place,\u2014for who upon the sea-coast would\nbe content to feed upon a pulse or a caper?\u2014but because their table\nis furnished with plenty of fresh fish. Add to this, that sea-food is\ndearer than any other. Wherefore Cato, inveighing against the luxury of\nthe city, did not exceed the bounds of truth, when he said that at Rome\na fish was sold for more than an ox. For they sell a small pot of fish\nfor a price which a hecatomb of sheep with an ox would hardly bring.\nBesides, as the physician is the best judge of physic, and the musician\nof songs; so he is able to give the best account of the goodness of\nmeat who is the greatest lover of it. For I will not make Pythagoras\nand Xenocrates arbitrators in this case; but Antagoras the poet, and\nPhiloxenus the son of Eryxis, and Androcydes the painter, of whom it\nwas reported that, when he drew a landscape of Scylla, he drew fish\nin a lively manner swimming round her, because he was a great lover\nof them. So Antigonus the king, surprising Antagoras the poet in the\nhabit of a cook, broiling congers in his tent, said to him: Dost thou\nthink that Homer was dressing congers when he writ Agamemnon\u2019s famous\nexploits? And he as smartly replied: Do you think that Agamemnon did\nso many famous exploits when he was enquiring who dressed congers in\nthe camp? These arguments, says Polycrates, I have urged in behalf of\nfishmongers, drawing them from testimony and custom.\n\n3. But, says Symmachus, I will go more seriously to work, and more\nlike a logician. For if that may truly be said to be a dainty which\ngives meat the best relish, it will evidently follow, that that is the\nbest sort of dainty which gets men the best stomach to their meat.\nTherefore, as those philosophers who were called Elpistics (from the\nGreek word signifying hope, which above all others they cried up)\naverred that there was nothing in the world which concurred more to\nthe preservation of life than hope, without whose gracious influence\nlife would be a burden and altogether intolerable; in the like manner\nthat of all things may be said to get us a stomach to our meat, without\nwhich all meat would be unpalatable and nauseous. And among all those\nthings the earth yields, we find no such things as salt, which we can\nhave only from the sea. First of all, there would be nothing eatable\nwithout salt, which mixed with flour seasons bread also. Hence it was\nthat Neptune and Ceres had both the same temple. Besides, salt is the\nmost pleasant of all relishes. For those heroes who, like champions,\nused themselves to a spare diet, banishing from their tables all vain\nand superfluous delicacies, to such a degree that when they encamped\nby the Hellespont they abstained from fish, yet for all this could\nnot eat flesh without salt; which is a sufficient evidence that salt\nis the most desirable of all relishes. For as colors need light, so\ntastes need salt, that they may affect the sense, unless you would have\nthem very nauseous and unpleasant. For, as Heraclitus used to say, a\ncarcass is more abominable than dung. Now all flesh is dead, and part\nof a lifeless carcass; but the virtue of salt, being added to it, like\na soul, gives it a pleasing relish and poignancy. Hence it comes to\npass that before meat men use to take sharp things, and such as have\nmuch salt in them; for these beguile us into an appetite. And whoever\nhas his stomach sharpened with these sets cheerfully and freshly upon\nall other sorts of meat. But if he begin with any other kind of food,\nall on a sudden his stomach grows dull and languid. And therefore\nsalt doth not only make meat but drink palatable. For Homer\u2019s onion,\nwhich, he tells us, they were used to eat before they drank, was fitter\nfor seamen and boatmen than kings. Things moderately salt, by being\nagreeable to the mouth, make all sorts of wine mild and palatable,\nand water itself of a pleasing taste. Besides, salt creates none of\nthose troubles which an onion does, but digests all other kinds of\nmeat, making them tender and fitter for concoction; so that at the\nsame time it is sauce to the palate and physic to the body. But all\nother sea-food, besides this pleasantness, is also very innocent; for\nthough it be fleshly, yet it does not load the stomach as all other\nflesh does, but is easily concocted and digested. This Zeno will avouch\nfor me, and Crato too, who confine sick persons to a fish diet, as of\nall others the lightest sort of meat. And it stands with reason, that\nthe sea should produce the most nourishing and wholesome food, seeing\nit yields us the most refined, the purest, and therefore the most\nagreeable air.\n\n4. You say right, says Lamprias, but let us think of something else to\nconfirm what you have spoken. I remember my old grandfather was used\nto say in derision of the Jews, that they abstained from most lawful\nflesh; but we will say that that is most lawful meat which comes from\nthe sea. For we can claim no great right over land creatures, which\nare nourished with the same food, draw the same air, wash in and drink\nthe same water, that we do ourselves; and when they are slaughtered,\nthey make us ashamed of what we are doing, with their hideous cries;\nand then again, by living amongst us, they arrive at some degree of\nfamiliarity and intimacy with us. But sea creatures are altogether\nstrangers to us, and are born and brought up as it were in another\nworld; neither does their voice, look, or any service they have done us\nplead for their life. For this kind of creatures are of no use at all\nto us, nor is there any necessity that we should love them. But that\nplace which we inhabit is hell to them, and as soon as ever they enter\nupon it they die.\n\n_QUESTION V._\n\n  WHETHER THE JEWS ABSTAINED FROM SWINE\u2019S FLESH BECAUSE THEY\n  WORSHIPPED THAT CREATURE, OR BECAUSE THEY HAD AN ANTIPATHY AGAINST\n  IT.\n\nCALLISTRATUS, POLYCRATES, LAMPRIAS.\n\n1. After these things were spoken, and some in the company were minded\nto say something in defence of the contrary opinion, Callistratus\ninterrupted their discourse and said: Sirs, what do you think of that\nwhich was spoken against the Jews, that they abstain from the most\nlawful flesh? Very well said, quoth Polycrates, for that is a thing\nI very much question, whether it was that the Jews abstained from\nswine\u2019s flesh because they conferred divine honor upon that creature,\nor because they had a natural aversion to it. For whatever we find in\ntheir own writings seems to be altogether fabulous, except they have\nsome more solid reasons which they have no mind to discover.\n\n2. Hence it is, says Callistratus, that I am of an opinion that this\nnation has that creature in some veneration; and though it be granted\nthat the hog is an ugly and filthy creature, yet it is not quite so\nvile nor naturally stupid as a beetle, griffin, crocodile, or cat,\nmost of which are worshipped as the most sacred things by some priests\namongst the Egyptians. But the reason why the hog is had in so much\nhonor and veneration amongst them is, because, as the report goes,\nthat creature breaking up the earth with its snout showed the way to\ntillage, and taught them how to use the ploughshare, which instrument\nfor that very reason, as some say, was called _hynis_ from \u1f51\u03c2,\n_a swine_. Now the Egyptians inhabiting a country situated low,\nand whose soil is naturally soft, have no need of the plough; but\nafter the river Nile hath retired from the grounds it overflowed, they\npresently let all their hogs into the fields. and they with their feet\nand snouts break up the ground, and cover the sown seed. Nor ought\nthis to seem strange to any one, that there are in the world those who\nabstain from swine\u2019s flesh upon such an account as this; when it is\nevident that among barbarous nations there are other animals had in\ngreater honor and veneration for lesser, if not altogether ridiculous,\nreasons. For the field-mouse only for its blindness was worshipped as a\nGod among the Egyptians, because they were of an opinion that darkness\nwas before light, and that the latter had its birth from mice about the\nfifth generation at the new moon; and moreover that the liver of this\ncreature diminishes in the wane of the moon. But they consecrate the\nlion to the sun, because the lioness alone, of all clawed quadrupeds,\nbrings forth her young with their eyesight; for they sleep a moment,\nand when they are asleep their eyes sparkle. Besides, they place gaping\nlions\u2019 heads for the spouts of their fountains, because Nilus overflows\nthe Egyptian fields when the sign is Leo: they give it out that their\nbird ibis, as soon as hatched, weighs two drachms, which are of the\nsame weight with the heart of a new-born infant; and that its legs\nbeing spread with the bill make an exact equilateral triangle. And yet\nwho can find fault with the Egyptians for these trifles, when it is\nleft upon record that the Pythagoreans worshipped a white cock, and\nof sea creatures abstained especially from the mullet and urtic. The\nMagi that descended from Zoroaster adored the land hedgehog above other\ncreatures, but had a deadly spite against water-rats, and thought that\nman was dear in the eyes of the Gods who destroyed most of them. But I\nshould think that if the Jews had such an antipathy against a hog, they\nwould kill it as the magicians do mice; when, on the contrary, they are\nby their religion as much prohibited to kill as to eat it. And perhaps\nthere may be some reason given for this; for as the ass is worshipped\nby them as the first discoverer of fountains, so perhaps the hog may\nbe had in like veneration, which first taught them to sow and plough.\nNay, some say that the Jews also abstain from hares, as abominable and\nunclean.\n\n3. They have reason for that, said Lamprias, because a hare is so like\nan ass which they detest;[81] for in its color, ears, and the sparkling\nof its eyes, it is so like an ass, that I do not know any little\ncreature that represents a great one so much as a hare doth an ass;\nunless in this likewise they imitate the Egyptians, and suppose that\nthere is something of divinity in the swiftness of this creature, as\nalso in its quickness of sense; for the eyes of hares are so unwearied\nthat they sleep with them open. Besides they seem to excel all other\ncreatures in quickness of hearing; whence it was that the Egyptians\npainted the ear of a hare amongst their other hieroglyphics, as an\nemblem of hearing. But the Jews do hate swine\u2019s flesh, because all the\nbarbarians are naturally fearful of a scab and leprosy, which they\npresume comes by eating such kind of flesh. For we may observe that all\npigs under the belly are overspread with a leprosy and scab; which may\nbe supposed to proceed from an ill disposition of body and corruption\nwithin, which breaks out through the skin. Besides, swine\u2019s feeding\nis commonly so nasty and filthy, that it must of necessity cause\ncorruptions and vicious humors; for, setting aside those creatures\nthat are bred from and live upon dung, there is no other creature that\ntakes so much delight to wallow in the mire, and in other unclean and\nstinking places. Hogs\u2019 eyes are said to be so flattened and fixed upon\nthe ground, that they see nothing above them, nor ever look up to the\nsky, except when forced upon their back they turn their eyes to the sun\nagainst nature. Therefore this creature, at other times most clamorous,\nwhen laid upon his back, is still, as astonished at the unusual sight\nof the heavens; while the greatness of the fear he is in (as it is\nsupposed) is the cause of his silence. And if it be lawful to intermix\nour discourse with fables, it is said that Adonis was slain by a boar.\nNow Adonis is supposed to be the same with Bacchus; and there are a\ngreat many rites in both their sacrifices which confirm this opinion.\nOthers will have Adonis to be Bacchus\u2019s paramour; and Phanocles an\namorous love-poet writes thus,\n\n  Bacchus on hills the fair Adonis saw,\n  And ravished him, and reaped a wondrous joy.\n\n_QUESTION VI._\n\nWHAT GOD IS WORSHIPPED BY THE JEWS.\n\nSYMMACHUS, LAMPRIAS, MOERAGENES.\n\n1. Here Symmachus, greatly wondering at what was spoken, says: What,\nLamprias, will you permit our tutelar God, called Evius, the inciter\nof women, famous for the honors he has conferred upon him by madmen,\nto be inscribed and enrolled in the mysteries of the Jews? Or is there\nany solid reason that can be given to prove Adonis to be the same with\nBacchus? Here Moeragenes interposing, said: Do not be so fierce upon\nhim, for I who am an Athenian answer you, and tell you, in short,\nthat these two are the very same. And no man is able or fit to hear\nthe chief confirmation of this truth, but those amongst us who are\ninitiated and skilled in the triennial \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, or great mysteries\nof the God. But what no religion forbids to speak of among friends,\nespecially over wine, the gift of Bacchus, I am ready at the command of\nthese gentlemen to disclose.\n\n2. When all the company requested and earnestly begged it of him;\nfirst of all (says he), the time and manner of the greatest and most\nholy solemnity of the Jews is exactly agreeable to the holy rites of\nBacchus; for that which they call the Fast they celebrate in the midst\nof the vintage, furnishing their tables with all sorts of fruits,\nwhile they sit under tabernacles made of vines and ivy; and the day\nwhich immediately goes before this they call the day of Tabernacles.\nWithin a few days after they celebrate another feast, not darkly but\nopenly, dedicated to Bacchus, for they have a feast amongst them\ncalled Kradephoria, from carrying palm-trees, and Thyrsophoria, when\nthey enter into the temple carrying thyrsi. What they do within I know\nnot; but it is very probable that they perform the rites of Bacchus.\nFirst they have little trumpets, such as the Grecians used to have at\ntheir Bacchanalia to call upon their Gods withal. Others go before\nthem playing upon harps, which they call Levites, whether so named\nfrom Lusius or Evius,\u2014either word agrees with Bacchus. And I suppose\nthat their Sabbaths have some relation to Bacchus; for even at this\nday many call the Bacchi by the name of Sabbi, and they make use of\nthat word at the celebration of Bacchus\u2019s orgies. And this may be made\nappear out of Demosthenes and Menander. Nor would it be absurd, were\nany one to say that the name Sabbath was imposed upon this feast from\nthe agitation and excitement (\u03c3\u03cc\u03b2\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) which the priests of Bacchus\nindulged in. The Jews themselves testify no less; for when they keep\nthe Sabbath, they invite one another to drink till they are drunk; or\nif they chance to be hindered by some more weighty business, it is the\nfashion at least to taste the wine. Some perhaps may surmise that these\nare mere conjectures. But there are other arguments which will clearly\nevince the truth of what I assert. The first may be drawn from their\nHigh-priest, who on holidays enters their temple with his mitre on,\narrayed in a skin of a hind embroidered with gold, wearing buskins,\nand a coat hanging down to his ankles; besides, he has a great many\nlittle bells hanging at his garment which make a noise as he walks\nthe streets. So in the nightly ceremonies of Bacchus (as the fashion\nis amongst us), they make use of musical instruments, and call the\nGod\u2019s nurses \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03af. High up on the wall of their temple is a\nrepresentation of the thyrsus and timbrels, which surely can belong\nto no other God than Bacchus. Moreover they are forbidden the use of\nhoney in their sacrifices, because they suppose that a mixture of\nhoney corrupts and deads the wine. And honey was used for sacrificing\nin former days, and with it the ancients were wont to make themselves\ndrunk, before the vine was known. And at this day barbarous people\nwho want wine drink metheglin, allaying the sweetness of the honey by\nbitter roots, much of the taste of our wine. The Greeks offered to\ntheir Gods these sober offerings or honey-offerings, as they called\nthem, because that honey was of a nature quite contrary to wine. But\nthis is no inconsiderable argument that Bacchus was worshipped by\nthe Jews, in that, amongst other kinds of punishment, that was most\nremarkably odious by which malefactors were forbid the use of wine\nfor so long a time as the judge was pleased to prescribe. Those thus\npunished....\n\n(_The remainder of the Fourth Book is wanting._)\n\n_QUESTION VII._\n\n  WHY THE DAYS WHICH BEAR THE NAMES OF THE PLANETS ARE NOT DISPOSED\n  ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF THE PLANETS, BUT THE CONTRARY. THERE IS\n  ADDED A DISCOURSE TOUCHING THE POSITION OF THE SUN.\n\n_QUESTION VIII._\n\nWHY SIGNET-RINGS ARE WORN ESPECIALLY ON THE FOURTH FINGER.\n\n_QUESTION IX._\n\nWHETHER WE OUGHT TO CARRY IN OUR SEAL-RINGS THE IMAGES OF GODS, OR\nRATHER THOSE OF WISE PERSONAGES.\n\n_QUESTION X._\n\nWHY WOMEN NEVER EAT THE MIDDLE PART OF A LETTUCE.\n\n\nBOOK V.\n\nWhat is your opinion at present, Sossius Senecio, of the pleasures of\nmind and body, is not evident to me;\n\n  Because us two a thousand things divide,\n  Vast shady hills, and the rough ocean\u2019s tide.[82]\n\nBut formerly, I am sure, you did not lean to nor like their opinion,\nwho will not allow the soul to have any proper agreeable pleasure,\nwhich without respect to the body she desires for herself; but define\nthat she lives as a form assistant to the body, is directed by the\npassions of it, and, as that is affected, is either pleased or grieved,\nor, like a looking-glass, only receives the images of those sensible\nimpressions made upon the body. This sordid and debasing opinion is\nespecially in this way confuted; for at a feast, the genteel well-bred\nmen after supper fall upon some topic or another as second course, and\ncheer one another by their pleasant talk. Now the body hath very little\nor no share in this; which evidently proves that this is a particular\nbanquet for the soul, and that those pleasures are peculiar to her,\nand different from those which pass to her through the body and are\nvitiated thereby. Now, as nurses, when they feed children, taste a\nlittle of their pap, and have but small pleasure therefrom, but when\nthe infants are satisfied, leave crying, and go to sleep, then being\nat their own disposal, they take such meat and drink as is agreeable\nto their own bodies; thus the soul partakes of the pleasures that\narise from eating and drinking, like a nurse, being subservient to the\nappetites of the body, kindly yielding to its necessities and wants,\nand calming its desires; but when that is satisfied and at rest, then\nbeing free from her business and servile employment, she seeks her\nown proper pleasures, revels on discourse, problems, stories, curious\nquestions, or subtle resolutions. Nay, what shall a man say, when he\nsees the dull unlearned fellows after supper minding such pleasures\nas have not the least relation to the body? They tell tales, propose\nriddles, or set one another a guessing at names, comprised and hid\nunder such and such numbers. Thus mimics, drolls, Menander and his\nactors were admitted into banquets, not because they can free the eye\nfrom any pain, or raise any tickling motion in the flesh; but because\nthe soul, being naturally philosophical and a lover of instruction,\ncovets its own proper pleasure and satisfaction, when it is free from\nthe trouble of looking after the body.\n\n_QUESTION I._\n\nWHY TAKE WE DELIGHT IN HEARING THOSE THAT REPRESENT THE PASSIONS OF MEN\nANGRY OR SORROWFUL, AND YET CANNOT WITHOUT CONCERN BEHOLD THOSE WHO ARE\nREALLY SO AFFECTED?\n\nPLUTARCH, BOETHUS.\n\n1. Of this we discoursed in your company at Athens, when Strato the\ncomedian (for he was a man of great credit) flourished. For being\nentertained at supper by Boethus the Epicurean, with a great many\nmore of the sect, as it usually happens when learned and inquisitive\nmen meet together, the remembrance of the comedy led us to this\nenquiry,\u2014Why we are disturbed at the real voices of men, either angry,\npensive, or afraid, and yet are delighted to hear others represent\nthem, and imitate their gestures, speeches, and exclamations. Every one\nin the company gave almost the same reason. For they said, he that only\nrepresents excels him that really feels, inasmuch as he doth not suffer\nthe misfortunes; which we knowing are pleased and delighted on that\naccount.\n\n2. But I, though it was not properly my talent, said that we, being by\nnature rational and lovers of ingenuity, are delighted with and admire\nevery thing that is artificially and ingeniously contrived. For as a\nbee, naturally loving sweet things, seeks after and flies to any thing\nthat has any mixture of honey in it; so man, naturally loving ingenuity\nand elegancy, is very much inclined to embrace and highly approve every\nword or action that is seasoned with wit and judgment. Thus, if any one\noffers a child a piece of bread, and at the same time a little dog or\nox made in paste, we shall see the boy run eagerly to the latter; so\nlikewise if any one offers him silver in the lump, and another a beast\nor a cup of the same metal, he will rather choose that in which he sees\na mixture of art and reason. Upon the same account it is that children\nare much in love with riddles, and such fooleries as are difficult and\nintricate; for whatever is curious and subtle doth attract and allure\nhuman nature, as antecedently to all instruction agreeable and proper\nto it. And therefore, because he that is really affected with grief or\nanger presents us with nothing but the common bare passion, but in the\nimitation some dexterity and persuasiveness appears, we are naturally\ninclined to be disturbed at the former, whilst the latter delights\nus. It is unpleasant to see a sick man, or one that is at his last\ngasp; yet with content we can look upon the picture of Philoctetes,\nor the statue of Jocasta, in whose face it is commonly said that the\nworkmen mixed silver, so that the brass might represent the face and\ncolor of one ready to faint and yield up the ghost. And this, said I,\nthe Cyrenaics may use as a strong argument against you Epicureans,\nthat all the sense of pleasure which arises from the working of any\nobject on the ear or eye is not in those organs, but in the intellect\nitself. Thus the continual cackling of a hen or cawing of a crow is\nvery ungrateful and disturbing; yet he that imitates those noises well\npleases the hearers. Thus to behold a consumptive man is no delightful\nspectacle; yet with pleasure we can view the pictures and statues of\nsuch persons, because the very imitating hath something in it very\nagreeable to the mind, which allures and captivates its faculties. For\nupon what account, for God\u2019s sake, from what external impression upon\nour organ, should men be moved to admire Parmeno\u2019s sow so much as to\npass it into a proverb? Yet it is reported, that Parmeno being very\nfamous for imitating the grunting of a pig, some endeavored to rival\nand outdo him. And when the hearers, being prejudiced, cried out, Very\nwell indeed, but nothing comparable to Parmeno\u2019s sow; one took a pig\nunder his arm and came upon the stage. And when, though they heard the\nvery pig, they still continued, This is nothing comparable to Parmeno\u2019s\nsow; he threw his pig amongst them, to show that they judged according\nto opinion and not truth. And hence it is very evident, that like\nmotions of the sense do not always raise like affections in the mind,\nwhen there is not an opinion that the thing done was not neatly and\ningeniously performed.\n\n_QUESTION II._\n\nTHAT THE PRIZE FOR POETS AT THE GAMES WAS ANCIENT.\n\nAt the solemnity of the Pythian Games, there was a consult about taking\naway all such sports as had lately crept in and were not of ancient\ninstitution. For after they had taken in the tragedian in addition\nto the three ancient, which were as old as the solemnity itself, the\nPythian piper, the harper, and the singer to the harp, as if a large\ngate were opened, they could not keep out an infinite crowd of plays\nand musical entertainments of all sorts that rushed in after him.\nWhich indeed made no unpleasant variety, and increased the company,\nbut yet impaired the gravity and neatness of the solemnity. Besides it\nmust create a great deal of trouble to the umpires, and considerable\ndissatisfaction to very many, since but few could obtain the prize. It\nwas chiefly agreed upon, that the orators and poets should be removed;\nand this determination did not proceed from any hatred to learning, but\nforasmuch as such contenders are the most noted and worthiest men of\nall, therefore they reverenced them, and were troubled that, when they\nmust judge every one deserving, they could not bestow the prize equally\nupon all. I, being present at this consult, dissuaded those who were\nfor removing things from their present settled order, and who thought\nthis variety as unsuitable to the solemnity as many strings and many\nnotes to an instrument. And when at supper, Petraeus the president and\ndirector of the sports entertaining us, the same subject was discoursed\non, I defended music, and maintained that poetry was no upstart\nintruder, but that it was time out of mind admitted into the sacred\ngames, and crowns were given to the best performer. Some straight\nimagined that I intended to produce some old musty stories, like the\nfuneral solemnities of Oeolycus the Thessalian or of Amphidamas the\nChalcidean, in which they say Homer and Hesiod contended for the prize.\nBut passing by these instances as the common theme of every grammarian,\nas likewise their criticisms who, in the description of Patroclus\u2019s\nobsequies in Homer, read \u1fe5\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, _orators_, and not \u1fe5\u2019[**unclear]\n\u1f25\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, _darters_,[83] as if Achilles had proposed a prize for the\nbest speaker,\u2014omitting all these, I said that Acastus at his father\nPelias\u2019s funeral set a prize for contending poets, and Sibylla won it.\nAt this, a great many demanding some authority for this unlikely and\nincredible relation, I happily recollecting myself produced Acesander,\nwho in his description of Africa hath this relation; but I must confess\nthis is no common book. But Polemo the Athenian\u2019s Commentary of the\nTreasures of the City Delphi I suppose most of you have diligently\nperused, he being a very learned man, and diligent in the Greek\nantiquities. In him you shall find that in the Sicyonian treasure\nthere was a golden book dedicated to the God, with this inscription:\nAristomache, the poetess of Erythraea, dedicated this after she had got\nthe prize at the Isthmian games. Nor is there any reason, I continued,\nwhy we should so admire and reverence the Olympic games, as if, like\nFate, they were unalterable, and never admitted any change since the\nfirst institution. For the Pythian, it is true, hath had three or four\nmusical prizes added; but all the exercises of the body were for the\nmost part the same from the beginning. But in the Olympian all beside\nracing are late additions. They instituted some, and abolished them\nagain; such were the races of mules, either rode or in a chariot, as\nlikewise the crown appointed for boys that were victorious in the five\ncontests. And, in short, a thousand things in those games are mere\nnovelties. And I fear to tell you how at Pisa they had a single combat,\nwhere he that yielded or was overcome was killed upon the place,\nlest again you may require an author for my story, and I may appear\nridiculous if amidst my cups I should forget the name.\n\n_QUESTION III._\n\n  WHY WAS THE PINE COUNTED SACRED TO NEPTUNE AND BACCHUS? AND\n  WHY AT FIRST WAS THE CONQUEROR IN THE ISTHMIAN GAMES CROWNED WITH\n  A GARLAND OF PINE, AFTERWARDS WITH PARSLEY, AND NOW AGAIN WITH\n  PINE?\n\nLUCANIUS, PRAXITELES.\n\n1. This question was started, why the Isthmian garland was made of\npine. We were then at supper in Corinth, in the time of the Isthmian\ngames, with Lucanius the chief priest. Praxiteles the commentator\nbrought this fable for a reason; it is said that the body of Melicertes\nwas found fixed to a pine-tree by the sea; and not far from Megara,\nthere is a place called the Race of a Fair Lady, through which the\nMegarians say that Ino, with her son Melicertes in her arms, ran to\nthe sea. And when many advanced the common opinion, that the pine-tree\ngarland peculiarly belongs to Neptune, and Lucanius added that it\nis sacred to Bacchus too, but yet, for all that, it might also be\nappropriated to the honor of Melicertes, this began the question, why\nthe ancients dedicated the pine to Neptune and Bacchus. As for my\npart, it did not seem incongruous to me, for both the Gods seem to\npreside over the moist and generative principle; and almost all the\nGreeks sacrifice to Neptune the nourisher of plants, and to Bacchus the\npreserver of trees. Beside, it may be said that the pine peculiarly\nagrees to Neptune, not, as Apollodorus thinks, because it grows by\nthe sea-side, or because it loves a bleak place (for some give this\nreason), but because it is used in building ships; for the pine\ntogether with the like trees, as fir and cypress, affords the best and\nthe lightest timber, and likewise pitch and rosin, without which the\ncompacted planks would be altogether unserviceable at sea. To Bacchus\nthey dedicate the pine, because it gives a pleasant seasoning to wine,\nfor amongst pines they say the sweetest and most delicious grapes grow.\nThe cause of this Theophrastus thinks to be the heat of the soil; for\npines grow most in chalky grounds. Now chalk is hot, and therefore must\nvery much conduce to the concoction of the wine; as a chalky spring\naffords the lightest and sweetest water; and if chalk is mixed with\ncorn, by its heat it makes the grains swell, and considerably increases\nthe heap. Besides, it is probable that the vine itself is bettered by\nthe pine, for that contains several things which are good to preserve\nwine. All cover the insides of wine-casks with pitch, and many mix\nrosin with wine, as the Euboeans in Greece, and in Italy those that\nlive about the river Po. From the parts of Gaul about Vienna there is\na sort of pitched wine brought, which the Romans value very much; for\nsuch things mixed with it do not only give it a good flavor, but make\nthe wine generous, taking away by their gentle heat all the crude,\nwatery, and undigested particles.\n\n2. When I had said thus much, a rhetorician in the company, a man well\nread in all sorts of polite learning, cried out: Good Gods! was it not\nbut the other day that the Isthmian garland began to be made of pine?\nAnd was not the crown anciently of twined parsley? I am sure in a\ncertain comedy a covetous man is brought in speaking thus.\n\n  The Isthmian garland I will sell as cheap\n  As common wreaths of parsley may be sold.\n\nAnd Timaeus the historian says that, when the Corinthians were\nmarching to fight the Carthaginians in the defence of Sicily, some\npersons carrying parsley met them, and when several looked upon this\nas a bad omen,\u2014because parsley is accounted unlucky, and those that\nare dangerously sick we usually say have need of parsley,\u2014Timoleon\nencouraged them by putting them in mind of the Isthmian parsley garland\nwith which the Corinthians used to crown the conquerors. And besides,\nthe admiral-ship of Antigonus\u2019s navy, having by chance some parsley\ngrowing on its poop, was called Isthmia. Besides, a certain obscure\nepigram upon an earthen vessel stopped with parsley intimates the same\nthing. It runs thus:\n\n  The Grecian earth, now hardened by the flame,\n  Holds in its hollow belly Bacchus\u2019 blood;\n  And hath its mouth with Isthmian branches stopped.\n\nSure, he continued, they never read these authors, who cry up the pine\nas anciently wreathed in the Isthmian garlands, and would not have it\nsome upstart intruder. The young men yielded presently to him, as being\na man of various reading and very learned.\n\n3. But Lucanius, with a smile looking upon me, cried out: Good God!\nhere\u2019s a deal of learning. But others have taken advantage of our\nignorance and unacquaintedness with such matters, and, on the contrary,\npersuaded us that the pine was the first garland, and that afterwards\nin honor of Hercules the parsley was received from the Nemean games,\nwhich in a little time prevailing, thrust out the pine, as if it\nwere its right to be the wreath; but a little while after the pine\nrecovered its ancient honor, and now flourishes in its glory. I was\nsatisfied, and upon consideration found that I had met with a great\nmany authorities for it. Thus Euphorion writes of Melicertes,\n\n  They mourned the youth, and him on pine boughs laid\n  Of which the Isthmian victors\u2019 crowns are made.\n  Fate had not yet seized beauteous Mene\u2019s son\n  By smooth Asopus; since whose fall the crown\n  Of parsley wreathed did grace the victor\u2019s brow.\n\nAnd Callimachus is plainer and more express, when he makes Hercules\nspeak thus of parsley,\n\n                        This at Isthmian games\n  To Neptune\u2019s glory now shall be the crown;\n  The pine shall be disused, which heretofore\n  In Corinth\u2019s plains successful victors wore.\n\nAnd beside, if I am not mistaken, in Procles\u2019s history of the Isthmian\ngames I met with this passage; at first a pine garland crowned the\nconqueror, but when this game began to be reckoned amongst the sacred,\nthen from the Nemean solemnity the parsley was received. And this\nProcles was one of Xenocrates\u2019s fellow-students at the Academy.\n\n_QUESTION IV._\n\nCONCERNING THAT EXPRESSION IN HOMER, \u03b6\u03c9\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03b5.[84]\n\nNICERATUS, SOSICLES, ANTIPATER, PLUTARCH.\n\n1. Some at the table were of opinion that Achilles talked nonsense when\nhe bade Patroclus \u201cmix the wine stronger,\u201d subjoining this reason,\n\n  For now I entertain my dearest friends.\n\nBut Niceratus a Macedonian, my particular acquaintance, maintained\nthat \u03b6\u03c9\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd did not signify pure but hot wine; as if it were derived\nfrom \u03b6\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 and \u03b6\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 (_life-giving_ and _boiling_), and\nit were requisite at the coming of his friends to temper a fresh\nbowl, as every one of us in his offering at the altar pours out fresh\nwine. But Socicles the poet, remembering a saying of Empedocles,\nthat in the great universal change those things which before were\n\u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, _unmixed_, should then be \u03b6\u03c9\u03c1\u03ac, affirmed that \u03b6\u03c9\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd there\nsignified \u03b5\u1f54\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, _well tempered_, and that Achilles might with\na great deal of reason bid Patroclus provide well-tempered wine for the\nentertainment of his friends; and it was not absurd (he said) to use\n\u03b6\u03c9\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd for \u03b6\u03c9\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd, any more than \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd for \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd, or \u03b8\u03b7\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\nfor \u03b8\u1fc6\u03bb\u03c5, for the comparatives are very properly put for the positives.\nMy friend Antipater said that years were anciently called \u1f67\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, and\nthat the particle \u03b6\u03b1 in composition signified greatness; and therefore\nold wine, that had been kept for many years, was called by Achilles\n\u03b6\u03c9\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd.\n\n2. I put them in mind that some imagine that \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd, _hot_, is\nsignified by \u03b6\u03c9\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, and that hotter means simply faster, as when we\ncommand servants to bestir themselves more hotly or in hotter haste.\nBut I must confess, your dispute is frivolous, since it is raised upon\nthis supposition, that if \u03b6\u03c9\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd signifies _more pure wine_,\nAchilles\u2019s command would be absurd, as Zoilus of Amphipolis imagined.\nFor first he did not consider that Achilles saw Phoenix and Ulysses\nto be old men, who are not pleased with diluted wine, and upon that\naccount forbade any mixture. Besides, having been Chiron\u2019s scholar, and\nfrom him having learned the rules of diet, he considered that weaker\nand more diluted liquors were fittest for those bodies that lay at\nease, and were not employed in their customary exercise or labor. Thus\nwith the other provender he gave his horses smallage, and this upon\nvery good reason; for horses that lie still grow sore in their feet,\nand smallage is the best remedy in the world against that. And you will\nnot find smallage or any thing of the same nature given to any other\nhorses in the whole Iliad. Thus Achilles, being skilled in physic,\nprovided suitable provender for his horses, and used the lightest diet\nhimself, as the fittest whilst he lay at ease. But those that had been\nwearied all day in fight he did not think convenient to treat like\nthose that had lain at ease, but commanded more pure and stronger wine\nto be prepared. Besides, Achilles doth not appear to be naturally\naddicted to drinking, but he was of a haughty inexorable temper.\n\n  No pleasant humor, no soft mind he bore,\n  But was all fire and rage.[85]\n\nAnd in another place very plainly Homer says, that\n\n  Many a sleepless night he knew.[86]\n\nNow little sleep cannot content those that drink strong liquors; and in\nhis railing at Agamemnon, the first ill name he gives him is drunkard,\nproposing his great drinking as the chiefest of his faults. And for\nthese reasons it is likely that, when they came, he thought his usual\nmixture too weak and not convenient for them.\n\n_QUESTION V._\n\nCONCERNING THOSE THAT INVITE MANY TO A SUPPER.\n\nPLUTARCH, ONESICRATES, LAMPRIAS THE ELDER.\n\n1. At my return from Alexandria all my friends by turns treated me,\ninviting all such too as were any way acquainted, so that our meetings\nwere usually tumultuous and suddenly dissolved; which disorders gave\noccasion to discourses concerning the inconveniences that attend\nsuch crowded entertainments. But when Onesicrates the physician in\nhis turn invited only the most familiar acquaintance, and men of the\nmost agreeable temper, I thought that what Plato says concerning the\nincrease of cities might be applied to entertainments. For there is\na certain number which an entertainment may receive, and still be an\nentertainment; but if it exceeds that, so that by reason of the number\nthere cannot be a mutual conversation amongst all, if they cannot know\none another nor partake of the same jollity, it ceaseth to be such.\nFor we should not need messengers there, as in a camp, or boatswains,\nas in a galley; but we ourselves should immediately converse with one\nanother. As in a dance, so in an entertainment, the last man should be\nplaced within hearing of the first.\n\n2. As I was speaking, my grandfather Lamprias cried out: Then it seems\nthere is need of temperance not only in our feasts, but also in our\ninvitations. For methinks there is even an excess in kindness, when\nwe pass by none of our friends, but draw them all in, as to see a\nsight or hear a play. And I think, it is not so great a disgrace for\nthe entertainer not to have bread or wine enough for his guests, as\nnot to have room enough, with which he ought always to be provided,\nnot only for invited guests, but strangers and chance visitants. For\nsuppose he hath not wine and bread enough, it may be imputed either to\nthe carelessness or dishonesty of his servants; but the want of room\nmust be imputed to the imprudence of the inviter. Hesiod is very much\nadmired for beginning thus,\n\n  A vast chaos first was made.[87]\n\nFor it was necessary that there should be first a place and room\nprovided for the beings that were afterward to be produced; and not\nwhat was seen yesterday at my son\u2019s entertainment, when, as Anaxagoras\nsaid,\n\n  All lay jumbled together.\n\nBut suppose a man hath room and provision enough, yet a multitude\nitself is to be avoided for its own sake, as hindering all familiarity\nand conversation; and it is more tolerable to let the company have\nno wine, than to exclude all converse from a feast. And therefore\nTheophrastus jocularly called the barbers\u2019 shops feasts without wine;\nbecause those that sit there usually prattle and discourse. But those\nthat invite a crowd at once deprive all of free communication of\ndiscourse, or rather make them divide into cabals, so that two or three\nprivately talk together, and neither know nor look on those that sit,\nas it were, half a mile distant.\n\n  Some took this way to valiant Ajax\u2019 tent,\n  And some the other to Achilles\u2019 went.[88]\n\nAnd therefore some rich men are foolishly profuse, who build rooms\nbig enough for thirty tables or more at once; for such a preparation\ncertainly is for unsociable and unfriendly entertainments, and such as\nare fit for a panegyriarch rather than a symposiarch to preside over.\nBut this may be pardoned in those; for wealth would not be wealth,\nit would be really blind and imprisoned, unless it had witnesses, as\ntragedies would be without spectators. Let us entertain few and often,\nand make that a remedy against having a crowd at once. For those that\ninvite but seldom are forced to have all their friends, and all that\nupon any account they are acquainted with together; but those that\ninvite frequently, and but three or four, render their entertainments\nlike little barks, light and nimble. Besides, the very reason why\nwe invite teaches us to select some out of the number of our many\nfriends. For as when we are in want we do not call all together, but\nonly those that can best afford help in that particular case,\u2014when\nwe would be advised, the wiser part; and when we are to have a trial\nthe best pleaders; and when we are to go a journey, those that can\nlive pleasantly and are at leisure,\u2014thus to our entertainments we\nshould call only those that are at the present agreeable. Agreeable,\nfor instance, to a prince\u2019s entertainment will be the magistrates, if\nthey are his friends, or chiefest of the city; to marriage or birth-day\nfeasts, all their kindred, and such as are under the protection of the\nsame Jupiter the guardian of consanguinity; and to such feasts and\nmerry-makings as this those are to be invited whose tempers are most\nsuitable to the occasion. When we offer sacrifice to one God, we do not\nworship all the others that belong to the same temple and altar at the\nsame time; but suppose we have three bowls, out of the first we pour\noblations to some, out of the second to others, and out of the third to\nthe rest, and none of the Gods take distaste. And in this a company of\nfriends may be likened to the company of Gods; none takes distaste at\nthe order of the invitation, if it be prudently managed and every one\nallowed a turn.\n\n_QUESTION VI._\n\nWHAT IS THE REASON THAT THE SAME ROOM WHICH AT THE BEGINNING OF A\nSUPPER SEEMS TOO NARROW FOR THE GUESTS APPEARS WIDE ENOUGH AFTERWARDS?\n\nAfter this it was presently asked, why the room which at the beginning\nof supper seems too narrow for the guests is afterwards wide enough;\nwhen the contrary is most likely, after they are filled with the\nsupper. Some said, the posture of our sitting was the cause; for they\nsit, when they eat, with their full breadth to the table, that they\nmay command it with their right hand; but after they have supped, they\nsit more sideways, and make an acute figure with their bodies, and do\nnot touch the place according to the superficies, if I may so say,\nbut the line. Now as cockal bones do not take up as much room when\nthey fall upon one end as when they fall flat, so every one of us at\nthe beginning sitting broadwise, and with a full face to the table,\nafterwards changes the figure, and turns his depth, not his breadth,\nto the board. Some attribute it to the beds whereon we sat, for those\nwhen pressed stretch; as strait shoes after a little wearing have their\npores widened, and grow fit for\u2014sometimes too big for\u2014the foot. An\nold man in the company merrily said, that the same feast had two very\ndifferent presidents and directors; in the beginning, Hunger, that is\nnot the least skilled in ordering and disposing, but afterward Bacchus,\nwhom all acknowledge to be the best orderer of an army in the world.\nAs therefore Epaminondas, when the unskilful captains had led their\nforces into narrow disadvantageous straits, relieved the phalanx that\nwas fallen foul on itself and all in disorder, and brought it into good\nrank and file again; thus we in the beginning being like greedy hounds\nconfused and disordered by hunger, the God (hence named the looser and\nthe dance-arranger) settles us in a friendly and agreeable order.\n\n_QUESTION VII._\n\nCONCERNING THOSE THAT ARE SAID TO BEWITCH.\n\nMETRIUS FLORUS, PLUTARCH, SOCLARUS, PATROCLES, CAIUS.\n\n1. A discourse happening at supper concerning those that are said to\nbewitch or have a bewitching eye, most of the company looked upon\nit as a whim, and laughed at it. But Metrius Florus, who then gave\nus a supper, said that the strange events wonderfully confirmed the\nreport; and because we cannot give a reason for the thing, therefore\nto disbelieve the relation was absurd, since there are a thousand\nthings which evidently are, the reasons of which we cannot readily\nassign. And, in short, he that requires every thing should be probable\ndestroys all wonder and admiration; and where the cause is not\nobvious, there we begin to doubt, that is, to philosophize. So that\nthey who disbelieve all wonderful relations do in some measure take\naway philosophy. The cause why any thing is so, reason must find out;\nbut that a thing is so, testimony is a sufficient evidence; and we have\na thousand instances of this sort attested. We know that some men by\nlooking upon young children hurt them very much, their weak and soft\ntemperature being wrought upon and perverted, whilst those that are\nstrong and firm are not so liable to be wrought upon. And Phylarchus\ntells us that the Thibians, the old inhabitants about Pontus, were\ndestructive not only to little children, but to some also of riper\nyears; for those upon whom they looked or breathed, or to whom they\nspake, would languish and grow sick. And this, likely, those of other\ncountries perceived who bought slaves there. But perhaps this is not\nso much to be wondered at, for in touching and handling there is some\napparent principle and cause of the effect. And as when you mix other\nbirds\u2019 wings with the eagles\u2019, the plumes waste and suddenly consume;\nso there is no reason to the contrary, but that one man\u2019s touch may be\ngood and advantageous, and another\u2019s hurtful and destructive. But that\nsome, by being barely looked upon, are extremely prejudiced is certain;\nthough the stories are disbelieved, because the reason is hard to be\ngiven.\n\n2. True, said I, but methinks there is some small track to the cause\nof this effect, if you come to the effluvia of bodies. For smell,\nvoice, breath, and the like, are effluvia from animal bodies, and\nmaterial parts that move the senses, which are wrought upon by their\nimpulse. Now it is very likely that such effluvia must continually\npart from animals, by reason of their heat and motion; for by that\nthe spirits are agitated, and the body, being struck by those, must\ncontinually send forth effluvia. And it is probable that these pass\nchiefly through the eye. For the sight, being very vigorous and\nactive, together with the spirit upon which it depends, sends forth\na strange fiery power; so that by it men act and suffer very much,\nand are always proportionably pleased or displeased, according as the\nvisible objects are agreeable or not. Love, that greatest and most\nviolent passion of the soul, takes its beginning from the eye; so that\na lover, when he looks upon the fair, flows out, as it were, and seems\nto mix with them. And therefore why should any one, that believes men\ncan be affected and prejudiced by the sight, imagine that they cannot\nact and hurt as well? For the mutual looks of mature beauties, and\nthat which comes from the eye, whether light or a stream of spirits,\nmelt and dissolve the lovers with a pleasing pain, which they call the\nbitter-sweet of love. For neither by touching or hearing the voice of\ntheir beloved are they so much wounded and wrought upon, as by looking\nand being looked upon again. There is such a communication, such a\nflame raised by one glance, that those must be altogether unacquainted\nwith love that wonder at the Median naphtha, that takes fire at a\ndistance from the flame. For the glances of a fair one, though at a\ngreat distance, quickly kindle a fire in the lover\u2019s breast. Besides\neverybody knows the remedy for the jaundice; if they look upon the\nbird called charadrios, they are cured. For that animal seems to be of\nthat temperature and nature as to receive and draw away the disease,\nthat like a stream flows out through the eyes; so that the charadrios\nwill not look on one that hath the jaundice; he cannot endure it, but\nturns away his head and shuts his eyes, not envying (as some imagine)\nthe cure he performs, but being really hurted by the effluvia of\nthe patient. And of all diseases, soreness of the eyes is the most\ninfectious; so strong and vigorous is the sight, and so easily does it\ncause infirmities in another.\n\n3. Very right, said Patrocles, and you reason well as to changes\nwrought upon the body; but as to the soul, which in some measure exerts\nthe power of witchcraft, how can this give any disturbance by the eye?\nSir, I replied, do not you consider, that the soul, when affected,\nworks upon the body? Thoughts of love excite lust, and rage often\nblinds dogs as they fight with wild beasts. Sorrow, covetousness, or\njealousy makes us change color, and destroys the habit of the body;\nand envy more than any passion, when fixed in the soul, fills the body\nfull of ill humors, and makes it pale and ugly; which deformities good\npainters in their pictures of envy endeavor to represent. Now, when men\nthus perverted by envy fix their eyes upon another, and these, being\nnearest to the soul, easily draw the venom from it, and send out as it\nwere poisoned darts, it is no wonder, in my mind, if he that is looked\nupon is hurt. Thus the biting of a dog when mad is most dangerous; and\nthen the seed of a man is most prolific, when he embraces one that\nhe loves; and in general the affections of the mind strengthen and\ninvigorate the powers of the body. And therefore people imagine that\nthose amulets that are preservative against witchcraft are likewise\ngood and efficacious against envy; the sight by the strangeness of\nthe spectacle being diverted, so that it cannot make so strong an\nimpression upon the patient. This, Florus, is what I can say; and pray,\nsir, accept it as my club for this entertainment.\n\n4. Well, said Soclarus, but let us try whether the money be all good\nor no; for, in my mind, some of it seems brass. For if we admit the\ngeneral report about these matters to be true, you know very well that\nit is commonly supposed that some have friends, acquaintance, and\neven fathers, that have such evil eyes; so that the mothers will not\nshow their children to them, nor for a long time suffer them to be\nlooked upon by such; and how can the effects wrought by these proceed\nfrom envy? But what, for God\u2019s sake, wilt thou say to those that are\nreported to bewitch themselves?\u2014-for I am sure you have heard of such,\nor at least read these lines:\n\n  Curls once on Eutel\u2019s head in order stood;\n  But when he viewed his figure in a flood,\n  He overlooked himself, and now disease....\n\nFor they say that this Eutelidas, appearing very delicate and beauteous\nto himself, was affected with that sight and grew sick upon it, and\nlost his beauty and his health. Now, pray sir, what reason can you find\nfor these wonderful effects?\n\n5. At any other time, I replied, I question not but I shall give you\nfull satisfaction. But now, sir, after such a large pot as you have\nseen me take, I boldly affirm, that all passions which have been\nfixed in the soul a long time raise ill humors in the body, which by\ncontinuance growing strong enough to be, as it were, a new nature,\nbeing excited by any intervening accident, force men, though unwilling,\nto their accustomed passions. Consider the timorous, they are afraid\neven of those things that preserve them. Consider the pettish, they are\nangry with their best and dearest friends. Consider the amorous and\nlascivious, in the height of their fury they dare violate a Vestal.\nFor custom is very powerful to draw the temper of the body to any\nthing that is suitable to it; and he that is apt to fall will stumble\nat every thing that lies in his way. So that we need not wonder at\nthose that have raised in themselves an envious and bewitching habit,\nif according to the peculiarity of their passion they are carried on\nto suitable effects; for when they are once moved, they do that which\nthe nature of the thing, not which their will, leads them to. For as a\nsphere must necessarily move spherically, and a cylinder cylindrically\naccording to the difference of their figures; thus his disposition\nmakes an envious man move enviously to all things; and it is likely\nthey should chiefly hurt their most familiar acquaintance and best\nbeloved. And that fine fellow Eutelidas you mentioned, and the rest\nthat are said to overlook themselves, may be easily and upon good\nrational grounds accounted for; for, according to Hippocrates, a good\nhabit of body, when at height, is easily perverted, and bodies come to\ntheir full maturity do not stand at a stay there, but fall and waste\ndown to the contrary extreme. And therefore when they are in very good\nplight, and see themselves look much better than they expected, they\ngaze and wonder; but then their body being nigh to change, and their\nhabit declining into a worse condition, they overlook themselves. And\nthis is done when the effluvia are stopped and reflected by the water\nrather than by any other specular body; for this breathes upon them\nwhilst they look upon it, so that the very same particles which would\nhurt others must hurt themselves. And this perchance often happens to\nyoung children, and the cause of their diseases is falsely attributed\nto those that look upon them.\n\n6. When I had done, Gaius, Florus\u2019s son-in-law, said: Then it seems\nyou make no more reckoning or account of Democritus\u2019s images, than of\nthose of Aegium or Megara; for he delivers that the envious send out\nimages which are not altogether void of sense or force, but full of the\ndisturbing and poisonous qualities of those from whom they come. Now\nthese being mixed with such qualities, and remaining with and abiding\nin those persons that are overlooked, disturb and injure them both in\nmind and body; for this, I think, is the meaning of that philosopher,\na man in his opinions and expressions admirable and divine. Very true,\nsaid I, and I wonder that you did not observe that I took nothing from\nthose effluvia and images but life and will; lest you should imagine\nthat, now it is almost midnight, I brought in spectres and wise and\nunderstanding images to terrify and fright you; but in the morning, if\nyou please, we will talk of those things.\n\n_QUESTION VIII._\n\nWHY HOMER CALLS THE APPLE-TREE \u1f00\u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u03cc\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, AND EMPEDOCLES\nCALLS APPLES \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1.\n\nPLUTARCH, TRYPHO, CERTAIN GRAMMARIANS, LAMPRIAS THE ELDER.\n\n1. As we were at supper in Chaeronea, and had all sorts of fruit at the\ntable, one of the company chanced to speak these verses,\n\n  The fig-trees sweet, the apple-trees that bear\n  Fair fruit, and olives green through all the year.[89]\n\nUpon this there arose a question, why the poet calls apple-trees\nparticularly \u1f00\u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u03cc\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9, _bearing fair fruit_. Trypho the\nphysician said, that this epithet was given comparatively in respect\nof the tree, because, being small and no goodly tree to look upon, it\nbears fair and large fruit. Somebody else said, that the particular\nexcellencies that are scattered amongst all other fruits are united in\nthis alone. As to the touch, it is smooth and clean, so that it makes\nthe hand that toucheth it odorous without defiling it; it is sweet to\nthe taste, and to the smell and sight very pleasing; and therefore\nthere is reason that it should be duly praised, as being that which\ncongregates and allures all the senses together.\n\n2. This discourse we liked indifferently well. But whereas Empedocles\nhas thus written,\n\n  Why pomegranates so late do grow.\n  And apples bear a lovely show (\u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1);\n\nI understand well (said I) the epithet given to pomegranates, because\nthat at the end of autumn, and when the heats begin to decrease,\nthey ripen the fruit; for the sun will not suffer the weak and thin\nmoisture to thicken into a consistence until the air begins to wax\ncolder; therefore, says Theophrastus, this only tree ripens its fruit\nbest and soonest in the shade. But in what sense the philosopher\ngives the epithet \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1 to apples, I much question, since it\nis not his custom to strive to adorn his verses with varieties of\nepithets, as with gay and florid colors. But in every verse he\ngives some dilucidation of the substance and virtue of the subject\nupon which he treats; as when he calls the body encircling the\nsoul the mortal-encompassing earth; as also when he calls the air\ncloud-gathering, and the liver full of blood.\n\n3. When now I had said these things myself, certain grammarians\naffirmed, that those apples were called \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1 by reason of their\nvigor and florid manner of growing; for to blossom and flourish after\nan extraordinary manner is by the poets expressed by the word \u03c8\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\nIn this sense, Antimachus calls the city of Cadmeans flourishing with\nfruit; and Aratus, speaking of the dog-star Sirius, says that he\n\n  To some gave strength, but others did consume,\n  Their bloom and verdure parching;\n\ncalling the greenness of the trees and the blossoming of the fruit\nby the name of \u03c6\u03bb\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2. Nay, there are some of the Greeks also who\nsacrifice to Bacchus surnamed \u03a6\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2. And therefore, seeing the\nverdure and floridness chiefly recommend this fruit, philosophers call\nit \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. But Lamprias our grandfather said that the word \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\ndid not only denote excess and vehemency, but external and supernal;\nthus we call the lintel of a door \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, and the upper part of\nthe house \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff7\u03bf\u03bd; and the poet calls the outward parts of the victim\nthe upper-flesh, as he calls the entrails the inner-flesh. Let us\nsee therefore, says he, whether Empedocles did not make use of this\nepithet in this sense, seeing that other fruits are encompassed with\nan outward rind and with certain skins and membranes, but the only husk\nthat the apple has is a glutinous and smooth tunic (or core) containing\nthe seed, so that the part which is fit to be eaten, and lies without,\nwas properly called \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, that is _over_ or _outside of\nthe husk_.\n\n_QUESTION IX._\n\nWHAT IS THE REASON THAT THE FIG-TREE, BEING ITSELF OF A VERY SHARP\nAND BITTER TASTE, BEARS SO SWEET FRUIT?\n\nLAMPRIAS THE ELDER, AND OTHERS.\n\nThis discourse ended, the next question was about fig-trees, how so\nluscious and sweet fruit should come from so bitter a tree. For the\nleaf from its roughness is called \u03b8\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd. The wood of it is full of sap,\nand as it burns sends forth a very biting smoke; and the ashes of it\nthoroughly burnt are so acrimonious, that they make a lye extremely\ndetersive. And, which is very strange, all other trees that bud and\nbear fruit put forth blossoms too; but the fig-tree never blossoms.\nAnd if (as some say) it is never thunderstruck, that likewise may be\nattributed to the sharp juices and bad temper of the stock; for such\nthings are as secure from thunder as the skin of a sea calf or hyena.\nThen said the old man: It is no wonder that when all the sweetness is\nseparated and employed in making the fruit, that which is left should\nbe bitter and unsavory. For as the liver, all the gall being gathered\nin its proper place, is itself very sweet; so the fig-tree having\nparted with its oil and sweet particles to the fruit, reserves no\nportions for itself. For that this tree hath some good juice, I gather\nfrom what they say of rue, which growing under a fig-tree is sweeter\nthan usual, and hath a sweeter and more palatable juice, as if it drew\nsome sweet particles from the tree which mollified its offensive and\ncorroding qualities; unless perhaps, on the contrary, the fig-tree\nrobbing it of its nourishment draws likewise some of its sharpness and\nbitterness away.\n\n_QUESTION X._\n\nWHAT ARE THOSE THAT ARE SAID TO BE \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f05\u03bb\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03cd\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd,\nAND WHY DOES HOMER CALL SALT DIVINE?\n\nFLORUS, APOLLOPHANES, PLUTARCH, PHILINUS.\n\n1. Florus, when we were entertained at his house, put this question,\nWhat are those in the proverb who are said to be about the salt and\ncummin? Apollophanes the grammarian presently satisfied him, saying, by\nthat proverb were meant intimate acquaintance, who could sup together\non salt and cummin. Thence we proceeded to enquire how salt should come\nto be so much honored as it is; for Homer plainly says,\n\n  And after that he strewed his salt divine,[90]\n\nand Plato delivers that by man\u2019s laws salt is to be accounted most\nsacred. And this difficulty was increased by the customs of the\nEgyptian priests, who professing chastity eat no salt, no, not so much\nas in their bread. For if it be divine and holy, why should they avoid\nit?\n\n2. Florus bade us not mind the Egyptians, but speak according to the\nGrecian custom on the present subject. But I replied: The Egyptians\nare not contrary to the Greeks in this matter; for the profession of\npurity and chastity forbids getting children, laughter, wine, and many\nother very commendable and lawful things; and perhaps such votaries\navoid salt, as being, according to some men\u2019s opinions, by its heat\nprovocative and apt to raise lust. Or they refuse it as the most\npleasant of all sauces, for indeed salt may be called the sauce of all\nsauces; and therefore some call salt \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2; because it makes food,\nwhich is necessary for life, to be relishing and pleasant.\n\n3. What then, said Florus, shall we say that salt is termed divine\nfor that reason? Indeed that is very considerable, for men for the\nmost part deify those common things that are exceeding useful to their\nnecessities and wants, as water, light, the seasons of the year; and\nthe earth they do not only think to be divine, but a very God. Now salt\nis as useful as either of these, being a sort of protector to the food\nas it comes into the body, and making it palatable and agreeable to the\nappetite. But consider farther, whether its power of preserving dead\nbodies from rotting a long time be not a divine property, and opposite\nto death; since it preserves part, and will not suffer that which is\nmortal wholly to be destroyed. But as the soul, which is our diviner\npart, connects the limbs of animals, and keeps the composure from\ndissolution; thus salt applied to dead bodies, and imitating the work\nof the soul, stops those parts that were falling to corruption, binds\nand confines them, and so makes them keep their union and agreement\nwith one another. And therefore some of the Stoics say, that swine\u2019s\nflesh then deserves the name of a body, when the soul like salt spreads\nthrough it and keeps the parts from dissolution. Besides, you know that\nwe account lightning to be sacred and divine, because the bodies that\nare thunder-struck do not rot for a long time; what wonder is it then,\nthat the ancients called salt as well as lightning divine, since it\nhath the same property and power?\n\n4. I making no reply, Philinus subjoined: Do you not think that that\nwhich is generative is to be esteemed divine, seeing God is the\nprinciple of all things? And I assenting, he continued: Salt, in the\nopinion of some men, for instance the Egyptians you mentioned, is very\noperative that way; and those that breed dogs, when they find their\nbitches not apt to be hot, give them salt and seasoned flesh, to stir\nup and awaken their sleeping lechery and vigor. Besides, the ships\nthat carry salt breed abundance of mice; the females, as some imagine,\nconceiving without the help of the males, only by licking the salt.\nBut it is most probable that the salt raiseth an itching in animals,\nand so makes them salacious and eager to couple. And perhaps for the\nsame reason they call a surprising and bewitching beauty, such as is\napt to move and entice, \u1f01\u03bb\u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cd, _saltish_. And I think\nthe poets had a respect to this generative power of salt in their fable\nof Venus springing from the sea. And it may be farther observed, that\nthey make all the sea Gods very fruitful, and give them large families.\nAnd beside, there are no land animals so fruitful as the sea animals;\nagreeable to which observation is that verse of Empedocles,\n\n  Leading the foolish race of fruitful fish.\n\n\nBOOK VI.\n\nTimotheus the son of Conon, Sossius Senecio, after a full enjoyment of\nluxurious campaign diet, being entertained by Plato in his Academy,\nat a neat, homely, and (as Ion says) no surfeiting feast (such an one\nas is constantly followed by sound sleep, and, by reason of the calm\nand pleasant state the body enjoys, rarely interrupted with dreams and\napparitions), the next day, being sensible of the difference, said that\nthose that supped with Plato were well treated, even the day after the\nfeast. For such a temper of a body not over-charged, but expedite and\nfitted for the ready execution of all its enterprises, is without all\ndoubt a great help for the more comfortable passing away of the day.\nBut there is another benefit not inferior to the former, which does\nusually accrue to those that sup with Plato, namely, the recollection\nof those points that were debated at the table. For the remembrance\nof those pleasures which arise from meat and drink is ungenteel, and\nshort-lived withal, and nothing but the remains of yesterday\u2019s smell.\nBut the subjects of philosophical queries and discourses, being always\nfresh after they are imparted, are equally relished by all, as well\nby those that were absent as by those that were present at them;\ninsomuch that learned men even now are as much partakers of Socrates\u2019s\nfeasts as those who really supped with him. But if things pertaining\nto the body had afforded any pleasure, Xenophon and Plato should have\nleft us an account not of the discourse, but of the great variety of\ndishes, sauces, and other costly compositions that were prepared in\nthe houses of Callias and Agatho. Yet there is not the least mention\nmade of any such things, though questionless they were as sumptuous as\npossible; but whatever things were treated of and learnedly discussed\nby their guests were left upon record and transmitted to posterity as\nprecedents, not only for discoursing at table, but also for remembering\nthe things that were handled at such meetings.\n\n_QUESTION I._\n\nWHAT IS THE REASON THAT THOSE THAT ARE FASTING ARE MORE THIRSTY\nTHAN HUNGRY?\n\nPLUTARCH AND OTHERS.\n\nI present you with this Sixth Book of Table Discourses, wherein the\nfirst thing that cometh to be discussed is an enquiry into the reason\nwhy those that are fasting are more inclinable to drink than to eat.\nFor the assertion carries in it a repugnancy to the standing rules\nof reason; forasmuch as the decayed stock of dry nourishment seems\nmore naturally to call for its proper supplies. Whereupon I told the\ncompany, that of those things whereof our bodies are composed, heat\nonly\u2014or, however, above all the rest\u2014stands in continual need of such\naccessions; for the truth of which this may be urged as a convincing\nargument: neither air, water, nor earth requires any matter to feed\nupon, or devours whatsoever lies next it; but fire alone doth. Hence\nit comes to pass that young men, by reason of their greater share of\nnatural heat, have commonly greater stomachs than old men; whereas on\nthe contrary, old men can endure fasting much better, for this only\nreason, because their natural heat is grown weaker and decayed. Just so\nwe see it fares with bloodless animals, which by reason of the want of\nheat require very little nourishment. Besides, every one of us finds by\nexperience, that bodily exercises, clamors, and whatever other actions\nby violent motion occasion heat, commonly sharpen our stomachs and get\nus a better appetite. Now, as I take it, the most natural and principal\nnourishment of heat is moisture, as it evidently appears from flames,\nwhich increase by the pouring in of oil, and from ashes, which are of\nthe driest things in nature; for after the humidity is consumed by the\nfire, the terrene and grosser parts remain without any moisture at all.\nAdd to these, that fire separates and dissolves bodies by extracting\nthat moisture which should keep them close and compact. Therefore, when\nwe are fasting, the heat first of all forces the moisture out of the\nrelics of the nourishment that remain in the body, and then, pursuing\nthe other humid parts, preys upon the natural moisture of the flesh\nitself. Hence the body like clay grows dry, wants drink more than meat;\ntill the heat, receiving strength and vigor by our drinking, excites an\nappetite for more substantial food.\n\n_QUESTION II._\n\nWHETHER WANT OF NOURISHMENT CAUSETH HUNGER AND THIRST, OR THE\nCHANGE IN THE FIGURE OF THE PORES OR PASSAGES OF THE BODY.\n\nPHILO, PLUTARCH.\n\n1. After these things were spoke, Philo the physician started the\nfirst question, asserting that thirst did not arise from the want\nof nourishment, but from the different transfiguration of certain\npassages. For, says he, this may be made evident, partly from what we\nsee happens to those that thirst in the night, who, if sleep chance to\nsteal upon them, though they did not drink before, are yet rid of their\nthirst; partly from persons in a fever, who, as soon as the disease\nabates or is removed, thirst no more. Nay, a great many men, after they\nhave bathed or vomited, perceive presently that their thirst is gone;\nyet none of these add any thing to their former moisture, but only the\ntransfiguration of the pores causeth a new order and disposition. And\nthis is more evident in hunger; for many sick persons, at the same time\nwhen they have the greatest need of meat, have no stomach. Others,\nafter they have filled their bellies, have the same stomachs, and their\nappetites are rather increased than abated. There are a great many\nbesides who loathe all sorts of diet, yet by taking of a pickled olive\nor caper recover and confirm their lost appetites. This doth clearly\nevince, that hunger proceeds from some change in the pores, and not\nfrom any want of sustenance, forasmuch as such kind of food lessens\nthe defect by adding food, but increases the hunger; and the pleasing\nrelish and poignancy of such pickles, by binding and straitening the\nmouth of the ventricle, and again by opening and loosening of it, beget\nin it a convenient disposition to receive meat, which we call by the\nname of appetite.\n\n2. I must confess this discourse seemed to carry in it some shadow\nof reason and probability; but in the main it is directly repugnant\nto the chief end of nature, to which appetite directs every animal.\nFor that makes it desire a supply of what they stand in need of, and\navoid a defect of their proper food. Now to deny that this very thing,\nwhich principally distinguishes an animate creature from an inanimate,\nconduces to the preservation and duration of such a creature, being\nthat which craves and receives those things which the body needs\nto supply its wants, and, on the contrary, to suppose that such an\nappetite arises from the transfiguration or the greater or lesser size\nof the pores, is an absurdity worthy only of such as have no regard at\nall for Nature. Besides, it is absurd to think that a body through the\nwant of natural heat should be chilled, and should not in like manner\nhunger and thirst through the want of natural moisture and nourishment.\nAnd yet this is more absurd, that Nature when overcharged should desire\nto disburden herself, and yet should not require to be filled on\naccount of emptiness, but on account of some affection or other, I know\nnot what. Moreover, these needs and supplies in relation to animals\nhave some resemblance to those we see in husbandry. There are a great\nmany like qualities and like provisions on both sides. For in a drought\nwe water our grounds, and in case of excessive heat, we frequently make\nuse of moderate coolers; and when our fruits are too cold, we endeavor\nto preserve and cherish them, by covering and making fences about\nthem. And for such things as are out of the reach of human power, we\nimplore the assistance of the Gods, that is, to send us softening dews,\nsunshines qualified with moderate winds; that so Nature, being always\ndesirous of a due mixture, may have her wants supplied. And for this\nreason I presume it was that nourishment is called \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae (from \u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd),\nbecause it watches and preserves Nature. Now Nature is preserved in\nplants, which are destitute of sense, by the favorable influence of\nthe circumambient air (as Empedocles says), moistening them in such a\nmeasure as is most agreeable to their nature. But as for us men, our\nappetites prompt us on to the chase and pursuance of whatsoever is\nwanting to our natural temperament.\n\nNow let us pass to the examination of the truth of the arguments that\nseem to favor the contrary opinion. And for the first, I suppose\nthat those meats that are palatable and of a quick and sharp taste\ndo not beget in us an appetite, but rather bite and fret those parts\nthat receive the nourishment, as we find that scratching the skin\ncauses itching. And supposing we should grant that this affection\nor disposition is the very thing which we call the appetite, it is\nprobable that, by the operation of such kind of food as this, the\nnourishment may be made small, and so much of it as is convenient\nfor Nature severed from the rest, so that the indigency proceeds not\nfrom the transmutation, but from the evacuation and purgation of the\npassages. For sharp, tart, and salt things grate the inward matter,\nand by dispersing of it cause digestion, so that by the concoctions of\nthe old there may arise an appetite for new. Nor does the cessation of\nthirst after a bath spring from the different position of the passages,\nbut from a new supply of moisture received into the flesh, and conveyed\nfrom thence to them also. And vomiting, by throwing off whatever is\ndisagreeable to Nature, puts her in a capacity of enjoying what is\nmost suitable for her. For thirst does not call for a superfluity of\nmoisture, but only for so much as sufficeth Nature; and therefore,\nthough a man had plenty of disagreeable and unnatural moisture, yet he\nwants still, for that stops the course of the natural, which Nature\nis desirous of, and hinders a due mixture and temperament, till it be\ncast out and the passages receive what is most proper and convenient\nfor them. Moreover, a fever forces all the moisture downward; and the\nmiddle parts being in a flame, it all retires thither, and there is\nshut up and forcibly detained. And therefore it is usual with a great\nmany to vomit, by reason of the density of the inward parts squeezing\nout the moisture, and likewise to thirst, by reason of the poor and\ndry state the rest of the body is in. But after the violence of the\ndistemper is once abated, and the raging heat hath left the middle\nparts, the moisture begins to disperse itself again; and according\nto its natural motion, by a speedy conveyance into all the parts, it\nrefreshes the entrails, softens and makes tender the dry and parched\nflesh. Very often also it causes sweat, and then the defect which\noccasioned thirst ceases; for the moisture leaving that part of the\nbody wherein it was forcibly detained, and out of which it hardly made\nan escape, retires to the place where it is wanted. For as it fares\nwith a garden wherein there is a large well,\u2014if nobody draw thereof\nand water it, the herbs must needs wither and die,\u2014so it fares with a\nbody; if all the moisture be contracted into one part, it is no wonder\nif the rest be in want and dry, till it is diffused again over the\nother limbs. Just so it happens to persons in a fever, after the heat\nof the disease is over, and likewise to those who go to sleep thirsty.\nFor in these, sleep draws the moisture out of the middle parts, and\nequally distributes it amongst the rest, satisfying them all. But, I\npray, what kind of transfiguration of the passages is this which causes\nhunger and thirst? For my part, I know no other distinction of the\npassages but in respect of their number, or that some of them are shut,\nothers open. As for those that are shut, they can neither receive meat\nnor drink; and as for those that are open, they make an empty space,\nwhich is nothing but a want of that which Nature requires. Thus, sir,\nwhen men dye cloth, the liquor in which they dip it hath very sharp and\nabstersive particles; which, consuming and scouring off all the matter\nthat filled the pores, make the cloth more apt to receive the dye,\nbecause its pores are empty and want something to fill them up.\n\n_QUESTION III._\n\nWHAT IS THE REASON THAT HUNGER IS ALLAYED BY DRINKING, BUT THIRST\nINCREASED BY EATING?\n\nTHE HOST, PLUTARCH, AND OTHERS.\n\n1. After we had gone thus far, the master of the feast told the company\nthat the former points were reasonably well discussed; and waiving at\npresent the discourse concerning the evacuation and repletion of the\npores, he requested us to fall upon another question, that is, how it\ncomes to pass that hunger is staid by drinking, when, on the contrary,\nthirst is more violent after eating. Those who assign the reason to be\nin the pores seem with a great deal of ease and probability, though not\nwith so much truth, to explain the thing. For seeing the pores in all\nbodies are of different sorts and sizes, the more capacious receive\nboth dry and humid nourishment, the lesser take in drink, not meat; but\nthe vacuity of the former causes hunger, of the latter thirst. Hence\nit is that men that thirst are never the better after they have eaten,\nthe pores by reason of their straitness denying admittance to grosser\nnourishment, and the want of suitable supply still remaining. But after\nhungry men have drunk, the moisture enters the greater pores, fills the\nempty spaces, and in part assuages the violence of the hunger.\n\n2. Of this effect, said I, I do not in the least doubt, but I do not\napprove of the reason they give for it. For if any one should admit\nthese pores (which some are so unreasonably fond of) to be in the\nflesh, he must needs make it a very soft, loose, flabby substance; and\nthat the same parts do not receive the meat and drink, but that they\nrun through different canals and strainers in them, seems to me to be\na very strange and unaccountable opinion.\n\nFor the moisture mixes with the dry food, and by the assistance of the\nnatural heat and spirits cuts the nourishment far smaller than any\ncleaver or chopping-knife, to the end that every part of it may be\nexactly fitted to each part of the body, not applied, as they would\nhave it, to little vessels and pores, but united and incorporated with\nthe whole substance. And unless the thing were explained after this\nmanner, the hardest knot in the question would still remain unsolved.\nFor a man that has a thirst upon him, supposing he eats and doth not\ndrink, is so far from quenching, that he does highly increase it. This\npoint is yet untouched. But mark, said I, whether the positions on my\nside be clear and evident or not. In the first place, we take it for\ngranted that moisture is wasted and destroyed by dryness, that the\ndrier parts of the nourishment, qualified and softened by moisture, are\ndiffused and fly away in vapors. Secondly, we must by no means suppose\nthat all hunger is a total privation of dry, and thirst of humid\nnutriment, but only a moderate one, and such as is sufficient to cause\nthe one or the other; for whoever are wholly deprived of either of\nthese, they neither hunger nor thirst, but die instantly. These things\nbeing laid down as a foundation, it will be no hard matter to find\nout the cause. Thirst is increased by eating for this reason, because\nthat meat by its natural siccity contracts and destroys all that small\nquantity of moisture which remained scattered here and there through\nthe body; just as it happens in things obvious to our senses; we see\nthe earth, dust, and the like presently suck in the moisture that is\nmixed with them. Now, on the contrary, drink must of necessity assuage\nhunger; for the moisture watering and diffusing itself through the dry\nand parched relics of the meat we ate last, by turning them into thin\njuices, conveys them through the whole body, and succors the indigent\nparts. And therefore with very good reason Erasistratus called moisture\nthe vehicle of the meat; for as soon as this is mixed with things which\nby reason of their dryness, or some other quality, are slow and heavy,\nit raises them up and carries them aloft. Moreover, several men, when\nthey have drunk nothing at all, but only washed themselves, all on a\nsudden are freed from a violent hunger, because the extrinsic moisture\nentering the pores makes the meat within more succulent and of a more\nnourishing nature, so that the heat and fury of the hunger declines and\nabates; and therefore a great many of those who have a mind to starve\nthemselves to death live a long time only by drinking water; that is,\nas long as the siccity does not quite consume whatever may be united to\nand nourish the body.\n\n_QUESTION IV._\n\nWHAT IS THE REASON THAT A BUCKET OF WATER DRAWN OUT OF A WELL, IF IT\nSTANDS ALL NIGHT IN THE AIR THAT IS IN THE WELL, IS MORE COLD IN THE\nMORNING THAN THE REST OF THE WATER?\n\nA GUEST, PLUTARCH, AND OTHERS.\n\n1. One of the strangers at the table, who took wonderful great delight\nin drinking of cold water, had some brought to him by the servants,\ncooled after this manner; they had hung in the well a bucket full of\nthe same water, so that it could not touch the sides of the well,\nand there let it remain all night: the next day, when it was brought\nto table, it was colder than the water that was new-drawn. Now this\ngentleman was an indifferent good scholar, and therefore told the\ncompany he had learned this from Aristotle, who gives the reason of\nit. The reason which he assigned was this. All water, when it hath\nbeen once hot, is afterwards more cold; as that which is prepared for\nkings, when it hath boiled a good while upon the fire, is afterwards\nput into a vessel set round with snow, and so made cooler; just as\nwe find our bodies more cool after we have bathed, because the body,\nafter a short relaxation from heat, is rarefied and more porous, and\ntherefore so much the more fitted to receive a larger quantity of air,\nwhich causes the alteration. Therefore the water, when it is drawn out\nof the well, being first warmed in the air, grows presently cold.\n\n2. Whereupon we began to commend the man very highly for his happy\nmemory; but we called in question the pretended reason. For if the\nair wherein the vessel hangs be cold, how, I pray, does it heat the\nwater? If hot, how does it afterwards make it cold? For it is absurd to\nsay, that the same thing is affected by the same thing with contrary\nqualities, no difference at all intervening. While the gentleman held\nhis peace, as not knowing what to say; there is no cause, said I, that\nwe should raise any scruple concerning the nature of the air, forasmuch\nas we are ascertained by sense that it is cold, especially in the\nbottom of a well; and therefore we can never imagine that it should\nmake the water hot. But I should rather judge this to be the reason:\nthe cold air, though it cannot cool the great quantity of water which\nis in the well, yet can easily cool each part of it, separate from the\nwhole.\n\n_QUESTION V._\n\nWHAT IS THE REASON THAT PEBBLE STONES AND LEADEN BULLETS THROWN\nINTO THE WATER MAKE IT MORE COLD?\n\nA GUEST, PLUTARCH, AND OTHERS.\n\nI suppose you may remember what Aristotle says in his problems, of\nlittle stones and pieces of iron, how it hath been observed by some\nthat being thrown into the water they temper and cool it. This is no\nmore than barely asserted by him; but we will go farther and enquire\ninto the reason of it, the discovery of which will be a matter of\ndifficulty. Yes, says I, it will so, and it is much if we hit upon it;\nfor do but consider, first of all, do not you suppose that the air\nwhich comes in from without cools the water? But now air has a great\ndeal more power and force, when it beats against stones and pieces\nof iron. For they do not, like brazen and earthen vessels, suffer it\nto pass through; but, by reason of their solid bulk, beat it back\nand reflect it into the water, so that upon all parts the cold works\nvery strongly. And hence it comes to pass that rivers in the winter\nare colder than the sea, because the cold air has a power over them,\nwhich by reason of its depth it has not over the sea, where it is\nscattered without any reflection. But it is probable that for another\nreason thinner waters may be made colder by the air than thicker,\nbecause they are not so strong to resist its force. Now whetstones\nand pebbles make the water thinner by drawing to them all the mud and\nother grosser substances that be mixed with it, that so by taking the\nstrength from it it may the more easily be wrought upon by the cold.\nBut besides, lead is naturally cold, as that which, being dissolved\nin vinegar, makes the coldest of all poisons, called white-lead; and\nstones, by reason of their density, raise cold in the bottom of the\nwater. For every stone is nothing else but a congealed lump of frozen\nearth, though some more or less than others; and therefore it is no\nabsurdity to say that stones and lead, by reflecting the air, increase\nthe coldness of the water.\n\n_QUESTION VI._\n\nWHAT IS THE REASON THAT MEN PRESERVE SNOW BY COVERING IT WITH CHAFF\nAND CLOTHS?\n\nA GUEST, PLUTARCH.\n\n1. Then the stranger, after he had made a little pause, said: Men\nin love are ambitious to be in company with their sweethearts; when\nthat is denied them, they desire at least to talk of them. This is my\ncase in relation to snow; and, because I cannot have it at present, I\nam desirous to learn the reason why it is commonly preserved by the\nhottest things. For, when covered with chaff and cloth that has never\nbeen at the fuller\u2019s, it is preserved a long time. Now it is strange\nthat the coldest things should be preserved by the hottest.\n\n2. Yes, said I, it is a very strange thing, if true. But it is not so;\nand we cozen ourselves by presently concluding a thing to be hot if it\nhave a faculty of causing heat, when yet we see that the same garment\ncauses heat in winter, and cold in summer. Thus the nurse in the\ntragedy,\n\n  In garments thin doth Niobe\u2019s children fold,\n  And sometimes heats and sometimes cools the babes.\n\nThe Germans indeed make use of clothes only against the cold, the\nEthiopians only against the heat; but they are useful to us upon both\naccounts. Why therefore should we rather say the clothes are hot,\nbecause they cause heat, than cold, because they cause cold? Nay, if we\nmust be tried by sense, it will be found that they are more cold than\nhot. For at the first putting on of a coat it is cold, and so is our\nbed when we lie down; but afterwards they grow hot with the heat of\nour bodies, because they both keep in the heat and keep out the cold.\nIndeed, feverish persons and others that have a violent heat upon them\noften change their clothes, because they perceive that fresh ones at\nthe first putting on are much colder; but within a very little time\ntheir bodies make them as hot as the others. In like manner, as a\ngarment heated makes us hot, so a covering cooled keeps snow cold. Now\nthat which causes this cold is the continual emanations of a subtile\nspirit the snow has in it, which spirit, as long as it remains in the\nsnow, keeps it compact and close; but, after once it is gone, the snow\nmelts and dissolves into water, and instantly loses its whiteness,\noccasioned by a mixture of this spirit with a frothy moisture.\nTherefore at the same time, by the help of these clothes, the cold is\nkept in, and the external air is shut out, lest it should thaw the\nconcrete body of the snow. The reason why they make use of cloth that\nhas not yet been at the fuller\u2019s is this, because that in such cloth\nthe hair and coarse flocks keep it off from pressing too hard upon the\nsnow, and bruising it. So chaff lying lightly upon it does not dissolve\nthe body of the snow, besides the chaff lies close and shuts out the\nwarm air, and keeps in the natural cold of the snow. Now that snow\nmelts by the evaporating of this spirit, we are ascertained by sense;\nfor when snow melts it raises a vapor.\n\n_QUESTION VII._\n\nWHETHER WINE OUGHT TO BE STRAINED OR NOT.\n\nNIGER, ARISTIO.\n\n\n1. Niger, a citizen of ours, was lately come from school, after he\nhad spent some time under the discipline of a renowned philosopher,\nbut had learned nothing but those faults by which his master was\noffensive and odious to others, especially his habit of reproving\nand of carping at whatever upon any occasion chanced to be spoke in\ncompany. And therefore, when we were at supper one time at Aristio\u2019s,\nnot content to assume to himself a liberty to rail at all the rest of\nthe preparations as too profuse and extravagant, he had a pique at the\nwine too, and said that it ought not to be brought to table strained,\nbut that, observing Hesiod\u2019s rule, we ought to drink it new out of the\nvessel, while it has its natural strength and force. Moreover, he added\nthat this way of purging wine takes the strength from it, and robs\nit of its natural heat, which, when wine is poured out of one vessel\ninto another, evaporates and dies. Besides he would needs persuade us\nthat it showed too much of a vain curiosity, effeminacy, and luxury,\nto convert what is wholesome into that which is palatable. For as the\nriotous, not the temperate, use to cut cocks and geld pigs, to make\ntheir flesh tender and delicious, even against Nature; just so (if we\nmay use a metaphor, says he) those that strain wine geld and emasculate\nit, whilst their squeamish stomachs will neither suffer them to drink\npure wine, nor their intemperance to drink moderately. Therefore they\nmake use of this expedient, to the end that it may render the desire\nthey have of drinking plentifully more excusable. So they take all the\nstrength from the wine, leaving the palatableness still; as we use to\ndeal with those with whose constitution cold water does not agree, to\nboil it for them. For they certainly take off all the strength from the\nwine, by straining of it. And this is a great argument, that the wine\ndeads, grows flat, and loses its virtue, when it is separated from the\nlees, as from its root and stock; for the ancients for very good reason\ncalled wine lees, as we use to signify a man by his head or soul,\nas the principal part of him. So in Greek, grape-gatherers are said\n\u03c4\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u1fb6\u03bd, the word being derived from \u03c4\u03c1\u03cd\u03be, which signifies _lees_;\nand Homer in one place calls the fruit of the wine \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, and the\nwine itself high-colored and red,\u2014not pale and yellow, such as Aristio\ngives us to supper, after all goodness is purged out of it.\n\n2. Then Aristio smiling presently replied: Sir, the wine I bring to\ntable does not look so pale and lifeless as you would have it; but it\nappears at first sight to be mild and well qualified. But for your\npart, you would glut yourself with night wine, which raises melancholy\nvapors; and upon this account you cry out against purgation, which, by\ncarrying off whatever might cause melancholy or load men\u2019s stomachs,\nand make them drunk or sick, makes it mild and pleasant to those that\ndrink it, such as heroes (as Homer tells us) were formerly wont to\ndrink. And it was not dark-colored wine which he called \u03b1\u1f36\u03b8\u03bf\u03c8, but\nclear and transparent; for otherwise he would never have called brass\n\u03b1\u1f36\u03b8\u03bf\u03c8, after he had given it the epithets man-exalting and resplendent.\nTherefore as the wise Anacharsis, discommending some things that the\nGrecians enjoined, commended their coals, because they leave the smoke\nwithout doors, and bring the fire into the house; so you judicious\nmen might blame me for some other reason than this. But what hurt,\nI pray, have I done to the wine, by taking from it a turbulent and\nnoisome quality, and giving it a better taste, though a paler color?\nNor have I brought you wine to the table which, like a sword, hath lost\nits edge and vigorous relish, but such as is only purged of its dregs\nand filth. But you will say that wine not strained hath a great deal\nmore strength. Why so, my friend? One that is frantic and distracted\nhas more strength than a man in his wits; but when, by the help of\nhellebore or some other fit diet, he is come to himself, that rage\nand frenzy leave him and quite vanish, and the true use of his reason\nand health of body presently comes into its place. In like manner,\npurging of wine takes from it all the strength that inflames and\nenrages the mind, and gives it instead thereof a mild and wholesome\ntemper; and I think there is a great deal of difference between\ngaudiness and cleanliness. For women, while they paint, perfume, and\nadorn themselves with jewels and purple robes, are accounted gaudy\nand profuse; yet nobody will find fault with them for washing their\nfaces, anointing themselves, or platting their hair. Homer very neatly\nexpresses the difference of these two habits, where he brings in Juno\ndressing herself:\u2014\n\n  With sweet ambrosia first she washed her skin,\n  And after did anoint herself with oil.[91]\n\nSo much was allowable, being no more than a careful cleanliness.\nBut when she comes to call for her golden buttons, her curiously\nwrought ear-rings, and last of all puts on her bewitching girdle,\nthis appears to be an extravagant and idle curiosity, and betrays too\nmuch of wantonness, which by no means becomes a married woman. Just\nso they that sophisticate wine by mixing it with aloes, cinnamon, or\nsaffron bring it to the table like a gorgeous-apparelled woman, and\nthere prostitute it. But those that only take from it what is nasty\nand no way profitable do only purge it and improve it by their labor.\nOtherwise you may find fault with all things whatsoever as vain and\nextravagant, beginning at the house you live in. As first, you may\nsay, why is it plastered? Why does it open especially on that side\nwhere it may have the best convenience for receiving the purest air,\nand the benefit of the evening sun? What is the reason that our cups\nare washed and made so clean that they shine and look bright? Now if\na cup ought to have nothing that is nasty or loathsome in it, ought\nthat which is drunk out of the cup to be full of dregs and filth? What\nneed is there for mentioning any thing else? The making corn into bread\nis a continual cleansing; and yet what a great ado there is before\nit is effected! There is not only threshing, winnowing, sifting, and\nseparating the bran, but there must be kneading the dough to soften all\nparts alike, and a continual cleansing and working of the mass till all\nthe parts become edible alike. What absurdity is it then by straining\nto separate the lees, as it were the filth of the wine, especially\nsince the cleansing is no chargeable or painful operation?\n\n_QUESTION VIII._\n\nWHAT IS THE CAUSE OF BULIMY, OR THE GREEDY DISEASE?\n\nPLUTARCH, SOCLARUS, CLEOMENES, AND OTHERS.\n\n1. There is a certain sacrifice of very ancient institution, which\nthe chief magistrate or archon performs always in the common-hall,\nand every private person in his own house. \u2019Tis called the driving\nout of bulimy; for they whip out of doors some one of their servants\nwith a bunch of willow rods, repeating these words, Get out of doors,\nbulimy; and enter riches and health. Therefore in my year there was a\ngreat concourse of people present at the sacrifice; and, after all the\nrights and ceremonies of the sacrifice were over, when we had seated\nourselves again at the table, there was an enquiry made first of all\ninto the signification of the word bulimy, then into the meaning of\nthe words which are repeated when the servant is turned out of doors.\nBut the principal dispute was concerning the nature of it, and all\nits circumstances. First, as for the word bulimy, it was agreed upon\nby all to denote a great and public famine, especially among us who\nuse the Aeolic dialect, putting \u03c0 for \u03b2. For it was not called by\nthe ancients \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 but \u03c0\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, that is, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, _much\nhunger_. We concluded that it was not the same with the disease\ncalled Bubrostis, by an argument fetched out of Metrodorus\u2019s Ionics.\nFor the said Metrodorus informs us that the Smyrnaeans, who were once\nAeolians, sacrificed to Bubrostis a black bull cut into pieces with the\nskin on, and so burnt it. Now, forasmuch as every species of hunger\nresembles a disease, but more particularly bulimy, which is occasioned\nby an unnatural disposition of the body, these two differ as riches and\npoverty, health and sickness. But as the word _nauseate_ (\u03bd\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9\u1fb6\u03bd)\nfirst took its name from men who were stomach-sick in a ship, and\nafterwards custom prevailed so far that the word was applied to all\npersons that were any way in like sort affected; so the word bulimy,\nrising at first from hence, was at last extended to a more large and\ncomprehensive signification. What has been hitherto said was a general\nclub of the opinions of all those who were at table.\n\n2. But after we began to enquire after the cause of this disease, the\nfirst thing that puzzled us was to find out the reason why bulimy\nseizes upon those that travel in the snow. As Brutus, one time marching\nfrom Dyrrachium to Apollonia in a deep snow, was endangered of his life\nby bulimy, whilst none of those that carried the provisions for the\narmy followed him; just when the man was ready to faint and die, some\nof his soldiers were forced to run to the walls of the enemies\u2019 city,\nand beg a piece of bread of the sentinels, by the eating of which he\nwas presently refreshed; for which cause, after Brutus had made himself\nmaster of the city, he treated all the inhabitants very mercifully.\nAsses and horses are frequently troubled with bulimy, especially when\nthey are loaden with dry figs and apples; and, which is yet more\nstrange, of all things that are eaten, bread chiefly refreshes not only\nmen but beasts; so that, by taking a little quantity of bread, they\nregain their strength and go forward on their journey.\n\n3. After all were silent, I (who had observed that dull fellows and\nthose of a less piercing judgment were satisfied with and did acquiesce\nin the reasons the ancients gave for bulimy, but to men of ingenuity\nand industry they only pointed out the way to a more clear discovery\nof the truth of the business) mentioned Aristotle\u2019s opinion, who says,\nthat extreme cold without causes extreme heat and consumption within;\nwhich, if it fall into the legs, makes them lazy and heavy, but if it\ncome to the fountain of motion and respiration, occasions faintings and\nweakness. When I had said that, some of the company opposed it, others\nheld with me, as was natural.\n\n4. At length says Soclarus: I like the beginning of this reason very\nwell, for the bodies of travellers in a great snow must of necessity\nbe surrounded and condensed with cold; but that from the heat within\nthere should arise such a consumption as invades the principle of\nrespiration, I can no way imagine. I rather think, says he, that\nabundance of heat penned up in the body consumes the nourishment, and\nthat failing, the fire as it were goes out. Here it comes to pass,\nthat men troubled with this bulimy, when they are ready to starve with\nhunger, if they eat never so little meat, are presently refreshed. The\nreason is, because meat digested is like fuel for the heat to feed upon.\n\n5. But Cleomenes the physician would have the word \u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 (which\nsignifies _hunger_) to be added to the making up of the word\n\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 without any reason at all; as \u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, _to drink_,\nhas crept into \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, _to swallow_; and \u03ba\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, _to\nincline_, into \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd _to raise the head_. Nor is bulimy,\nas it seems, a kind of hunger, but a fault in the stomach, which\nconcurring with heat causes a faintness. Therefore as things that\nhave a good smell recall the spirits of those that are faint, so\nbread affects those that are almost overcome with a bulimy; not that\nthey have any need of food (for the least piece of it restores them\ntheir strength), but the bread calls back their vigor and languishing\nspirits. Now that bulimy is not hunger but a faintness, is manifest\nfrom all laboring beasts, which are seized with it very often through\nthe smell of dry figs and apples; for a smell does not cause any want\nof food, but rather a pain and agitation in the stomach.\n\n6. These things seemed to be reasonably well urged; and yet we thought\nthat much might be said in the defence of the contrary opinion, and\nthat it was possible enough to maintain that bulimy ariseth not from\ncondensation but rarefication of the stomach. For the spirit which\nflows from the snow is nothing but the sharp point and finest scale of\nthe congealed substance, endued with a virtue of cutting and dividing\nnot only the flesh, but also silver and brazen vessels; for we see\nthat these are not able to keep in the snow, for it dissolves and\nevaporates, and glazes over the outmost superficies of the vessels\nwith a thin dew, not unlike to ice, which this spirit leaves as it\nsecretly passes through the pores. Therefore this piercing spirit, like\na flame, seizing upon those that travel in the snow, seems to burn\ntheir outsides, and like fire to enter and penetrate the flesh. Hence\nit is that the flesh is more rarefied, and the heat is extinguished by\nthe cold spirit that lies upon the superficies of the body; therefore\nthe body evaporates a dewy thin sweat, which melts away and decays the\nstrength. Now if a man should sit still at such a time, there would\nnot much heat fly out of his body. But when the motion of the body\ndoth quickly heat the nourishment, and that heat bursts through the\nthin skin, there must necessarily be a great loss of strength. Now we\nknow by experience, that cold hath a virtue not only to condense but\nalso to loosen bodies; for in extreme cold winters pieces of lead are\nfound to sweat. And when we see that bulimy happens where there is no\nhunger, we may conclude that at that time the body is rather in a fluid\nthan condensed state. The reason that bodies are rarefied in winter is\nbecause of the subtility of the spirit; especially when the moving and\ntiring of the body excites the heat, which, as soon as it is subtilized\nand agitated, flies apace and spreads itself through the whole body.\nLastly, it is very possible that apples and dry figs exhale some such\nthing as this, which rarefies and attenuates the heat of the beasts;\nfor different things have a natural tendency as well to weaken as to\nrefresh different creatures.\n\n_QUESTION IX._\n\nWHY DOES HOMER APPROPRIATE A CERTAIN PECULIAR EPITHET TO EACH\nPARTICULAR LIQUID, AND CALL OIL ALONE LIQUID?[92]\n\nPLUTARCH AND OTHERS.\n\n1. It was the subject once of a discourse, why, when there are several\nsorts of liquids, the poet should give every one of them a peculiar\nepithet, calling milk white, honey yellow, wine red, and yet for all\nthis bestow no other upon oil but what it hath in common with all other\nliquids. To this it was answered that, as that is said to be most sweet\nwhich is perfectly sweet, and to be most white which is perfectly white\n(I mean here by _perfectly_ that which hath nothing of a contrary\nquality mixed with it), so that ought to be called perfectly humid\nwhereof never a part is dry; and this is proper to oil.\n\n2. First of all, its smoothness shows the evenness of its parts; for\ntouch it where you please, it is all alike. Besides, you may see your\nface in it as perfectly as in a mirror; for there is nothing rough in\nit to hinder the reflection, but by reason of its humidity it reflects\nto the eyes the least particle of light from every part of it. As,\non the contrary, milk, of all other liquids, does not return our\nimages, because it hath too many terrene and gross parts mixed with\nit; again, oil of all liquids makes the least noise when moved, for it\nis perfectly humid. When other liquids are moved or poured out, their\nhard and grosser parts fall and dash one against another, and so make\na noise by reason of their roughness. Moreover, oil only is pure and\nunmixed; for it is of all other liquids most compact, nor has it any\nempty spaces and pores between the dry and earthy parts, to receive\nwhat chances to fall upon it. Besides, because of the similitude of\nparts, it is closely joined together, and unfit to be joined to any\nthing else. When oil froths, it does not let any wind in, by reason of\nthe contiguity and subtility of its parts; and this is also the cause\nwhy fire is nourished by it. For fire feeds upon nothing but what is\nmoist, for nothing is combustible but what is so; for when the fire\nis kindled, the air turns to smoke, and the terrene and grosser parts\nremain in the ashes. Fire preys only upon the moisture, which is its\nnatural nourishment. Indeed water, wine, and other liquors, having\nabundance of earthy and heavy parts in them, by falling into fire part\nit, and by their roughness and weight smother and extinguish it. But\noil, because purely liquid, by reason of its subtility, is overcome by\nthe fire, and so changed into flame.\n\n3. It is the greatest argument that can be of its humidity, that the\nleast quantity of it spreads itself a great way; for so small a drop\nof honey, water, or any other liquid does not extend itself so far,\nbut very often, by reason of the dry mixed parts, is presently wasted.\nBecause oil is ductile and soft, men are wont to make use of it for\nanointing their bodies; for it runs along and spreads itself through\nall the parts, and sticks so firmly to them that it is not easily\nwashed off. We find by experience, that a garment wet with water is\npresently dried again; but it is no easy matter to wash out the spots\nand stains of oil, for it enters deep, because of its most subtile and\nhumid nature. Hence it is that Aristotle says, the drops of diluted\nwine are the hardest to be got out of clothes, because they are most\nsubtile, and run farther into the pores of the cloth.\n\n_QUESTION X._\n\n  WHAT IS THE REASON THAT FLESH OF SACRIFICED BEASTS, AFTER IT HAS\n  HUNG A WHILE UPON A FIG-TREE, IS MORE TENDER THAN BEFORE?\n\nARISTIO, PLUTARCH, OTHERS.\n\nAt supper we were commending Aristio\u2019s cook, who, amongst other dishes\nthat he had dressed very curiously, brought a cock to table just\nkilled as a sacrifice to Hercules, as tender as though it had been\nkilled a day or two before. When Aristio told us that this was no\nwonder,\u2014seeing such a thing might be very easily done, if the cock, as\nsoon as he was killed, was hung upon a fig-tree,\u2014we began to enquire\ninto the reason of what he asserted. Indeed, I must confess, our eye\nassures us that a fig-tree sends out a fierce and strong spirit; which\nis yet more evident, from what we have heard said of bulls. That is, a\nbull, after he is tied to a fig-tree, though never so mad before, grows\npresently tame, and will suffer you to touch him, and on a sudden all\nhis rage and fury cool and die. But the chiefest cause that works this\nchange is the sharp acrimonious quality of the tree. For of all trees\nthis is the fullest of sap, and so are its figs, wood, and bark; and\nhence it comes to pass, that the smoke of fig-wood is most offensive to\nthe eyes; and when it is burned, its ashes make the best lye to scour\nwithal. But all these effects proceed from heat. Now there are some\nthat say, when the sap of this tree thrown into milk curds it, that\nthis effect does not arise from the irregular figures of the parts of\nthe milk, which the sap unites and (as it were) glues into one body,\nthe smooth and globose parts being squeezed out, but that by its heat\nit loosens the unstable and watery parts of the liquid body. And we may\nuse as an argument the unprofitableness of the sap of this tree, which,\nthough it is very sweet, yet makes the worst liquor in the world. For\nit is not the inequality in the parts that affects the smooth part,\nbut what is cold and raw is contracted by heat. And salt helps to\nproduce the same effect; for it is hot, and works in opposition to the\nuniting of the parts just mentioned, causing rather a dissolution; for\nto it, above all other things, Nature has given a dissolving faculty.\nTherefore the fig-tree sends forth a hot and sharp spirit, which cuts\nand boils the flesh of the bird. The very same thing may be effected\nby placing the flesh upon a heap of corn, or near nitre; the heat will\nproduce the same that the fig-tree did. Now it may be made manifest\nthat wheat is naturally hot, in that wine, put into a hogshead and\nplaced among wheat, is presently consumed.\n\n\nBOOK VII.\n\nThe Romans, Sossius Senecio, remember a pretty saying of a pleasant\nman and good companion, who supping alone said that he had eaten\nto-day, but not supped; as if a supper always wanted company and\nagreement to make it palatable and pleasing. Evenus said that fire was\nthe sweetest of all sauces in the world. And Homer calls salt \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd,\n_divine_; and most call it \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, _graces_, because, mixed\nwith most part of our food, it makes it palatable and agreeable to\nthe taste. Now indeed the best and most divine sauce that can be at\nan entertainment or a supper is a familiar and pleasant friend; not\nbecause he eats and drinks with a man, but because he participates\nof and communicates discourse, especially if the talk be profitable,\npertinent, and instructive. For commonly loose talk over a glass of\nwine raiseth passions and spoils company, and therefore it is fit that\nwe should be as critical in examining what discourses as what friends\nare fit to be admitted to a supper; not following either the saying or\nopinion of the Spartans, who, when they entertained any young man or a\nstranger in their public halls, showed him the door, with these words,\n\u201cNo discourse goes out this way.\u201d What we use to talk of may be freely\ndisclosed to everybody, because we have nothing in our discourses that\ntends to looseness, debauchery, debasing of ourselves, or back-biting\nothers. Judge by the examples, of which this seventh book contains ten.\n\n_QUESTION I._\n\nAGAINST THOSE WHO FIND FAULT WITH PLATO FOR SAYING THAT DRINK PASSETH\nTHROUGH THE LUNGS.\n\nNICIAS, PLUTARCH, PROTOGENES, FLORUS.\n\n1. At a summer entertainment, one of the company pronounced that common\nverse,\n\n  Now drench thy lungs with wine, the Dog appears.\n\nAnd Nicias of Nicopolis, a physician, presently subjoined: It is no\nwonder that Alcaeus, a poet, should be ignorant of that of which Plato\nthe philosopher was. Though Alcaeus may be defended; for it is probable\nthat the lungs, lying near the stomach, may participate of the steam\nof the liquor, and be drenched with it. But the philosopher, expressly\ndelivering that most part of our drink passeth through the lungs, hath\nprecluded all ways of excuse to those that would be willing to defend\nhim. For it is a very great and complicated ignorance; for first, it\nbeing necessary that our liquid and dry food should be mixed, it is\nvery probable that the stomach is the vessel for them both, which\nthrows out the dry food after it is grown soft and moist into the\nguts. Besides, the lungs being a dense and compacted body, how is it\npossible that, when we sup gruel or the like, the thicker parts should\npass through them? And this was the objection which Erasistratus\nrationally made against Plato. Besides, when he considered for what end\nevery part of the body was made, and what use Nature designed in their\ncontrivance, it was easy to perceive that the epiglottis was framed on\npurpose that when we drink the wind-pipe should be shut, and nothing\nbe suffered to fall upon the lungs. For if any thing by chance gets\ndown that way, we are troubled with retching and coughing till it is\nthrown up again. And this epiglottis being framed so that it may fall\non either side, whilst we speak it shuts the weasand, but when we eat\nor drink it falls upon the wind-pipe, and so secures the passage for\nour breath. Besides, we know that those who drink by little and little\nare looser than those who drink greedily and large draughts; for in\nthe latter the very force drives it into their bladders, but in the\nformer it stays, and by its stay is mixed with and moistens the meat\nthoroughly. Now this could not be, if in the very drinking the liquid\nwas separated from the food; but the effect follows, because we mix\nand convey them both together, using (as Erasistratus phraseth it) the\nliquid as a vehicle for the dry.\n\n2. Nicias having done, Protogenes the grammarian subjoined, that\nHomer was the first that observed the stomach was the vessel of the\nfood, and the windpipe (which the ancients called \u1f00\u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd) of the\nbreath, and upon the same account they called those who had loud voices\n\u1f10\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. And when he describes how Achilles killed Hector, he says,\n\n  He pierced his weasand, where death enters soon,\n\nand adds,\n\n  But not his windpipe, so that he could speak,[93]\n\ntaking the windpipe for the proper passage of the voice and breath....\n\n3. Upon this, all being silent, Florus began thus: What, shall we\ntamely suffer Plato to be run down? By no means, said I, for if we\ndesert him, Homer must be in the same condition, for he is so far from\ndenying the windpipe to be the passage for our drink, that the dry\nfood, in his opinion, goes the same way. For these are his words:\n\n  From his gullet (\u03c6\u03ac\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2) flowed\n  The clotted wine and undigested flesh.[94]\n\nUnless perchance you will say that the Cyclops, as he had but one eye,\nso had but one passage for his food and voice; or would have \u03c6\u03ac\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03be to\nsignify weasand, not windpipe, as both all the ancients and moderns use\nit. I produce this because it is really his meaning, not because I want\nother testimonies, for Plato hath store of learned and sufficient men\nto join with him. For not to mention Eupolis, who in his play called\nthe Flatterers says,\n\n  Protagoras bids us drink a lusty bowl,\n  That when the Dog appears our lungs may still be moist;\n\nor elegant Eratosthenes, who says,\n\n  And having drenched his lungs with purest wine;\n\neven Euripides, somewhere expressly saying,\n\n  The wine passed through the hollows of the lungs,\n\nshows that he saw better and clearer than Erasistratus. For he saw that\nthe lungs have cavities and pores, through which the liquids pass. For\nthe breath in expiration hath no need of pores, but that the liquids\nand those things which pass with them might go through, it is made\nlike a strainer and full of pores. Besides, sir, as to the influence\nof gruel which you proposed, the lungs can discharge themselves of\nthe thicker parts together with the thin, as well as the stomach. For\nour stomach is not, as some fancy, smooth and slippery, but full of\nasperities, in which it is probable that the thin and small particles\nare lodged, and so not taken quite down. But neither this nor the other\ncan we positively affirm; for the curious contrivance of Nature in her\noperations is too hard to be explained; nor can we be particularly\nexact upon those instruments (I mean the spirit and the heat) which\nshe makes use of in her works. But besides those we have mentioned\nto confirm Plato\u2019s opinion, let us produce Philistion of Locri, a\nvery ancient and famous physician, and Hippocrates too, with his\npupil Dioxippus; for they thought of no other passage but that which\nPlato mentions. Dioxippus knew very well that precious talk of the\nepiglottis, but says, that when we feed, the moist parts are about that\nseparated from the dry, and the first are carried down the windpipe,\nthe other down the weasand; and that the windpipe receives no parts\nof the food, but the stomach, together with the dry parts, receives\nsome portion of the liquids. And this is probable, for the epiglottis\nlies over the windpipe, as a fence and strainer, that the drink may\nget in by little and little, lest descending in a large full stream,\nit stop the breath and endanger the life. And therefore birds have no\nepiglottis, because they do not sup or lap when they drink, but take up\na little in their beak, and let it run gently down their windpipe.\n\nThese testimonies I think are enough; and reason confirms Plato\u2019s\nopinion by arguments drawn first from sense. For when the windpipe\nis wounded, no drink will go down; but as if the pipe were broken it\nruns out, though the weasand be whole and unhurt. And all know that\nin the inflammation of the lungs the patient is troubled with extreme\nthirst; the heat or dryness or some other cause, together with the\ninflammation, making the appetite intense. But a stronger evidence\nthan all these follows. Those creatures that have very small lungs,\nor none at all, neither want nor desire drink, because to some parts\nthere belongs a natural appetite to drink, and those that want those\nparts have no need to drink, nor any appetite to be supplied by it. But\nmore, the bladder would seem unnecessary; for, if the weasand receives\nboth meat and drink and conveys it to the belly, the superfluous parts\nof the liquids would not want a proper passage, one common one would\nsuffice as a canal for both that were conveyed to the same vessel\nby the same passage. But now the bladder is distinct from the guts,\nbecause the drink goes from the lungs, and the meat from the stomach;\nthey being separated as we take them down. And this is the reason\nthat in our water nothing can be found that either in smell or color\nresembles dry food. But if the drink were mixed with the dry meat in\nthe belly, it must be impregnant with its qualities, and not come forth\nso simple and untinged. Besides, a stone is never found in the stomach,\nthough it is likely that the moisture should be coagulated there as\nwell as in the bladder, if all the liquor were conveyed through the\nweasand into the belly. But it is probable that the weasand robs the\nwindpipe of a sufficient quantity of liquor as it is going down, and\nuseth it to soften and concoct the meat. And therefore its excrement\nis never purely liquid; and the lungs, disposing of the moisture, as\nof the breath, to all the parts that want it, deposit the superfluous\nportion in the bladder. And I am sure that this is a much more probable\nopinion than the other. But which is the truth cannot perhaps be\ndiscovered, and therefore it is not fit so peremptorily to find fault\nwith the most acute and most famed philosopher, especially when the\nmatter is so obscure, and the Platonists can produce such considerable\nreasons for their opinion.\n\n_QUESTION II._\n\nWHAT HUMORED MAN IS HE THAT PLATO CALLS \u039a\u0395\u03a1\u0391\u03a3\u0392\u038c\u039b\u039f\u03a3? AND WHY DO THOSE\nSEEDS THAT FALL ON THE OXEN\u2019S HORNS BECOME \u1f08\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u0386\u039c\u039f\u039d\u0391?\n\nPLUTARCH, PATROCLES, EUTHYDEMUS, FLORUS.\n\n1. We had always some difficulty started about \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f00\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd,\nnot what humor those words signified (for it is certain that some,\nthinking that those seeds which fall on the oxen\u2019s horns bear fruit\nwhich is very hard, did by a metaphor call a stiff untractable fellow\nby these names), but what was the cause that seeds falling on the\noxen\u2019s horns should bear hard fruit. I had often desired my friends to\nsearch no farther, most of all fearing the discourse of Theophrastus,\nin which he has collected many of those particulars whose causes we\ncannot discover. Such are the hen\u2019s purifying herself with straw after\nshe has laid, the seal\u2019s swallowing her rennet when she is caught, the\ndeer\u2019s burying his cast horns, and the goat\u2019s stopping the whole herd\nby holding a branch of sea-holly in his mouth; and among the rest he\nreckoned this is a thing of which we are certain, but whose cause it\nis very difficult to find. But once at supper at Delphi, some of my\ncompanions\u2014as if we were not only better counsellors when our bellies\nare full (as one hath it), but wine would make us brisker in our\nenquiries and bolder in our resolutions\u2014desired me to speak somewhat\nto that problem.\n\n2. I refused, though I had some excellent men on my side, namely,\nEuthydemus my fellow-priest, and Patrocles my relation, who brought\nseveral the like instances, which they had gathered both from husbandry\nand hunting; for instance, that those officers that are appointed to\nwatch the coming of the hail avert the storm by offering a mole\u2019s\nblood or a woman\u2019s rags; that a wild fig being bound to a garden\nfig-tree will keep the fruit from falling, and promote their ripening;\nthat deer when they are taken shed salt tears, and boars sweet. But if\nyou have a mind to such questions, Euthydemus will presently desire you\nto give an account of smallage and cummin; one of the which, if trodden\ndown as it springs, will grow the better, and the other men curse and\nblaspheme whilst they sow it.\n\n3. This last Florus thought to be an idle foolery; but he said, that\nwe should not forbear to search into the causes of the other things as\nif they were incomprehensible. I have found, said I, your design to\ndraw me on to this discourse, that you yourself may afterward give us a\nsolution of the other proposed difficulties.\n\nIn my opinion it is cold that causes this hardness in corn and pulse,\nby contracting and constipating their parts till the substance becomes\nclose and extremely rigid; while heat is a dissolving and softening\nquality. Therefore those that cite this verse against Homer,\n\n  The season, not the field, bears fruit,\n\ndo not justly reprehend him. For fields that are warm by nature, the\nair being likewise temperate, bear more mellow fruit than others.\nAnd therefore those seeds that fall immediately on the earth out of\nthe sower\u2019s hand, and are covered presently, and cherished by being\ncovered, partake more of the moisture and heat that is in the earth.\nBut those that strike against the oxen\u2019s horns do not enjoy what Hesiod\ncalls the best position, but seem to be scattered rather than sown; and\ntherefore the cold either destroys them quite, or else, lighting upon\nthem as they lie naked, condenseth their moisture, and makes them hard\nand woody. Thus stones that lie under ground and plant-animals have\nsofter parts than those that lie above; and therefore stone-cutters\nbury the stones they would work, as if they designed to have them\nprepared and softened by the heat; but those that lie above ground are\nby the cold made hard, rigid, and very hurtful to the tools. And if\ncorn lies long upon the floor, the grains become much harder than that\nwhich is presently carried away. And sometimes too a cold wind blowing\nwhilst they winnow spoils the corn, as it hath happened at Philippi in\nMacedonia; and the chaff secures the grains whilst on the floor. For\nis it any wonder that husbandmen affirm, one ridge will bear soft and\nfruitful, and the very next to it hard and unfruitful corn? Or\u2014which\nis stranger\u2014that in the same bean-cod some beans are of this sort,\nsome of the other, as more or less wind and moisture falls upon this or\nthat?\n\n_QUESTION III._\n\nWHY THE MIDDLE OF WINE, THE TOP OF OIL, AND THE BOTTOM OF HONEY IS\nBEST.\n\nALEXION, PLUTARCH, OTHERS.\n\n1. My father-in-law Alexion laughed at Hesiod, for advising us to drink\nfreely when the barrel is newly broached or almost out, but moderately\nwhen it is about the middle, since there is the best wine. For who,\nsaid he, doth not know, that the middle of wine, the top of oil, and\nthe bottom of honey is the best? Yet he bids us spare the middle, and\nstay till worse wine runs, when the barrel is almost out. This said,\nthe company minded Hesiod no more, but began to enquire into the cause\nof this difference.\n\n2. We were not at all puzzled about the honey, everybody almost knowing\nthat that which is lightest is so because it is rare, and that the\nheaviest parts are dense and compact, and by reason of their weight\nsettle below the others. So, if you turn over the vessel, each in\na little time will recover its proper place, the heavier subsiding,\nand the lighter rising above the rest. And as for the wine, probable\nsolutions presently appeared; for its strength consisting in heat, it\nis reasonable that it should be contained chiefly in the middle, and\nthere best preserved; for the lower parts the lees spoil, and the upper\nare impaired by the neighboring air. For that the air will impair wine\nno man doubts, and therefore we usually bury or cover our barrels, that\nas little air as can be might come near them. Besides (which is an\nevident sign) a barrel when full is not spoiled so soon as when it is\nhalf empty; because a great deal of air getting into the empty space\ntroubles and disturbs the liquor, whereas the wine that is in the full\ncask is preserved and defended by itself, not admitting much of the\nexternal air, which is apt to injure and corrupt it.\n\n3. But the oil puzzled us most. One of the company thought that the\nbottom of the oil was worst, because it was foul and troubled with\nthe lees; and that the top was not really better than the rest, but\nonly seemed so, because it was farthest removed from those corrupting\nparticles. Others thought the thickness of the liquor to be the reason,\nwhich thickness keeps it from mixing with other humids, unless blended\ntogether and shaken violently; and therefore it will not mix with air,\nbut keeps it off by its smoothness and close contexture, so that it\nhath no power to corrupt it. But Aristotle seems to be against this\nopinion, who hath observed that oil grows sweeter by being kept in\nvessels not exactly filled, and afterwards ascribes this melioration\nto the air; for more air, and therefore more powerful to produce the\neffect, flows into a vessel not well filled.\n\n4. Well then! said I, the same quality in the air may spoil wine, and\nbetter oil. For long keeping improves wine, but spoils oil. Now the\nair keeps oil from growing old; for that which is cooled continues\nfresh and new, but that which is kept close up, having no way to exhale\nits corrupting parts, presently decays, and grows old. Therefore it is\nprobable that the air coming upon the superficies of the oil keepeth it\nfresh and new. And this is the reason that the top of wine is worst,\nand of oil best; because age betters the one, and spoils the other.\n\n_QUESTION IV._\n\nWHAT WAS THE REASON OF THAT CUSTOM OF THE ANCIENT ROMANS TO REMOVE THE\nTABLE BEFORE ALL THE MEAT WAS EATEN, AND NOT TO PUT OUT THE LAMP?\n\nFLORUS, EUSTROPHUS, CAESERNIUS, LUCIUS.\n\n1. Florus, who loved the ancient customs, would not let the table be\nremoved quite empty, but always left some meat upon it; declaring\nlikewise that his father and grandfather were not only curious in this\nmatter, but would never suffer the lamp after supper to be put out,\u2014a\nthing about which the ancient Romans were very precise,\u2014while those\nof the present day extinguish it immediately after supper, that they\nmay lose no oil. Eustrophus the Athenian being present said: What\ncould they get by that, unless they knew the cunning trick of our\nPolycharmus, who, after long deliberation how to find out a way to\nprevent the servants\u2019 stealing of the oil, at last with a great deal of\ndifficulty happened upon this: As soon as you have put out the lamp,\nfill it up, and the next morning look carefully whether it remains\nfull. Then Florus with a smile replied: Well, since we are agreed about\nthat, let us enquire for what reason the ancients were so careful about\ntheir tables and their lamps.\n\n2. First, about the lamps. And his son-in-law Caesernius was of opinion\nthat the ancients abominated all extinction of fire, because of the\nrelation it had to the sacred and eternal flame. Fire, like man, may\nbe destroyed two ways, either when it is violently quenched, or when\nit naturally decays. The sacred fire was secured against both ways,\nbeing always watched and continually supplied; but the common fire they\npermitted to go out of itself, not forcing or violently extinguishing\nit, but not supplying it with nourishment, like a useless beast, that\nthey might not feed it to no purpose.\n\n3. Lucius, Florus\u2019s son, subjoined, that all the rest of the discourse\nwas very good, but that they did not reverence and take care of this\nholy fire because they thought it better or more venerable than other\nfire; but, as amongst the Egyptians some worship the whole species of\ndogs, wolves, or crocodiles, yet keep but one wolf, dog, or crocodile\n(for all could not be kept), so the particular care which the ancients\ntook of the sacred fire was only a sign of the respect they had for\nall fires. For nothing bears such a resemblance to an animal as fire.\nIt is moved and nourished by itself, and by its brightness, like the\nsoul, discovers and makes every thing apparent; but in its quenching\nit principally shows some power that seems to proceed from our vital\nprinciple, for it makes a noise and resists, like an animal dying or\nviolently slaughtered. And can you (looking upon me) offer any better\nreason?\n\n4. I can find fault, replied I, with no part of the discourse, yet\nI would subjoin, that this custom is an instruction for kindness\nand good-will. For it is not lawful for any one that hath eaten\nsufficiently to destroy the remainder of the food; nor for him that\nhath supplied his necessities from the fountain to stop it up; nor\nfor him that hath made use of any marks, either by sea or land, to\nruin or deface them; but every one ought to leave those things that\nmay be useful to those persons that afterwards may have need of them.\nTherefore it is not fit, out of a saving covetous humor, to put out\na lamp as soon as we need it not; but we ought to preserve and let\nit burn for the use of those that perhaps want its light. Thus, it\nwould be very generous to lend our ears and eyes, nay, if possible,\nour reason and fortitude, to others, whilst we are idle or asleep.\nBesides, consider whether to stir up men to gratitude these minute\nobservances were practised. The ancients did not act absurdly when they\nhighly reverenced an oak. The Athenians called one fig-tree sacred,\nand forbade any one to cut down an olive. For such observances do not\n(as some fancy) make men prone to superstition, but persuade us to be\ncommunicative and grateful to one another, by being accustomed to pay\nthis respect to these senseless and inanimate creatures. Upon the same\nreason Hesiod, methinks, adviseth well, who would not have any meat or\nbroth set on the table out of those pots out of which there had been no\nportion offered, but ordered the first-fruits to be given to the fire,\nas a reward for the service it did in preparing it. And the Romans,\ndealing well with the lamps, did not take away the nourishment they had\nonce given, but permitted them to live and shine by it.\n\n5. When I had said thus, Eustrophus subjoined: This gives us some light\ninto that query about the table; for they thought that they ought to\nleave some portion of the supper for the servants and waiters, for\nthose are not so well pleased with a supper provided for them apart, as\nwith the relics of their master\u2019s table. And upon this account, they\nsay, the Persian king did not only send portions from his own table to\nhis friends, captains, and gentlemen of his bed-chamber, but had always\nwhat was provided for his servants and his dogs served up to his own\ntable; that as far as possible all those creatures whose service was\nuseful might seem to be his guests and companions. For, by such feeding\nin common and participation, the wildest of beasts might be made tame\nand gentle.\n\n6. Then I with a smile said: But, sir, that fish there, that according\nto the proverb is laid up, why do not we bring out into play together\nwith Pythagoras\u2019s choenix, which he forbids any man to sit upon,\nthereby teaching us that we ought to leave something of what we have\nbefore us for another time, and on the present day be mindful of the\nmorrow? We Boeotians use to have that saying frequently in our mouths,\n\u201cLeave something for the Medes,\u201d ever since the Medes overran and\nspoiled Phocis and the marches of Boeotia; but still, and upon all\noccasions, we ought to have that ready, \u201cLeave something for the guests\nthat may come.\u201d And therefore I must needs find fault with that always\nempty and starving table of Achilles; for, when Ajax and Ulysses came\nambassadors to him, he had nothing ready, but was forced out of hand\nto dress a fresh supper. And when he would entertain Priam, he again\nbestirs himself, kills a white ewe, joints and dresses it, and in that\nwork spent a great part of the night. But Eumaeus (a wise scholar of\na wise master) had no trouble upon him when Telemachus came home, but\npresently desired him to sit down, and feasted him, setting before him\ndishes of boiled meat,\n\n  The cleanly reliques of the last night\u2019s feast.\n\nBut if this seems trifling, and a small matter, I am sure it is no\nsmall matter to command and restrain appetite while there are dainties\nbefore you to satisfy and please it. For those that are used to abstain\nfrom what is present are not so eager for absent things as others are.\n\n7. Lucius subjoining said, that he had heard his grandmother say, that\nthe table was sacred, and nothing that is sacred ought to be empty.\nBesides, continued he, in my opinion, the table hath some resemblance\nof the earth; for, besides nourishing us, it is round and stable,\nand is fitly called by some Vesta (\u1f19\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1, from \u1f35\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9). Therefore as\nwe desire that the earth should always have and bear something that\nis useful for us, so we think that we should not let the table be\naltogether empty and void of all provision.\n\n_QUESTION V._\n\nTHAT WE OUGHT CAREFULLY TO PRESERVE OURSELVES FROM PLEASURE ARISING\nFROM BAD MUSIC. AND HOW IT MAY BE DONE.\n\nCALLISTRATUS, LAMPRIAS.\n\n1. At the Pythian games Callistratus, procurator of the Amphictyons,\nforbade a piper, his citizen and friend, who did not give in his name\nin due time, to appear in the solemnity, which he did according to the\nlaw. But afterwards entertaining us, he brought him into the room with\nthe chorus, finely dressed in his robes and with chaplets on his head,\nas if he was to contend for the prize. And at first indeed he played a\nvery fine tune; but afterwards, having tickled and sounded the humor\nof the whole company, and found that most were inclined to pleasure\nand would suffer him to play what effeminate and lascivious tunes he\npleased, throwing aside all modesty, he showed that music was more\nintoxicating than wine to those that wantonly and unskilfully use it.\nFor they were not content to sit still and applaud and clap, but many\nat last leaped from their seats, danced lasciviously, and made such\ngentle steps as became such effeminate and mollifying tunes. But after\nthey had done, and the company, as it were recovered of its madness,\nbegan to come to itself again, Lamprias would have spoken to and\nseverely chide the young men; but as he feared he should be too harsh\nand give offence, Callistratus gave him a hint, and drew him on by this\ndiscourse:\u2014\n\n2. For my part, I absolve all lovers of shows and music from\nintemperance; yet I cannot altogether agree with Aristoxenus, who says\nthat those pleasures alone deserve the approbation \u201cfine.\u201d For we call\nviands and ointments fine; and we say we have finely dined, when we\nhave been splendidly entertained. Nor, in my opinion, doth Aristotle\nupon good reason free those complacencies we take in shows and songs\nfrom the charge of intemperance, saying, that those belong peculiarly\nto man, and of other pleasures beasts have a share. For I am certain\nthat a great many irrational creatures are delighted with music, as\ndeer with pipes; and to mares, whilst they are horsing, they play a\ntune called \u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. And Pindar says, that his songs make him move,\n\n  As brisk as Dolphins, whom a charming tune\n  Hath raised from th\u2019 bottom of the quiet flood.\n\nAnd certain fish are caught by means of dancing; for during the dance\nthey lift up their heads above water, being much pleased and delighted\nwith the sight, and twisting their backs this way and that way, in\nimitation of the dancers. Therefore I see nothing peculiar in those\npleasures, that they should be accounted proper to the mind, and all\nothers to belong to the body, so far as to end there. But music,\nrhythm, dancing, song, passing through the sense, fix a pleasure and\ntitilation in the sportive part of the soul; and therefore none of\nthese pleasures is enjoyed in secret, nor wants darkness nor walls\nabout it, according to the women\u2019s phrase; but circuses and theatres\nare built for them. And to frequent shows and music-meetings with\ncompany is both more delightful and more genteel; because we take a\ngreat many witnesses, not of a loose and intemperate, but of a pleasant\nand genteel, manner of passing away our time.\n\n3. Upon this discourse of Callistratus, my father Lamprias, seeing the\nmusicians grow bolder, said: That is not the reason, sir, and, in my\nopinion, the ancients were much out when they named Bacchus the son of\nForgetfulness. They ought to have called him his father; for it seems\nhe hath made you forget that some of those faults which are committed\nabout pleasures proceed from a loose intemperate inclination, and\nothers from heedlessness or ignorance. Where the ill effect is very\nplain, there intemperate inclination captivates reason, and forces men\nto sin; but where the just reward of intemperance is not directly and\npresently inflicted, there ignorance of the danger and heedlessness\nmake men easily wrought on and secure. Therefore those that are\nvicious, either in eating, drinking, or venery, which diseases, wasting\nof estates, and evil reports usually attend, we call intemperate. For\ninstance, Theodectes, who having sore eyes, when his mistress came to\nsee him, said,\n\n  All hail, delightful light;\n\nor Anaxarchus the Abderite,\n\n  A wretch who knew what mischiefs wait on sin,\n  Yet love of pleasure forced him back again;\n  Once almost free, he sank again to vice,\n  That terror and disturber of the wise.\n\nNow those that take all care possible to secure themselves from all\nthose pleasures that assault them either at the smelling, touch,\nor taste, are often surprised by those that make their treacherous\napproaches either at the eye or ear. But such, though as much led away\nas the others, we do not in like manner call loose and intemperate,\nsince they are debauched through ignorance and want of experience.\nFor they imagine they are far from being slaves to pleasures, if they\ncan stay all day in the theatre without meat or drink; as if a pot\nforsooth should be mighty proud that a man cannot take it up by the\nbottom or the belly and carry it away, though he can easily do it by\nthe ears. Therefore Agesilaus said, it was all one whether a man were a\n_cinaedus_ before or behind. We ought principally to dread those\nsoftening delights that please and tickle through the eyes and ears,\nand not think that city not taken which hath all its other gates\nsecured by bars, portcullises, and chains, if the enemies are already\nentered through one and have taken possession; or fancy ourselves\ninvincible against the assaults of pleasure, because stews will not\nprovoke us, when the music-meeting or theatre prevails. For in one\ncase as much as the other we resign up our souls to the impetuousness\nof pleasures, which pouring in those potions of songs, cadences, and\ntunes, more powerful and bewitching than the best mixtures of the\nskilful cook or perfumer, conquer and corrupt us; and in the mean time,\nby our own confession, as it were, the fault is chiefly ours. Now, as\nPindar saith, nothing that the earth and sea hath provided for our\ntables can be justly blamed, nor doth it change; but neither our meat\nnor broth, nor this excellent wine which we drink, hath raised such a\nnoisy tumultuous pleasure as those songs and tunes did, which not only\nfilled the house with clapping and shouting, but perhaps the whole\ntown. Therefore we ought principally to secure ourselves against such\ndelights, because they are more powerful than others; as not being\nterminated in the body, like those which allure the touch, taste, or\nsmelling, but affecting the very intellectual and judging faculties.\nBesides, from most other delights, though reason doth not free us, yet\nother passions very commonly divert us. Sparing niggardliness will keep\na glutton from dainty fish, and covetousness will confine a lecher\nfrom a costly whore. As in one of Menander\u2019s plays, where every one of\nthe company was to be enticed by the bawd who brought out a surprising\nwhore, each of them, though all boon companions,\n\n  Sat sullenly, and fed upon his cates.\n\nFor to pay interest for money is a severe punishment that follows\nintemperance, and to open our purses is no easy matter. But these\npleasures that are called genteel, and solicit the ears or eyes of\nthose that are frantic after shows and music, may be had without any\ncharge at all, in every place almost, and upon every occasion; they\nmay be enjoyed at the prizes, in the theatre, or at entertainments, at\nothers\u2019 cost. And therefore those that have not their reason to assist\nand guide them may be easily spoiled.\n\n4. Silence following upon this, What application, said I, shall reason\nmake, or how shall it assist? For I do not think it will apply those\near-covers of Xenocrates, or force us to rise from the table as soon as\nwe hear a harp struck or a pipe blown. No indeed, replied Lamprias, but\nas soon as we meet with the foresaid intoxications, we ought to make\nour application to the Muses, and fly to the Helicon of the ancients.\nTo him that loves a costly strumpet, we cannot bring a Panthea or\nPenelope for cure; but one that delights in mimics and buffoons, loose\nodes, or debauched songs, we can bring to Euripides, Pindar, and\nMenander, that he might wash (as Plato phraseth it) his salt hearing\nwith fresh reason. As the exorcists command the possessed to read over\nand pronounce Ephesian letters, so we in those possessions, amid all\nthe madness of music and dancing, when\n\n  We toss our hands with noise, and madly shout,\n\nremembering those venerable and sacred writings, and comparing with\nthem those odes, poems, and vain empty compositions, shall not be\naltogether cheated by them, or permit ourselves to be carried away\nsidelong, as by a smooth and undisturbed stream.\n\n_QUESTION VI._\n\nCONCERNING THOSE GUESTS THAT ARE CALLED SHADOWS, AND WHETHER BEING\nINVITED BY SOME TO GO TO ANOTHER\u2019S HOUSE, THEY OUGHT TO GO; AND WHEN,\nAND TO WHOM.\n\nPLUTARCH, FLORUS, CAESERNIUS.\n\n1. Homer makes Menelaus come uninvited to his brother Agamemnon\u2019s\ntreat, when he feasted the commanders;\n\n  For well he knew great cares his brother vexed.[95]\n\nHe did not take notice of the plain and evident omission of his\nbrother, or show his resentments by not coming, as some surly testy\npersons usually do upon such oversights of their best friends;\nalthough they had rather be overlooked than particularly invited,\nthat they may have some color for their pettish anger. But about the\nintroduced guests (which we call shadows) who are not invited by\nthe entertainer, but by some others of the guests, a question was\nstarted, from whom that custom began. Some thought from Socrates,\nwho persuaded Aristodemus, who was not invited, to go along with him\nto Agatho\u2019s, where there happened a pretty jest. For Socrates by\naccident staying somewhat behind, Aristodemus went in first; and this\nseemed very fitting, for, the sun shining on their backs, the shadow\nought to go before the body. Afterwards it was thought necessary at\nall entertainments, especially of great men, when the inviter did\nnot know their favorites and acquaintance, to desire the invited to\nbring his company, appointing such a set number, lest they should be\nput to the same shifts which he was put to who invited King Philip\nto his country-house. The king came with a numerous attendance, but\nthe provision was not equal to the company. Therefore, seeing his\nentertainer much cast down, he sent some about to tell his friends\nprivately, that they should keep one corner of their bellies for a\ngreat cake that was to come. And they, expecting this, fed sparingly\non the meat that was set before them, so that the provision seemed\nsufficient for them all.\n\n2. When I had talked thus waggishly to the company, Florus had a mind\nto talk gravely concerning these shadows, and have it discussed whether\nit was fit for those that were so invited to go, or no. His son-in-law\nCaesernius was positively against it. We should, says he, following\nHesiod\u2019s advice,\n\n  Invite a friend to feast,[96]\n\nor at least we should have our acquaintance and familiars to\nparticipate of our entertainments, mirth, and discourse over a glass of\nwine; but now, as ferry-men permit their passengers to bring in what\nfardel they please, so we permit others to fill our entertainments\nwith any persons, let them be good companions or not. And I should\nwonder that any man of breeding being so (that is, not at all) invited,\nshould go; since, for the most part, he must be unacquainted with\nthe entertainer, or if he was acquainted, was not thought worthy to\nbe bidden. Nay, he should be more ashamed to go to such a one, if he\nconsiders that it will look like an upbraiding of his unkindness, and\nyet a rude intruding into his company against his will. Besides, to\ngo before or after the guest that invites him must look unhandsomely,\nnor is it creditable to go and stand in need of witnesses to assure\nthe guests that he doth not come as a principally invited person, but\nsuch a one\u2019s shadow. Beside, to attend others bathing or anointing,\nto observe his hour, whether he goes early or late, is servile and\ngnathonical (for there never was such an excellent fellow as Gnatho to\nfeed at another man\u2019s table). Besides, if there is no more proper time\nand place to say,\n\n  Speak, tongue, if thou wilt utter jovial things,\n\nthan at a feast, and freedom and raillery is mixed with every thing\nthat is either done or said over a glass of wine, how should he behave\nhimself, who is not a true principally invited guest, but as it were a\nbastard and supposititious intruder? For whether he is free or not, he\nlies open to the exception of the company. Besides, the very meanness\nand vileness of the name is no small evil to those who do not resent\nbut can quietly endure to be called and answer to the name of shadows.\nFor, by enduring such base names, men are insensibly customed and drawn\non to base actions. Therefore, when I make an invitation, since it is\nhard to break the custom of a place, I give my guests leave to bring\nshadows; but when I myself am invited as a shadow, I assure you I\nrefuse to go.\n\n3. A short silence followed this discourse; then Florus began thus:\nThis last thing you mentioned, sir, is a greater difficulty than the\nother. For it is necessary when we invite our friends to give them\nliberty to choose their own shadows, as was before hinted; for to\nentertain them without their friends is not very obliging, nor is it\nvery easy to know whom the person we invite would be most pleased\nwith. Then said I to him: Consider therefore whether those that give\ntheir friends this license to invite do not at the same time give the\ninvited license to accept the invitation and come to the entertainment.\nFor it is not fit either to permit or to desire another to do that\nwhich is not decent to be done, or to urge and persuade to that which\nno man ought to be persuaded or to consent to do. When we entertain a\ngreat man or stranger, there we cannot invite or choose his company,\nbut must receive those that come along with him. But when we treat\na friend, it will be more acceptable if we ourselves invite all, as\nknowing his acquaintance and familiars; for it tickles him extremely\nto see that others take notice that he hath chiefly a respect for\nsuch and such, loves their company most, and is well pleased when they\nare honored and invited as well as he. Yet sometimes we must deal\nwith our friend as petitioners do when they make addresses to a God;\nthey offer vows to all that belong to the same altar and the same\nshrine, though they make no particular mention of their names. For no\ndainties, wine, or ointment can incline a man to merriment, as much\nas a pleasant agreeable companion. For as it is rude and ungenteel to\nenquire and ask what sort of meat, wine, or ointment the person whom\nwe are to entertain loves best; so it is never disobliging or absurd\nto desire him who hath a great many acquaintance to bring those along\nwith him whose company he likes most, and in whose conversation he\ncan take the greatest pleasure. For it is not so irksome and tedious\nto sail in the same ship, to dwell in the same house, or be a judge\nupon the same bench, with a person whom we do not like, as to be at\nthe same table with him; and the contrary is equally pleasant. An\nentertainment is a communion of serious or merry discourse or actions;\nand therefore, to make a merry company, we should not pick up any\nperson at a venture, but take only such as are known to one another\nand sociable. Cooks, it is true, mix sour and sweet juices, rough and\noily, to make their sauces; but there never was an agreeable table or\npleasant entertainment where the guests were not all of a piece, and\nall of the same humor. Now, as the Peripatetics say, the first mover\nin nature moves only and is not moved, and the last moved is moved\nonly but does not move, and between these there is that which moves\nand is moved by others; so there is the same analogy between those\nthree sorts of persons that make up a company,\u2014there is the simple\ninviter, the simple invited, the invited that invites another. We have\nspoken already concerning the inviter, and it will not be improper, in\nmy opinion, to deliver my sentiments about the other two. He that is\ninvited and invites others, should, in my opinion, be sparing in the\nnumber that he brings. He should not, as if he were to forage in an\nenemy\u2019s country, carry all he can with him; or, like those who go to\npossess a new-found land, by the excessive number of his own friends,\nincommode or exclude the friends of the inviter, so that the inviter\nmust be in the same case with those that set forth suppers to Hecate\nand the Gods who avert evil, of which neither they nor any of their\nfamily partake, except of the smoke and trouble. It is true they only\nspeak in waggery that say,\n\n  He that at Delphi offers sacrifice\n  Must after meat for his own dinner buy.\n\nBut the same thing really happens to him who entertains ill-bred guests\nor friends, who with a great many shadows, as it were harpies, tear\nand devour his provision. Besides, he should not take anybody that\nhe may meet along with him to another\u2019s entertainment, but chiefly\nthe entertainer\u2019s acquaintance, as it were contending with him and\npreventing him in the invitation. But if that cannot be effected,\nlet him carry such of his own friends as the entertainer would\nchoose himself; to a civil modest man, some of complaisant humor; to\na learned man, ingenious persons; to a man that hath borne office,\nsome of the same rank; and, in short, such whose acquaintance he hath\nformerly sought and would be now glad of. For it will be extremely\npleasing and obliging to bring such into company together; but one\nwho brings to a feast men who have no conformity at all with the\nfeast-maker, but who are perfect aliens and strangers to him,\u2014as\nhard drinkers to a sober man,\u2014gluttons and sumptuous persons to a\ntemperate thrifty entertainer,\u2014or to a young, merry, boon companion,\ngrave old philosophers solemnly talking through their beards,\u2014will be\nvery disobliging, and turn all the intended mirth into an unpleasant\nsourness. The entertained should be as obliging to the entertainer as\nthe entertainer to the entertained; and then he will be most obliging,\nwhen not only he himself, but all those that come by his means, are\npleasant and agreeable.\n\nThe last of the three which remains to be spoken of is he that is\ninvited by one man to another\u2019s feast. Now he that disdains and is much\noffended at the name of a shadow will appear to be afraid of a mere\nshadow. But in this matter there is need of a great deal of caution,\nfor it is not creditable readily to go along with every one and to\neverybody. But first you must consider who it is that invites; for if\nhe is not a very familiar friend, but a rich or great man, such who,\nas if upon a stage, wants a large or splendid retinue, or such who\nthinks that he puts a great obligation upon you and does you a great\ndeal of honor by this invitation, you must presently deny. But if he\nis your friend and particular acquaintance, you must not yield upon\nthe first motion: but if there seems a necessity for some conversation\nwhich cannot be put off till another time, or if he is lately come\nfrom a journey or designs to go on one, and out of mere good-will and\naffection seems desirous of your company, and doth not desire to carry\na great many strangers but only some few friends along with him; or,\nbesides all this, if he designs to bring you thus invited acquainted\nwith the principal inviter, who is very worthy of your acquaintance,\nthen consent and go. For as to ill-humored persons, the more they seize\nand take hold of us like thorns, we should endeavor to free ourselves\nfrom them or leap over them the more. If he that invites is a civil and\nwell-bred person, yet doth not design to carry you to one of the same\ntemper, you must refuse, lest you should take poison in honey, that is,\nget the acquaintance of a bad man by an honest friend. It is absurd to\ngo to one you do not know, and with whom you never had any familiarity,\nunless, as I said before, the person be an extraordinary man, and, by\na civil waiting upon him at another man\u2019s invitation, you design to\nbegin an acquaintance with him. And those friends you should chiefly\ngo to as shadows, who would come to you again in the same quality. To\nPhilip the jester, indeed, he seemed more ridiculous that came to a\nfeast of his own accord than he that was invited; but to well-bred and\ncivil friends it is more obliging for men of the same temper to come\nat the nick of time with other friends, when uninvited and unexpected;\nat once pleasing both to those that invite and those that entertain.\nBut chiefly you must avoid going to rulers, rich or great men, lest\nyou incur the deserved censure of being impudent, saucy, rude, and\nunseasonably ambitious.\n\n_QUESTION VII._\n\nWHETHER FLUTE-GIRLS ARE TO BE ADMITTED TO A FEAST?\n\nDIOGENIANUS, A SOPHIST, PHILIP.\n\nAt Chaeronea, Diogenianus the Pergamenian being present, we had a long\ndiscourse at an entertainment about music; and we had a great deal of\ntrouble to hold out against a great bearded sophister of the Stoic\nsect, who quoted Plato as blaming a company that admitted flute-girls\nand were not able to entertain one another with discourse. And Philip\nthe Prusian, of the same sect, said: Those guests of Agatho, whose\ndiscourse was more sweet than the sound of any pipe in the world,\nwere no good authority in this case; for it was no wonder that in\ntheir company the flute-girl was not regarded; but it is strange\nthat, in the midst of the entertainment, the extreme pleasantness\nof the discourse had not made them forget their meat and drink. Yet\nXenophon thought it not indecent to bring in to Socrates, Antisthenes,\nand the like the jester Philip; as Homer doth an onion to make the\nwine relish. And Plato brought in Aristophanes\u2019s discourse of love,\nas a comedy, into his entertainment; and at the last, as it were\ndrawing all the curtains, he shows a scene of the greatest variety\nimaginable,\u2014Alcibiades drunk, frolicking, and crowned. Then follows\nthat pleasant raillery between him and Socrates concerning Agatho, and\nthe encomium of Socrates; and when such discourse was going on, good\nGods! had it not been allowable, if Apollo himself had come in with his\nharp ready, to desire the God to forbear till the argument was out?\nThese men, having such a pleasant way of discoursing, used these arts\nand insinuating methods, and graced their entertainments by facetious\nraillery. But shall we, being mixed with tradesmen and merchants, and\nsome (as it now and then happens) ignorants and rustics, banish out of\nour entertainments this ravishing delight, or fly the musicians, as\nif they were Sirens, as soon as we see them coming? Clitomachus the\nwrestler, rising and getting away when any one talked of love, was much\nwondered at; and should not a philosopher that banisheth music from a\nfeast, and is afraid of a musician, and bids his link-boy presently\nlight his link and be gone, be laughed at, since he seems to abominate\nthe most innocent pleasures, as beetles do ointment? For, if at any\ntime, certainly over a glass of wine, music should be allowed, and then\nchiefly the harmonious God should have the direction of our souls; so\nthat Euripides, though I like him very well in other things, shall\nnever persuade me that music, as he would have it, should be applied\nto melancholy and grief. For there sober and serious reason, like a\nphysician, should take care of the diseased men; but those pleasures\nshould be mixed with Bacchus, and serve to increase our mirth and\nfrolic. Therefore it was a pleasant saying of that Spartan at Athens,\nwho, when some new tragedians were to contend for the prize, seeing the\npreparations of the masters of the dances, the hurry and busy diligence\nof the instructors, said, the city was certainly mad which sported\nwith so much pains. He that designs to sport should sport, and not buy\nhis ease and pleasure with great expense, or the loss of that time\nwhich might be useful to other things; but whilst he is feasting and\nfree from business, those should be enjoyed. And it is advisable to try\namidst our mirth, whether any profit is to be gotten from our delights.\n\n_QUESTION VIII._\n\nWHAT SORT OF MUSIC IS FITTEST FOR AN ENTERTAINMENT?\n\nDIOGENIANUS, A SOPHIST, PHILIP.\n\n1. When Philip had ended, I hindered the sophister from returning an\nanswer to the discourse, and said: Let us rather enquire, Diogenianus,\nsince there are a great many sorts of music, which is fittest for an\nentertainment. And let us beg this learned man\u2019s judgment in this\ncase; for since he is not prejudiced or apt to be biassed by any sort,\nthere is no danger that he should prefer that which is pleasantest\nbefore that which is best. Diogenianus joining with me in this request,\nhe presently began. All other sorts I banish to the theatre and\nplay-house, and can only allow that which hath been lately admitted\ninto the entertainments at Rome, and with which everybody is not yet\nacquainted. You know, continued he, that some of Plato\u2019s dialogues are\npurely narrative, and some dramatic. The easiest of this latter sort\nthey teach their children to speak by heart; causing them to imitate\nthe actions of those persons they represent, and to form their voice\nand affections to be agreeable to the words. This all the grave and\nwell-bred men exceedingly approve; but soft and effeminate fellows,\nwhose ears ignorance and ill-breeding hath corrupted, and who, as\nAristoxenus phraseth it, are ready to vomit when they hear excellent\nharmony, reject it; and no wonder, when effeminacy prevails.\n\n2. Philip, perceiving some of the company uneasy at this discourse,\nsaid: Pray spare us, sir, and be not so severe upon us; for we were\nthe first that found fault with that custom when it first began to\nbe countenanced in Rome, and reprehended those who thought Plato fit\nto entertain us whilst we were making merry, and who would hear his\ndialogues whilst they were eating cates and scattering perfumes. When\nSappho\u2019s songs or Anacreon\u2019s verses are pronounced, I protest I then\nthink it decent to set aside my cup. But should I proceed, perhaps\nyou would think me much in earnest, and designing to oppose you, and\ntherefore, together with this cup which I present my friend, I leave it\nto him to wash your salt ear with fresh discourse.\n\n3. Then Diogenianus, taking the cup, said: Methinks this is very sober\ndiscourse, which makes me believe that the wine doth not please you,\nsince I see no effect of it; so that I fear I ought to be corrected.\nIndeed many sorts of music are to be rejected; first, tragedy, as\nhaving nothing familiar enough for an entertainment, and being a\nrepresentation of actions attended with grief and extremity of passion.\nI reject the sort of dancing which is called Pyladean from Pylades,\nbecause it is full of pomp, very pathetical, and requires a great many\npersons; but if we would admit any of those sorts that deserve those\nencomiums which Socrates mentions in his discourse about dancing,\nI like that sort called Bathyllean, which requires not so high a\nmotion, but hath something of the nature of the Cordax, and resembles\nthe motion of an Echo, a Pan, or a Satyr frolicking with love. Old\ncomedy is not fit for men that are making merry, by reason of the\nirregularities that appear in it; for that vehemency which they use\nin the parabasis is loud and indecent, and the liberty they take to\nscoff and abuse is very surfeiting, too open, and full of filthy words\nand lewd expressions. Besides, as at great men\u2019s tables every man hath\na servant waiting at his elbow, so each of his guests would need a\ngrammarian to sit by him, and explain who is Laespodias in Eupolis,\nCinesias in Plato, and Lampo in Cratinus, and who is each person that\nis jeered in the play. Concerning new comedy there is no need of any\nlong discourse. It is so fitted, so interwoven with entertainments,\nthat it is easier to have a regular feast without wine, than without\nMenander. Its phrase is sweet and familiar, the humor innocent and\neasy, so that there is nothing for men whilst sober to despise, or when\nmerry to be troubled at. The sentiments are so natural and unstudied,\nthat midst wine, as it were in fire, they soften and bend the rigidest\ntemper to be pliable and easy. And the mixture of gravity and jests\nseems to be contrived for nothing so aptly as for the pleasure and\nprofit of those that are frolicking and making merry. The love-scenes\nin Menander are convenient for those who have already taken their\ncups, and who in a short time must retire home to their wives; for\nin all his plays there is no love of boys mentioned, and all rapes\ncommitted on virgins end decently in marriages at last. As for misses,\nif they are impudent and jilting, they are bobbed, the young gallants\nturning sober, and repenting of their lewd courses. But if they are\nkind and constant, either their true parents are discovered, or a time\nis determined for the intrigue, which brings them at last to obliging\nmodesty and civil kindness. These things to men busied about other\nmatters may seem scarce worth taking notice of; but whilst they are\nmaking merry, it is no wonder that the pleasantness and smoothness of\nthe parts should work a neat conformity and elegance in the hearers,\nand make their manners like the pattern they have from those genteel\ncharacters.\n\n4. Diogenianus, either designedly or for want of breath, ended thus.\nAnd when the sophister came upon him again, and contended that some\nof Aristophanes\u2019s verses should be recited, Philip speaking to me\nsaid: Diogenianus hath had his wish in praising his beloved Menander,\nand seems not to care for any of the rest. There are a great many\nsorts which we have not at all considered, concerning which I should\nbe very glad to have your opinion; and the prize for carvers we will\nset up to-morrow, when we are sober, if Diogenianus and this stranger\nthink fit. Of representations, said I, some are mythical, and some\nare farces; neither of these are fit for an entertainment; the first\nby reason of their length and cost, and the latter being so full of\nfilthy discourse and lewd actions, that they are not fit to be seen\nby the foot-boys that wait on civil masters. Yet the rabble, even\nwith their wives and young sons, sit quietly to be spectators of such\nrepresentations as are apt to disturb the soul more than the greatest\ndebauch in drink. The harp ever since Homer\u2019s time was well acquainted\nwith feasts and entertainments, and therefore it is not fitting to\ndissolve such an ancient friendship and acquaintance; but we should\nonly desire the harpers to forbear their sad notes and melancholy\ntunes, and play only those that are delighting, and fit for such as are\nmaking merry. The pipe, if we would, we cannot reject, for the libation\nin the beginning of the entertainment requires that as well as the\ngarland. Then it insinuates and passeth through the ears, spreading\neven to the very soul a pleasant sound, which produceth serenity and\ncalmness; so that, if the wine hath not quite dissolved or driven away\nall vexing solicitous anxiety, this, by the softness and delightful\nagreeableness of its sound, smooths and calms the spirits, if so be\nthat it keeps within due bounds, and doth not elevate too much, and, by\nits numerous surprising divisions, raise an ecstasy in the soul which\nwine hath weakened and made easy to be perverted. For as brutes do not\nunderstand a rational discourse, yet lie down or rise up at the sound\nof a shell or whistle, or of a chirp or clap; so the brutish part of\nthe soul, which is incapable either of understanding or obeying reason,\nmen conquer by songs and tunes, and by music reduce it to tolerable\norder. But to speak freely what I think, no pipe nor harp simply played\nupon, and without a song with it, can be very fit for an entertainment.\nFor we should still accustom ourselves to take our chiefest pleasure\nfrom discourse, and spend our leisure time in profitable talk, and\nuse tunes and airs as a sauce for the discourse, and not singly by\nthemselves, to please the unreasonable delicacy of our palate. For as\nnobody is against pleasure that ariseth from sauce or wine going in\nwith our necessary food, but Socrates flouts and refuseth to admit that\nsuperfluous and vain pleasure which we take in perfumes and odors at\na feast; thus the sound of a pipe or harp, when singly applied to our\nears, we utterly reject, but if it accompanies words, and together with\nan ode feasts and delights our reason, we gladly introduce it. And we\nbelieve the famed Marsyas was punished by Apollo for pretending, when\nhe had nothing but his single pipe, and his muzzle to secure his lips,\nto contend with the harp and song of the God. Let us only take care\nthat, when we have such guests as are able to cheer one another with\nphilosophy and good discourse, we do not introduce any thing that may\nrather prove an uneasy hindrance to the conversation than promote it.\nFor not only are those fools, who, as Euripides says, having safety\nat home and in their own power, yet would hire some from abroad; but\nthose too who, having pleasantness enough within, are eager after some\nexternal pastimes to comfort and delight them. That extraordinary piece\nof honor which the Persian king showed Antalcidas the Spartan seemed\nrude and uncivil, when he dipped a garland composed of crocus and roses\nin ointment, and sent it him to wear, by that dipping putting a slight\nupon and spoiling the natural sweetness and beauty of the flowers.\nHe doth as bad, who having a Muse in his own breast, and all the\npleasantness that would fit an entertainment, will have pipes and harps\nplay, and by that external adventitious noise destroy all the sweetness\nthat was proper and his own. But in short, all ear-delights are fittest\nthen, when the company begins to be disturbed, fall out, and quarrel,\nfor then they may prevent raillery and reproach, and stop the dispute\nthat is running on to sophistical and unpleasant wrangling, and bridle\nall babbling declamatory altercations, so that the company may be freed\nof noise and quietly composed.\n\n_QUESTION IX._\n\nTHAT IT WAS THE CUSTOM OF THE GREEKS AS WELL AS PERSIANS TO DEBATE OF\nSTATE AFFAIRS AT THEIR ENTERTAINMENTS.\n\nNICOSTRATUS, GLAUCIAS.\n\nAt Nicostratus\u2019s table we discoursed of those matters which the\nAthenians were to debate of in their next assembly. And one of the\ncompany saying, It is the Persian fashion, sir, to debate midst your\ncups; And why, said Glaucias rejoining, not the Grecian fashion? For it\nwas a Greek that said,\n\n  After your belly\u2019s full, your counsel\u2019s best.\n\nAnd they were Greeks who with Agamemnon besieged Troy, to whom, whilst\nthey were eating and drinking,\n\n  Old Nestor first began a grave debate;[97]\n\nand he himself advised the king before to call the commanders together\nfor the same purpose:\n\n  For the commanders, sir, a feast prepare,\n  And see who counsels best, and follow him.[98]\n\nTherefore Greece, having a great many excellent institutions, and\nzealously following the customs of the ancients, hath laid the\nfoundations of her polities in wine. For the assemblies in Crete called\nAndria, those in Sparta called Phiditia, were secret consultations\nand aristocratical assemblies; such, I suppose, as the Prytaneum and\nThesmothesium here at Athens. And not different from these is that\nnight-meeting, which Plato mentions, of the best and most politic men,\nto which the greatest, the most considerable and puzzling matters are\nassigned. And those\n\n  Who, when they do design to seek their rest,\n  To Mercury their just libations pour,[99]\n\ndo they not join reason and wine together, since, when they are\nabout to retire, they make their vows to the wisest God, as if he\nwas present and particularly president over their actions? But the\nancients indeed call Bacchus the good counsellor, as if he had no need\nof Mercury; and for his sake they named the night \u03b5\u1f50\u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7, as it were,\n_well-minded_.\n\n_QUESTION X._\n\nWHETHER THEY DID WELL WHO DELIBERATED MIDST THEIR CUPS.\n\nGLAUCIAS, NICOSTRATUS.\n\n1. Whilst Glaucias was discoursing thus, the former tumultuous talk\nseemed to be pretty well lulled; and that it might be quite forgotten,\nNicostratus started another question, saying, he never valued the\nmatter before, whilst he thought it a Persian custom, but since it\nwas discovered to be the Greek fashion too, it wanted (he thought)\nsome reason to excuse or defend its seeming absurdity. For our reason\n(said he), like our eye, whilst it floats in too much moisture, is\nhard to be moved, and unable to perform its operations. And all sorts\nof troubles and discontents creeping forth, like insects to the sun,\nand being agitated by a glass of wine, make the mind irresolute and\ninconstant. Therefore as a bed is more convenient for a man whilst\nmaking merry than a chair, because it contains the whole body and keeps\nit from all disturbing motion, so it is best to have the soul perfectly\nat quiet; or, if that cannot be, we must give it, as to children that\nwill be doing, not a sword or spear, but a rattle or ball,\u2014in this\nfollowing the example of the God himself, who puts into the hands of\nthose that are making merry a ferula, the lightest and softest of all\nweapons, that, when they are most apt to strike, they may hurt least.\nOver a glass of wine men should make only ridiculous slips, and not\nsuch as may prove tragical, lamentable, or of any considerable concern.\nBesides, in serious debates, it is chiefly to be considered, that\npersons of mean understanding and unacquainted with business should\nbe guided by the wise and experienced; but wine destroys this order.\nInsomuch that Plato says, wine is called \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, because it makes those\nthat drink it think that they have wit (\u03bf\u1f34\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd); for none\nover a glass of wine thinks himself so noble, beauteous, or rich\n(though he fancies himself all these), as wise; and therefore wine\nis babbling, full of talk, and of a dictating humor; so that we are\nrather for being heard than hearing, for leading than being led. But a\nthousand such objections may be raised, for they are very obvious. But\nlet us hear which of the company, either old or young, can allege any\nthing for the contrary opinion.\n\n2. Then said my brother cunningly: And do you imagine that any, upon\na sudden, can produce any probable reasons? And Nicostratus replying,\nYes, no doubt, there being so many learned men and good drinkers in\ncompany; he with a smile continued: Do you think, sir, you are fit\nto treat of these matters, when wine hath disabled you to discourse\npolitics and state affairs? Or is not this all the same as to think\nthat a man in his liquor doth not see very well nor understand those\nthat talk and discourse with him, yet hears the music and the pipers\nvery well? For as it is likely that useful and profitable things draw\nand affect the sense more than fine and gaudy; so likewise they do the\nmind. And I shall not wonder that the nice philosophical speculation\nshould escape a man who hath drunk freely; but yet, I think, if he\nwere called to political debates, his wisdom would become more strong\nand vigorous. Thus Philip at Chaeronea, being well heated, talked very\nfoolishly, and was the sport of the whole company; but as soon as they\nbegan to discourse of a truce and peace, he composed his countenance,\ncontracted his brows, and dismissing all vain, empty, and dissolute\nthoughts, gave an excellent, wise, and sober answer to the Athenians.\nTo drink freely is different from being drunk, and those that drink\ntill they grow foolish ought to retire to bed. But as for those that\ndrink freely and are otherwise men of sense, why should we fear that\nthey will fail in their understanding or lose their skill, when we\nsee that musicians play as well at a feast as in a theatre? For when\nskill and art are in the soul, they make the body correct and proper\nin its operations, and obedient to the motions of the mind. Besides,\nwine inspirits some men, and raises a confidence and assurance in them,\nbut not such as is haughty and odious, but pleasing and agreeable.\nThus they say that Aeschylus wrote his tragedies over a bottle; and\nthat all his plays (though Gorgias thought that one of them, the Seven\nagainst Thebes, was full of Mars) were Bacchus\u2019s. For wine (according\nto Plato), heating the soul together with the body, makes the body\npliable, quick, and active, and opens the passages; while the fancies\ndraw in discourse with boldness and daring.\n\nFor some have a good natural invention, yet whilst they are sober are\ntoo diffident and too close, but midst their wine, like frankincense,\nexhale and open at the heat. Besides, wine expels all fear, which\nis the greatest hindrance to all consultations, and quencheth many\nother degenerate and lazy passions; it opens the rancor and malice,\nas it were, the two-leaved doors of the soul, and displays the whole\ndisposition and qualities of any person in his discourse. Freedom of\nspeech, and, through that, truth it principally produceth; which once\nwanting, neither quickness of wit nor experience availeth any thing;\nand many proposing that which comes next rather hit the matter, than if\nthey warily and designedly conceal their present sentiments. Therefore\nthere is no reason to fear that wine will stir up our affections; for\nit never stirs up the bad, unless in the worst men, whose judgment\nis never sober. But as Theophrastus used to call the barbers\u2019 shops\nwine-less entertainments; so there is a kind of an uncouth wine-less\ndrunkenness always excited either by anger, malice, emulation, or\nclownishness in the souls of the unlearned. Now wine, blunting rather\nthan sharpening many of these passions, doth not make them sots and\nfoolish, but simple and guileless; not negligent of what is profitable,\nbut desirous of what is good and honest. Now those that think craft to\nbe cunning, and vanity or closeness to be wisdom, have reason to think\nthose that over a glass of wine plainly and ingenuously deliver their\nopinions to be fools. But on the contrary, the ancients called the God\nthe Freer and Loosener, and thought him considerable in divination;\nnot, as Euripides says, because he makes men raging mad, but because\nhe looseth and frees the soul from all base distrustful fear, and puts\nthem in a condition to speak truth fully and freely to one another.\n\n\nBOOK VIII.\n\nThose, my Sossius Senecio, who throw philosophy out of entertainments\ndo worse than those who take away a light. For the candle being\nremoved, the temperate and sober guests will not become worse than they\nwere before, being more concerned to reverence than to see one another.\nBut if dulness and disregard to good learning wait upon the wine,\nMinerva\u2019s golden lamp itself could not make the entertainment pleasing\nand agreeable. For a company to sit silent and only cram themselves\nis, in good truth, swinish and almost impossible. But he that permits\nmen to talk, yet doth not allow set and profitable discourses, is much\nmore ridiculous than he who thinks that his guests should eat and\ndrink, yet gives them foul wine, unsavory and nastily prepared meat.\nFor no meat nor drink which is not prepared as it ought to be is so\nhurtful and unpleasant as discourse which is carried round in company\ninsignificantly and out of season. The philosophers, when they would\ngive drunkenness a vile name, call it doting by wine. Now doting is to\nuse vain and trifling discourse; and when such babbling is accompanied\nby wine, it usually ends in most disagreeable and rude contumely and\nreproach. It is a good custom therefore of our women, who in their\nfeasts called Agrionia seek after Bacchus as if he were run away, but\nin a little time give over the search, and cry that he is fled to\nthe Muses and lurks with them; and some time after, when supper is\ndone, put riddles and hard questions to one another. For this mystery\nteaches us, that midst our entertainments we should use learned and\nphilosophical discourse, and such as hath a Muse in it; and that such\ndiscourse being applied to drunkenness, every thing that is brutish\nand outrageous in it is concealed, being pleasingly restrained by the\nMuses.\n\nThis book, being the eighth of my Symposiacs, begins that discourse in\nwhich about a year ago, on Plato\u2019s birthday, I was concerned.\n\n_QUESTION I._\n\nCONCERNING THOSE DAYS IN WHICH SOME FAMOUS MEN WERE BORN; AND ALSO\nCONCERNING THE GENERATION OF THE GODS.\n\nDIOGENIANUS, PLUTARCH, FLORUS, TYNDARES.\n\n1. On the sixth day of May we celebrated Socrates\u2019s birthday, and on\nthe seventh Plato\u2019s; and that first prompted us to such discourse as\nwas suitable to the meeting, which Diogenianus the Pergamenian began\nthus: Ion, said he, was happy in his expression, when he said that\nFortune, though much unlike Wisdom, yet did many things very much like\nher; and that she seemed to have some order and design, not only in\nplacing the nativities of these two philosophers so near together,\nbut in setting first the birthday of the most famous of the two, who\nwas also the teacher of the other. I had a great deal to say to the\ncompany concerning some notable things that fell out on the same day,\nas concerning the time of Euripides\u2019s birth and death; for he was\nborn the same day that the Greeks beat Xerxes by sea at Salamis, and\ndied the same day that Dionysius the elder, the Sicilian tyrant, was\nborn,\u2014Fortune (as Timaeus hath it) at the same time taking out of the\nworld a representer, and bringing into it a real actor, of tragedies.\nBesides, we remembered that Alexander the king and Diogenes the Cynic\ndied upon the same day. And all agreed that Attalus the king died on\nhis own birthday. And some said, that Pompey the great was killed in\nEgypt on his birthday, or, as others will have it, a day before. We\nremember Pindar also, who, being born at the time of the Pythian games,\nmade afterwards a great many excellent hymns in honor of Apollo.\n\n2. To this Florus subjoined: Now we are celebrating Plato\u2019s nativity,\nwhy should we not mention Carneades, the most famous of the whole\nAcademy, since both of them were born on Apollo\u2019s feast; Plato, whilst\nthey were celebrating the Thargelia at Athens, Carneades, whilst\nthe Cyrenians kept their Carnea; and both these feasts are upon the\nsame day. Nay, the God himself (he continued) you, his priests and\nprophets, call Hebdomagenes, as if he were born on the seventh day.\nAnd therefore those who make Apollo Plato\u2019s father[100] do not, in my\nopinion, dishonor the God; since by Socrates\u2019s as by another Chiron\u2019s\ninstructions he is become a physician for the greater diseases of the\nmind. And together with this, he mentioned that vision and voice which\nforbade Aristo, Plato\u2019s father, to come near or lie with his wife for\nten months.\n\n3. To this Tyndares the Spartan subjoined: It is very fit we should\napply that to Plato,\n\n  He seemed not sprung from mortal man, but God.[101]\n\nBut, for my part, I am afraid to beget, as well as to be begotten, is\nrepugnant to the incorruptibility of the Deity. For that implies a\nchange and passion; as Alexander imagined, when he said that he knew\nhimself to be mortal as often as he lay with a woman or slept. For\nsleep is a relaxation of the body, occasioned by the weakness of our\nnature; and all generation is a corruptive parting with some of our\nown substance. But yet I take heart again, when I hear Plato call the\neternal and unbegotten Deity the father and maker of the world and\nall other begotten things; not as if he parted with any seed, but as\nif by his power he implanted a generative principle in matter, which\nacts upon, forms, and fashions it. Winds passing through a hen will\nsometimes impregnate her; and it seems no incredible thing, that the\nDeity, though not after the fashion of a man, but by some other certain\ncommunication, fills a mortal creature with some divine conception.\nNor is this my sense; but the Egyptians say Apis was conceived by\nthe influence of the moon, and make no question but that an immortal\nGod may have communication with a mortal woman. But on the contrary,\nthey think that no mortal can beget any thing on a goddess, because\nthey believe the goddesses are made of thin air, and subtle heat and\nmoisture.\n\n_QUESTION II._\n\nWHAT IS PLATO\u2019S MEANING, WHEN HE SAYS THAT GOD ALWAYS PLAYS THE\nGEOMETER?\n\nDIOGENIANUS, TYNDARES, FLORUS, AUTOBULUS.\n\n1. Silence following this discourse, Diogenianus began and said: Since\nour discourse is about the Gods, shall we, especially on his own\nbirthday, admit Plato to the conference, and enquire upon what account\nhe says (supposing it to be his sentence) that God always plays the\ngeometer? I said that this sentence was not plainly set down in any of\nhis books; yet there are good arguments that it is his, and it is very\nmuch like his expression. Tyndares presently subjoining said: Perhaps,\nDiogenianus, you imagine that this sentence intimates some curious and\ndifficult speculation, and not that which he hath so often mentioned,\nwhen he praiseth geometry as a science that takes off men from sensible\nobjects, and makes them apply themselves to the intelligible and\neternal Nature, the contemplation of which is the end of philosophy,\nas a view of the mysteries of initiation into holy rites. For the nail\nof pain and pleasure, that fastens the soul to the body, seems to do\nus the greatest mischief, by making sensible things more powerful over\nus than intelligible, and by forcing the understanding to determine\nrather according to passion than reason. For the understanding, being\naccustomed by the vehemency of pain or pleasure to be intent on the\nmutable and uncertain body, as if it really and truly were, grows blind\nas to that which really is, and loses that instrument and light of the\nsoul, which is worth a thousand bodies, and by which alone the Deity\ncan be discovered. Now in all sciences, as in plain and smooth mirrors,\nsome marks and images of the truth of intelligible objects appear,\nbut in geometry chiefly; which, according to Philo, is the chief and\nprincipal of all, and doth bring back and turn the understanding, as\nit were, purged and gently loosened from sense. And therefore Plato\nhimself dislikes Eudoxus, Archytas, and Menaechmus for endeavoring\nto bring down the doubling the cube to mechanical operations; for by\nthis means all that was good in geometry would be lost and corrupted,\nit falling back again to sensible things, and not rising upward and\nconsidering immaterial and immortal images, in which God being versed\nis always God.\n\n2. After Tyndares, Florus, a companion of his, who always jocosely\npretended to be his admirer, said thus: Sir, we are obliged to you for\nmaking your discourse not proper to yourself, but common to us all; for\nyou have made it possible to refute it by demonstrating that geometry\nis not necessary to the Gods, but to us. Now the Deity doth not stand\nin need of science, as an instrument to withdraw his intellect from\nthings engendered and to turn it to the real things; for these are\nall in him, with him, and about him. But pray consider whether Plato,\nthough you do not apprehend it, doth not intimate something that is\nproper and peculiar to you, mixing Lycurgus with Socrates, as much as\nDicaearchus thought he did Pythagoras. For Lycurgus, I suppose you\nknow, banished out of Sparta all arithmetical proportion, as being\ndemocratical and favoring the crowd; but introduced the geometrical,\nas agreeable to an oligarchy and kingly government that rules by\nlaw; for the former gives an equal share to every one according to\nnumber, but the other gives according to the proportion of the deserts.\nIt doth not huddle all things together, but in it there is a fair\ndiscretion of good and bad, every one having what is fit for him, not\nby lot or weight, but according as he is virtuous or vicious. The same\nproportion, my dear Tyndares, God introduceth, which is called \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7 and\n\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, and which teacheth us to account that which is just equal,\nand not that which is equal just. For that equality which many affect,\nbeing often the greatest injustice, God, as much as possible, takes\naway; and useth that proportion which respects every man\u2019s deserts,\ngeometrically defining it according to law and reason.\n\n3. This exposition we applauded; and Tyndares, saying he envied him,\ndesired Autobulus to engage Florus and confute his discourse. That\nhe refused to do, but produced another opinion of his own. Geometry,\nsaid he, considers nothing else but the accidents and properties\nof the extremities or limits of bodies; neither did God make the\nworld any other way than by terminating matter, which was infinite\nbefore. Not that matter was really infinite as to either magnitude\nor multitude; but the ancients used to call that infinite which by\nreason of its confusion and disorder is undetermined and unconfined.\nNow the terms of every thing that is formed or figured are the form\nand figure of that thing, without which the thing would be formless\nand unfigured. Now numbers and proportions being applied to matter, it\nis circumscribed and as it were bound up by lines, and through lines\nby surfaces and profundities; and so were settled the first species\nand differences of bodies, as foundations from which to raise the four\nelements, fire, air, water, and earth. For it was impossible that,\nout of an unsteady and confused matter, the equality of the sides,\nthe likeness of the angles, and the exact proportion of octahedrons,\nicosahedrons, pyramids, and cubes should be deduced, unless by some\npower that terminated and shaped every particle of matter. Therefore,\nterms being fixed to that which was undetermined or infinite before,\nthe whole became and still continues agreeable in all parts, and\nexcellently terminated and mixed; the matter indeed always affecting\nan indeterminate state, and flying all geometrical confinement, but\nproportion terminating and circumscribing it, and dividing it into\nseveral differences and forms, out of which all things that arise are\ngenerated and subsist.\n\n4. When he had said this, he desired me to contribute something to\nthe discourse; and I applauded their conceits as their own devices,\nand very probable. But lest you despise yourselves (I continued) and\naltogether look for some external explication, attend to an exposition\nupon this sentence, which your masters very much approve. Amongst\nthe most geometrical theorems, or rather problems, this is one: Two\nfigures being given, to construct a third, which shall be equal to one\nand similar to the other. And it is reported that Pythagoras, upon\nthe discovery of this problem, offered a sacrifice to the Gods; for\nthis is a much more exquisite theorem than that which lays down, that\nthe square of the hypothenuse in a right-angled triangle is equal to\nthe squares of the two sides. Right, said Diogenianus, but what is\nthis to the present question? You will easily understand, I replied,\nif you call to mind how Timaeus divides that which gave the world its\nbeginning into three parts. One of which is justly called God, the\nother matter, and the third form. That which is called matter is the\nmost confused subject, the form the most beautiful pattern, and God the\nbest of causes. Now this cause, as far as possible, would leave nothing\ninfinite and indeterminate, but adorn Nature with number, measure and\nproportion, making one thing of all the subjects together, equal to\nthe matter, and similar to the form. Therefore proposing to himself\nthis problem, he made and still makes a third, and always preserves\nit equal to the matter, and like the form; and that is the world. And\nthis world, being in continual changes and alterations because of\nthe natural necessity of body, is helped and preserved by the father\nand maker of all things, who by proportion terminates the substance\naccording to the pattern. Wherefore in its measure and circuit this\nuniversal world is more beautiful than that which is merely similar to\nit....\n\n_QUESTION III._\n\nWHY NOISES ARE BETTER HEARD IN THE NIGHT THAN THE DAY.\n\nAMMONIUS, BOETHUS, PLUTARCH, THRASYLLUS, ARISTODEMUS.\n\n1. When we supped with Ammonius at Athens, who was then the third time\ncaptain of the city-bands, there was a great noise about the house,\nsome without doors calling, Captain! Captain! After he had sent his\nofficers to quiet the tumult, and had dispersed the crowd, we began to\nenquire what was the reason that those that are within doors hear those\nthat are without, but those that are without cannot hear those that are\nwithin as well. And Ammonius said, that Aristotle had given a reason\nfor that already; for the sound of those within, being carried without\ninto a large tract of air, grows weaker presently and is lost; but that\nwhich comes in from without is not subject to the like casualty, but is\nkept close, and is therefore more easy to be heard. But that seemed a\nmore difficult question, Why sounds seem greater in the night than in\nthe day, and yet altogether as clear. For my own part (continued he)\nI think Providence hath very wisely contrived that our hearing should\nbe quickest when our sight can do us very little or no service; for\nthe air of the \u201cblind and solitary Night,\u201d as Empedocles calls it,\nbeing dark, supplies in the ears that defect of sense which it makes in\nthe eyes. But since of natural effects we should endeavor to find the\ncauses, and to discover what are the material and mechanical principles\nof things is the proper task of a natural philosopher, who shall first\nassist us with a rational account hereof?\n\n2. Boethus began, and said: When I was a novice in letters, I then\nmade use of geometrical postulates, and assumed as undoubted truths\nsome undemonstrated suppositions; and now I shall make use of some\npropositions which Epicurus hath demonstrated already. Bodies move in\na vacuum, and there are a great many spaces interspersed among the\natoms of the air. Now when the air being rarefied is more extended,\nso as to fill the empty space, there are but few vacuities scattered\nand interspersed among the particles of matter; but when the atoms of\nair are condensed and laid close together, they leave a vast empty\nspace, convenient and sufficient for other bodies to pass through.\nNow the coldness of the night makes such a constipation. Heat opens\nand separates the parts of condensed bodies. Therefore bodies that\nboil, grow soft, or melt, require a greater space than before; but on\nthe contrary, the parts of the body that are condensed or freeze are\ncontracted closer to one another, and leave those vessels and places\nfrom which they retired partly empty. Now the voice, meeting and\nstriking against a great many bodies in its way, is either altogether\nlost or scattered, and very much and very frequently hindered in its\npassage; but when it hath a plain and smooth way through an empty\nspace, and comes to the ear uninterrupted, the passage is so sudden,\nthat it preserves its articulate distinctness, as well as the words\nit carries. You may observe that empty vessels, when knocked, answer\npresently, send out a noise to a great distance, and oftentimes the\nsound whirled round in the hollow breaks out with a considerable\nforce; whilst a vessel that is filled either with a liquid or a solid\nbody will not answer to a stroke, because the sound hath no room or\npassage to come through. And among solid bodies themselves, gold and\nstone, because they want pores, can hardly be made to sound; and when\na noise is made by a stroke upon them, it is very flat, and presently\nlost. But brass is sounding, it being a porous, rare, and light metal,\nnot consisting of parts closely compacted, but being mixed with a\nyielding and uncompacted substance, which gives free passage to other\nmotions, and kindly receiving the sound sends it forward; till some\ntouching the instrument do, as it were, seize on it in the way, and\nstop the hollow; for then, by reason of the hindering force, it stops\nand goes no farther. And this, in my opinion, is the reason why the\nnight is more sonorous, and the day less; since in the day, the heat\nrarefying the air makes the empty spaces between the particles to be\nvery little. But, pray, let none argue against the suppositions I first\nassumed.\n\n3. And I (Ammonius bidding me oppose him) said: Sir, your suppositions\nwhich require a vacuum to be granted I shall admit; but you err in\nsupposing that a vacuum is conducive either to the preservation or\nconveyance of sound. For that which cannot be touched, acted upon,\nor struck is peculiarly favorable to silence. But sound is a stroke\nof a sounding body; and a sounding body is that which is homogeneous\nand uniform, easy to be moved, light, smooth, and, by reason of its\ntenseness and continuity, obedient to the stroke; and such is the air.\nWater, earth, and fire, are of themselves soundless; but each of them\nmakes a noise when air falls upon or gets into it. And brass hath in it\nno vacuum; but being mixed with a smooth and gentle air it answers to a\nstroke, and is sounding. If the eye may be judge, iron must be reckoned\nto have a great many vacuities, and to be porous like a honey-comb,\nyet it is the dullest, and sounds worse than any other metal.\n\nTherefore there is no need to trouble the night to contract and\ncondense its air, that in other parts we may leave vacuities and wide\nspaces; as if the air would hinder and corrupt the substance of the\nsounds, whose very substance, form, and power itself is. Besides, if\nyour reason held, misty and extreme cold nights would be more sonorous\nthan those which are temperate and clear, because then the atoms in\nour atmosphere are constipated, and the spaces which they left remain\nempty; and, what is more obvious, a cold day should be more sonorous\nthan a warm summer\u2019s night; neither of which is true. Therefore, laying\naside that explication, I produce Anaxagoras, who teacheth that the sun\nmakes a tremulous motion in the air, as is evident from those little\nmotes which are seen tossed up and down and flying in the sunbeams.\nThese (says he), being in the day-time whisked about by the heat, and\nmaking a humming noise, lessen or drown other sounds; but at night\ntheir motion, and consequently their noise, ceaseth.\n\n4. When I had thus said, Ammonius began: Perhaps it will look like a\nridiculous attempt in us, to endeavor to confute Democritus and correct\nAnaxagoras. Yet we must not allow that humming noise to Anaxagoras\u2019s\nlittle motes, for it is neither probable nor necessary. But their\ntremulous and whirling motion in the sunbeams is oftentimes sufficient\nto disturb and break a sound. For the air (as hath been already\nsaid), being itself the body and substance of sound, if it be quiet\nand undisturbed, gives a straight, easy, and continuous way to the\nparticles or the motions which make the sound. Thus sounds are best\nheard in calm still weather; and the contrary is seen in tempestuous\nweather, as Simonides hath it:\u2014\n\n  No tearing tempests rattled through the skies,\n  Which hinder sweet discourse from mortal ears.\n\nFor often the disturbed air hinders the articulateness of a discourse\nfrom coming to the ears, though it may convey something of the loudness\nand length of it. Now the night, simply considered in itself, hath\nnothing that may disturb the air; though the day hath,\u2014namely the sun,\naccording to the opinion of Anaxagoras.\n\n5. To this Thrasyllus, Ammonius\u2019s son, subjoining said: What is the\nmatter, for God\u2019s sake, that we endeavor to solve this difficulty by\nthe unintelligible fancied motion of the air, and never consider the\ntossing and divulsion thereof, which are sensible and evident? For\nJupiter, the great ruler above, doth not covertly and silently move the\nlittle particles of air; but as soon as he appears, he stirs up and\nmoves every thing.\n\n  He sends forth lucky signs,\n  And stirs up nations to their proper work\n\nand they obey; and (as Democritus saith) with new thoughts for each\nnew day, as if newly born again, they fall to their worldly concerns\nwith noisy and effectual contrivances. And upon this account, Ibycus\nappositely calls the dawning \u03ba\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd (from \u03ba\u03bb\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, _to hear_),\nbecause then men first begin to hear and speak. Now at night, all\nthings being at rest, the air being quiet and undisturbed must\ntherefore probably transmit the voice better, and convey it whole and\nunbroken to our ears.\n\n6. Aristodemus the Cyprian, being then in company, said: But consider,\nsir, whether battles or the marches of great armies by night do\nnot confute your reason; for the noise they make seems as loud as\notherwise, though then the air is broken and very much disturbed. But\nthe reason is partly in ourselves; for our voice at night is usually\nvehement, we either commanding others to do something or asking short\nquestions with heat and concern. For that, at the same time when Nature\nrequires rest, we should stir to do or speak any thing, there must be\nsome great and urgent necessity for it; and thence our voices become\nmore vehement and loud.\n\n_QUESTION IV._\n\nWhy, when in the Sacred Games one sort of Garland was given in one, and\nanother in another, the Palm was common to all. And why they call the\ngreat Dates \u039d\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03b9.\n\nSOSPIS, HERODES, PROTOGENES, PRAXITELES, CAPHISUS.\n\n1. The Isthmian games being celebrated, when Sospis was the\nsecond time director of the solemnity, we avoided other\nentertainments,\u2014he treating a great many strangers, and often all his\nfellow-citizens,\u2014but once, when he entertained his nearest and most\nlearned friends at his own house, I was one of the company. After the\nfirst course, one coming to Herodes the rhetorician brought a palm\nand a wreathed crown, which one of his acquaintance, who had won the\nprize for an encomiastic exercise, sent him. This Herodes received very\nkindly, and sent it back again, but added that he could not tell the\nreason why, since each of the games gave a particular garland, yet all\nof them bestowed the palm. For those do not satisfy me (said he) who\nsay that the equality of the leaves is the reason, which growing out\none against another seem to resemble some striving for the prize, and\nthat victory is called \u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u03b7, from \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f34\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, _not to yield_. For a\ngreat many other trees, which almost by measure and weight divide the\nnourishment to their leaves growing opposite to one another, show a\ndecent order and wonderful equality. They seem to speak more probably\nwho say the ancients were pleased with the beauty and figure of the\ntree. Thus Homer compares Nausicaa to a palm-branch. For you all know\nvery well, that some threw roses at the victors, and some pomegranates\nand apples, to honor and reward them. But now the palm hath nothing\nevidently more taking than many other things, since here in Greece it\nbears no fruit that is good to eat, it not ripening and growing mature\nenough. But if, as in Syria and Egypt, it bore a fruit that is the\nmost pleasant to the eyes of any thing in the world, and the sweetest\nto the taste, then I must confess nothing could compare with it. And\nthe Persian monarch (as the story goes), being extremely taken with\nNicolaus the Peripatetic philosopher, who was a very sweet-humored man,\ntall and slender, and of a ruddy complexion, called the greatest and\nfairest dates Nicolai.\n\n2. This discourse of Herodes seemed to give occasion for a query about\nNicolaus, which would be as pleasant as the former. Therefore, said\nSospis, let every one carefully give his sentiments of the matter in\nhand. I begin, and think that, as far as possible, the honor of the\nvictor should remain fresh and immortal. Now a palm-tree is the longest\nlived of any, as this line of Orpheus testifies:\n\n  They lived like branches of a leafy palm.\n\nAnd this almost alone enjoys the privilege (though it is said to belong\nto many beside) of having always fresh and the same leaves. For neither\nthe laurel nor the olive nor the myrtle, nor any other of those trees\ncalled evergreen, is always seen with the very same leaves; but as the\nold fall, new ones grow. So cities continue the same, where new parts\nsucceed those that decay. But the palm, never shedding a leaf, is\ncontinually adorned with the same green. And this power of the tree, I\nbelieve, men think agreeable to, and fit to represent, the strength of\nvictory.\n\n3. When Sospis had done, Protogenes the grammarian, calling Praxiteles\nthe commentator by his name, said: What then, shall we suffer those\nrhetoricians to be thought to have hit the mark, when they bring\narguments only from probabilities and conjectures? And can we produce\nnothing from history to club to this discourse? Lately, I remember,\nreading in the Attic annals, I found that Theseus first instituted\ngames in Delos, and tore off a branch from the sacred palm-tree, which\nwas called spadix (from \u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03c9, _to tear_.)\n\n4. And Praxiteles said: This is uncertain; but perhaps some will\ndemand of Theseus himself, upon what account, when he instituted\nthe game, he broke off a branch of palm rather than of laurel or of\nolive. But consider whether this be not a prize proper to the Pythian\ngames, as belonging to Amphictyon. For there they first, in honor of\nthe God, crowned the victors with laurel and palm, as consecrating to\nthe God, not the laurel or olive, but the palm. So Nicias did, who\ndefrayed the charges of the solemnity in the name of the Athenians at\nDelos; the Athenians themselves at Delphi; and before these, Cypselus\nthe Corinthian. For this God is a lover of games, and delights in\ncontending for the prize at harping, singing, and throwing the bar,\nand, as some say, at cuffing; and assists men when contending, as Homer\nwitnesseth, by making Achilles speak thus,\n\n  Let two come forth in cuffing stout, and try\n  To which Apollo gives the victory.[102]\n\nAnd amongst the archers, he that made his address to Apollo made the\nbest shot, and he that forgot to pray to him missed the mark. And\nbeside, it is not likely that the Athenians would rashly, and upon\nno grounds, dedicate their place of exercise to Apollo. But they\nthought that the God which bestows health gives likewise a vigorous\nconstitution, and strength for the encounter. And since some of the\nencounters are light and easy, others laborious and difficult, the\nDelphians offered sacrifices to Apollo the cuffer; the Cretans and\nSpartans to Apollo the racer; and the dedication of spoils taken in the\nwars and trophies to Apollo Pythias show that he is of great power to\ngive victory in war.\n\n5. Whilst he was speaking, Caphisus, Theon\u2019s son, interrupted him,\nand said: This discourse smells neither of history nor comment, but\nis taken out of the common topics of the Peripatetics, and endeavors\nto persuade; besides, you should, like the tragedians, raise your\nmachine, and fright all that contradict you with the God. But the God,\nas indeed it is requisite he should be, is equally benevolent to all.\nNow let us, following Sospis (for he fairly leads the way), keep close\nto our subject, the palm-tree, which affords us sufficient scope for\nour discourse. The Babylonians celebrate this tree, as being useful to\nthem three hundred and sixty several ways. But to us Greeks it is of\nvery little use, but its want of fruit makes it proper for contenders\nin the games. For being the fairest, greatest, and best proportioned\nof all sorts of trees, it bears no fruit amongst us; but by reason of\nits strong constitution it spends all its nourishment (like an athlete)\nupon its body, and so has very little, and that very bad, remaining\nfor seed. Beside all this, it hath something peculiar, which cannot be\nattributed to any other tree. The branch of a palm, if you put a weight\nupon it, doth not yield and bend downwards, but turns the contrary way,\nas if it resisted the pressing force. The like is to be observed in\nthese exercises. For those who, through weakness or cowardice, yield\nto them, their adversaries oppress; but those who stoutly endure the\nencounter have not only their bodies, but their minds too, strengthened\nand increased.\n\n_QUESTION V._\n\nWHY THOSE THAT SAIL UPON THE NILE TAKE UP THE WATER THEY ARE TO USE\nBEFORE DAY.\n\nOne demanded a reason why the sailors take up the water for their\noccasions out of the river Nile by night, and not by day. Some thought\nthey feared the sun, which heating the water would make it more liable\nto putrefaction. For every thing that is heated or warmed becomes more\neasy to be changed, having already suffered when its proper quality\nwas remitted. And cold constipating the parts seems to preserve every\nthing in its natural state, and water especially. For that the cold\nof water is naturally constringent is evident from snow, which keeps\nflesh from corrupting a long time. And heat, as it destroys the proper\nquality of other things, so of honey, for it being boiled is itself\ncorrupted, though when raw it preserves other bodies from corruption.\nAnd that this is the cause, I have a very considerable evidence from\nstanding pools; for in winter they are as wholesome as other water, but\nin summer they grow bad and noxious. Therefore the night seeming in\nsome measure to resemble the winter, and the day the summer, they think\nthe water that is taken up at night is less subject to be vitiated and\nchanged.\n\nTo these seemingly probable reasons another was added, which confirmed\nthe ingenuity of the sailors by a very natural proof. For some said\nthat they took up their water by night because then it was clear and\nundisturbed; but at daytime, when a great many fetched water together,\nand many boats were sailing and many beasts swimming upon the Nile,\nit grew thick and muddy, and in that condition it was more subject to\ncorruption. For mixed bodies are more easily corrupted than simple\nand unmixed; for from mixture proceeds disagreement of the parts,\nfrom that disagreement a change, and corruption is nothing else but\na certain change; and therefore painters call the mixing of their\ncolors \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c2, _corrupting_; and Homer expresseth dyeing by \u03bc\u03b9\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n(_to stain_ or _contaminate_). Commonly we call any thing\nthat is simple and unmixed incorruptible and immortal. Now earth being\nmixed with water soonest corrupts its proper qualities, and makes it\nunfit for drinking; and therefore standing water stinks soonest, being\ncontinually filled with particles of earth, whilst running waters\npreserve themselves by either leaving behind or throwing off the earth\nthat falls into them. And Hesiod justly commends\n\n  The water of a pure and constant spring.[103]\n\nFor that water is wholesome which is not corrupted, and that is not\ncorrupted which is pure and unmixed. And this opinion is very much\nconfirmed from the difference of earths; for those springs that run\nthrough a mountainous, rocky ground are stronger than those which\nare cut through plains or marshes, because they do not take off much\nearth. Now the Nile running through a soft country, like the blood\nmingled with the flesh, is filled with sweet juices that are strong\nand very nourishing; yet it is thick and muddy, and becomes more so if\ndisturbed. For motion mixeth the earthly particles with the liquid,\nwhich, because they are heavier, fall to the bottom as soon as the\nwater is still and undisturbed. Therefore the sailors take up the water\nthey are to use at night, by that means likewise preventing the sun,\nwhich always exhales and consumes the subtler and lighter particles of\nthe liquid.\n\n_QUESTION VI._\n\n  Concerning those who come Late to an Entertainment; and from whence\n  these Words, \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, \u1f04\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, and \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, are Derived.\n\nPLUTARCH\u2019S SONS, THEON\u2019S SONS, THEON, PLUTARCH, SOCLARUS.\n\n1. My younger sons staying too long at the plays, and coming in too\nlate to supper, Theon\u2019s sons waggishly and jocosely called them\nsupper-hinderers, night-suppers, and the like; and they in reply\ncalled them runners-to-supper. And one of the old men in the company\nsaid \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c7\u03ad\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 signified one that was too late for supper; because,\nwhen he found himself tardy, he mended his pace, and made more than\ncommon haste. And he told us a jest of Battus, Caesar\u2019s jester, who\ncalled those that came late supper-lovers, because out of their love to\nentertainments, though they had business, they would not desire to be\nexcused.\n\n2. And I said, that Polycharmus, a leading orator at Athens, in his\napology for his way of living before the assembly, said: Besides a\ngreat many things which I could mention, fellow-citizens, when I\nwas invited to supper, I never came the last man. For this is more\ndemocratical; and on the contrary, those that are forced to stay\nfor others that come late are offended at them as uncivil and of an\noligarchical temper.\n\n3. But Soclarus, in defence of my sons, said: Alcaeus (as the story\ngoes) did not call Pittacus a night-supper for supping late, but for\ndelighting in base and scandalous company. Heretofore to eat early\nwas accounted scandalous, and such a meal was called \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, from\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, _intemperance_.\n\n4. Then Theon interrupting him said: By no means, if we must trust\nthose who have delivered down to us the ancients\u2019 way of living.\nFor they say that those being used to work, and very temperate in a\nmorning, ate a bit of bread dipped in wine, and nothing else, and\nthat they called that meal \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, from the \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd (_wine_).\nTheir supper they called \u1f44\u03c8\u03bf\u03bd, because returning from their business\nthey took it \u1f40\u03c8\u03ad (_late_). Upon this we began to enquire whence\nthose meals \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd and \u1f04\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd took their names. In Homer \u1f04\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd and\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 seem to be the same meal. For he says that Eumaeus provided\n\u1f04\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd by the break of day; and it is probable that \u1f04\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd was so\ncalled from \u03b1\u1f54\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, because provided in the morning; and \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd was so\nnamed from \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, _easing men from their labor_.\nFor men used to take their \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd after they had finished their\nbusiness, or whilst they were about it. And this may be gathered from\nHomer, when he says,\n\n  Then when the woodman doth his supper dress.[104]\n\nBut some perhaps will derive \u1f04\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd from \u1fe5\u1fb7\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, _easiest\nprovided_, because that meal is usually made upon what is ready and\nat hand; and \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd from \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, _labored_, because of\nthe pains used in dressing it.\n\n5. My brother Lamprias, being of a scoffing, jeering nature, said:\nSince we are in a trifling humor, I can show that the Latin names of\nthese meals are a thousand times more proper than the Greek; \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd,\n_supper_, they call coena (\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd), from\ncommunity; because they took their \u1f04\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd by themselves, but their\ncoena with their friends. \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, _dinner_, they call prandium,\nfrom the time of the day; for \u1f14\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd signifies _noon-tide_, and to\nrest after dinner is expressed by \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd; or else by prandium they\ndenote a bit taken in the morning, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, _before\nthey have need of any_. And not to mention stragula from \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1,\nvinum from \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, oleum from \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, mel from \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9, gustare from\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, propinare from \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, and a great many more words which\nthey have plainly borrowed from the Greeks,\u2014who can deny but that they\nhave taken their comessatio, _banqueting_, from our \u03ba\u1ff6\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, and\nmiscere, _to mingle_, from the Greeks too? Thus in Homer,\n\n  She in a bowl herself mixt (\u1f14\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b3\u03b5) generous wine.[105]\n\nThey call a table mensam, from \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03c9 \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, _placing it in\nthe middle_; bread, panem, from satisfying \u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd, _hunger_; a\ngarland, coronam, from \u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, _the head_;\u2014and Homer somewhat\nlikens \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, _a head-piece_, to a garland;\u2014caedere _to\nbeat_, from \u03b4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd; and dentes, _teeth_, from \u1f40\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2; lips\nthey call labra, from \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03bd \u03b2\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, _taking our\nvictuals with them_. Therefore we must either hear such fooleries as\nthese without laughing, or not give them so ready access by means of\nwords....\n\n_QUESTION VII._\n\nCONCERNING PYTHAGORAS\u2019S SYMBOLS, IN WHICH HE FORBIDS US TO RECEIVE A\nSWALLOW INTO OUR HOUSE, AND BIDS US AS SOON AS WE ARE RISEN TO RUFFLE\nTHE BEDCLOTHES.\n\nSYLLA, LUCIUS, PLUTARCH, PHILINUS.\n\n1. Sylla the Carthaginian, upon my return to Rome after a long absence,\ngave me a welcoming supper, as the Romans call it, and invited some\nfew other friends, and among the rest, one Lucius an Etrurian, the\nscholar of Moderatus the Pythagorean. He seeing my friend Philinus ate\nno flesh, began (as the opportunity was fair) to talk of Pythagoras;\nand affirmed that he was a Tuscan, not because his father, as others\nhave said, was one, but because he himself was born, bred, and taught\nin Tuscany. To confirm this, he brought considerable arguments\nfrom such symbols as these:\u2014As soon as you are risen, ruffle the\nbedclothes; leave not the print of the pot in the ashes; receive not\na swallow into your house; never step over a besom; nor keep in your\nhouse creatures that have hooked claws. For these precepts of the\nPythagoreans the Tuscans only, as he said, carefully observe.\n\n2. Lucius having thus said, that precept about the swallow seemed to be\nmost unaccountable, it being a harmless and kind animal; and therefore\nit seemed strange that that should be forbid the house, as well as\nthe hooked-clawed animals, which are ravenous, wild, and bloody. Nor\ndid Lucius himself approve that only interpretation of the ancients,\nwho say, this symbol aims directly at backbiters and tale-bearing\nwhisperers. For the swallow whispers not at all; it chatters indeed,\nand is noisy, but not more than a pie, a partridge, or a hen. What\nthen, said Sylla, is it upon the old fabulous account of killing her\nson, that they deny the swallow entertainment, by that means showing\ntheir dislike to those passions which (as the story goes) made Tereus\nand Procne and Philomel act and suffer such wicked and abominable\nthings? And even to this day they call the birds Daulides. And Gorgias\nthe sophister, when a swallow muted upon him, looked upon her and said,\nPhilomel, this was not well done. Or perhaps this is all groundless;\nfor the nightingale, though concerned in the same tragedy, we willingly\nreceive.\n\n3. Perhaps, sir, said I, what you have alleged may be some reason; but\npray consider whether first they do not hate the swallow upon the same\naccount that they abhor hook-clawed animals. For the swallow feeds on\nflesh; and grasshoppers, which are sacred and musical, they chiefly\ndevour and prey upon. And, as Aristotle observes, they fly near the\nsurface of the earth to pick up the little animals. Besides, that alone\nof all house-animals makes no return for her entertainment. The stork,\nthough she is neither covered, fed, nor defended by us, yet pays for\nthe place where she builds, going about and killing the efts, snakes,\nand other venomous creatures. But the swallow though she receives\nall those several kindnesses from us, yet, as soon as her young are\nfledged, flies away faithless and ungrateful; and (which is the worst\nof all) of all house-animals, the fly and the swallow only never grow\ntame, suffer a man to touch them, keep company with or learn of him.\nAnd the fly is so shy because often hurted and driven away; but the\nswallow naturally hates man, suspects, and dares not trust any that\nwould tame her. And therefore,\u2014if we must not look on the outside\nof these things, but opening them view the representations of some\nthings in others,\u2014Pythagoras, setting the swallow for an example of a\nwandering, unthankful man, adviseth us not to take those who come to us\nfor their own need and upon occasion into our familiarity, and let them\npartake of the most sacred things, our house and fire.\n\n4. This discourse of mine gave the company encouragement to proceed, so\nthey attempted other symbols, and gave moral interpretations of them.\nPhilinus said, that the precept of blotting out the print of the pot\ninstructed us not to leave any plain mark of anger, but, as soon as\never the passion hath done boiling, to lay aside all thoughts of malice\nand revenge. That symbol which adviseth us to ruffle the bedclothes\nseemed to some to have no secret meaning, but to be in itself very\nevident; for it is not decent that the impression and (as it were)\nstamped image should be left to be seen by others, in the place where\na man hath lain with his wife. But Sylla thought the symbol was rather\nintended to prevent men\u2019s sleeping in the daytime, all the conveniences\nfor sleeping being taken away in the morning as soon as we are up.\nFor night is the time for sleep, and in the day we should rise and\nfollow our affairs, and not suffer so much as the print of our body\nin the bed, since a man asleep is of no more use than one dead. And\nthis interpretation seems to be confirmed by that other precept, in\nwhich the Pythagoreans advise their followers not to take off any man\u2019s\nburthen from him, but to lay on more, as not countenancing sloth and\nlaziness in any.\n\n_QUESTION VIII._\n\nWHY THE PYTHAGOREANS COMMAND FISH NOT TO BE EATEN, MORE STRICTLY\nTHAN OTHER ANIMALS.\n\nEMPEDOCLES, SYLLA, LUCIUS, TYNDARES, NESTOR.\n\n1. Our former discourse Lucius neither reprehended nor approved,\nbut, sitting silent and musing, gave us the hearing. Then Empedocles\naddressing his discourse to Sylla, said: If our friend Lucius is\ndispleased with the discourse, it is time for us to leave off; but if\nthese are some of their mysteries which ought to be concealed, yet I\nthink this may be lawfully divulged, that they more cautiously abstain\nfrom fish than from other animals. For this is said of the ancient\nPythagoreans; and even now I have met with Alexicrates\u2019s scholars, who\nwill eat and kill and even sacrifice some of the other animals, but\nwill never taste fish. Tyndares the Spartan said, they spared fish\nbecause they had so great a regard for silence, and they called fish\n\u1f14\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2, because they had their voice _shut up_ (\u1f30\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd); and\nmy namesake Empedocles advised one who left the school of Pythagoras\nto shut up his mind, ... and they thought silence to be divine, since\nthe Gods without any voice discover their meaning to the wise by their\nworks.\n\n2. Then Lucius gravely and composedly saying, that perhaps the true\nreason was obscure and not to be divulged, yet they had liberty to\nventure upon probable conjectures, Theon the grammarian began thus: To\ndemonstrate that Pythagoras was a Tuscan is a great and no easy task.\nBut it is confessed that he conversed a long time with the wise men\nof Egypt, and imitated a great many of the rites and institutions of\nthe priests, for instance, that about beans. For Herodotus delivers,\nthat the Egyptians neither set nor eat beans, nay, cannot endure to\nsee them; and we all know, that even now the priests eat no fish; and\nthe stricter sort eat no salt, and refuse all meat that is seasoned\nwith it. Various reasons are given for this; but the only true reason\nis hatred to the sea, as being a disagreeable, or rather naturally a\ndestructive element to man. For they do not imagine that the Gods,\nas the Stoics did that the stars, were nourished by it. But, on the\ncontrary, they think that the father and preserver of their country,\nwhom they call the deflux of Osiris, is lost in it; and when they\nbewail him as born on the left hand, and destroyed in the right-hand\nparts, they intimate to us the ending and corruption of their Nile by\nthe sea. Therefore they do not believe that its water is wholesome, or\nthat any creature produced or nourished in it can be clean or wholesome\nfood for man, since it breathes not the common air, and feeds not on\nthe same food with him. And the air that nourisheth and preserves all\nother things is destructive to them, as if their production and life\nwere unnecessary and against Nature; nor should we wonder that they\nthink animals bred in the sea to be disagreeable to their bodies, and\nnot fit to mix with their blood and spirits, since when they meet a\npilot they will not speak to him, because he gets his living by the sea.\n\n3. Sylla commended this discourse, and added concerning the\nPythagoreans, that they then chiefly tasted flesh when they sacrificed\nto the Gods. Now no fish is ever offered in sacrifice. I, after they\nhad done, said that many, both philosophers and unlearned, considering\nwith how many good things it furnisheth and makes our life more\ncomfortable, take the sea\u2019s part against the Egyptians. But that the\nPythagoreans should abstain from fish because they are not of the same\nkind, is ridiculous and absurd; nay, to butcher and feed on other\nanimals, because they bear a nearer relation to us, would be a most\ninhuman and Cyclopean return. And they say that Pythagoras bought a\ndraught of fishes, and presently commanded the fishers to let them all\nout of the net; and this shows that he did not hate or not mind fishes,\nas things of another kind and destructive to man, but that they were\nhis dearly beloved creatures, since he paid a ransom for their freedom.\n\nTherefore the tenderness and humanity of those philosophers suggest a\nquite contrary reason, and I am apt to believe that they spare fishes\nto instruct men, or to accustom themselves to acts of justice; for\nother creatures generally give men cause to afflict them, but fishes\nneither do nor are capable of doing us harm. And it is easy to show,\nboth from the writings and religion of the ancients, that they thought\nit a great sin not only to eat but to kill an animal that did them no\nharm. But afterwards, being necessitated by the spreading multitude\nof men, and commanded (as they say) by the Delphic oracle to prevent\nthe total decay of corn and fruit, they began to sacrifice, yet they\nwere so disturbed and concerned at the action, that they called it\n\u1f14\u03c1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd and \u1fe5\u03ad\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd (_to do_), as if they did some strange thing\nin killing an animal; and they are very careful not to kill the beast\nbefore the wine has been thrown upon his head and he nods in token of\nconsent. So very cautious are they of injustice. And not to mention\nother considerations, were no chickens (for instance) or hares killed,\nin a short time they would so increase that there could be no living.\nAnd now it would be a very hard matter to put down the eating of flesh,\nwhich necessity first introduced, since pleasure and luxury hath\nespoused it. But the water-animals neither consuming any part of our\nair or water, or devouring the fruit, but as it were encompassed by\nanother world, and having their own proper bounds, which it is death\nfor them to pass, they afford our belly no pretence at all for their\ndestruction; and therefore to catch or be greedy after fish is plain\ndeliciousness and luxury, which upon no just reason disturb the sea and\ndive into the deep. For we cannot call the mullet corn-destroying, the\ntrout grape-eating, nor the barbel or sea-pike seed-gathering, as we do\nsome land-animals, signifying their hurtfulness by these epithets. Nay,\nthose little mischiefs which we complain of in these house-creatures,\na weasel or fly, none can justly lay upon the greatest fish. Therefore\nthe Pythagoreans, confining themselves not only by the law which\nforbids them to injure men, but also by Nature, which commands them to\ndo violence to nothing, fed on fish very little, or rather not at all.\nBut suppose there were no injustice in this case, yet to delight in\nfish would argue daintiness and luxury; because they are such costly\nand unnecessary diet. Therefore Homer doth not only make the Greeks eat\nno fish whilst encamped near the Hellespont, but he mentions not any\nsea-provision that the dissolute Phaeacians or luxurious wooers had,\nthough both islanders. And Ulysses\u2019s mates, though they sailed over so\nmuch sea, as long as they had any provision left, never let down a hook\nor net.\n\n  But when the victuals of their ship was spent,[106]\n\na little before they fell upon the oxen of the Sun, they caught fish,\nnot to please their wanton appetite, but to satisfy their hunger,\u2014\n\n  With crooked hooks, for cruel hunger gnawed.\n\nThe same necessity therefore made them catch fish and devour the oxen\nof the Sun. Therefore not only among the Egyptians and Syrians, but\nGreeks too, to abstain from fish was a piece of sanctity, they avoiding\n(as I think) a superfluous curiosity in diet, as well as being just.\n\n4. To this Nestor subjoining said: But, sir, of my citizens, as of the\nMegarians in the proverb, you make no account; although you have often\nheard me say that our priests of Neptune (whom we call Hieromnemons)\nnever eat fish. For Neptune himself is called the Generator. And the\nrace of Hellen sacrificed to Neptune as the first father, imagining, as\nlikewise the Syrians did, that man rose from a liquid substance. And\ntherefore they worship a fish as of the same production and breeding\nwith themselves, in this matter being more happy in their philosophy\nthan Anaximander; for he says that fish and men were not produced in\nthe same substances, but that men were first produced in fishes, and,\nwhen they were grown up and able to help themselves, were thrown out,\nand so lived upon the land. Therefore, as the fire devours its parents,\nthat is, the matter out of which it was first kindled, so Anaximander,\nasserting that fish were our common parents, condemneth our feeding on\nthem.\n\n_QUESTION IX._\n\nWHETHER THERE CAN BE NEW DISEASES, AND HOW CAUSED.\n\nPHILO, DIOGENIANUS, PLUTARCH.\n\n1. Philo the physician stoutly affirmed that the elephantiasis was\na disease but lately known; since none of the ancient physicians\nspeak one word of it, though they oftentimes enlarge upon little,\nfrivolous, and obscure trifles. And I, to confirm it, cited Athenodorus\nthe philosopher, who in his first book of Epidemical Diseases says,\nthat not only that disease, but also the hydrophobia or water-dread\n(occasioned by the biting of a mad dog), were first discovered in the\ntime of Asclepiades. At this the whole company were amazed, thinking it\nvery strange that such diseases should begin then, and yet as strange\nthat they should not be taken notice of in so long a time; yet most of\nthem leaned to this last opinion, as being most agreeable to man, not\nin the least daring to imagine that Nature affected novelties, or would\nin the body of man, as in a city, create new disturbances and tumults.\n\n2. And Diogenianus added, that even the passions and diseases of the\nmind go on in the same old road that formerly they did; and yet the\nviciousness of our inclination is exceedingly prone to variety, and our\nmind is mistress of itself, and can, if it please, easily change and\nalter. Yet all her inordinate motions have some sort of order, and the\nsoul hath bounds to her passions, as the sea to her overflowings. And\nthere is no sort of vice now among us which was not practised by the\nancients. There are a thousand differences of appetites and various\nmotions of fear; the schemes of grief and pleasure are innumerable;\n\n  Yet are not they of late or now produced,\n  And none can tell from whence they first arose.[107]\n\nHow then should the body be subject to new diseases, since it hath not,\nlike the soul, the principle of its own alteration in itself, but by\ncommon causes is joined to Nature, and receives a temperature whose\ninfinite variety of alterations is confined to certain bounds, like\na ship rolling and tossing in a circle about its anchor. Now there\ncan be no disease without some cause, it being against the laws of\nNature that any thing should be without a cause. Now it will be very\nhard to find a new cause, unless we fancy some strange air, water, or\nfood never tasted by the ancients, should descend to us out of other\nworlds or intermundane spaces. For we contract diseases from those very\nthings which preserve our life; since there are no peculiar seeds of\ndiseases, but the disagreement of their juices to our bodies, or our\nexcess in using them, disturbs nature. These disturbances have still\nthe very same differences, though now and then called by new names.\nFor names depend on custom, but the passions on Nature; and these being\nconstant and those variable, this mistake has arisen. As, in the parts\nof a speech and the syntax of the words, it is possible for some new\nsort of barbarism or solecism suddenly to arise; so the temperature\nof the body hath certain deviations and corruptions into which it may\nfall, those things which are against and hurtful to Nature being in\nsome sort contained in Nature herself. The mythographers are in this\nparticular very ingenious, for they say that monstrous uncouth animals\nwere produced in the time of the Giants\u2019 war, the moon being out of its\ncourse, and not rising where it used to do. And those who think Nature\nproduces new diseases like monsters, and yet give neither likely nor\nunlikely reasons of the change, err, as I imagine, my dear Philo, in\ntaking a less or a greater degree of the same disease to be a different\ndisease. The intension or increase of a thing makes it more or greater,\nbut does not make the subject of another kind. Thus the elephantiasis,\nbeing an intense scabbiness, is not a new kind; nor is the water-dread\ndistinguished from other melancholic and stomachical affections but by\nthe degree. And I wonder we did not observe that Homer was acquainted\nwith this disease, for it is evident that he calls a dog rabid from the\nvery same rage with which when men are possessed they are said to be\nmad.\n\n3. Against this discourse of Diogenianus Philo himself made some\nobjections, and desired me to be the old physicians\u2019 patron; who\nmust be branded with inadvertency and ignorance, unless it appears\nthat those diseases began since their time. First then Diogenianus,\nmethinks, very precariously desires us to think that the intenseness or\nremissness of degrees is not a real difference, and does not alter the\nkind. For, were this true, then we should hold that downright vinegar\nis not different from pricked wine, nor a bitter from a rough taste,\ndarnel from wheat, nor garden-mint from wild mint. For it is evident\nthat these differences are only the degrees of the same qualities,\nin some being more intense, in some more remiss. So we should not\nventure to affirm that flame is different from a white spirit, daylight\nfrom flame, hoar-frost from dew, or hail from rain; but that the\nformer have only more intense qualities than the latter. Besides, we\nshould say that blindness is of the same kind with short-sightedness,\nviolent vomiting (or cholera) with weakness of the stomach, and that\nthey differ only in degree. Though what they say is nothing to the\npurpose; for if they admit the increase in intensity and vehemency, but\ndeclare that this came but now of late,\u2014the novelty appearing in the\nquantity rather than the quality,\u2014the same difficulties which they\nurged against the other opinion oppress them. Sophocles says very well\nconcerning those things which are not believed to be now, because they\nwere not heretofore,\u2014\n\n  Once at the first all things their being had.\n\nAnd it is probable that not all diseases, as in a race, the barrier\nbeing let down, started together; but that one rising after another, at\nsome certain time, had its beginning and showed itself. It is rational\nto conclude (continued I) that all diseases that rise from want, heat,\nor cold bear the same date with our bodies; but afterwards over-eating,\nluxury, and surfeiting, encouraged by ease and plenty, raised bad and\nsuperfluous juices, and those brought various new diseases, and their\nperpetual complications and mixtures still create more new. Whatever is\nnatural is determined and in order; for Nature is order, or the work\nof order. Disorder, like Pindar\u2019s sand, cannot be comprised by number,\nand that which is beside Nature is straight called indeterminate and\ninfinite. Thus truth is simple, and but one; but falsities innumerable.\nThe exactness of motions and harmony are definite, but the errors\neither in playing upon the harp, singing, or dancing, who can\ncomprehend? Indeed Phrynichus the tragedian says of himself,\n\n  As many figures dancing doth propose\n  As waves roll on the sea when tempests toss.\n\nAnd Chrysippus says that the various complications of ten single axioms\namount to 1,000,000. But Hipparchus hath confuted that account, showing\nthat the affirmative contains 101,049 complicated propositions, and\nthe negative 310,952. And Xenocrates says, the number of syllables\nwhich the letters will make is 100,200,000. How then is it strange\nthat the body, having so many different powers in itself, and getting\nnew qualities every day from its meat and drink, and using those\nmotions and alterations which are not always in the same time nor in\nthe same order, should upon the various complications of all these be\naffected with new diseases? Such was the plague at Athens described\nby Thucydides, who conjectures that it was new because that birds and\nbeasts of prey would not touch the dead carcasses. Those that fell sick\nabout the Red Sea, if we believe Agatharcides, besides other strange\nand unheard diseases, had little serpents in their legs and arms, which\ndid eat their way out, but when touched shrunk in again, and raised\nintolerable inflammations in the muscles; and yet this kind of plague,\nas likewise many others, never afflicted any beside, either before or\nsince. One, after a long stoppage of urine, voided a knotty barley\nstraw. And we know that Ephebus, with whom we lodged at Athens, threw\nout, together with a great deal of seed, a little hairy, many-footed,\nnimble animal. And Aristotle tells us, that Timon\u2019s nurse in Cilicia\nevery year for two months lay in a cave, without any vital operation\nbesides breathing. And in the Menonian books it is delivered as a\nsymptom of a diseased liver carefully to observe and hunt after mice\nand rats, which we see now nowhere practised.\n\nTherefore let us not wonder if something happens which never was\nbefore, or if something doth not appear among us with which the\nancients were acquainted; for the cause of those accidents is the\nnature of our body, whose temperature is subject to be changed.\nTherefore, if Diogenianus will not introduce a new kind of water or\nair, we, having no need of it, are very well content. Yet we know some\nof Democritus\u2019s scholars affirm that, other worlds being dissolved,\nsome strange effluvia fall into ours, and are the principle of new\nplagues and uncommon diseases. But let us not now take notice of the\ncorruption of some parts of this world by earthquake, droughts, and\nfloods, by which both the vapors and fountains rising out of the\nearth must be necessarily corrupted. Yet we must not pass by that\nchange which must be wrought in the body by our meat, drink, and other\nexercises in our course of life. For many things which the ancients\ndid not feed on are now accounted dainties; for instance mead and\nswine\u2019s paunch. Heretofore too, as I have heard, they hated the brain\nof animals so much, that they abominated the very name of it; as when\nHomer says, \u201cI value him at a brain\u2019s[108] worth.\u201d And even now we\nknow some old men, that will not taste cucumber, melon, orange, or\npepper. Now by these meats and drinks it is probable that the juices\nof our bodies are much altered, and their temperature changed, new\nqualities arising from this new sort of diet. And the change of order\nin our feeding having a great influence on the alteration of our\nbodies, the cold courses, as they were called formerly, consisting of\noysters, sea-urchins, salads, and the like, being (in Plato\u2019s phrase)\ntransferred \u201cfrom tail to mouth,\u201d now make the first course, whereas\nthey were formerly the last. Besides, the glass which we usually take\nbefore supper is very considerable in this case; for the ancients never\ndrank so much as water before they ate, but now we drink freely before\nwe sit down, and fall to our meat with a full and heated body, using\nsharp sauces and pickles to provoke appetite, and then we fall greedily\non the other meat. But nothing conduceth more to alterations and new\ndiseases in the body than our various baths; for here the flesh, like\niron in the fire, grows soft and loose, and is presently constipated\nand hardened by the cold. For, in my opinion, if any of the last age\nhad looked into our baths, he might have justly said,\n\n  There burning Phlegethon meets Acheron.\n\nFor they used such mild gentle baths, that Alexander the Great being\nfeverish slept in one. And the Gauls\u2019 wives carry their pots of pulse\nto eat with their children whilst they are in the bath. But our baths\nnow inflame, vellicate, and distress; and the air which we draw is a\nmixture of air and water, disturbs the whole body, tosses and displaces\nevery atom, till we quench the fiery particles and allay their heat.\nTherefore, Diogenianus, you see that this account requires no new\nstrange causes, no intermundane spaces; but the single alteration of\nour diet is enough to raise new diseases and abolish old.\n\n_QUESTION X._\n\nWHY WE GIVE LEAST CREDIT TO DREAMS IN AUTUMN.\n\nFLORUS, PLUTARCH, PLUTARCH\u2019S SONS, FAVORINUS.\n\n1. Florus reading Aristotle\u2019s physical problems, which were brought\nto him to Thermopylae, was himself (as philosophical wits used to be)\nfilled with a great many doubts, and communicated them to others;\nthereby confirming Aristotle\u2019s saying, that much learning raises\nmany doubts. Other topics made our walks every day very pleasant,\nbut the common saying concerning dreams,\u2014that those in autumn are\nthe vainest,\u2014I know not how, whilst Favorinus was engaged in other\nmatters, was started after supper. Your friends and my sons thought\nAristotle had given sufficient satisfaction in this point, and that\nno other cause was to be sought after or allowed but that which he\nmentions, the fruit. For the fruit, being new and flatulent, raises\nmany disturbing vapors in the body; for it is not likely that only wine\nferments, or new oil only makes a noise in the lamp, the heat agitating\nits vapor; but new corn and all sorts of fruit are plump and distended,\ntill the unconcocted flatulent vapor is broke away. And that some sorts\nof food disturb dreams, they said, was evident from beans and the\npolypus\u2019s head, from which those who would divine by their dreams are\ncommanded to abstain.\n\n2. But Favorinus himself, though in all other things he admires\nAristotle exceedingly and thinks the Peripatetic philosophy to be most\nprobable, yet in this case resolved to scour up an old musty opinion\nof Democritus. He first laid down that known principle of his, that\nimages pass through the pores into the inmost parts of the body, and\nbeing carried upward cause dreams; and that these images fly from\nevery thing, vessels, garments, plants, but especially from animals,\nbecause of their heat and the motion of their spirits; and that these\nimages not only carry the outward shape and likeness of the bodies\n(as Epicurus thinks, following Democritus so far and no farther), but\nthe very designs, motions, and passions of the soul; and with those\nentering into the bodies, as if they were living things, discover to\nthose that receive them the thoughts and inclinations of the persons\nfrom whom they come, if so be that they preserve their frame and\norder entire. And that is especially preserved when the air is calm\nand clear, their passage then being quick and undisturbed. Now the\nautumnal air, when trees shed their leaves, being very uneven and\ndisturbed, ruffles and disorders the images, and, hindering them in\ntheir passage, makes them weak and ineffectual; when, on the contrary,\nif they rise from warm and vigorous subjects, and are presently\napplied, the notices which they give and the impressions they make are\nclear and evident.\n\n3. Then with a smile looking upon Autobulus, he continued: But, sir,\nI perceive you design to have an airy skirmish with these images,\nand try the goodness of this old opinion, as you would a picture,\nby your touch. And Autobulus replied: Pray, sir, do not endeavor to\ncheat us any longer; for we know very well that you, designing to make\nAristotle\u2019s opinion appear the better, have used this of Democritus\nonly as its shade. Therefore I shall pass by that, and impugn\nAristotle\u2019s opinion, which unjustly lays the blame on the new fruit.\nFor both the summer and the early autumn bear testimony in its favor,\nwhen, as Antimachus says, the fruit is most fresh and juicy; for then,\nthough we eat the new fruit, yet our dreams are less vain than at other\ntimes. And the months when the leaves fall, being next to winter, so\nconcoct the corn and remaining fruit, that they grow shrivelled and\nless, and lose all their brisk agitating spirit. As for new wine, those\nthat drink it soonest forbear till February, which is after winter; and\nthe day on which we begin we call the day of the Good Genius, and the\nAthenians the day of cask-opening. For whilst wine is working, we see\nthat even common laborers will not venture on it. Therefore no more\naccusing the gifts of the Gods, let us seek after another cause of\nvain dreams, to which the name of the season will direct us. For it is\ncalled _leaf-shedding_, because the leaves then fall on account of\ntheir dryness and coldness; except the leaves of hot and oily trees,\nas of the olive, the laurel, or the palm; or of the moist, as of\nthe myrtle and the ivy. But the temperature of these preserves them,\nthough not others; because in others the vicious humor that holds the\nleaves is constipated by the cold, or being weak and little is dried\nup. Now moisture and heat are necessary for the growth and preservation\nof plants, but especially of animals; and on the contrary, coldness\nand dryness are very noxious to both. And therefore Homer elegantly\ncalls men moist and juicy; to rejoice he calls to be warmed; and any\nthing that is grievous and frightful he calls cold and icy. Besides,\nthe words \u1f00\u03bb\u03af\u03b2\u03b1\u03c2 and \u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 are applied to the dead, those names\nintimating their extreme dryness. But more, our blood, the principal\nthing in our whole body, is moist and hot. And old age hath neither\nof those two qualities. Now the autumn seems to be as it were the old\nage of the decaying year; for the moisture doth not yet fall, and the\nheat decays. And its inclining the body to diseases is an evident sign\nof its cold and dryness. Now it is necessary that the souls should\nbe indisposed with the bodies and that, the subtile spirit being\ncondensed, the divining faculty of the soul, like a mirror that is\nbreathed upon, should be sullied; and therefore it cannot represent any\nthing plain, distinct, and clear, as long as it remains thick, dark,\nand condensed.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK IX.\n\n\nThis ninth book, Sossius Senecio, contains the discourses we held at\nAthens at the Muses\u2019 feast, for this number nine is agreeable to the\nnumber of the Muses. Nor must you wonder when you find more than ten\nquestions (which number I have observed in my other books) in it; for\nwe ought to give the Muses all that belongs to them, and be as careful\nof robbing them as of a temple, since we owe them much more and much\nbetter things than these.\n\n_QUESTION I._\n\nCONCERNING VERSES SEASONABLY AND UNSEASONABLY APPLIED.\n\nAMMONIUS, PLUTARCH, ERATO, CERTAIN SCHOOLMASTERS, AND FRIENDS OF\nAMMONIUS.\n\n1. Ammonius, captain of the militia at Athens, would show Diogenianus\nthe proficiency of those youths that learned grammar, geometry,\nrhetoric, and music; and invited the chief masters of the town to\nsupper. There were a great many scholars at the feast, and almost\nall his acquaintance. Achilles invited only the single combatants\nto his feast, intending (as the story goes) that, if in the heat of\nthe encounter they had conceived any anger or ill-will against one\nanother, they might then lay it aside, being made partakers of one\ncommon entertainment. But the contrary happened to Ammonius, for the\ncontentions of the masters increased and grew more sharp midst their\ncups and merriment; and all was disorder and confused babbling.\n\n2. Therefore Ammonius commanded Erato to sing to his harp, and he sang\nsome part of Hesiod\u2019s Works beginning thus,\n\n  Contention to one sort is not confined;[109]\n\nand I commended him for choosing so apposite a song. Then he began\nto discourse about the seasonable use of verse, that it was not only\npleasant but profitable. And straight every one\u2019s mouth was full of\nthat poet who began Ptolemy\u2019s epithalamium (when he married his\nsister, a wicked and abominable match) thus,\n\n  Jove Juno called his sister and his wife;[110]\n\nand another, who was unwilling to sing after supper to Demetrius the\nking, but when he sent him his young son Philip to be educated sang\nthus,\n\n  Breed thou the boy as doth become\n  Both Hercules\u2019s race and us;\n\nand Anaxarchus who, being pelted with apples by Alexander at supper,\nrose up and said,\n\n  Some God shall wounded be by mortal hand.[111]\n\nBut that Corinthian captive boy excelled all, who, when the city was\ndestroyed, and Mummius, taking a survey of all the free-born children\nthat understood letters, commanded each to write a verse, wrote thus:\n\n  Thrice, four times blest, the happy Greeks that fell.[112]\n\nFor they say that Mummius was affected with it, wept, and gave all the\nfree-born children that were allied to the boy their liberty. And some\nmentioned the wife of Theodorus the tragedian, who refused his embraces\na little before he contended for the prize; but, when he was conqueror\nand came in unto her, clasped him and said,\n\n  Now, Agamemnon\u2019s son, you freely may.[113]\n\n3. After this a great many sayings were mentioned as unseasonably\nspoken, it being fit that we should know such and avoid them;\u2014as that\nto Pompey the Great, to whom, upon his return from a dangerous war,\nthe schoolmaster brought his little daughter, and, to show him what a\nproficient she was, called for a book, and bade her begin at this line,\n\n  Returned from war; but hadst thou there been slain,\n  My wish had been complete;[114]\n\nand that to Cassius Longinus, to whom a flying report of his son\u2019s\ndying abroad being brought, and he no ways appearing either to know\nthe certain truth or to clear the doubt, an old senator came and said:\nLonginus, will you not despise the flying uncertain rumor, as if you\nneither knew nor had read this line,\n\n  For no report is wholly false?[115]\n\nAnd he that at Rhodes, to a grammarian demanding a line upon which he\nmight show his skill in the theatre, proposed this,\n\n  Fly from the island, worst of all mankind,[116]\n\neither slyly put a trick upon him, or unwittingly blundered. And this\ndiscourse quieted the tumult.\n\n_QUESTIONS II. & III._\n\nWHAT IS THE REASON THAT ALPHA IS PLACED FIRST IN THE ALPHABET, AND WHAT\nIS THE PROPORTION BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF VOWELS AND SEMI-VOWELS?\n\nAMMONIUS, HERMEAS, PROTOGENES, PLUTARCH, ZOPYRION.\n\n1. It being the custom of the Muses\u2019 feast to draw lots, and those that\nwere matched to propose curious questions to one another, Ammonius,\nfearing that two of the same profession might be matched together,\nordered, without drawing lots, a geometrician to propose questions to a\ngrammarian, and a master of music to a rhetorician.\n\n2. First therefore, Hermeas the geometrician demanded of Protogenes the\ngrammarian a reason why Alpha was the first letter of the alphabet.\nAnd he returned the common answer of the schools, that it was fit the\nvowels should be set before the mutes and semi-vowels. And of the\nvowels, some being long, some short, some both long and short, it is\njust that the latter should be most esteemed. And of these that are\nlong and short, that is to be set first which is usually placed before\nthe other two, but never after either; and that is Alpha. For that put\neither after Iota or Upsilon will not be pronounced, will not make one\nsyllable with them, but as it were resenting the affront and angry at\nthe position, seeks the first as its proper place. But if you place\nAlpha before either of those, they are obedient, and quietly join in\none syllable, as in these words, \u03b1\u1f54\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u0391\u1f34\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9,\nand a thousand others. In these three respects therefore, as the\nconquerors in all the five exercises, it claims the precedence,\u2014that\nof most other letters by being a vowel, that of other vowels by being\ndouble-timed, and lastly, that of these double-timed vowels themselves\nbecause it is its natural place to be set before and never after them.\n\n3. Protogenes making a pause, Ammonius, speaking to me, said: What!\nhave you, being a Boeotian, nothing to say for Cadmus, who (as the\nstory goes) placed Alpha the first in order, because a cow is called\nAlpha by the Phoenicians, and they account it not the second or third\n(as Hesiod doth) but the first of their necessary things? Nothing\nat all, I replied, for it is just that, to the best of my power, I\nshould rather assist my own than Bacchus\u2019s grandfather. For Lamprias\nmy grandfather said, that the first articulate sound that is made is\nAlpha; for the air in the mouth is formed and fashioned by the motion\nof the lips; now as soon as those are opened, that sound breaks forth,\nbeing very plain and simple, not requiring or depending upon the motion\nof the tongue, but gently breathed forth whilst that lies still.\nTherefore that is the first sound that children make. Thus \u1f00\u03af\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, _to\nhear_, \u1f84\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, _to sing_, \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, _to pipe_, \u1f00\u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\n_to hollow_, begin with the letter Alpha; and I think that \u03b1\u1f34\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\n_to lift up_, and \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, _to open_, were fitly taken from\nthat opening and lifting up of the lips when his voice is uttered.\nThus all the names of the mutes besides one have an Alpha, as it were a\nlight to assist their blindness; for Pi alone wants it, and Phi and Chi\nare only Pi and Kappa with an aspirate.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n1. Hermeas saying that he approved both reasons, why then (continued I)\ndo not you explain the proportion, if there be any, of the number of\nthe letters; for, in my opinion, there is; and I think so, because the\nnumber of mutes and semi-vowels, compared between themselves or with\nthe vowels, doth not seem casual and undesigned, but to be according\nto the first proportion which you call arithmetical. For their number\nbeing nine, eight, and seven, the middle exceeds the last as much as\nit wants of the first. And the first number being compared with the\nlast, hath the same proportion that the Muses have to Apollo; for\nnine is appropriated to them, and seven to him. And these two numbers\ntied together double the middle; and not without reason, since the\nsemi-vowels partake the power of both.\n\n2. And Hermeas replied: It is said that Mercury was the first God that\ndiscovered letters in Egypt; and therefore the Egyptians make the\nfigure of an Ibis, a bird dedicated to Mercury, for the first letter.\nBut it is not fit, in my opinion, to place an animal that makes no\nnoise at the head of the letters. Amongst all the numbers, the fourth\nis peculiarly dedicated to Mercury, because, as some say, the God\nwas born on the fourth day of the month. The first letters called\nPhoenician from Cadmus are four times four, or sixteen; and of those\nthat were afterward added, Palamedes found four, and Simonides four\nmore. Now amongst numbers, three is the first perfect, as consisting of\na first, a middle, and a last; and after that six, as being equal the\nsum of its own divisors (1 + 2 + 3). Of these, six multiplied by four\nmakes twenty-four; and also the first perfect number, three, multiplied\nby the first cube, eight.\n\n3. Whilst he was discoursing thus, Zopyrion the grammarian sneered and\nmuttered something between his teeth; and, as soon as he had done,\ncried out that he most egregiously trifled; for it was mere chance, and\nnot design, that gave such a number and order to the letters, as it was\nmere chance that the first and last verses of Homer\u2019s Iliads have just\nas many syllables as the first and last of his Odysseys.\n\n_QUESTION IV._\n\nWHICH OF VENUS\u2019S HANDS DIOMEDES WOUNDED.\n\nHERMEAS, ZOPYRION, MAXIMUS.\n\n1. Hermeas would have replied to Zopyrion, but we desired him to\nhold; and Maximus the rhetorician proposed to him this far-fetched\nquestion out of Homer, Which of Venus\u2019s hands Diomedes wounded.\nAnd Zopyrion presently asking him again, Of which leg was Philip\nlame?\u2014Maximus replied, It is a different case, for Demosthenes hath\nleft us no foundation upon which we may build our conjecture. But if\nyou confess your ignorance in this matter, others will show how the\npoet sufficiently intimates to an understanding man which hand it was.\nZopyrion being at a stand, we all, since he made no reply, desired\nMaximus to tell us.\n\n2. And he began: The verses running thus,\n\n  Then Diomedes raised his mighty spear,\n  And leaping towards her just did graze her hand;[117]\n\nit is evident that, if he designed to wound her left hand there had\nbeen no need of leaping, since her left hand was opposite to his right.\nBesides, it is probable that he would endeavor to wound the strongest\nhand, and that with which she drew away Aeneas; which being wounded,\nit was likely she would let him go. But more, after she returned to\nHeaven, Minerva jeeringly said,\n\n  No doubt fair Venus won a Grecian dame,\n  To follow her beloved Trojan youths,\n  And as she gently stroked her with her hand,\n  Her golden buckler scratched this petty wound.[118]\n\nAnd I suppose, sir, when you stroke any of your scholars, you use your\nright hand, and not your left; and it is likely that Venus, the most\ndexterous of all the goddesses, soothed the heroines after the same\nmanner.\n\n_QUESTION V._\n\nWHY PLATO SAYS THAT AJAX\u2019S SOUL CAME TO DRAW HER LOT IN THE\nTWENTIETH PLACE IN HELL.\n\nHYLAS, SOSPIS, AMMONIUS, LAMPRIAS.\n\n1. These discourses made all the other company merry; but Sospis the\nrhetorician, seeing Hylas the grammarian sit silent and discomposed\n(for he had not been very happy in his exercises), cried out,\n\n  But Ajax\u2019s soul stood far apart;\n\nand raising his voice repeated the rest to him,\n\n  But sit, draw near, and patiently attend,\n  Hear what I say, and tame your violent rage.\n\nTo this Hylas, unable to contain, returned a scurvy answer, saying that\nAjax\u2019s soul, taking her lot in the twentieth place in hell, changed her\nnature, according to Plato, for a lion\u2019s; but, for his part, he could\nnot but often think upon the saying of the old comedian,\n\n  \u2019Tis better far to be an ass, than see\n  Unworthie men in greater honor shine.\n\nAt this Sospis, laughing heartily, said: But in the mean time, before\nwe have the pack-saddles on, if you have any regard for Plato, tell us\nwhy he makes Ajax\u2019s soul, after the lots drawn, to have the twentieth\nchoice. Hylas, with great indignation, refused, thinking that this was\na jeering reflection on his former miscarriage. Therefore my brother\nbegan thus: What, was not Ajax counted the second for beauty, strength,\nand courage, and the next to Achilles in the Grecian army? And twenty\nis the second ten, and ten is the chiefest of numbers, as Achilles of\nthe Greeks. We laughing at this, Ammonius said: Well, Lamprias, let\nthis suffice for a joke upon Hylas; but since you have voluntarily\ntaken upon you to give an account of this matter, leave off jesting,\nand seriously proceed.\n\n2. This startled Lamprias a little, but, after a short pause, he\ncontinued thus: Plato often tells merry stories under borrowed names,\nbut when he puts any fable into a discourse concerning the soul, he\nhath some considerable meaning in it. The intelligent nature of the\nheavens he calls a flying chariot, intimating the harmonious whirl\nof the world. And here he introduceth one Er, the son of Harmonius,\na Pamphylian, to tell what he had seen in hell; intimating that our\nsouls are begotten according to harmony, and are agreeably united\nto our bodies, and that, when they are separated, they are from\nall parts carried together into the air, and from thence return to\nsecond generations. And what hinders but that twentieth (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c7\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd)\nshould intimate that this was not a true story, but only probable and\nfictitious (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c7\u03cc\u03c2), and that the lot fell casually (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c7\u1fc6). For Plato\nalways toucheth upon three causes, he being the first and chiefest\nphilosopher that knew how fate agrees with fortune, and how our\nfree-will is mixed and complicated with both. And now he hath admirably\ndiscovered what influence each hath upon our affairs. The choice of\nour life he hath left to our free-will, for virtue and vice are free.\nBut that those who have made a good choice should live religiously,\nand those who have made an ill choice should lead a contrary life, he\nleaves to the necessity of fate. But the chances of lots thrown at a\nventure introduce fortune into the several conditions of life in which\nwe are brought up, which pre-occupates and perverts our own choice. Now\nconsider whether it is not irrational to enquire after a cause of those\nthings that are done by chance. For if the lot seems to be disposed of\nby design, it ceaseth to be chance and fortune, and becomes fate and\nprovidence.\n\n3. Whilst Lamprias was speaking, Marcus the grammarian seemed to be\ncounting to himself, and when he had done, he began thus: Amongst\nthe souls which Homer mentions in his \u039d\u03b5\u03c7\u03c5\u03af\u03b1, Elpenor\u2019s is not to be\nreckoned as mixed with those in hell, but, his body being not buried,\nas wandering about the banks of the river Styx. Nor is it fit that we\nshould reckon Tiresias\u2019s soul amongst the rest,\u2014\n\n  On whom alone, when deep in hell beneath,\n  Wisdom Proserpina conferred,\n\nto discourse and converse with the living even before he drank the\nsacrifice\u2019s blood. Therefore, Lamprias, if you subtract these two,\nyou will find that Ajax was the twentieth that Ulysses saw, and Plato\nmerrily alludes to that place in Homer\u2019s \u039d\u03b5\u03c7\u03c5\u03af\u03b1.[119]\n\n_QUESTION VI._\n\nWHAT IS MEANT BY THE FABLE ABOUT THE DEFEAT OF NEPTUNE? AND ALSO, WHY\nDO THE ATHENIANS TAKE OUT THE SECOND DAY OF THE MONTH BOEDROMION?\n\nMENEPHYLUS, HYLAS, LAMPRIAS.\n\nNow when the whole company were grown to a certain uproar, Menephylus,\na Peripatetic philosopher, called to Hylas by name and said: You see\nthat this question was not propounded by way of mockery and flouting;\nbut leave now that obstinate Ajax, whose very name (according to\nSophocles) is ill-omened, and betake yourself to Neptune. For you are\nwont to recount unto us how he has been oftentimes overcome,\u2014here by\nMinerva, in Delphi by Apollo, in Argos by Juno, in Aegina by Jupiter,\nin Naxos by Bacchus,\u2014and yet has borne himself always mild and gentle\nin all his repulses. In proof whereof, there is even in this city a\ntemple common to him and Minerva, in which there is also an altar\ndedicated to Oblivion. Then Hylas, who seemed by this time to be more\npleasantly disposed, replied: You have forgotten, Menephylus, that we\nhave abolished the second day of September, not in regard of the moon,\nbut because it was thought to be the day on which Neptune and Minerva\ncontended for the seigniory of Attica. By all means, quoth Lamprias, by\nas much as Neptune was every way more civil than Thrasybulus, since not\nbeing like him a winner, but the loser,...\n\n  (_The rest of this book to Question XIII is lost; with the\n  exception of the titles that follow, and the fragment of Question\n  XII._)\n\n_QUESTION VII._\n\nWHY THE ACCORDS IN MUSIC ARE DIVIDED INTO THREE.\n\n_QUESTION VIII._\n\nWHEREIN THE INTERVALS OR SPACES MELODIOUS DIFFER FROM THOSE THAT\nARE ACCORDANT.\n\n_QUESTION IX._\n\nWHAT CAUSE PRODUCETH ACCORD? AND ALSO, WHY, WHEN TWO ACCORDANT\nSTRING ARE TOUCHED TOGETHER, IS THE MELODY ASCRIBED TO THE BASE?\n\n_QUESTION X._\n\nWHY, WHEN THE ECLIPTIC PERIODS OF THE SUN AND THE MOON ARE EQUAL IN\nNUMBER, THERE ARE MORE ECLIPSES OF THE MOON THAN OF THE SUN.\n\n_QUESTION XI._\n\nTHAT WE CONTINUE NOT ALWAYS ONE AND THE SAME, IN REGARD OF THE\nDAILY DEFLUX OF OUR SUBSTANCE.\n\n_QUESTION XII._\n\nWHETHER OF THE TWAIN IS MORE PROBABLE, THAT THE NUMBER OF THE STARS\nIS EVEN OR ODD?\n\n... but men are to be deceived with oaths. And Glaucias said: I have\nheard that this speech was used against Polycrates the tyrant, and it\nmay be that it was spoken also to others. But why do you demand this\nof me? Because verily, quoth Sospis, I see that children play at odd\nand even with cockal bones, but Academics with words. For it seems to\nme that such stomachs differ in nothing from them who hold out their\nclutched fists and ask whether they hold odd or even. Then Protogenes\narose and called me by name, saying: What ail we, that we suffer these\nrhetoricians thus to brave it out and to mock others, being demanded\nnothing in the mean time, nor put to it to contribute their scot to the\nconference?\u2014unless peradventure they will come in with the plea that\nthey have no part of this table-talk over the wine, being followers\nof Demosthenes, who in all his life never drank wine. That is not the\nreason, said I; but we have put them no questions. And now, unless\nyou have any thing better to ask, methinks I can be even with these\nfellows, and put them a puzzling question out of Homer, as to a case of\nrepugnance in contrary laws.\n\n_QUESTION XIII._\n\nA MOOT-POINT OUT OF THE THIRD BOOK OF HOMER\u2019S ILIADS.\n\nPLUTARCH, PROTOGENES, GLAUCIAS, SOSPIS.\n\n1. What question will you put them, said Protogenes? I will tell you,\ncontinued I, and let them carefully attend. Paris makes his challenge\nin these express words:\n\n  Let me and valiant Menelaus fight\n  For Helen, and for all the goods she brought;\n  And he that shall o\u2019ercome, let him enjoy\n  The goods and woman; let them be his own.\n\nAnd Hector afterwards publicly proclaiming this challenge in these\nexpress words:\n\n  He bids the Trojans and the valiant Greeks\n  To fix their arms upon the fruitful ground;\n  Let Menelaus and stout Paris fight\n  For all the goods; and he that beats have all.\n\nMenelaus accepted the challenge, and the conditions were sworn to,\nAgamemnon dictating thus:\n\n  If Paris valiant Menelaus kills,\n  Let him have Helen, and the goods possess;\n  If youthful Menelaus Paris kills,\n  The woman and the goods shall all be his.[120]\n\nNow since Menelaus only overcame but did not kill Paris, each party\nhath somewhat to say for itself, and against the other. The one may\ndemand restitution, because Paris was overcome; the other deny it,\nbecause he was not killed. Now how to determine this case and clear the\nseeming repugnances doth not belong to philosophers or grammarians, but\nto rhetoricians, that are well skilled both in grammar and philosophy.\n\n2. Then Sospis said: The challenger\u2019s word is decisive; for the\nchallenger proposed the conditions, and when they were accepted, the\nother party had no power to make additions. Now the condition proposed\nin this challenge was not killing, but overcoming; and there was reason\nthat it should be so, for Helen ought to be the wife of the bravest.\nNow the bravest is he that overcomes; for it often happens that an\nexcellent soldier might be killed by a coward, as is evident in what\nhappened afterward, when Achilles was shot by Paris. For I do not\nbelieve that you will affirm, that Achilles was not so brave a man as\nParis because he was killed by him, and that it should be called the\nvictory, and not rather the unjust good fortune, of him that shot him.\nBut Hector was overcome before he was killed by Achilles, because he\nwould not stand, but trembled and fled at his approach. For he that\nrefuseth the combat or flies cannot palliate his defeat, and plainly\ngrants that his adversary is the better man. And therefore Iris tells\nHelen beforehand,\n\n  In single combat they shall fight for you,\n  And you shall be the glorious victor\u2019s wife.[121]\n\nAnd Jupiter afterwards adjudges the victory to Menelaus in these words:\n\n  The conquest leans to Menelaus\u2019s side.[122]\n\nFor it would be ridiculous to call Menelaus a conqueror when he shot\nPodes, a man at a great distance, before he thought of or could provide\nagainst his danger, and yet not allow him the reward of victory over\nhim whom he made fly and sneak into the embraces of his wife, and whom\nhe spoiled of his arms whilst he was yet alive, and who had himself\ngiven the challenge, by the terms of which Menelaus now appeared to be\nthe conqueror.\n\n3. Glaucias subjoined: In all laws, decrees, contracts, and promises,\nthose latest made are always accounted more valid than the former. Now\nthe later contract was Agamemnon\u2019s, the condition of which was killing,\nand not only overcoming. Besides the former was mere words, the latter\nconfirmed by oath; and, by the consent of all, those were cursed that\nbroke them; so that this latter was properly the contract, and the\nother a bare challenge. And this Priam at his going away, after he had\nsworn to the conditions, confirms by these words:\n\n  But Jove and other Gods alone do know,\n  Which is designed to see the shades below;[123]\n\nfor he understood that to be the condition of the contract. And\ntherefore a little after Hector says,\n\n  But Jove hath undetermined left our oaths,[124]\n\nfor the combat had not its designed and indisputable determination,\nsince neither of them fell. Therefore this question doth not seem to\nme to contain any contrariety of law, since the former contract is\ncomprised and overruled by the latter; for he that kills certainly\novercomes, but he that overcomes doth not always kill. But, in short,\nAgamemnon did not annul, but only explain the challenge proposed by\nHector. He did not change any thing, but only added the most principal\npart, placing victory in killing; for that is a complete conquest, but\nall others may be evaded or disputed, as this of Menelaus, who neither\nwounded nor pursued his adversary. Now as, where there are laws really\ncontrary, the judges take that side which is plain and indisputable,\nand mind not that which is obscure; so in this case, let us admit that\ncontract to be most valid which contained killing, as a known and\nundeniable evidence of victory. But (which is the greatest argument) he\nthat seems to have had the victory, not being quiet, but running up and\ndown the army, and searching all about,\n\n  To find neat Paris in the busy throng,[125]\n\nsufficiently testifies that he himself did not imagine that the\nconquest was perfect and complete when Paris had escaped. For he did\nnot forget his own words:\n\n  And which of us black fate and death design,\n  Let him be lost; the others cease from war.[126]\n\nTherefore it was necessary for him to seek after Paris, that he might\nkill him and complete the combat; but since he neither killed nor took\nhim, he had no right to the prize. For he did not conquer him, if we\nmay guess by what he said when he expostulated with Jove and bewailed\nhis unsuccessful attempt:\n\n  Jove, Heaven holds no more spiteful God than thou.\n  Now would I punish Paris for his crimes;\n  But oh! my sword is broke, my mighty spear,\n  Stretched out in vain, flies idly from my hand![127]\n\nFor in these words he confessed that it was to no purpose to pierce\nthe shield or take the head-piece of his adversary, unless he likewise\nwounded or killed him.\n\n_QUESTION XIV._\n\nSOME OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF THE MUSES, NOT COMMONLY\nKNOWN.\n\nHERODES, AMMONIUS, LAMPRIAS, TRYPHON, DIONYSIUS, MENEPHYLUS, PLUTARCH.\n\n1. This discourse ended, we poured out our offerings to the Muses, and\ntogether with a hymn in honor of Apollo, the patron of the Muses, we\nsung with Erato, who played upon the harp, the generation of the Muses\nout of Hesiod. After the song was done, Herod the rhetorician said:\nPray, sirs, hearken. Those that will not admit Calliope to be ours say\nthat she keeps company with kings, not such, I suppose, as are busied\nin resolving syllogisms or disputing, but such who do those things\nthat belong to rhetoricians and statesmen. But of the rest of the\nMuses, Clio abets encomiums, for praises are called \u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1; and Polymnia\nhistory, for her name signifies the remembrance of many things; and\nit is said that all the Muses were somewhere called Remembrances. And\nfor my part, I think Euterpe hath some relation to us too, if (as\nChrysippus says) her lot be agreeableness in discourse and pleasantness\nin conversation. For it belongs to an orator to converse, as well as\nplead or give advice; since it is his part to gain the favor of his\nauditors, and to defend or excuse his client. To praise or dispraise is\nthe commonest theme; and if we manage this artfully, it will turn to\nconsiderable account; if unskilfully, we are lost. For that saying,\n\n  Gods! how he is honored and beloved by all,[128]\n\nchiefly, in my opinion, belongs to those men who have a pleasing and\npersuasive faculty in discourse.\n\n2. Then said Ammonius to Herod: We have no reason to be angry with\nyou for grasping all the Muses, since the goods that friends have are\ncommon, and Jove hath begotten a great many Muses, that every man may\nbe plentifully supplied; for we do not all need skill in hunting,\nmilitary arts, navigation, or any mechanical trades; but learning and\ninstruction is necessary for every one that\n\n  Eats the fruits of the spacious earth.[129]\n\nAnd therefore Jove made but one Minerva, one Diana, one Vulcan, but\nmany Muses. But why there should be nine, and no more nor less, pray\nacquaint us; for you, so great a lover of, and so well acquainted with,\nthe Muses, must certainly have considered this matter. What difficulty\nis there in that? replied Herod. The number nine is in every body\u2019s\nmouth, as being the first square of the first odd number; and as doubly\nodd, since it may be divided into three equal odd numbers. Ammonius\nwith a smile subjoined: Boldly said; and pray add, that this number\nis composed of the first two cubes, one and eight, and according to\nanother composition of two triangles, three and six, each of which\nis itself perfect. But why should this belong to the Muses more than\nany other of the Gods? For we have nine Muses, but not nine Cereses,\nnine Minervas or Dianas. For I do not believe you take it for a good\nargument, that the Muses must be so many, because their mother\u2019s name\n(Mnemosyne) consists of just so many letters. Herod smiling, and every\nbody being silent, Ammonius desired our opinions.\n\n3. My brother said, that the ancients celebrated but three Muses, and\nthat to bring proofs for this assertion would be pedantic and uncivil\nin such a company. The reason of this number was (not as some say)\nthe three different sorts of music, the diatonic, the chromatic, and\nharmonic, nor those stops that make the intervals nete, mese, and\nhypate; though the Delphians gave the Muses this name erroneously,\nin my opinion, appropriating it to one science, or rather to a part\nof one single science, the harmoniac part of music. But, as I think,\nthe ancients, reducing all arts and sciences which are practised and\nperformed by reason or discourse to three heads, philosophy, rhetoric,\nand mathematics, accounted them the gifts of three Gods, and named\nthem the Muses. Afterwards, about Hesiod\u2019s time, the sciences being\nbetter and more thoroughly looked into, men subdividing them found\nthat each science contained three different parts. In mathematics\nare comprehended music, arithmetic, and geometry; in philosophy are\nlogic, ethics, and physics. In rhetoric, they say the first part was\ndemonstrative or encomiastic, the second deliberative, the third\njudicial. None of all which they believed to be without a God or a Muse\nor some superior power for its patron, and did not, it is probable,\nmake the Muses equal in number to these divisions, but found them to\nbe so. Now, as you may divide nine into threes, and each three into as\nmany units; so there is but one rectitude of reason, which is employed\nabout the supreme truth, and which belongs to the whole in common,\nwhile each of the three kinds of science has three Muses assigned to\nit, and each of these has her separate faculty assigned to her, which\nshe disposes and orders. And I do not think the poets and astrologers\nwill find fault with us for passing over their professions in silence,\nsince they know, as well as we, that astrology is comprehended in\ngeometry, and poetry in music.\n\n4. As soon as he had said this, Trypho the physician subjoined: How\nhath our art offended you, that you have shut the Museum against us?\nAnd Dionysius of Melite added: Sir, you have a great many that will\nside with you in the accusation; for we farmers think Thalia to be\nours, assigning her the care of springing and budding seeds and plants.\nBut I interposing said: Your accusation is not just; for you have\nbountiful Ceres, and Bacchus who (as Pindar phraseth it) increaseth the\ntrees, the chaste beauty of the fruits; and we know that Aesculapius\nis the patron of the physicians, and they make their address to Apollo\nas Paean, but never as the Muses\u2019 chief. All men (as Homer says) stand\nin need of the Gods, but all stand not in need of all. But I wonder\nLamprias did not mind what the Delphians say in this matter; for they\naffirm that the Muses amongst them were not named so either from the\nstrings or sounds in music; but the universe being divided into three\nparts, the first portion was of the fixed stars, the second of the\nplanets, the third of those things that are under the concave of the\nmoon; and all these are ordered according to harmonical proportions,\nand of each portion a Muse takes care; Hypate of the first, Nete of\nthe last, and Mese in the middle, combining as much as possible, and\nturning about mortal things with the Gods, and earthly with heavenly.\nAnd Plato intimates the same thing under the names of the Fates,\ncalling one Atropos, the other Lachesis, and the other Clotho. For he\ncommitted the revolutions of the eight spheres to so many Sirens, and\nnot Muses.\n\n5. Then Menephylus the Peripatetic subjoined: The Delphians\u2019 opinion\nhath indeed somewhat of probability in it; but Plato is absurd in\ncommitting the eternal and divine revolutions not to the Muses but to\nthe Sirens, Daemons that neither love nor are benevolent to mankind,\nwholly passing by the Muses, or calling them by the names of the Fates,\nthe daughters of Necessity. For Necessity is averse to the Muses; but\nPersuasion being more agreeable and better acquainted with them, in my\nopinion, than the grace of Empedocles,\n\n  Intolerable Necessity abhors\n\n6. No doubt, said Ammonius, as it is in us a violent and involuntary\ncause; but in the Gods Necessity is not intolerable, uncontrollable, or\nviolent, unless it be to the wicked; as the law in a commonwealth to\nthe best men is its best good, not to be violated or transgressed, not\nbecause they have no power, but because they have no will, to change\nit. And Homer\u2019s Sirens give us no just reason to be afraid; for he in\nthat fable rightly intimates the power of their music not to be hurtful\nto man, but delightfully charming, and detaining the souls which pass\nfrom hence thither and wander after death; working in them a love for\ndivine and heavenly things, and a forgetfulness of every thing on\nearth; and they extremely pleased follow and attend them. And from\nthence some imperfect sound, and as it were echo of that music, coming\nto us by the means of reason and good precepts, rouseth our souls, and\nrestores the notice of those things to our minds, the greatest part of\nwhich lie encumbered with and entangled in disturbances of the flesh\nand distracting passions. But the generous soul hears and remembers,\nand her affection for those pleasures riseth up to the most ardent\npassion, whilst she eagerly desires but is not able to free herself\nfrom the body.\n\nIt is true, I do not approve what he says; but Plato seems to me, as he\nhath strangely and unaccountably called the axes spindles and distaffs,\nand the stars whirls, so to have named the Muses Sirens, as delivering\ndivine things to the ghosts below, as Ulysses in Sophocles says of the\nSirens,\n\n  I next to Phorcus\u2019s daughters came,\n  Who fix the sullen laws below\n\nEight of the Muses take care of the spheres, and one of all about\nthe earth. The eight who govern the motions of the spheres maintain\nthe harmony of the planets with the fixed stars and one another. But\nthat one who looks after the place betwixt the earth and moon and\ntakes care of mortal things, by means of speech and song introduceth\npersuasion, assisting our natural consent to community and agreement,\nand giveth men as much harmony, grace, and order as is possible for\nthem to receive; introducing this persuasion to smooth and quiet our\ndisturbances, and as it were to recall our wandering desires out of the\nwrong way, and to set us in the right path. But, as Pindar says,\n\n  Whom Jove abhors, he starts to hear\n  The Muses sounding in his ear.[130]\n\n7. To this discourse Ammonius, as he used to do, subjoined that verse\nof Xenophanes,\n\n  This fine discourse seems near allied to truth,\n\nand desired every one to deliver his opinion. And I, after a short\nsilence, said: As Plato thinks by the name, as it were by tracks, to\ndiscover the powers of the Gods, so let us place in heaven and over\nheavenly things one of the Muses, Urania. And it is likely that those\nrequire no distracting variety of cares to govern them, since they\nhave the same single nature for the cause of all their motions. But\nwhere are a great many irregularities and disorders, there we must\nplace the eight Muses, that we may have one to correct each particular\nirregularity and miscarriage. There are two parts in a man\u2019s life, the\nserious and the merry; and each must be regulated and methodized. The\nserious part, which instructs us in the knowledge and contemplation\nof the Gods, Calliope, Clio, and Thalia seem chiefly to look after and\ndirect. The other Muses govern our weak part, which changes presently\ninto wantonness and folly; they do not neglect our brutish and violent\npassions and let them run their own course, but by apposite dancing,\nmusic, song, and orderly motion mixed with reason, bring them down to\na moderate temper and condition. For my part, since Plato admits two\nprinciples of every action, the natural desire after pleasure, and\nacquired opinion which covets and wishes for the best, and calls one\nreason and the other passion, and since each of these is manifold, I\nthink that each requires a considerable and, to speak the truth, a\ndivine direction. For instance, one faculty of our reason is said to\nbe political or imperial, over which Hesiod says Calliope presides;\nClio\u2019s province is the noble and aspiring; and Polymnia\u2019s that faculty\nof the soul which inclines to attain and keep knowledge (and therefore\nthe Sicyonians call one of their three Muses Polymathia); to Euterpe\neverybody allows the searches into nature and physical speculations,\nthere being no greater, no sincerer pleasure belonging to any other\nsort of speculation in the world. The natural desire to meat and drink\nThalia reduceth from brutish and uncivil to be sociable and friendly;\nand therefore we say \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd of those that are friendly, merry,\nand sociable over their cups, and not of those that are quarrelsome\nand mad. Erato, together with Persuasion, that brings along with it\nreason and opportunity, presides over marriages; she takes away and\nextinguisheth all the violent fury of pleasure, and makes it tend to\nfriendship, mutual confidence, and endearment, and not to effeminacy,\nlust, or discontent. The delight which the eye or ear receives is a\nsort of pleasure, either appropriate to reason or to passion, or common\nto them both. This the two other Muses, Terpsichore and Melpomene, so\nmoderate, that the one may only cheer and not charm, the other only\nplease and not bewitch.\n\n_QUESTION XV._\n\nTHAT THERE ARE THREE PARTS IN DANCING: \u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac, MOTION, \u03c3\u03c7\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1, GESTURE,\nAND \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03be\u03b9\u03c2, REPRESENTATION. WHAT EACH OF THOSE IS, AND WHAT IS COMMON\nPOETRY AND DANCING.\n\nAMMONIUS AND THRASYBULUS.\n\n1. After this, a match of dancing was proposed, and a cake was the\nprize. The judges were Meniscus the dancing-master, and my brother\nLamprias; for he danced the Pyrrhic very well, and in the Palaestra\nnone could match him for the graceful motion of his hands and arms\nin dancing. Now a great many dancing with more heat than art, some\ndesired two of the company who seemed to be best skilled and took most\ncare to observe their steps, to dance in the style called \u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70\n\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd. Upon this Thrasybulus, the son of Ammonius, demanded what \u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\nsignified, and gave Ammonius occasion to run over most of the parts of\ndancing.\n\n2. He said they were three,\u2014\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac, \u03c3\u03c7\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1, and \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03be\u03b9\u03c2. For dancing\nis made up of motion and manner (\u03c3\u03c7\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), as a song of sounds and\nstops; stops are the ends of motion. Now the motions they call \u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03af,\nand the gestures and likeness to which the motions tend, and in\nwhich they end, they call \u03c3\u03c7\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1: as, for instance, when by their\nown motions they represent the figure of Apollo, Pan, or any of the\nraging Bacchae. The third, \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03be\u03b9\u03c2, is not an imitation, but a plain\ndownright indication of the things represented. For the poets, when\nthey would speak of Achilles, Ulysses, the earth, or heaven, use their\nproper names, and such as the vulgar usually understand. But for the\nmore lively representation, they use words which by their very sound\nexpress some eminent quality in the thing, or metaphors; as when they\nsay that streams do \u201cbabble and flash;\u201d that arrows fly \u201cdesirous the\nflesh to wound;\u201d or when they describe an equal battle by saying \u201cthe\nfight had equal heads.\u201d They have likewise a great many significative\ncompositions in their verses. Thus Euripides of Perseus,\n\n  He that Medusa slew, and flies in air;\n\nand Pindar of a horse,\n\n  When by the smooth Alpheus\u2019 banks\n  He ran the race, and never felt the spur;\n\nand Homer of a race,\n\n  The chariots, overlaid with tin and brass,\n  By fiery horses drawn ran swiftly on.[131]\n\nSo in dancing, the \u03c3\u03c7\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 represents the shape and figure, the \u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\nshows some action, passion, or power; but by the \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03be\u03b9\u03c2 are properly\nand significatively shown the things themselves, for instance, the\nheaven, earth, or the company. Which, being done in a certain order and\nmethod, resembles the proper names used in poetry, decently clothed and\nattended with suitable epithets. As in these lines,\n\n  Themis the venerable and admired,\n  And Venus beauteous with her bending brows,\n  Dione fair, and Juno crowned with gold.[132]\n\nAnd in these,\n\n  From Hellen kings renowned for giving laws,\n  Great Dorus and the mighty Xuthus, sprang,\n  And Aeolus, whose chief delight was horse.[133]\n\nFor if poets did not take this liberty, how mean, how grovelling and\nflat, would be their verse! As suppose they wrote thus,\n\n  From this came Hercules, from the other Iphitus.\n  Her father, husband, and her son were kings,\n\n  Her brother and forefathers were the same;\n  And she in Greece was called Olympias.\n\nThe same faults may be committed in that sort of dancing called\n\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03be\u03b9\u03c2, unless the representation be lifelike and graceful, decent and\nunaffected. And, in short, we may aptly transfer what Simonides said of\npainting to dancing, and call dancing mute poetry, and poetry speaking\ndancing; for poesy doth not properly belong to painting, nor painting\nto poesy, neither do they any way make use of one another. But poesy\nand dancing have much in common, especially in that sort of song called\nHyporchema, in which is the most lively representation imaginable,\ndancing doing it by gesture, and poesy by words. So that poesy may\nbear some resemblance to the colors in painting, while dancing is like\nthe lines which mark out the features of the face. And therefore he\nwho was the most famous writer of Hyporchemes, who here even outdid\nhimself,[134] sufficiently evidenceth that these two arts stand in need\nof one another. For, whilst he sings these songs,\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nhe shows what tendency poetry hath to dancing; whilst the sound excites\nthe hands and feet, or rather as it were by some cords distends and\nraiseth every member of the whole body; so that, whilst such songs are\npronounced or sung, they cannot be quiet. But now-a-days no sort of\nexercise hath such bad depraved music applied to it as dancing; and so\nit suffers that which Ibycus as to his own concerns was fearful of, as\nappears by these lines,\n\n  I fear lest, losing fame amongst the Gods,\n  I shall receive respect from men alone.\n\nFor having associated to itself a mean paltry sort of music, and\nfalling from that divine sort of poetry with which it was formerly\nacquainted, it rules now and domineers amongst foolish and\ninconsiderate spectators, like a tyrant; it hath subjected nearly the\nwhole of music, but hath lost all its honor with excellent and wise men.\n\nThese, my Sossius Senecio, were almost the last discourses which we had\nat Ammonius\u2019s house during the festival of the Muses.\n\n\n\n\nOF MORAL VIRTUE.\n\n\n1. My design in this essay is to treat of that virtue which is\ncalled and accounted moral, and is chiefly distinguished from the\ncontemplative, in its having for the matter thereof the passions of the\nmind, and for its form, right reason; and herein to consider the nature\nof it and how it subsists, and whether that part of the soul wherein\nit resides be endowed with reason of its own, inherent in itself, or\nwhether it participates of that which is foreign; and if the latter,\nwhether it does this after the manner of those things which are mingled\nwith what is better than themselves, or whether, as being distinct\nitself but yet under the dominion and superintendency of another,\nit may be said to partake of the power of the predominant faculty.\nFor that it is possible for virtue to exist and continue altogether\nindependent of matter, and free from all mixture, I take to be most\nmanifest. But in the first place I conceive it may be very useful\nbriefly to run over the opinions of other philosophers, not so much for\nthe vanity of giving an historical account thereof, as that, they being\npremised, ours may thence receive the greater light and be more firmly\nestablished.\n\n2. To begin then with Menedemus of Eretria, he took away both the\nnumber and the differences of virtue, by asserting it to be but one,\nalthough distinguished by several names; holding that, in the same\nmanner as a mortal and a man are all one, so what we call temperance,\nfortitude, and justice are but one and the same thing. As for Ariston\nof Chios, he likewise made virtue to be but one in substance, and\ncalled it sanity, which, as it had respect to this or that, was to be\nvariously multiplied and distinguished; just after the same manner as\nif any one should call our sight, when applied to any white object,\nby the name of white-look; when to one that is black, by the name of\nblack-look; and so in other matters. For according to him, virtue, when\nit considers such things as we ought to do or not to do, is called\nprudence; when it moderates our desires, and prescribes the measure and\nseason for our pleasures, temperance; and when it governs the commerce\nand mutual contracts of mankind, justice;\u2014in the same manner, for\ninstance, as a knife is one and the same knife still, notwithstanding\nsometimes it cuts one thing, sometimes another, and just as fire does\noperate upon different matter, and yet retain the very same nature.\nUnto which opinion it seems also as if Zeno the Citian did in some\nmeasure incline; he defining prudence, while it distributes to every\nman his own, to be justice; when it teaches what we are to choose and\nwhat to reject or avoid, temperance; and with respect to what is to\nbe borne or suffered, fortitude. But it is to be observed, that they\nwho take upon them the defence of Zeno\u2019s notions do suppose him to\nmean science by what he calls prudence. But then Chrysippus, whilst\nhe imagined from every distinct quality a several and peculiar virtue\nto be formed, before he was aware, raised (as Plato hath it) a whole\nswarm of virtues never before known or used among the philosophers. For\nas from brave he derived bravery; from mild, mildness; and from just,\njustice; so from pleasant he fetched pleasantness; from good, goodness;\nfrom grand, grandeur; and from honest, honesty; placing these and all\nkind of dexterous application of discourse, all kind of facetiousness\nof conversation, and all witty turns of expression in the number of\nvirtues, thereby over-running philosophy, which requires nothing less,\nwith a multitude of uncouth, absurd, and barbarous terms.\n\n3. However, all these do commonly agree in this one thing, in supposing\nvirtue to be a certain disposition and faculty of the governing and\ndirective part of the soul, of which reason is the cause; or rather\nto be reason itself, when it consents to what it ought, and is firm\nand immutable. And they do likewise think, that that part of the soul\nwhich is the seat of the passions, and is called brutal or irrational,\nis not at all distinct by any physical difference from that which is\nrational; but that this part of the soul (which they call rational and\ndirective), being wholly turned about and changed by its affections\nand by those several alterations which are wrought in it with respect\neither to habit or disposition, becometh either vice or virtue, without\nhaving any thing in itself that is really brutal or irrational, but\nis then called brutal or irrational, when by the over-ruling and\nprevailing violence of our appetites it is hurried on to something\nabsurd and vicious, against the judgment of reason. For passion,\naccording to them, is nothing else but depraved and intemperate reason,\nthat through a perverse and vicious judgment is grown over-vehement and\nheadstrong.\n\nNow, it seems to me, all these philosophers were perfect strangers to\nthe clearness and truth of this point, that we every one of us are in\nreality twofold and compound. For, discerning only that composition in\nus which of the two is most evident, namely that of the soul and body,\nof the other they knew nothing at all. And yet that in the soul itself\nalso there is a certain composition of two dissimilar and distinct\nnatures, the brutal part whereof, as another body, is necessarily and\nphysically compounded with and conjoined to reason, was, it should\nseem, no secret to Pythagoras himself,\u2014as some have guessed from his\nhaving introduced the study of music amongst his scholars, for the more\neasy calming and assuaging the mind, as well knowing that it is not\nin every part of it obedient and subject to precepts and discipline,\nnor indeed by reason only to be recovered and retrieved from vice,\nbut requires some other kind of persuasives to co-operate with it,\nto dispose it to such a temper and gentleness as that it may not be\nutterly intractable and obstinate to the precepts of philosophy.\nAnd Plato very strongly and plainly, without the least hesitation,\nmaintained that the soul of the universe is neither simple, uniform,\nnor uncompounded; but that being mixed, as it were, and made up of that\nwhich is always the same and of that which is otherwise, in some places\nit is continually governed and carried about after a uniform manner in\none and the same powerful and predominant order, and in other places is\ndivided into motions and circles, one contrary to the other, unsettled\nand fortuitous,\u2014whence are derived the beginnings and generation of\ndifferences in things. And so, in like manner, the soul of man, being\na part or portion of that of the universe, and framed upon reasons\nand proportions answerable to it, cannot be simple and all of the\nsame nature; but must have one part that is intelligent and rational,\nwhich naturally ought to have dominion over a man, and another which,\nbeing subject to passion, irrational, extravagant, and unbounded,\nstands in need of direction and restraint. And this last is again\nsubdivided into two other parts; one whereof, being called corporeal,\nis called concupiscible, and the other, which sometimes takes part with\nthis and sometimes with reason, and gives respectively to either of\nthem strength and vigor, is called irascible. And that which chiefly\ndiscovers the difference between the one and the other is the frequent\nconflict of the intellect and reason with concupiscence and anger, it\nbeing the nature of things that are different amongst themselves to be\noftentimes repugnant and disobedient to what is best of all.\n\nThese principles at first Aristotle seems most to have relied upon, as\nplainly enough appears from what he has written. Though afterwards he\nconfounded the irascible and concupiscible together, by joining the\none to the other, as if anger were nothing but a thirst and desire\nof revenge. However, to the last he constantly maintained that the\nsensual and irrational was wholly distinct from the intellectual and\nrational part of the soul. Not that it is so absolutely devoid of\nreason as those faculties of the soul which are sensitive, nutritive,\nand vegetative, and are common to us with brute beasts and plants;\nfor these are always deaf to the voice of reason and incapable of\nit, and may in some sort be said to derive themselves from flesh and\nblood, and to be inseparably attached to the body and devoted to the\nservice thereof; but the other sensual part, subject to the sudden\nefforts of the passions and destitute of any reason of its own, is\nyet nevertheless naturally adapted to hear and obey the intellect and\njudgment, to have regard to it, and to submit itself to be regulated\nand ordered according the rules and precepts thereof, unless it happen\nto be utterly corrupted and vitiated by pleasure, which is deaf to all\ninstruction, and by a luxurious way of living.\n\n4. As for those who wonder how it should come to pass, that that which\nis irrational in itself should yet become obsequious to the dictates of\nright reason, they seem to me not to have duly considered the force and\npower of reason, how great and extensive it is, and how far it is able\nto carry and extend its authority and command, not so much by harsh and\narbitrary methods, as by soft and gentle means, which persuade more\nand gain obedience sooner than all the severities and violences in the\nworld. For even the spirits, the nerves, bones, and other parts of\nthe body are destitute of reason; but yet no sooner do they feel the\nleast motion of the will, reason shaking (as it were), though never so\ngently, the reins, but all of them observe their proper order, agree\ntogether, and pay a ready obedience. As, for instance, the feet, if the\nimpulse of the mind be to run, immediately betake themselves to their\noffice; or if the motion of the will be for the throwing or lifting up\nof any thing, the hands in a moment fall to their business. And this\nsympathy or consent of the brutal faculties to right reason, and the\nready conformity of them thereto, Homer has most admirably expressed in\nthese verses:\n\n  In tears dissolved she mourns her consort\u2019s fate,\n  So great her sorrows, scarce her charms more great.\n  Her tears compassion in Ulysses move,\n  And fill his breast with pity and with love;\n  Yet artful he his passion secret keeps,\n  It rages in his heart; and there he inward weeps.\n  Like steel or ivory, his fixed eyeballs stand,\n  Placed by some statuary\u2019s skilful hand;\n  And when a gentle tear would force its way,\n  He hides it falling, or commands its stay.[135]\n\nUnder such perfect subjection to his reason and judgment had he even\nhis spirits, his blood, and his tears. A most evident proof of this\nmatter we have also from hence, that our natural desires and motions\nare as soon repressed and quieted as we know we are either by reason\nor law forbidden to approach the fair ones we at the first view had so\ngreat a passion for; a thing which most commonly happens to those who\nare apt to fall in love at sight with beautiful women, without knowing\nor examining who they are; for no sooner do they afterwards find their\nerror, by discovering the person with whose charms they were before\ncaptivated to be a sister or a daughter, but their flame is presently\nextinguished by the interposition of reason. And flesh and blood are\nimmediately brought into order, and become obedient to the judgment.\nIt often falls out likewise that, after we have eaten some kinds of\nmeat or fish finely dressed, and by that means artificially disguised,\nwith great pleasure and a very good stomach, at the first moment we\nunderstand they were either unclean, or unlawful and forbidden, our\njudgment being thereby shocked, we feel not only remorse and trouble\nin our mind, but the conceit reaches farther, and our whole frame is\ndisordered by the nauseous qualms and vomitings thereby occasioned.\nI fear I should be thought on purpose to hunt after too far-fetched\nand youthful instances to insert in this discourse, if I should take\nnotice of the lute, the harp, the pipe and flute, and such like musical\ninstruments invented by art, and adapted to the raising or allaying of\nhuman passions; which, though they are void of life and sense, do yet\nmost readily accommodate themselves to the judgment, to our passions\nand our manners, either indulging our melancholy, increasing our mirth,\nor feeding our wantonness, as we happen at that time to be disposed.\nAnd therefore it is reported of Zeno himself, that, going one day\nto the theatre to hear Amoebeus sing to the lute, he called to his\nscholars, Come, says he, let us go and learn what harmony and music the\nguts and sinews of beasts, nay even wood and bones are capable of, by\nthe help of numbers, proportion, and order.\n\nBut to let these things pass, I would gladly know of them, whether,\nwhen they see domestic animals (as dogs, horses, or birds) by use,\nfeeding, and teaching brought to so high a degree of perfection as\nthat they shall utter articulately some senseful words, and by their\nmotions, gestures, and all their actions, shall approve themselves\ngovernable, and become useful to us; and when also they find Achilles\nin Homer encouraging horses, as well as men, to battle;\u2014whether, I\nsay, after all this, they can yet make any wonder or doubt, whether\nthose faculties of the mind to which we owe our anger, our desires,\nour joys, and our sorrows, be of such a nature that they are capable\nof being obedient to reason, and so affected by it as to consent and\nbecome entirely subject to it; considering especially that these\nfaculties are not seated without us, or separated from us, or formed by\nany thing which is not in us, or hammered out by force and violence,\nbut, as they have by nature their entire dependence upon the soul, so\nthey are ever conversant and bred up with it, and also receive their\nfinal complement and perfection from use, custom, and practice. For\nthis reason the Greeks very properly call manners \u1f26\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, _custom_;\nfor they are nothing else, in short, but certain qualities of the\nirrational and brutal part of the mind, and hence by them are so named,\nin that this brutal and irrational part of the mind being formed and\nmoulded by right reason, by long custom and use (which they call\n\u1f14\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2), has these qualities or differences stamped upon it. Not that\nreason so much as attempts to eradicate our passions and affections,\nwhich is neither possible nor expedient, but only to keep them within\ndue bounds, reduce them into good order, and so direct them to a good\nend; and thus to generate moral virtue, consisting not in a kind of\ninsensibility, or total freedom from passions, but in the well-ordering\nour passions and keeping them within measure, which she effects by\nwisdom and prudence, bringing the faculties of that part of the soul\nwhere our affections and appetite are seated to a good habit. For these\nthree things are commonly held to be in the soul, namely, a faculty\nor aptitude, passion, and habit. This aptitude or faculty then is\nthe principle or very matter of passions; as for example, the power\nor aptitude to be angry, to be ashamed, to be confident and bold, or\nthe like; passion is the actual exercise of that aptitude or faculty,\nas anger, shame, confidence, or boldness; and habit is the strength,\nfirmness, and establishment of the disposition or faculty in the\nirrational part of the soul, gotten by continual use and custom, and\nwhich, according as the passions are well or ill governed by reason,\nbecomes either virtue or vice.\n\n5. But, forasmuch as philosophers do not make all virtue to consist in\na mediocrity nor call it moral, to show the difference more clearly,\nit will be necessary to take our rise a little farther off. For of all\nthings then in the universe, some do exist absolutely, simply, and for\nthemselves only; others again relatively, for and with regard to us.\nAmong those things which have an absolute and simple existence are the\nearth, the heavens, the stars, and the sea; and of such things as have\ntheir being relatively, with respect to us, are good and evil, things\ndesirable and to be avoided, and things pleasant and hurtful. And\nseeing that both are the proper objects of reason,\u2014while it considers\nthe former, which are absolutely and for themselves, it is scientifical\nand contemplative; and when the other, which have reference to us, it\nis deliberative and practical. And as the proper virtue in the latter\ncase is prudence, in the former it is science. And between the one\nand the other, namely, between prudence and science, there is this\ndifference. Prudence consists in a certain application and relation of\nthe contemplative faculties of the soul to those which are practical,\nfor the government of the sensual and irrational part, according to\nreason. To which purpose prudence has often need of Fortune; whereas\nneither of that nor of deliberation has science any occasion or want\nto attain its ends, forasmuch as it has nothing to consider but\nsuch things as remain always the same. For as a geometrician never\ndeliberates about a triangle, whether all its three angles be equal\nto two right angles, because of that he has a clear and distinct\nknowledge (and men use to deliberate about such things only as are\nsometimes in one state or condition and sometimes in another, and\nnot of those which are always firm and immutable), so the mind, when\nmerely contemplative, exercising itself about first principles and\nthings permanent, such as retaining the same nature are incapable of\nmutation, has no room or occasion for deliberation. Whereas prudence,\ndescending to actions full of error and confusion, is very often under\nthe necessity of encountering with fortuitous accidents, and, in\ndoubtful cases, of making use of deliberation, and, to reduce those\ndeliberations into practice, of calling also to its assistance even\nthe irrational faculties, which are (as it were) forcibly dragged to\ngo along with it, and by that means to give a certain vigor or impetus\nto its determinations. For its determinations do indeed want something\nwhich may enliven and give them such an impetus. And moral virtue it is\nwhich gives an impetus or vigor to the passions; but at the same time\nreason, which accompanies that impetus, and of which it stands in great\nneed, does so set bounds thereunto, that nothing but what is moderate\nappears, and that it neither outruns the proper seasons of action, nor\nyet falls short of them.\n\nFor the sensual faculties, where passions are seated, are subject to\nmotions, some over-vehement, sudden, and quick, and others again too\nremiss, and more slow and heavy than is convenient. So that, though\nevery thing we do can be good but in one manner, yet it may be evil\nin several; as there is but one single way of hitting the mark, but\nto miss it a great many, either by shooting over, or under, or on one\nside. The business therefore of practical reason, governing our actions\naccording to the order of Nature, is to correct the excesses as well\nas the defects of the passions, by reducing them to a true mediocrity.\nFor as, when through infirmity of the mind, effeminacy, fear, or\nlaziness, the vehemence and keenness of the appetites are so abated\nthat they are ready to sink and fall short of the good at which they\nare aimed and directed, there is then this practical reason at hand,\nexciting and rousing and pushing them onward; so, on the other hand,\nwhen it lashes out too far and is hurried beyond all measure, there\nalso is the same reason ready to bring it again within compass and put\na stop to its career. And thus, prescribing bounds and giving law to\nthe motions of the passions, it produces in the irrational part of the\nsoul these moral virtues (of which we now treat), which are nothing\nelse but the mean between excess and defect. For it cannot be said\nthat all virtue consists in mediocrity; since wisdom or prudence (one\nof the intellectual virtues), standing in no need of the irrational\nfaculties,\u2014as being seated in that part of the soul which is pure and\nunmixed and free from all passions,\u2014is of itself absolutely perfect,\nthe utmost extremity and power of reason, whereby we attain to that\nperfection of knowledge which is itself most divine and renders us\nmost happy. Whereas moral virtue, which because of the body is so\nnecessary to us, and, to put things in practice, stands in need of the\ninstrumental ministry of the passions (as being so far from promoting\nthe destruction and abolition of irrational powers, as to be altogether\nemployed in the due regulation thereof), is, with respect to its power\nor quality, the very top and extremity of perfection; but, in respect\nof the proportion and quantity which it determines, it is mediocrity,\nin that it takes away all excess on the one hand, and cures all defects\non the other.\n\n6. Now mean and mediocrity may be differently understood. For there is\none mean which is compounded and made up of the two simple extremes,\nas in colors, gray, of white and black; and another, where that which\ncontains and is contained is the medium between the containing and\nthe contained, as, for instance, the number eight, between twelve and\nfour. And a third sort there is also, which participates of neither\nextreme, as for example, all those things which, as being neither good\nnor evil in themselves, we call adiaphorous, or indifferent. But in\nnone of these ways can virtue be said to be a mean, or mediocrity. For\nneither is it a mixture of vices, nor, comprehending that which is\ndefective and short, is it comprehended by that which runs out into\nexcess; nor yet is it exempt from the impetuosity and sudden efforts\nof the passions, in which excess and defect do properly take place.\nBut moral virtue properly doth consist in a mean or mediocrity (and\nso it is commonly taken), most like to that which there is in our\nGreek music and harmony. For, whereas there are the highest and lowest\nmusical notes in the extremities of the scale called nete and hypate;\nso likewise is there in the middle thereof, between these two, another\nmusical note, and that the sweetest of all, called mese (or mean),\nwhich does as perfectly avoid the extreme sharpness of the one as it\ndoth the over-flatness of the other. And so also virtue, being a motion\nand power which is exercised about the brutal and irrational part\nof the soul, takes away the remission and intention\u2014in a word, the\nexcess and defect\u2014of the appetites, reducing thereby every one of the\npassions to a due mediocrity and perfect state of rectitude.\n\nFor example, fortitude is said to be the mean between cowardice and\nrashness, whereof the one is a defect, as the other is an excess of\nthe irascible faculty; liberality, between sordid parsimony on the\none hand, and extravagant prodigality on the other; clemency between\ninsensibility of injuries and its opposite, revengeful cruelty; and so\nof justice and temperance; the former being the mean between giving and\ndistributing more or less than is due in all contracts, affairs, and\nbusiness between man and man, and the latter a just mediocrity between\na stupid apathy, touched with no sense or relish of pleasure, and\ndissolute softness, abandoned to all manner of sensualities.\n\nAnd from this instance of temperance it is, that we are most clearly\ngiven to understand the difference between the irrational and the\nrational faculties of the soul, and that it so plainly appears to us\nthat the passions and affections of the mind are quite a distinct thing\nfrom reason. For otherwise never should we be able to distinguish\ncontinence from temperance, nor incontinence from intemperance, in\nlust and pleasures, if it were one and the same faculty of the soul\nwherewith we reason and judge, and whereby we desire and covet. Now\ntemperance is that whereby reason governs and manages that part of the\nsoul which is subject to the passions (as it were some wild creature\nbrought up by hand, and made quite tame and gentle), having gained an\nabsolute victory over all its appetites, and brought them entirely\nunder the dominion of it. Whereas we call it continence, when reason\nhas indeed gained the mastery over the appetites and prevailed against\nthem, though not without great pains and trouble, they being perverse\nand continuing to struggle, as not having wholly submitted themselves;\nso that it is not without great difficulty able to preserve its\ngovernment over them, being forced to retain and hold them in, and keep\nthem within compass, as it were, with stripes, with the bit and bridle,\nwhile the mind all the time is full of nothing but agony, contentions,\nand confusion. All which Plato endeavors to illustrate by a similitude\nof the chariot-horses of the soul, the one whereof, being more unruly,\nnot only kicks and flings at him that is more gentle and tractable, but\nalso thereby so troubles and disorders the driver himself, that he is\nforced sometimes to hold him hard in, and sometimes again to give him\nhis head,\n\n  Lest from his hands the purple reins should slip,\n\nas Simonides speaks.\n\nAnd from hence we may see why continence is not thought worthy to be\nplaced in the number of perfect virtues, but is taken to be a degree\nunder virtue. For there is not therein produced a mediocrity arising\nfrom a symphony of the worst with the better, nor are the excesses of\nthe passions retrenched; nor yet doth the appetite become obedient and\nsubservient to the reasonable faculties, but it both makes and feels\ndisorder and disturbance, being repressed by violence and constraint,\nand (as it were) by necessity; as in a sedition or faction in a city\nor state, the contending parties, breathing nothing but war and\ndestruction and ruin to one another, do yet cohabit together (it may\nbe) within the compass of the same walls; insomuch that the soul of the\nincontinent person, with respect to the conflicts and incongruities\ntherein, may very properly be compared to the city,\n\n  Where all the streets are filled with incense smoke,\n  And songs of triumph mixed with groans resound.[136]\n\nAnd upon the same grounds it is, that incontinence is held to be\nsomething less than vice also, but intemperance to be a complete and\nperfect vice, for therein not the appetite only but reason likewise is\ndebauched and corrupted; and as the former incites and pushes forward\nthe desires and affections to that which is evil, so this, by making an\nill judgment, is easily led to consent and agree to the soft whispers\nand tempting allurements of corrupt lusts and passions, and soon loseth\nall sense of sin and evil. Whereas incontinence preserves the judgment,\nby the help of reason, right and sound; but yet, by irresistible\nforce and violence of the passions, is even against judgment drawn\naway. Moreover, in these respects following it differeth also from\nintemperance:\u2014inasmuch as reason in that is overpowered by passion,\nbut in this it never so much as struggleth; the incontinent person,\nafter a noble resistance, is at last forced to submit to the tyranny of\nhis lusts, and follow their guidance, while the intemperate approves\nthem, and gladly goes along with and submits to them; one feels remorse\nfor the evil he commits, while the other prides in lewdness and vice.\nAgain, the one wilfully and of his own accord runs into sin; while the\nother, even against his will, is forced to abandon that which is good.\n\nAnd this difference between them is not to be collected only from their\nactions, but may as plainly also be discovered by their words. For at\nthis rate do intemperate persons use to talk:\n\n  What mirth in life, what pleasure, what delight,\n  Without content in sports of Venus bright?\n  Were those joys past, and I for them unmeet,\n  Ring out my knell, bring forth my winding-sheet.[137]\n\nAnd thus says another:\n\n  To eat, to drink, to wench are principal,\n  All pleasures else I accessories call;\n\nas if from his very soul he were wholly abandoned and given up to\npleasures and voluptuousness, and even overwhelmed therein. And much of\nthe same mind was he, and his judgment was as totally depraved by his\npassions, who said,\n\n  Let me, ye dull and formal fops, alone,\n  I am resolved, \u2019tis best to be undone.\n\nBut quite another spirit do we find running through the sayings of the\nincontinent:\n\n  Blame Nature only for it, blame not me,\n  Would she permit, I then should virtuous be,[138]\n\nsays one of them. And again,\n\n  Ah! \u2019tis decreed by Fate. We know, \u2019tis true,\n  We know those virtues, which we ne\u2019er pursue.{B}\n\nAnd another,\n\n  What will my swelling passions\u2019 force assuage?\n  No more can I sustain this tempest\u2019s rage,\n  Than anchor\u2019s fluke, dropt on loose ground, a storm,\n\nwhere not improperly he compares the fluke of an anchor dropped in\nloose ground to that ill-grounded, feeble, and irresolute reason, which\nby the vanity, weakness, and luxury of the mind is easily brought to\nforsake the judgment. And the like metaphor has the poet made use of\nhappily enough in these verses.\n\n  To us, in ships moored near the shore who lie,\n  Though strong the cables, when the winds rise high\n  Cables will prove but small security;\n\nwhere by the cables the poet means the judgment opposing itself against\nall that is evil or dishonest, which is, however, oftentimes disturbed\nand broken by violent and sudden gusts of the passions. For, indeed,\nthe intemperate are borne away directly and with full sail to their\npleasures; to them they deliver up themselves entirely, and thither\nit is they bend their whole course. While the incontinent, indirectly\nonly, as endeavoring to sustain and repel the assaults of the passions\nand withstand their temptations, either is allured and as it were\nslides into evil, or else is plunged violently into it whether he will\nor no. As Timon, in his bitter way of raillery, reproaches Anaxarchus,\n\n  When first the dogged Anaxarchus strove\n  The power of virtue o\u2019er his mind to prove,\n  Firm though he seemed, and obstinately good,\n  In vain th\u2019 impulse of temper he withstood.\n  Nature recoiled, whatever he could do;\n  He saw those ills, which yet he did pursue;\n  In this not single, other sophists too\n  Felt the same force, which they could ne\u2019er subdue.\n\nAnd neither is a wise man continent, but temperate; nor a fool\nincontinent, but intemperate; the one taking true pleasure and delight\nin good, the other having no displeasure against evil. And therefore\nincontinence is said to be found only in a mind which is sophistical\n(or which barely makes a show of being governed and directed by\nprudence), and which has indeed the use of reason, but in so weak and\nfaint a manner, that it is not able to persevere in that which it knows\nto be right.\n\n7. Thus we have seen the diversity between incontinence and\nintemperance. And as for continence and temperance, their differences\nare analogous, and bear proportion to those of the other, but in\ncontrary respects. For remorse, grief, and indignation do always\naccompany continence; whereas in the mind of a temperate person there\nis all over such an evenness, calmness, and firmness, that, seeing with\nwhat wonderful easiness and tranquillity the irrational faculties go\nalong with reason and submit to its directions, one cannot but call to\nmind that of the poet:\n\n  Swift the command ran through the raging deep;\n  Th\u2019 obedient waves compose themselves to sleep;[139]\n\nreason having quite deadened and repressed the vehement raging and\nfurious motions of the passions and affections. But those whose\nassistance Nature necessarily requires are by reason rendered so\nagreeable and consenting, so submissive, friendly, and co-operative\nin the execution of all good designs and purposes, that they neither\noutrun it, nor recede from it, nor behave themselves disorderly, nor\never show the least disobedience; but every appetite willingly and\ncheerfully pursues its dictates,\n\n  As sucking foal runs by his mother mare.\n\nWhich very much confirms what was said by Xenocrates of those who are\ntrue philosophers, namely, that they alone do that voluntarily which\nall others do against their wills for fear of the laws; being diverted\nand restrained from the pursuit of their pleasures, as a dog is\nfrightened by a whipping or a cat scared by a noise, having regard to\nnothing else in the matter but their own danger.\n\nIt is manifest then from what has been discoursed, that the soul\ndoes perceive within itself something that is firm and immovable,\ntotally distinct from its passions and appetites, these being what it\ndoes always oppose and is ever contending with. But some there are,\nnevertheless, who affirm that reason and passion do not materially\ndiffer from one another, and that there is not in the soul any faction,\nsedition, or dissension of two several and contending faculties, but\nonly a shifting, conversion, or alteration of the same reason or\nrational faculty from one side to the other, backward and forward,\nwhich, by reason of the suddenness and swiftness of the change, is not\nperceptible by us; and therefore, that we do not consider that the same\nfaculty of the soul is by nature so adapted as to be capable of both\nconcupiscence and repentance, of anger and of fear, of being drawn to\nthe commission of any lewdness or evil by the allurements of pleasure,\nand afterwards of being again retrieved from it. And as for lust,\nanger, fear, and such like passions, they will have them to be nothing\nbut perverse opinions and false judgments, not arising or formed in any\ninferior part of the soul, peculiarly belonging to them, but being the\nadvances and returns, or the motions forward and backward, the good\nlikenings and more vehement efforts, and (in a word) such operations\nand energies of the whole rational and directive faculty as are ready\nto be turned this way or that with the greatest ease imaginable;\nlike the sudden motions and irruptions in children, the violence and\nimpetuosity whereof, by reason of their imbecility and weakness, are\nvery fleeting and inconstant.\n\nBut these opinions are against common sense and experience; for no\nman ever felt such a sudden change in himself, as that whenever he\nchose any thing he immediately judged it fit to be chosen, or that,\non the other hand, whenever he judged any thing fit to be chosen he\nimmediately made choice of it. Neither does the lover who is convinced\nby reason that his amour is fit to be broken off, and that he ought to\nstrive against his passion, therefore immediately cease to love; nor\non the other side doth he desist reasoning, and cease from being able\nto give a right judgment of things, even then, when, being softened\nand overcome by luxury, he delivers himself up a captive to his lusts.\nBut as, while by the assistance of reason he makes opposition to the\nefforts of his passions, they yet continue to solicit, and at last\novercome him; so likewise, when he is overcome and forced to submit to\nthem, by the light of reason does he plainly discern and know that he\nhas done amiss; so that neither by the passions is reason effaced and\ndestroyed, nor yet by reason is he rescued and delivered from them;\nbut, being tossed to and fro between the one and the other, he is a\nkind of neuter, and participates in common of them both. And those,\nmethinks, who imagine that one while the directive and rational part\nof the soul is changed into concupiscence and lust, and that by and by\nreason opposes itself against them, and they are changed into that, are\nnot much unlike them who make the sportsman and his game not to be two,\nbut one body, which, by a nimble and dexterous mutation of itself, one\nwhile appears in the shape of the huntsman, and at another turn puts\non the form of a wild beast. For as these in a plain evident matter\nseem to be stark blind, so they in the other case belie even their own\nsenses, seeing they must needs feel in themselves not merely a change\nor mutation of one and the same thing, but a downright struggle and\nquarrel between two several and distinct faculties.\n\nBut is not, say they, the deliberative power or faculty of a man often\ndivided in itself, and distracted among several opinions contrary to\none another, about that which is expedient; and yet is but one, simple,\nuniform thing? All this we grant to be true; but it does not reach the\ncase we are speaking of. For that part of the soul where reason and\njudgment are seated is not at variance with itself, but by one and\nthe same faculty is conversant about different reasonings; or rather,\nthere is but one simple power of reasoning, which employs itself on\nseveral arguments, as so many different subject-matters. And therefore\nit is, that no disturbance or uneasiness accompanies those reasonings\nor deliberations, where the passions do not at all interpose. Nor\nare we at any time forced, as it were, to choose any thing contrary\nto the dictates of our own reason, but when, as in a balance, some\nlurking hidden passions lay something in the scale against reason to\nweigh it down. And this often falls out to be the case, where it is\nnot reasoning that is opposed to reasoning, but either ambition, or\nemulation, or favor, or jealousy, or fear, making a show as if there\nwere a variance or contest between two differing reasons, according to\nthat of Homer,\n\n  Shame in denial, in acceptance fear;[140]\n\nand of another poet,\n\n  Hard fate to fall, but yet a glorious fate;\n  \u2019Tis cowardly to live, but yet \u2019tis sweet.\n\nAnd in determining of controversies about contracts between man and\nman, it is by the interposition of the passions that so many disputes\nand delays are created. So likewise in the consultations and counsels\nof kings, they who design to make their court incline not to one side\nof the question or debate rather than the other, but only accommodate\nthemselves to their own passions, without any regard to the interest of\nthe public. Which is the reason that in aristocratical governments the\nmagistrates will not suffer orators in their pleadings, by declaiming\nand haranguing, to raise the passions and move the affections. For\nreason, not being disturbed or diverted by passion, tends directly\nto that which is honorable and just; but if the passions are once\nraised, there immediately follows a mighty controversy and struggle\nbetween pleasure and grief on the one hand, and reason and judgment on\nthe other. For otherwise how comes it to pass, that in philosophical\ndisputes and disquisitions we so often and with so little trouble are\nby others drawn off from our own opinions and wrought upon to change\nthem?\u2014and that Aristotle himself, Democritus, and Chrysippus have\nwithout any concern or regret of mind, nay even with great satisfaction\nto themselves, retracted some of those points which they formerly\nso much approved of, and were wont so stiffly to maintain? For no\npassions residing in the contemplative and scientifical part of the\nsoul make any tumult or disturbance therein, and the irrational and\nbrutal faculties remain quiet and calm, without busying themselves\nto intermeddle in matters of that kind. By which means it falls out,\nthat reason no sooner comes within view of truth, but rejecting that\nwhich is false it readily embraces it; forasmuch as there is in the\nformer what is not to be found in the other, namely, a willingness to\nassent and disagree as there is occasion; whereas in all deliberations\nhad, judgments made, and resolutions taken about such things as are\nto be reduced into practice, and are mixed and interwoven with the\npassions and affections, reason meets with much opposition, and is\nput under great difficulties, by being stopped and interrupted in\nits course by the brutal faculties of the mind, throwing in its way\neither pleasure or fear or grief or lust, or some such like temptation\nor discouragement. And then the decision of these disputes belongs\nto sense, which is equally affected with both the one and the other;\nand whichsoever of them gets the mastery, the other is not thereby\ndestroyed, but (though struggling and resisting all the while) is\nforced only to comply and go along with the conqueror. As an amorous\nperson, for example, finding himself engaged in an amour he cannot\napprove of, has immediately recourse to his reason, to oppose the force\nof that against his passion, as having them both together actually\nsubsisting in his soul, plainly discerning them to be several and\ndistinct, and feeling a sensible conflict between the two, while he\nendeavors (as it were) with his hand to repress and keep down the\npart which is inflamed and rages so violently within him. But, on the\ncontrary, in those deliberations and disquisitions where the passions\nhave nothing to do, such I mean as belong properly to the contemplative\npart of the soul, if the reasons are equally balanced, not inclining\nmore to one side than another, then is there no determinate judgment\nformed, but there remains a doubting, as if there were a rest or\nsuspense of the understanding between two contrary opinions. But if\nthere happen to be any inclination or determination towards one side,\nthat prevailing must needs get the better of the other, but without any\nregret or obstinate opposition from it against the opinion which is\nreceived. In short, whenever the contest seems to be of reason against\nreason, in that case we have no manner of sense of two distinct powers,\nbut of one simple, uniform faculty only, under different apprehensions\nor imaginations; but when the dispute is between the irrational part\nand reason, where nature has so ordered it that neither the victory nor\nthe defeat can be had without anxiety and regret, there immediately\nthe two contending powers divide the soul in the quarrel, and thereby\nmake the difference and distinction between them to be most plain and\nevident.\n\n8. And not only from their contests, but no less also from the\nconsequences that follow thereupon, may one clearly enough discern\nthe source and original of the passions to be different from that of\nreason. For since a man may set his affection upon an ingenuous and\nvirtuously disposed child, and no less also upon one that is naughty\nand dissolute, and since also one may have unreasonable and indecent\ntransports of anger against his children or his parents, and on the\ncontrary, may justly and unblamably be angry in their defence against\ntheir enemies and tyrants; as in the one case there is perceived a\nstruggle and dispute of the passions against reason, so in the other\nmay be seen a ready submission and agreement of them, running to its\nassistance, and lending as it were their helping hand. To illustrate\nthis with a familiar example,\u2014after a good man has in obedience to the\nlaws married a convenient wife, he then in the first place comes to a\nresolution of conversing and cohabiting with her wisely and honestly,\nand of making at least a civil husband; but in process of time, custom\nand constant familiarity having bred within him a true passion for her,\nhe sensibly finds that upon principles of reason his affection and love\nfor her are every day more and more improved and grow upon him. So in\nlike manner, young men having met with kind and gentle masters, to\nguide and inform their minds in the study of philosophy and sciences,\nmake use of them at first for instruction only and information, but\nafterwards come to have such an affection for them, that from familiar\ncompanions and scholars they become their lovers and admirers, and are\nso accounted. And the same happens also to most men, with respect to\ngood magistrates in the commonwealth, to their neighbors, and to their\nkindred; for, beginning an acquaintance upon necessity and interest,\nfor the exchange of the common offices of intercourse and commerce with\none another, they do afterwards by degrees, ere they are aware, grow to\nhave a love and friendship for them; reason in such and the like cases\nhaving over-persuaded and even compelled the passions to take delight\nin and pursue what it before had approved of and consented to. As for\nthe poet who said,\n\n  Of modesty two kinds there be;\n  The one we cannot blame,\n  The other troubleth many a house,\n  And doth decay the same;[141]\n\ndoth he not plainly hereby intimate, that he had oftentimes found by\nexperience that this affection of the mind, by a sheepish, shamefaced\nbackwardness, and by foolishly bashful delays against all reason, had\nlost him the opportunities and seasons of making his fortune, and\nhindered and disappointed many brave actions and noble enterprises?\n\n9. But these men, though by the force of these arguments sufficiently\nconvinced, do yet seek for evasions, by calling shame by the name of\nmodesty, pleasures by that of joy, and fear by that of caution. No man\nwould go about to blame them for giving things the softest names they\ncan invent, if they would be so just as to bestow these good words upon\nthose passions and affections only which have put themselves under\nthe conduct and direction of reason, and leave those which oppose\nreason and offer violence to it to be called by their own proper and\nodious names. But, when fully convinced by the tears they shed, by\nthe trembling of their joints, and by their sudden changing of color\nback and forward, if instead of plainly calling the passions whereof\nthese are the effects grief and fear, they make use of the fantastic\nterms of compunctions and conturbations, and to varnish over and\ndisguise the lusts and affections, give them the name only of so many\nforwardnesses of mind, and I know not what else, they seem not to act\nlike philosophers, but, relying upon little shifts and sophistical\nartifices, under an amusement of strange words, they vainly hope to\ncover and conceal the nature of things.\n\nAnd yet even these men themselves sometimes make use of very proper\nterms to express these matters; as, for instance, when they call. those\njoys, volitions, and cautions of theirs, not by the name of apathies,\nas if they were devoid of all manner of passions, but of eupathies.\nFor then is there said to be an eupathy, or good disposition of the\naffections, when reason hath not utterly destroyed, but composed and\nadjusted them in the minds of discreet and temperate persons. But what\nthen becomes of vicious and dissolute persons? Why, if they should\njudge it reasonable to love their parents, instead of a mistress or\na gallant, are they unable to perform this; but should they judge it\nfitting to set their hearts upon a strumpet or a parasite, the judgment\nis no sooner made, but they are most desperately in love? Now were the\npassions and judgment one, it could not be but that the passions of\nlove and hatred would immediately follow upon judgments made what to\nlove and hate. But we see the contrary often happen; for the passions,\nas they submit to some resolutions and judgments, so others again\nthey oppose themselves to, and refuse to comply with. Whence it is\nthat, compelled thereto by truth and the evidence of things, they do\nnot affirm every judgment and determination of reason to be passion,\nbut that only which excites too violent and inordinate an appetite;\nacknowledging thereby that the faculty we have in us of judging is\nquite another thing than that which is susceptible of the passions,\nas is that also which moveth from that which is moved. Nay, even\nChrysippus himself, in many places defining patience and continence to\nbe habits of submitting to and pursuing the choice and direction of\nright reason, doth thereby make it apparent that by the force of truth\nhe was driven to confess that it is one thing in us which is obedient\nand submissive, but another and quite a different thing which it obeys\nwhen it submits, but resists when it does not submit.\n\n10. Now, as for those who make all sins and faults to be equal, to\nexamine whether in other matters they have not also departed from the\ntruth is not at this time and in this place seasonable; since they\nseem not herein only, but in most things else, to advance unreasonable\nparadoxes against common sense and experience. For according to them,\nall our passions and affections are so many faults, and whosoever\ngrieves, fears, or desires, commits sin. But, with their leave, nothing\nis more visible and apparent than the mighty difference in those and\nall other passions, according as we are more or less affected with\nthem. For will any man say that the fear of Dolon was no more than that\nof Ajax, who, being forced to give way before the enemy,\n\n  Sometimes retreated back, then faced about,\n  And step by step retired at once, and fought?[142]\n\nOr compare the grief of Plato for the death of Socrates to the sorrow\nand anguish of mind which Alexander felt, when, for having murdered\nClitus, he attempted to lay violent hands upon himself. For our\ngrief is commonly increased and augmented above measure by sudden\nand unexpected accidents. And that which surprises us on the sudden,\ncontrary to our hope and expectation, is much more uneasy and grievous\nthan that which is either foreseen, or not very unlikely to happen; as\nmust needs fall out in the case of those who, expecting nothing more\nthan to see the happiness, advancement, and glory of a friend or a\nkinsman, should hear of his being put to the most exquisite tortures,\nas Parmenio did of his son Philotas. And who will ever say that the\nanger of Magas against Philemon can bear any proportion to the rage\nof Nicocreon against Anaxarchus? The occasion given was in both cases\nthe same, each of them having severally been bitterly reproached and\nreviled by the other. For whereas Nicocreon caused Anaxarchus to be\nbroken to pieces and brayed in a mortar with iron pestles, Magas only\ncommanded the executioner to lay the edge of the naked sword upon the\nneck of Philemon, and so dismissed him. And therefore Plato called\nanger the nerves of the mind; because, as it may swell and be made\nmore intense by sourness and ill-nature, so may it be slackened and\nremitted by gentleness and good-nature.\n\nBut to elude these and such like objections, they will not allow\nthese intense and vehement efforts of the passions to be according to\njudgment, or so to proceed from it as if that were therein faulty; but\nthey call them cessations, contractions, and extensions or diffusions,\nwhich by the irrational part are capable of being increased or\ndiminished. But that there are also differences of judgment is most\nplain and evident; for some there are who take poverty to be no evil\nat all, others who look upon it as a great evil, and others again\nwho esteem it to be the greatest evil and worst thing in the world,\ninsomuch that rather than endure it they would dash themselves in\npieces against the rocks, or cast themselves headlong into the sea.\nAnd among those who reckon death to be an evil, some are of that\nopinion, in regard only that it deprives us of the enjoyment of the\ngood things of the world, as others are with respect to the eternal\ntorments and horrible punishments under ground in hell. As for bodily\nhealth, some love it no otherwise than as it is agreeable to Nature,\nand very convenient and useful; while others value it as the most\nsovereign good, in comparison whereof they make no reckoning of riches\nor children, no, nor of sceptres and crowns,\n\n  Which make men equal to the Gods above.\n\nNor will they, in fine, allow even virtue itself to signify any thing\nor be of any use, without good health. So that hence it sufficiently\nappears that, in the judgments men make of things, they may be mistaken\nand very faulty with respect to both the extremes of too much and too\nlittle; but I shall pursue this argument no farther in this place.\n\nThus much may, however, fairly be assumed from what has already\nbeen said on this head, that even they themselves do allow a plain\ndifference between the judgment and the irrational faculties, by means\nwhereof, they say, the passions become greater and more violent; and\nso, while they cavil and contend about names and words, they give up\nthe very cause to those who maintain the irrational part of the soul,\nwhich is the seat of the passions, to be several and distinct from that\nfaculty by which we reason and make a judgment of things. And indeed\nChrysippus, in those books which he wrote of Anomology,\u2014after he has\ntold us that anger is blind, not discerning oftentimes those things\nwhich are plain and conspicuous, and as frequently casting a mist\nupon such things as were before clear and evident,\u2014proceeds a little\nfarther in this manner: For, says he, the passions, being once raised,\nnot only reject and drive away reason and those things which appear\notherwise than they would have them, but violently push men forward\nto actions that are contrary to reason. And then he makes use of the\ntestimony of Menander, saying,\n\n  What have I done? Where has my soul been strayed?\n  Would she not stay to see herself obeyed,\n  But let me act what I abhorred but now?\n\nAnd again the same Chrysippus a little after says: Every rational\ncreature is by Nature so disposed as to use reason in all things,\nand to be governed by it; but yet oftentimes it falls out that we\ndispose and reject it, being carried away by another more violent and\nover-ruling motion. In these words he plainly enough acknowledges what\nuses in such a case to happen on account of the difference and contest\nbetween the passions and reason. And upon any other ground it would be\nridiculous (as Plato says) to suppose a man to be sometimes better than\nhimself, and sometimes again worse; one while to be his own master, and\nanother while his own slave.\n\n11. For how could it possibly be, that a man should be better and\nworse than himself, and at once both his own master and slave, if\nevery one were not in some sort naturally double or twofold, having in\nhimself at the same time a better part and a worse? For so may he be\nreckoned to have a power over himself and to be better than himself,\nwho has his worse and inferior faculties in obedience and subjection\nto the superior and more excellent; whereas he who suffers his nobler\npowers to fall under the government and direction of the intemperate\nand irrational part of the soul is less and worse than himself, and\nhas wholly lost the command over himself, and is in a state which\nis contrary to Nature. For by the order of Nature, reason, which is\ndivine, ought to have the sovereignty and dominion over the irrational\nand brutal faculties, which, deriving their original from the body, and\nbeing incorporated, as it were, and thoroughly mixed therewith, bear a\nvery near resemblance to it, are replenished with, and do participate\nin common of the qualities, properties, and passions thereof; as is\nplain from our more vehement motions and efforts towards corporeal\nobjects, which always increase or diminish in vigor according to the\nseveral changes and alterations which happen in the body. From whence\nit is that young men are in their lusts and appetites, because of\nthe abundance and warmth of their blood, so quick, forward, hot, and\nfurious; whereas in old men all natural fire being almost extinguished,\nand the first principles and source of the affections and passions,\nseated about the liver, being much lessened and debilitated, reason\nbecomes more vigorous and predominant, while the appetites languish\nand decay together with the body. And after this manner it is that the\nnature of beasts is framed and disposed to divers passions. For it is\nnot from any strength or weakness of thought, or from any opinions\nright or wrong which they form to themselves, that some of them are\nso bold and venturous, and dare encounter any thing, and others of\nthem are fearful and cowardly, shrinking at every danger; but from\nthe force and power of the blood, the spirits, and the body does this\ndiversity of passions in them arise; for that part where the passions\nare seated, being derived from the body, as from its root, retains all\nthe qualities and propensions of that from whence it is extracted.\n\nNow that in man there is a sympathy and an agreeable and correspondent\nmotion of the body with the passions and appetites, is proved by the\npaleness and blushings of the face, by the tremblings of the joints,\nand by the palpitation of the heart; and, on the contrary, by the\ndiffusion or dilatation which we feel upon the hope and expectation of\npleasures. But when the mind or intellect doth move of itself alone,\nwithout any passion to disorder and ruffle it, then is the body at\nrepose and rests quiet, having nothing at all to do with those acts\nand operations of the mind; as, when it takes into consideration a\nproposition in mathematics or some such scientifical thing, it calls\nnot for the aid or assistance of the irrational or brutal faculties.\nFrom whence also it is very apparent that there are in us two distinct\nparts, differing in their powers and faculties from one another.\n\n12. In fine, throughout the whole world, all things (as they themselves\nare forced to confess, and is evident in itself) are governed and\ndirected, some by a certain habit, some by Nature, others by a\nbrutal or irrational soul, and some again by that which has reason\nand understanding. Of all which things man does in some measure\nparticipate, and is concerned in all the above-mentioned differences.\nFor he is contained by habit, and nourished by Nature; he makes use\nof reason and understanding; he wants not his share of the irrational\nsoul; he has also in him a native source and inbred principle of the\npassions, not as adventitious, but necessary to him, which ought not\ntherefore to be utterly rooted out, but only pruned and cultivated.\nFor it is not the method and custom of reason\u2014in imitation either\nof the manner of the Thracians or of what Lycurgus ordered to be\ndone to the vines\u2014to destroy and tear up all the passions and\naffections indifferently, good and bad, useful and hurtful together;\nbut rather\u2014like some kind and careful Deity who has a tender regard\nto the growth and improvement of fruit-trees and plants\u2014to cut away\nand clip off that which grows wild and rank, and to dress and manage\nthe rest that it may serve for use and profit. For as they who are\nafraid of being drunk pour not their wine upon the ground, but dilute\nit with water; so neither do they who fear any violent commotion of\ntheir passions go about utterly to destroy and eradicate, but rather\nwisely to temper and moderate them. And as they who use to break horses\nand oxen do not go about to take away their goings, or to render them\nunfit for labor and service, but only strive to cure them of their\nunluckiness and flinging up their heels, and to bring them to be\npatient of the bit and yoke, so as to become useful; after the same\nmanner reason makes very good use of the passions, after they are well\nsubdued and made gentle, without either tearing in pieces or over-much\nweakening that part of the soul which was made to be obedient to her.\nIn Pindar we find it said:\n\n  As \u2019tis the horse\u2019s pride to win the race,\n    And to plough up the fruitful soil\n    Is the laborious ox\u2019s toil,\n  So the fierce dog we take the foaming boar to chase.\n\nBut much more useful than these in their several kinds are the whole\nbrood of passions, when they become attendants to reason, and when,\nbeing assistant and obedient to virtue, they give life and vigor to it.\n\nThus, moderate anger is of admirable use to courage or fortitude;\nhatred and aversion for ill men promotes the execution of justice; and\na just indignation against those who are prosperous beyond what they\ndeserve is then both convenient and even necessary, when with pride\nand insolence their minds are so swollen and elated, that they need to\nbe repressed and taken down. Neither by any means can a man, though he\nnever so much desire it, be able to separate from friendship a natural\npropension to affection; from humanity and good nature, tenderness and\ncommiseration; nor from true benevolence, a mutual participation of\njoy and grief. And if they run into an error who would take away all\nlove that they may destroy mad and wanton passions, neither can those\nbe in the right who, for the sake of covetousness, condemn all other\nappetites and desires. Which is full as ridiculous as if one should\nalways refuse to run, because one time or other he may chance to catch\na fall; or to shoot, because he may sometimes happen to miss the mark;\nor should forbear all singing, because a discord or a jar is offensive\nto the ear. For, as in sounds the music and harmony thereof takes away\nneither the sharpest nor the deepest notes, and in our bodies physic\nprocureth health, not by the destruction of heat and cold, but by a due\nand proportionable temperature and mixture of them both together; so in\nthe same manner it happeneth in the soul of man, when reason becomes\nvictorious and triumphant by reducing the faculties of the mind which\nbelong to the passions, and all their motions, to a due moderation and\nmediocrity. And excessive and unmeasurable joy or grief or fear in the\nsoul (not, however, either joy, grief, or fear, simply in itself) may\nvery properly be resembled to a great swelling or inflammation in the\nbody. And therefore Homer, where he says,\n\n  A valiant man doth never color change;\n  Excessive fear to him is very strange,[143]\n\ndoes not take away all fear (but that only which is extreme and\nunmanly), that bravery and courage may not be thought to be\nfool-hardiness, nor boldness and resolution pass for temerity and\nrashness. And therefore he that in pleasures and delights can prescribe\nbounds to his lusts and desires, and in punishing offences can moderate\nhis rage and hatred to the offenders, shall in one case get the\nreputation not of an insensible, but temperate person, and in the other\nbe accounted a man of justice without cruelty or bitterness. Whereas,\nif all the passions, if that were possible, were clean rooted out,\nreason in most men would grow sensibly more dull and inactive than the\npilot of a ship in a calm.\n\nAnd to these things (as it should seem) prudent lawgivers having regard\nhave wisely taken care to excite and encourage in commonwealths and\ncities the ambition and emulation of their people amongst one another,\nand with trumpets, drums, and flutes to whet their anger and courage\nagainst their enemies. For not only in poetry (as Plato very well\nobserves), he that is inspired by the Muses, and as it were possessed\nby a poetical fury, will make him that is otherwise a master of his\ntrade and an exact critic in poetry appear ridiculous; but also in\nfighting, those who are elevated and inspired with a noble rage, and a\nresolution and courage about the common pitch, become invincible, and\nare not to be withstood. And this is that warlike fury which the Gods,\nas Homer will have it, infuse into men of honor:\n\n  He spoke, and every word new strength inspired;\n\nand again:\n\n  This more than human rage is from the Gods;[144]\n\nas if to reason the Gods had joined some or other of passions, as an\nincitement or, if I may so say, a vehicle to push and carry it forward.\n\nNay we often see these very men against whom I now dispute exciting\nand encouraging young persons with praises, and as often checking\nand rebuking them with severe reprimands; whereupon in the one case\nthere must follow pleasure and satisfaction as necessarily as grief\nand trouble are produced in the other. For reprehension and admonition\ncertainly strike us with repentance and shame, whereof this is\ncomprehended under fear, as the other is under grief. And these are\nthe things they chiefly make use of for correction and amendment.\nWhich seems to be the reason why Diogenes, to some who had magnified\nPlato, made this reply: What can there be in him, said he, so much to\nbe valued, who, having been so long a philosopher, has never yet been\nknown so much as to excite the single passion of grief in the mind of\nany one? And certainly the mathematics cannot so properly be called\n(to use the words of Xenocrates) the handles of philosophy, as these\npassions are of young men, namely, bashfulness, desire, repentance,\npleasure, pain, ambition; whereon right reason and the law discreetly\nlaying their salutary hands do thereby effectually and speedily reduce\na young man into the right way. Agreeably hereunto the Lacedaemonian\ninstructor of youth was in the right, when he professed that he would\nbring it to pass that youths under his care should take a pleasure and\nsatisfaction in good and have an abhorrence for evil, than which there\ncannot be a greater or nobler end of the liberal education of youth\nproposed or assigned.\n\n\n\n\nPLUTARCH\u2019S NATURAL QUESTIONS.\n\n\nI.\n\nWHAT IS THE REASON THAT SEA-WATER NOURISHES NOT TREES?\n\nIs it not for the same reason that it nourishes not earthly animals?\nFor Plato, Anaxagoras, and Democritus think plants are earthly animals.\nNor, though sea-water be aliment to marine plants, as it is to fishes,\nwill it therefore nourish earthly plants, since it can neither\npenetrate the roots, because of its grossness, nor ascend, by reason of\nits weight; for this, among many other things, shows sea-water to be\nheavy and terrene, because it more easily bears up ships and swimmers.\nOr is it because drought is a great enemy to trees? For sea-water is of\na drying faculty; upon which account salt resists putrefaction, and the\nbodies of such as wash in the sea are presently dry and rough. Or is it\nbecause oil is destructive to earthly plants, and kills things anointed\nwith it? But sea-water participates of much fatness; for it burns\ntogether with it. Wherefore, when men would quench fire, we forbid\nthem to throw on sea-water. Or is it because sea-water is not fit to\ndrink and bitter (as Aristotle says) through a mixture of burnt earth?\nFor a lye is made by the falling of ashes into sweet water, and the\ndissolution ejects and corrupts what was good and potable, as in us men\nfevers convert the humors into bile. As for what woods and plants men\ntalk of growing in the Red Sea, they bear no fruit, but are nourished\nby rivers casting up much mud; therefore they grow not at any great\ndistance from land, but very near to it.\n\n\nII.\n\nWHY DO TREES AND SEEDS THRIVE BETTER WITH RAIN THAN WITH WATERING?\n\nWhether is it because (as Laitus thinks) showers, parting the earth\nby the violence of their fall, make passages, whereby the water may\nmore easily penetrate to the root? Or cannot this be true; and did\nLaitus never consider that marsh-plants (as cat\u2019s-tail, pond-weeds,\nand rushes) neither thrive nor sprout when the rains fall not in their\nseason; but it is true, as Aristotle said, rain-water is new and fresh,\nthat of lakes old and stale? And what if this be rather probable than\ntrue? For the waters of fountains and rivers are ever fresh, new always\narriving; therefore Heraclitus said well, that no man could go twice\ninto the same river. And yet these very waters nourish worse than\nrain-water. But water from the heavens is light and aerial, and, being\nmixed with spirit, is the quicker passed and elevated into the plant,\nby reason of its tenuity. And for this very reason it makes bubbles\nwhen mixed with the air. Or does that nourish most which is soonest\naltered and overcome by the thing nourished?\u2014for this very thing\nis concoction. On the contrary, inconcoction is when the aliment is\ntoo strong to be affected by the thing nourished. Now thin, simple,\nand insipid things are the most easily altered, of which number is\nrain-water, which is bred in the air and wind, and falls pure and\nsincere. But fountain-water, being assimilated to the earth and places\nthrough which it passes, is filled with many qualities which render\nit less nutritive and slower in alteration to the thing nourished.\nMoreover, that rain-water is easily alterable is an argument, because\nit sooner putrefies than either spring or river-water. For concoction\nseems to be putrefaction as Empedocles says,\u2014\n\n  When in vine wood the water putrefies,\n  It turns to wine, while under bark it lies.\n\nOr, which may most readily be assigned for a reason, is it because\nrain is sweet and mild, when it is presently sent by the wind? For\nthis reason cattle drink it most greedily, and frogs in expectation of\nit raise their voice, as if they were calling for rain to sweeten the\nmarsh and to be sauce to the water in the pools. For Aratus makes this\na sign of approaching rain,\n\n  When father frogs, to watery snakes sweet food,\n  Do croak and sing in mud, a wretched brood.\n\n\nIII.\n\nWHY DO HERDSMEN SET SALT BEFORE CATTLE?\n\nWhether (as many think) to nourish them the more, and fatten them\nthe better? For salt by its acrimony sharpens the appetite, and by\nopening the passages brings meat more easily to digestion. Therefore\nApollonius, Herophilus\u2019s scholar, would not have lean persons, and such\nas did not thrive, be fed with sweet things and gruel, but ordered them\nto use pickles and salt things for their food, whose tenuity, serving\ninstead of frication or sifting, might apply the aliment through the\npassages of the body. Or is it for health\u2019s sake that men give sheep\nsalt to lick, to cut off the redundance of nutriment? For when they are\nover fat, they grow sick; but salt wastes and melts the fat. And this\nthey observe so well, that they can more easily flay them; for the fat,\nwhich agglutinates and fastens the skin, is made thin and weak by the\nacrimony. The blood also of things that lick salt is attenuated; nor do\nthings within the body stick together when salts are mixed with them.\nMoreover, consider this, whether the cattle grow more fruitful and more\ninclined to coition; for bitches do sooner conceive when they are fed\nwith salt victuals, and ships which carry salt are more pestered with\nmice, by reason of their frequent coition.\n\n\nIV.\n\nWHY IS THE WATER OF SHOWERS WHICH FALLS IN THUNDER AND LIGHTNING FITTER\nTO WATER SEEDS? AND THEY ARE THEREFORE CALLED THUNDER-SHOWERS.\n\nIs it because they contain much spirit, by reason of their confusion\nand mixture with the air? And the spirit moving the humor sends it more\nupwards. Or is it because heat fighting against cold causes thunder and\nlightning? Whence it is that it thunders very little in winter, but\nin spring and autumn very much, because of the inequality of temper;\nand the heat, concocting the humor, renders it friendly and commodious\nfor plants. Or does it thunder and lighten most in the spring for the\naforesaid cause, and do the seeds have greater occasion for the vernal\nrains before summer? Therefore that country which is best watered with\nrain in spring, as Sicily is, produces abundance of good fruit.\n\n\nV.\n\nHOW COMES IT TO PASS, THAT SINCE THERE BE EIGHT KINDS OF TASTES, WE\nFIND THE SALT IN NO FRUIT WHATEVER?\n\nIndeed, at first the olive is bitter, and the grape acid; one whereof\nafterward turns fat, and the other vinous. But the harshness in dates\nand the austere in pomegranates turn sweet. Some pomegranates and\napples have only a simple acid taste. The pungent taste is frequent in\nroots and seeds.\n\nIs it because a salt taste is never natural, but arises when the\nrest are corrupt? Therefore such plants and seeds as are nourished\nreceive no nourishment from salt; it serves indeed some instead of\nsauce, by preventing a surfeit of other nourishment. Or, as men take\naway saltness and bitingness from the sea-water by distilling, is\nsaltness so abolished in hot things by heat? Or indeed does the taste\n(as Plato says) arise from water percolated through a plant, and does\neven sea-water percolated lose its saltness, being terrene and of\ngross parts? Therefore people that dig near the sea happen upon wells\nfit to drink. Several also that draw the sea-water into waxen buckets\nreceive it sweet and potable, the salt and earthy matter being strained\nout. And straining through clay renders sea-water potable, since the\nclay retains the earthy parts and does not let them pass through. And\nsince things are so, it is very probable either that plants receive\nno saltness extrinsically, or, if they do, they put it not forth into\nfruit; for things terrene and consisting of gross parts cannot pass, by\nreason of the straitness of the passages. Or may saltness be reckoned a\nsort of bitterness? For so Homer says:\n\n  Out of his mouth the bitter brine did flow,\n  And down his body from his head did go.[145]\n\nPlato also says that both these tastes have an abstersive and\ncolliquative faculty; but the salt does it less, nor is it rough. And\nthe bitter seems to differ from the salt in abundance of heat, since\nthe salt has also a drying quality.\n\n\nVI.\n\nWHAT IS THE REASON THAT, IF A MAN FREQUENTLY PASS ALONG DEWY TREES,\nTHOSE LIMBS THAT TOUCH THE WOOD ARE SEIZED WITH A LEPROSY?\n\nWhether (as Laitus said) that by the tenuity of the dew the moisture of\nthe skin is fretted away? Or, as smut and mildew fall upon moistened\nseeds, so, when the green and tender parts on the superficies are\nfretted and dissolved by the dew, is a certain noxious taint carried\nand imparted to the most bloodless parts of the body, as the legs and\nfeet, which there eats and frets the superficies? For that by Nature\nthere is a corrosive faculty in dew sufficiently appears, in that it\nmakes fat people lean; and gross women gather it, either with wool or\non their clothes, to take down their flesh.\n\n\nVII.\n\nWHY IN WINTER DO SHIPS SAIL SLOWER IN RIVERS, BUT DO NOT SO IN THE\nSEA?\n\nWhether, because the river-air, which is at all times heavy and slow,\nbeing in winter more condensed by the cold, does more resist sailing?\nOr is it long of the water rather than the air? For the piercing cold\nmakes the water heavy and thick, as one may perceive in a water-clock;\nfor the water passes more slowly in winter than in summer. Theophrastus\ntalks of a well about Pangaeum in Thrace, how that a vessel filled\nwith the water of it weighs twice as much in winter as it does in\nsummer. Besides, hence it is apparent that the grossness of the water\nmakes ships sail slower, because in winter river-vessels carry greater\nburthens. For the water, being made more dense and heavy, makes the\nmore renitency; but the heat hinders the sea from being condensed or\nfrozen.\n\n\nVIII.\n\nWHY, SINCE ALL OTHER LIQUORS UPON MOVING AND STIRRING ABOUT GROW COLD,\nDOES THE SEA BY BEING TOSSED IN WAVES GROW HOT?\n\nWhether that motion expels and dissipates the heat of other liquors as\na thing adscititious, and the winds do rather excite and increase the\ninnate heat of the sea? Its transparentness is an argument of heat; and\nso is its not being frozen, though it is terrene and heavy.\n\n\nIX.\n\nWHY IN WINTER IS THE SEA LEAST SALT AND BITTER TO THE TASTE? FOR THEY\nSAY THAT DIONYSIUS THE HYDRAGOGUE REPORTED THIS.\n\nIs it that the bitterness of the sea is not devoid of all sweetness, as\nreceiving so many rivers into it; but, since the sun exhales the sweet\nand potable water thereof, arising to the top by reason of its levity,\nand since this is done in summer more than in winter, when it affects\nthe sea more weakly by reason of the debility of its heat, that so in\nwinter a great deal of sweetness is left, which tempers and mitigates\nits excessive poisonous bitterness? And the same thing befalls potable\nwaters; for in summer they are worse, the sun wasting the lightest and\nsweetest part of them. And a fresh sweetness returns in winter, of\nwhich the sea must needs participate, since it moves, and is carried\nwith the rivers into the sea.\n\n\nX.\n\nWHY DO MEN POUR SEA-WATER UPON WINE, AND SAY THE FISHER MEN HAD AN\nORACLE GIVEN THEM, WHEREBY THEY WERE BID TO DIP BACCHUS INTO THE SEA?\nAND WHY DO THEY THAT LIVE FAR FROM THE SEA CAST IN SOME ZACYNTHIAN\nEARTH TOASTED?\n\nWhether that heat is good against cold? Or that it quenches heat, by\ndiluting the wine and destroying its strength? Or that the aqueous and\naerial part of wine (which is therefore prone to mutation) is stayed\nby the throwing in of terrene parts, whose nature it is to constipate\nand condense? Moreover, salts with the sea-water, attenuating and\ncolliquating whatever is foreign and superfluous, suffer no fetidness\nor putrefaction to breed. Besides, the gross and terrene parts, being\nentangled with the heavy and sinking together, make a sediment or lees,\nand so make the wine fine.\n\n\nXI.\n\nWHY ARE THEY SICKER THAT SAIL ON THE SEA THAN THEY THAT SAIL IN\nFRESH RIVERS, EVEN IN CALM WEATHER?\n\nOf all the senses, smelling causes nauseousness the most, and of all\nthe passions of the mind, fear. For men tremble and shake and bewray\nthemselves upon apprehension of great danger. They that sail in a river\nare troubled with neither of these. And the smell of sweet and potable\nwater is familiar to all, and the voyage is without danger. On the sea\nan unusual smell is troublesome; and men are afraid, not knowing what\nthe issue may be. Therefore tranquillity abroad avails not, while an\nestuating and disturbed mind disorders the body.\n\n\nXII.\n\nWHY DOES POURING OIL ON THE SEA MAKE IT CLEAR AND CALM?\n\nIs it for that the winds, slipping the smooth oil, have no force,\nnor cause any waves? This may be probably said in respect of things\nexternal; but they say that divers take oil in their mouths, and when\nthey spout it out they have light at the bottom, and it makes the water\ntransparent; so that the slipping of the winds will not hold good here\nfor an argument. Therefore it is to be considered, whether the sea,\nwhich is terrene and uneven, is not compacted and made smooth by the\ndense oil; and so the sea, being compact in itself, leaves passes,\nand a pellucidity penetrable by the sight. Or whether that the air,\nwhich is naturally mixed with the sea, is lucid, but by being troubled\ngrows unequal and shady; and so by the oil\u2019s density, smoothing its\ninequality, the sea recovers its evenness and pellucidity.\n\n\nXIII.\n\nWHY DO FISHERMEN\u2019S NETS ROT MORE IN WINTER THAN IN SUMMER, SINCE\nOTHER THINGS ROT MORE IN SUMMER?\n\nIs not that the cause which Theophrastus assigns,\u2014that heat (to wit)\nshuns the cold, and is constrained by it on every side? Hence the\nwaters are hottest in the bottom of the sea. And so it is on land; for\nsprings are hotter in winter, and then lakes and rivers send up most\nvapors, because the heat is compelled to the bottom by the prevailing\ncold. Or it may be, nets do not rot at that time more than at another;\nbut being frozen and dried in the cold, since they are therefore the\nmore easily broken by the waves, they are liable to something like\nputrefaction and rottenness. And they suffer most in the cold (as\nstrained cords are aptest to break in such a season), because then\nthere be most frequent storms at sea. Therefore fishermen guard their\nnets with certain tinctures, for fear they should break. Otherwise\na net, neither tinged nor daubed with any thing, might more easily\ndeceive the fish; since line is of an air color, and is not easily\ndiscerned in the sea.\n\n\nXIV.\n\nWHY DO THE DORIANS PRAY FOR BAD MAKING OF THEIR HAY?\n\nIs it because hay rained upon is never well made? For the grass is\ncut down green and not dry, wherefore it putrefies when wet with rain\nwater. But when before harvest it rains upon corn, this is a help to\nit against the hot south winds; which otherwise would not let the\ngrain fill in the ear, but by their heat would hinder and destroy all\ncoalition, unless by watering the earth there came a moisture to cool\nand moisten the ear.\n\n\nXV.\n\nWHY IS A FAT AND DEEP SOIL FRUITFUL OF WHEAT, AND A LEAN SOIL OF BARLEY?\n\nIs it because a stronger grain needs more nourishment, and a weaker\na light and thin one? Now barley is weaker and laxer than wheat,\ntherefore it affords but little nourishment. And, as a farther\ntestimony to this reason, wheat, that is ripe in three months, grows\nin dryer ground; because it is juiceless, and stands in need of less\nnourishment, and therefore is more easily brought to perfection.\n\n\nXVI.\n\nWHY DO MEN SAY, SOW WHEAT IN CLAY AND BARLEY IN DUST?\n\nIs the reason (as we said) because wheat takes up more nourishment;\nand barley cannot bear so much, but is choked with it? Or does wheat,\nbecause it is hard and ligneous, thrive better when it is softened\nand loosened in a moist soil; and barley at the first in a dry soil,\nbecause of its rarity? Or is the one temperament congruous and harmless\nto wheat, because it is hot; and the other to barley, because it is\ncold? Or are men afraid to sow wheat in a dry soil, because of the\nants, which presently lie in wait for it; but they cannot so easily\ndeal with barley nor carry it away, because it is a larger grain?\n\n\nXVII.\n\nWHY DO MEN USE THE HAIR OF HORSES RATHER THAN OF MARES FOR\nFISHING-LINES?\n\nIs it that the males are stronger in those parts, as well as in others,\nthan the females? Or is it that the females spoil the hair of their\ntails by their staling?\n\n\nXVIII.\n\nWHY IS THE SIGHT OF A CUTTLE-FISH A SIGN OF A GREAT STORM?\n\nIs it because all fishes of the soft kind cannot endure cold, by reason\nof their nakedness and tenderness? For they are covered neither with\nshell, skin, or scale, though within they have hard and bony parts.\nHence the Greeks call them soft fish. Therefore they easily perceive a\nstorm coming, since they are so soon affected by the cold. When the\npolypus gets to shore and embraces the rocks, it is a sign the wind is\nrising; but the cuttle-fish jumps up, to shun the cold and the trouble\nof the bottom of the sea; for, of all soft fishes, she is the tenderest\nand soonest hurt.\n\n\nXIX.\n\nWHY DOES THE POLYPUS CHANGE COLOR?\n\nWhether, as Theophrastus writes, because it is an animal by nature\ntimorous; and therefore, being disturbed, it changes color with its\nspirit, as some men do, of whom it is said, an ill man ever changes\ncolor? But though this may serve as a reason for changing its color, it\nwill not for the imitation of colors. For the polypus does so change\nits color, that it is of the color of every stone it comes nigh. Hence\nthat of Pindar, Mind the color of the marine beast, and so converse\ncunningly in all cities; and that of Theognis:\n\n  Put on a mind like th\u2019 polyp fish,\u2014\n    And learn so to dissemble,\u2014\n  Which of the rock whereto it sticks\n    The color doth resemble.[146]\n\nAnd they say, that such as are excellent at craftiness and juggling\nhave this in their eye,\u2014that they may the better cheat them they\nhave to deal withal,\u2014ever to imitate the polypus. Some think the\npolypus can use her skin as a garment, and can put it on or off at\npleasure. But if fear occasions this change in the polypus, is not\nsomething else more properly the cause? Let us consider what Empedocles\nsays, that effluvia proceed from all things whatever. For not only\nanimals, plants, the earth and sea, but stones, and even brass and\niron, do continually send out many effluvia. For all things corrupt\nand smell, because there runneth always something from them, and they\nwear continually; insomuch that it is thought that by these effluvia\ncome all attractions and insultations, some supposing embraces,\nothers blows, some impulses, others circuitions. But especially about\nthe sea rocks, when they are wet and cool by the waves (as is most\nlikely), constantly some small particles are washed off, which do not\nincorporate with other bodies, but either pass by the smaller passages,\nor pass through the larger. Now the flesh of the polypus, as one may\njudge by the eye, is hollow, full of pores, and capable of effluvia.\nWhen therefore she is afraid, as her spirit changes she changes\nherself, and by straitening and contracting her body, she encloses\nthe neighboring effluvia. And, as a good token of this argument, the\npolypus cannot imitate the color of every thing he comes near, nor\nthe chameleon of any thing that is white; but each of these creatures\nis assimilated only to those things to whose effluvia it has pores\nproportionable.\n\n\nXX.\n\nWHAT IS THE REASON, THAT THE TEARS OF WILD BOARS ARE SWEET, AND THE\nTEARS OF THE HART SALT AND HURTFUL?\n\nThe reason seems to be the heat and cold of these animals. For the hart\nis cold, and the boar is very hot and fiery; therefore the one flies\nfrom, the other defends himself against, his pursuers. Now when great\nstore of heat comes to the eyes (as Homer says, with horrid bristles,\nand eyes darting fire), tears are sweet. Some are of Empedocles\u2019s\nopinion, who thought that tears proceed from the disturbance of the\nblood, as whey does from the churning of milk; since therefore boar\u2019s\nblood is harsh and black, and hart\u2019s blood thin and watery, it is\nconsentaneous that the tears, which the one sheds when excited to\nanger, and the other when dejected with fear, should be of the same\nnature.\n\n\nXXI.\n\nWHY DO TAME SOWS FARROW OFTEN, SOME AT ONE TIME AND OTHERS AT ANOTHER;\nAND THE WILD BUT ONCE A YEAR, AND ALL OF THEM ABOUT THE SAME TIME AT\nTHE BEGINNING OF SUMMER, WHENCE IT IS SAID,\u2014\n\n  The wild sow farrowing, that night falls no rain?\n\nIs it because of plentiful feeding, as in very truth fulness doth\nproduce wantonness? For abundance of nourishment breeds abundance of\nseed both in animals and plants. Now wild sows live by their own toil,\nand that with fear; the tame have always food enough, either by nature\nor given them. Or may it not be ascribed to their rest and exercise?\nFor the tame do rest and go not far from their keepers; the wild get to\nthe mountains, and run about, by which means they waste the nutriment,\nand consume it upon the whole body. Therefore either through continual\nconverse, or abundance of seed, or because the females feed in herds\nwith the males, the tame sows call to mind coition and stir up lust,\nas Empedocles talks of men. But in wild sows, which feed apart, desire\nis cold and dull for want of love and conversation. Or is it true,\nwhat Aristotle says, that Homer called the wild boar \u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2,\nbecause he had but one stone? For most boars spoil their stones (he\nsays) by rubbing them against stumps of trees.\n\n\nXXII.\n\nWHY ARE THE PAWS OF BEARS THE SWEETEST AND PLEASANTEST FOOD?\n\nBecause the flesh of those parts of the body which concoct aliment\nthe best is sweetest; and that concocts best which transpires most by\nmotion and exercise. But the bear uses the fore-feet most in going and\nrunning, and in managing of things, as it were with hands.\n\n\nXXIII.\n\nWHY ARE THE STEPS OF WILD BEASTS MOST DIFFICULTLY TRACED IN\nSPRING-TIME?\n\nWhether the dogs, as Empedocles says, \u201cwith noses find the steps of\nall wild beasts,\u201d and draw in those effluvia which the beasts leave in\nthe ground; but the various smells of plants and flowers lying over\nthe footsteps do in spring-time obscure and confound them, and put the\ndogs to a loss at winding them? Therefore about Etna in Sicily no man\nkeeps any hunting dogs, because abundance of wild marjoram flourishes\nand grows there the year round, and the perpetual fragrancy of the\nplace destroys the scent of the wild beasts. There is also a tale, how\nProserpine, as she was gathering flowers thereabout, was ravished by\nPluto; therefore people, revering that place as an asylum, do not catch\nany creature that feeds thereabout.\n\n\nXXIV.\n\nWHY ARE THE TRACKS OR WILD BEASTS WORST SCENTED ABOUT THE FULL\nMOON?\n\nWhether for the foresaid cause? For the full moons bring down the dews;\nand therefore Alcman calls dew the daughter of Jove and Luna in a verse\nof his,\n\n  Fed by the dew, bred by the Moon and Jove.\n\nFor dew is a weak and languid rain, and there is but little heat in the\nmoon; which draws water from the earth, as the sun does; but because it\ncannot raise it on high, it soon lets it fall.\n\n\nXXV.\n\nWHY DOES FROST MAKE HUNTING DIFFICULT?\n\nWhether is it because the wild beasts leave off going far abroad by\nreason of the cold, and so leave but few signs of themselves? Therefore\nsome say, beasts spare the neighboring places, that they may not be\nsore put to it by going far abroad in winter, but may always have food\nready at hand. Or is it because that for hunting the track alone is not\nsufficient, but there must be scent also? And things gently dissolved\nand loosened by heat afford a smell, but too violent cold binds up the\nscent, and will not let it reach the sense. Therefore they say that\nunguents and wine smell least in winter and cold weather; for the then\nconcrete air keeps the scent in, and suffers it not to disperse.\n\n\nXXVI.\n\nWHAT IS THE REASON THAT BRUTES, WHEN THEY AIL ANY THING, SEEK AND\nPURSUE REMEDIES, AND ARE OFTEN CURED BY THE USE OF THEM?\n\nDogs eat grass, to make them vomit bile. Swine seek craw-fish, because\nthe eating of them cures the headache. The tortoise, when he has eaten\na viper, feeds on wild marjoram. They say, when a bear has surfeited\nhimself and his stomach grows nauseous, he licks up ants, and by\ndevouring them is cured. These creatures know such things neither by\nexperience nor by chance.\n\nWhether, as wax draws the bee, and carcasses the vulture afar off by\nthe scent, do craw-fish so draw swine, wild marjoram the tortoise, and\nants the bear, by smells and effluvia accommodated to their nature,\nthey being prompted altogether by sense, without any assistance from\nreason? Or do not the temperaments of the body create appetites in\nanimals, while diseases create these, producing divers acrimonies,\nsweetnesses, and other unusual and absurd qualities, the humors being\naltered; as is plain in women with child, who eat stones and earth?\nTherefore skilful physicians take their prognostic of recovery or\ndeath from the appetites of the sick. For Mnesitheus the physician\nsays that, in the beginning of a disease of the lungs, he that craves\nonions recovers, and he that craves figs dies; because appetites follow\nthe temperament, and the temperament follows diseases. It is therefore\nprobable that beasts, if they fall not into mortal diseases, have such\na disposition and temper, that by following their temper they light on\ntheir remedies.\n\n\nXXVII.\n\nWHY DOES MUST, IF THE VESSEL STAND IN THE COLD, CONTINUE LONG SWEET?\n\nIs it because the changing of the sweet must into wine is concoction,\nbut cold hinders concoction, because this is caused by heat? Or, on the\ncontrary, is the proper taste of the grape sweet, and is it then said\nto be ripe, when the sweetness is equally diffused all over it; but\ndoes cold, not suffering the heat of the grape to exhale, and keeping\nit in, conserve the sweetness of the grape? And this is the reason\nthat, in a rainy vintage, must ferments but little; for fermentation\nproceeds from heat, which the cold does check.\n\n\nXXVIII.\n\nWHY, OF ALL WILD BEASTS, DOES NOT THE BOAR BITE THE TOIL, ALTHOUGH\nBOTH WOLVES AND FOXES DO THIS?\n\nIs it because his teeth stand so far within his head, that he cannot\nwell come at the thread? For his lips, by reason of their thickness\nand largeness, meet close before. Or does he rather rely on his paws\nand mouth, and with those rend the toil, and with this defend himself\nagainst the hunters? His chief refuge is rolling and wallowing;\ntherefore, rather than stand gnawing the toil, he rolls often about,\nand so clears himself, having no occasion for his teeth.\n\n\nXXIX.\n\nWHAT IS THE REASON THAT WE ADMIRE HOT WATERS (_i. e._ BATHS) AND NOT\nCOLD; SINCE IT IS PLAIN THAT COLD IS AS MUCH THE CAUSE OF ONE SORT AS\nHEAT IS OF THE OTHER?\n\nIt is not (as some are of opinion) that heat is a quality, and cold\nonly a privation of that quality, and so that an entity is even less\na cause than a non-entity. But we do it because Nature has attributed\nadmiration to what is rare, and she puts men upon enquiry how any thing\ncomes to pass that seldom happens. As Euripides saith,\n\n  Behold the boundless Heaven on high,\n  Bearing the earth in his moist arms,\u2014\n\nwhat wonders he brings out by night, and what beauty he shows forth by\nday!... The rainbow and the varied beauty of the clouds by day, and the\nlights which burst forth by night....\n\n\nXXX.\n\nWHY ARE VINES WHICH ARE RANK OF LEAVES, BUT OTHERWISE FRUITLESS,\nSAID \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u1fb6\u03bd?\n\nIs it because very fat goats (\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9) are less able to\nprocreate, nay, scarce able to use coition, by reason of their fatness?\nSeed is the superfluity of the aliment which is allotted to the body:\nnow, when either an animal or a plant is of a very strong constitution\nand grows fat, it is a sign that all the nourishment is spent within,\nand that there is little and base excrement, or none at all.\n\n\nXXXI.\n\nWHY DOES THE VINE IRRIGATED WITH WINE DIE, ESPECIALLY THE VERY WINE\nMADE FROM ITS OWN GRAPES?\n\nIs it as baldness happens to great wine-bibbers, the heat of the wine\nevaporating the moisture? Or, as Empedocles saith, \u201cthe putrefied water\nin the wood becomes wine beneath the bark,\u201d ... thus, when the vine is\noutwardly irrigated with wine, it is as fire to the vine, and destroys\nthe nutritive faculty. Or, because wine is obstructive, it gets into\nthe roots, stops the passages, and so hinders any moisture from coming\nto the plant to make it grow and thrive. Or, it may seem contrary to\nNature that that should return into the vine which came out of it; for\nwhatsoever moisture comes from plants can neither nourish nor be again\na part of the plant.\n\n\nXXXII.[147]\n\nWHY DOTH THE PALM ALONE OF ALL TREES BEND UPWARD WHEN A WEIGHT IS\nLAID THEREUPON?\n\nIs it that the fiery and spiritual power which it hath, being once\nprovoked and (as it were) angered, putteth forth itself so much the\nmore, and mounteth upward? Or is it because the weight, forcing the\nboughs suddenly, oppresseth and keepeth down the airy substance which\nthey have, and driveth all of it inward; but the same afterwards,\nhaving resumed strength again, maketh head afresh, and more eagerly\nwithstandeth the weight? Or, lastly, is it that the softer and more\ntender branches, not able to sustain the violence at first, so soon as\nthe burden resteth quiet, by little and little lift up themselves, and\nmake a show as if they rose up against it?\n\n\nXXXIII.\n\nWHAT IS THE REASON THAT PIT-WATER IS LESS NUTRITIVE THAN EITHER THAT\nWHICH ARISETH OUT OF SPRINGS OR THAT WHICH FALLETH DOWN FROM HEAVEN?\n\nIs it because it is more cold, and withal hath less air in it? Or\nbecause it containeth much salt from the earth mingled therewith?\u2014now\nit is well known that salt above all other things causeth leanness. Or\nbecause standing still, and not exercised with running and stirring, it\ngetteth a certain malignant quality, which is hurtful to both plants\nand animals, and is the cause that it is neither well concocted nor\nable to feed and nourish any thing? Hence it is that all dead waters\nof pools are unwholesome, for that they cannot digest and despatch\nthose harmful qualities which they borrow of the evil property of the\nair or of the earth.\n\n\nXXXIV.\n\nWHY IS THE WEST WIND HELD COMMONLY TO BE THE SWIFTEST ACCORDING TO\nTHIS VERSE OF HOMER:\n\n  Let us likewise bestir our feet,\n  As fast as Western winds do fleet.[148]\n\nIs it not because this wind is wont to blow when the sky is very well\ncleansed, and the air is exceeding clear and without all clouds?\u2014for\nthe thickness and impurity of the air doth not a little impeach and\ninterrupt the course of the winds. Or is it rather because the sun,\nstriking through a cold wind with his beams, is the cause that it\npasseth the faster away?\u2014for whatsoever of cold is drawn in by the\nforce of the winds, when the same is overcome by heat, as it were\nits enemy, we must think, is driven and set forward further and with\ngreater celerity.\n\n\nXXXV.\n\nWHY CANNOT BEES ABIDE SMOKE?\n\nWhether is it because the passages of their viStal spirits are\nexceeding strait, and, if it chance that smoke be gotten into them and\nthere kept in and intercepted, it is enough to stop the poor bees\u2019\nbreath,\u2014yea, and to strangle them quite? Or is not the acrimony and\nbitterness (think you) of the smoke in cause?\u2014for bees are delighted\nwith sweet things, and in very truth they have no other nourishment;\nand therefore no marvel if they detest and abhor smoke, as a thing\nfor the bitterness most adverse and contrary unto them. Therefore\nhoney-masters, when they make a smoke for to drive away bees, are wont\nto burn bitter herbs, as hemlock, centaury, &c.\n\n\nXXXVI.\n\nWHY WILL BEES SOONER STING THOSE WHO NEWLY BEFORE HAVE COMMITTED\nWHOREDOM?\n\nIs it not because it is a creature that wonderfully delighteth in\npurity, cleanliness, and elegancy, and withal hath a marvellous quick\nsense of smelling? Because therefore such unclean dealings between man\nand woman are wont to leave behind much filthiness and impurity, the\nbees both sooner find them out and also conceive the greater hatred\nagainst them. Hereupon it is that in Theocritus the shepherd pleasantly\nsendeth Venus away unto Anchises to be well stung with bees for her\nadultery\n\n  Now to mount Ida, to Anchises go,\n  Where mighty oaks and cypresses do grow;\n  Where hives and trees with honey sweet abound,\n  And both with humming noise of bees resound.[149]\n\nAnd Pindar saith: \u201cThou little creature, who honey-combs dost frame,\nand with thy sting hast pricked false impure Rhoecus for his lewd\nvillanies.\u201d\n\n\nXXXVII.\n\nWHY DO DOGS FOLLOW AFTER A STONE THAT IS THROWN AT THEM AND BITE\nIT, LETTING THE MAN ALONE WHO FLUNG IT?\n\nIs it because he can comprehend nothing by imagination nor call a\nthing to mind, which are gifts and virtues proper to man alone; and\ntherefore, seeing he cannot discern the party that offered him injury,\nhe supposeth that to be his enemy which seemeth in his eye to threaten\nhim, and of it he goes about to be revenged? Or is it that he thinks\nthe stone, while it runs along the ground, to be some wild beast, and\naccording to his nature he intendeth to catch it first; but afterwards,\nwhen he seeth himself deceived and put besides his reckoning, he\nsetteth upon the man? Or rather, doth he not hate the man and the stone\nboth alike, but pursueth that only which is next unto him?\n\n\nXXXVIII.\n\nWHY AT A CERTAIN TIME OF THE YEAR DO ALL SHE-WOLVES WHELP WITHIN\nTHE COMPASS OF TWELVE DAYS?\n\nAntipater in his History of Animals affirms, that she-wolves exclude\nforth their young ones about the time that mast trees shed their\nblossoms, for upon the taste thereof their wombs open; but if there be\nnone of such blooms to be had, then their young die within the body and\nnever come to light. Moreover, he saith, those countries which bring\nnot forth oaks and mast are never troubled nor spoiled with wolves.\nSome attribute all this to a tale that goes of Latona; who being with\nchild, and finding no abiding place of rest and safety by reason of\nJuno for the space of twelve days, went to Delos, and, being transmuted\nby Jupiter into a wolf, obtained at his hands that all wolves for ever\nafter might within that time be delivered of their young.\n\n\nXXXIX.\n\nHOW COMETH IT THAT WATER, SEEMING WHITE ALOFT, SHOWETH TO BE BLACK\nIN THE BOTTOM?\n\nIs it because depth is the mother of darkness, so that it doth dim\nand mar the sunbeams before they can descend so low as it? As for the\nuppermost superficies of the water, because it is immediately affected\nby the sun, it must needs receive the white brightness of the light;\nthe which Empedocles verily approveth in these verses.\n\n  A river in the bottom seems\n    By shade of color black;\n  The like is seen in caves and holes,\n    By depth, where light they lack.\n\nOr, since the bottom of the sea and of great rivers is often full of\nmud, doth it by reflection of the sunbeams represent the like color\nthat the said mud hath? Or is it more probable that the water toward\nthe bottom is not pure and sincere, but corrupted with an earthy\nquality,\u2014as continually carrying with it somewhat of that by which it\nrunneth and wherewith it is stirred,\u2014and the same settling once to the\nbottom causeth it to be more troubled and less transparent?\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] From Euripides, Frag. 897.\n\n[2] Sophocles, Frag. 779.\n\n[3] From Pindar.\n\n[4] Odyss. XI. 219.\n\n[5] See Aristoph. Knights, 437, 455; Thesm. 455; Acharn. 1109, 1124.\n\n[6] Eurip. Phoeniss. 388 and 389.\n\n[7] This translation is taken from Burges\u2019s Greek Anthology, p. 470. It\nis there signed J.H.M. (G.)\n\n[8] Plato, Timaeus, p. 90 A.\n\n[9] Euripides, Frag. 935.\n\n[10] Eurip. Iph. Taur. 258.\n\n[11] From the Niobe of Aeschylus, Frag. 153 and 154.\n\n[12] Odyss. VI. 204.\n\n[13] Il. XIV. 230; XXIV. 544; IX. 668; II. 625.\n\n[14] II. XXI. 59.\n\n[15] Eurip. Phoeniss. 388.\n\n[16] Eurip. Phoeniss. 396.\n\n[17] _Ibid._, 430 and 344.\n\n[18] From the Phryxus of Euripides, Frag. 816.\n\n[19] Odyss. XVI. 117.\n\n[20] Euripides, Frag. 1071.\n\n[21] Eurip. Phoeniss. 504 and 536.\n\n[22] See Sophocles, Antig. 905-912.\n\n[23] Odyss. XIII. 331.\n\n[24] Il X 122.\n\n[25] Soph. Antig. 742.\n\n[26] Eurip. Phoeniss. 68.\n\n[27] Il. VI. 227.\n\n[28] Il. VIII. 272.\n\n[29] Hesiod, Works and Days, 707.\n\n[30] Odyss. VII. 107.\n\n[31] Odyss. III. 1.\n\n[32] See Thucydides, I. 118. V. 16.\n\n[33] \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u1f00\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u1fe5\u03b9\u03c0\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n[34] Pindar, Isthm. I. 67.\n\n[35] Odyss. II. 190.\n\n[36] Il. XIV. 246.\n\n[37] From Aratus.\n\n[38] Elsewhere quoted in a long passage from the Sisyphus of Critias.\nSee Nauck, p. 598. (G.)\n\n[39] Hesiod, Theogony, 134.\n\n[40] According to Bentley, \u201cPanchaean Jove.\u201d See Diodorus, VI. Frag. 2;\nand Bentley\u2019s note to Callimachus, Frag. 86. (G.)\n\n[41] Il. III. 179.\n\n[42] We should probably here read \u201cPythagoras.\u201d (G.)\n\n[43] Il. XVII. 547.\n\n[44] Eurip. Orestes, 255.\n\n[45] From Menander.\n\n[46] Odyss. XVI. 278.\n\n[47] Odyss. IV. 242.\n\n[48] Il. II. 554.\n\n[49] It was said that all the people in the island Myconus were bald;\nhence the proverb \u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u039c\u03cd\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, all of a piece. (G.)\n\n[50] Il. XII. 311.\n\n[51] Odyss. VII. 170.\n\n[52] Il. XX. 15.\n\n[53] Il. XXIV. 100.\n\n[54] Hesiod, Works and Days, 26.\n\n[55] It seems absolutely necessary to read \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u1fc3 for \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1fc3 here, to\nmake the description intelligible, and to avoid inconsistency. See\nBecker\u2019s Gallus, III, p. 209. (G.)\n\n[56] From Eurip. Stheneboea, Frag. 666.\n\n[57] Soph. Oed. Tyr. 4.\n\n[58] Il. XI. 846.\n\n[59] See Odyss. VI. 137, 218, 226.\n\n[60] Eurip. Antiope, Frag. 183.\n\n[61] Il. X. 544.\n\n[62] Odyss. IX. 12.\n\n[63] Soph. Oed. Colon. 510.\n\n[64] Eurip. Andromeda, Frag. 131.\n\n[65] Odyss. III. 247.\n\n[66] Soph. Oed. Tyr. 385.\n\n[67] The whole line, from some unknown tragic poet, is \u039a\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5 \u039c\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd. See Athenaeus, XIV. p. 616 C. (G.)\n\n[68] Referring to the saying \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, _experimentum facere\nin corpore vili_. (G.)\n\n[69] Il. XXIII. 620 and 634.\n\n[70] Odyss. VIII. 206 and 246.\n\n[71] Il. III. 375.\n\n[72] Eurip. Phoeniss. 536.\n\n[73] Odyss. XIV. 464.\n\n[74] Odyss. XXI. 35.\n\n[75] From Sappho, Frag. 68.\n\n[76] Odyss. XX. 69.\n\n[77] In the old translation, Question IX. is entirely omitted, and\nQuestion X. is numbered IX. (G.)\n\n[78] Il. XXIII. 190.\n\n[79] From the Hypsipyle of Euripides, Frag. 754.\n\n[80] Il. XVIII. 495.\n\n[81] The Greek text here is badly mutilated. (G.)\n\n[82] Il. I. 156.\n\n[83] Il. XXIII. 886.\n\n[84] Il. IX. 208.\n\n[85] Il. XX. 467.\n\n[86] Il. IX. 325.\n\n[87] Hesiod, Theog. 116.\n\n[88] Il. XI. 7.\n\n[89] Odyss. VII. 115.\n\n[90] Il. IX. 214.\n\n[91] Il. XIV. 170.\n\n[92] See Odyss. VI. 79 and 215.\n\n[93] Il. XXII. 325-329.\n\n[94] Odyss. IX. 373.\n\n[95] Il. II. 409.\n\n[96] Works and Days, 342.\n\n[97] Il. VII. 324.\n\n[98] Il. IX. 70 and 74.\n\n[99] Odyss. VII. 138.\n\n[100] For an account of the belief that Plato was the son of Apollo,\nnot of Aristo, and the vision of Apollo said to have appeared to\nAristo, see Diogenes Laertius, III. 1, 1. (G.)\n\n[101] Il. XXIV. 258.\n\n[102] Il. XXIII. 659.\n\n[103] Works and Days, 595.\n\n[104] Il. XI. 86.\n\n[105] Odyss. X. 356.\n\n[106] Odyss. XII. 329-332.\n\n[107] Soph. Antigone, 456.\n\n[108] Plutarch seems to give this meaning to the Homeric phrase \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u1fc3 (Il. IX. 378) usually interpreted _at a hair\u2019s worth_, or\n_like unto death_ (as Aristarchus understood it, taking \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 for\n\u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2). See the Scholia on the passage of the Iliad. (G.)\n\n[109] Works and Days, 11.\n\n[110] Il. XVIII. 356.\n\n[111] Eurip. Orest. 271.\n\n[112] Odyss. V. 306.\n\n[113] Soph. Electra, 2.\n\n[114] Il. III. 428.\n\n[115] Hesiod, Works and Days, 763.\n\n[116] Odyss. X. 72.\n\n[117] Il. V. 335. It is evident from what follows that Plutarch\ninterprets \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 in this passage _having leaped to one side_. (G.)\n\n[118] Il. V. 422.\n\n[119] What follows, to the beginning of Question XIII., is omitted in\nthe old editions of this translation. (G.)\n\n[120] See Il. III. 68, 88, 255, and 281.\n\n[121] Il. III. 137.\n\n[122] Il. IV. 13.\n\n[123] Il. III. 308.\n\n[124] Il. VII. 69.\n\n[125] Il. III. 450.\n\n[126] Il. III. 101.\n\n[127] Il. III. 365.\n\n[128] Odyss. X. 38.\n\n[129] From Simonides.\n\n[130] Pindar, Pyth. I. 25.\n\n[131] Euripides, Frag. 975; Pindar, Olymp. I. 31; Il. XXIII. 503.\n\n[132] Hesiod, Theog. 16.\n\n[133] These verses are quoted by Tzetzes with three others as belonging\nto Hesiod\u2019s Heroic Genealogy. If they are genuine, they contain the\nearliest reference to Hellen and his three sons. See Fragment XXXII. in\nG\u00f6ttling\u2019s Hesiod. (G.)\n\n[134] The fragments of Simonides may be found in Bergk, Poet. Lyr.\nGr. pp. 879, 880 (Nos. 29, 30, 31). They are too mutilated to be\ntranslated. (G.)\n\n[135] Odyss. XIX. 208.\n\n[136] Soph. Oed. Tyr. 4.\n\n[137] From Mimnermus.\n\n[138] From the Chrysippus of Euripides, Frag. 837 and 838.\n\n[139] Odyss. XII. 168.\n\n[140] Il. VII. 98.\n\n[141] Eurip. Hippol. 384.\n\n[142] Il. XI. 547.\n\n[143] Il. XIII. 284.\n\n[144] Il. XV. 262; V. 185.\n\n[145] Odyss. V. 322.\n\n[146] Theognis, vs. 215.\n\n[147] The Questions which follow (XXXII-XXXIX) are not found in the\nGreek, but are restored from the Latin translation, said to have been\nmade in the 16th century from a Greek manuscript now lost. The version\nhere given is based upon that of Holland. (G.)\n\n[148] Il. XIX. 415.\n\n[149] Theoc. I. 105.\n\n\nEND OF VOL. III.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\nA.\n\n\u201cA bird in the hand is worth two in the bush,\u201d a proverb among the Greeks, iv. 229.\n\n\u201cAbstain from beans,\u201d meaning of the aphorism, i. 29.\n\nAchelous, a river in Aetolia, v. 504.\n\nAcrotatus, apothegm of, i. 400.\n\nActaeon, a beautiful youth of Corinth, murdered, iv. 313-315.\n\n  Ada, queen of Caria, sends delicacies to Alexander, i. 199.\n\nAdimantus, admiral of the Corinthian fleet at the battle of Salamis, iv. 362;\nhis courage vindicated, 364.\n\nAdrastus, anecdote of, i. 288.\n\nAdvice to a new-married couple, ii. 486-507.\n\nAeacus, his two sons, v. 466.\n\nAemilius Censorinus, v. 475.\n\nAemilius of Sybaris, v. 464.\n\nAemilius Paulus, sayings of, i. 232; iv. 202.\n\nAeolus, king of Etruria, v. 467.\n\nAeschines, quoted, Prom., i. 40;\nanecdote of, 55;\nEumen., 59;\nFrag., 163;\nProm., 299;\nCtesiphon, 334;\nhis early life, and concern in public affairs, v. 34;\nincurs the hostility of Demosthenes, _ib._;\naccused by Demosthenes and acquitted, 34, 35;\nimpeaches Ctesiphon, is fined and exiled, 35;\nhis school at Rhodes, _ib._;\nhis death, _ib._;\nhis orations, _ib._;\nhis public employments, 36.\n\nAeschylus, quoted, Septem, i. 210, 286, 315, 329, 493;\nquoted, ii. 47;\nanecdote of, 77, 160;\nFrag., 48, 83, 127, 165, 374, 431, 458, 463, 474, 477;\nquoted, iii. Frag., 24, 222;\nquoted, iv. 20, 54, 385;\nFrag., 276, 279;\nquoted, v. Frag., 170;\nProm., 241, 320, 398.\n\nAesop, murdered by the citizens of Delphi, iv. 160;\ntheir punishment, 161.\n_See Esop._\n\nAgamedes and Trophonius built the temple at Delphi, i. 313.\n\nAgasicles, apothegms of, i. 385.\n\nAgatharchides the Samian, his Persian History, v. 451.\n\nAgatho the Samian, v. 474.\n\nAgathocles, anecdote of, i. 46; ii. 317.\n\nAged Men, Shall they meddle in State Affairs?, v. 64-96.\n\nAgesianax quoted, v. 235, 236.\n\nAgesilaus, reply of, i. 73, 219, 220;\nhis sayings and great actions, 385-397;\nhis upright character, ii. 109, 115, 319, 455;\nhis punishment, iii. 46, 79;\nanecdote of, v. 67;\nhis faults, 118; 457;\nhis Italian History, 468.\n\nAgesipolis, two of the name, apothegms of, i. 397, 398.\n\nAgis, king of Sparta, his sayings, i. 218, 221;\nanecdote of, v. 95.\n\nAgis, son of Archidamus, apothegm of, i. 398.\n\nAgis the Argive, ii. 125.\n\nAgis the Last, apothegm of, i. 400.\n\nAgis the Younger, apothegms of, i. 400.\n\nAjax\u2019s soul, her place in Hell, iii. 442.\n\nAlba, king of, torn in pieces by horses, v. 455.\n\nAlbinus, a Roman general, v. 453.\n\nAlcaeus quoted, ii. 298; iii. 264.\n\nAlcamenes, apothegm of, i. 400.\n\nAlcibiades, i. 143;\nhis sayings, 211;\nhis lustful conduct, 489;\nthe prince of flatterers, ii. 108, 471;\nfailure of, 460;\nspoke with hesitation, v. 110, 112.\n\nAlcippus, a Lacedaemonian, banished for his virtue; his wife slays\nherself and her daughters, iv. 320-322.\n\nAlcmaeon, saying of, i. 288;\nphilosophical opinions;\nof the planets, iii. 140;\nof hearing, 170;\nof smelling, 170;\nof taste, 170;\nof the barrenness of mules, 182;\nof embryos, 184;\nof the formation of the body, 184;\nof the cause of sleep, 188;\nof health, sickness, and old age, 192.\n\nAlcmaeonidae, unfairly represented by Herodotus, iv. 338, 347.\n\nAlcman, quoted; Frag., i. 494; iii. 16; v. 279.\n\nAleuas the Thessalian, iii. 67.\n\nAlexander of Macedon, and Porus, i. 45;\nlament of, 140;\nand Criso the runner, 152;\nhis sayings, 198-202;\nthe Fortune or Virtue of, 475-516;\nanecdotes of, ii. 125, 138, 473;\nhis moderation, 475; iii. 29;\nwas he a great drinker, 219;\nhis purpose to attack the Romans, iv. 219; v. 140.\n\nAlexander, tyrant of Pherae, his cruel temper softened by a play, i. 492.\n\nAlexandridas, apothegm of, i. 401.\n\nAlexarchus, his Italian History, v. 456.\n\nAlexidemas, at the Banquet of the Seven Wise Men, ii. 3-41.\n\nAlexinus the sophist, i. 76.\n\nAlexis quoted, ii. 58.\n\nAlpha, why placed first in the Alphabet, iii. 438.\n\nAlpheus, a river in Arcadia, v. 501.\n\nAmasis, king of Egypt, required to drink the ocean dry, ii. 13;\nquestions of, 16.\n\nAmmonius, teacher of Plutarch, anecdote of, ii. 147.\n\nAmphiaraus, quoted, i. 317;\nhis lance turned into a laurel, v. 455.\n\nAmphidamas, poets meet at his grave in Chalcis, ii. 19.\n\nAmphion, first invented playing on the harp and lyric poesy, i. 105.\n\nAnarcharsis, and Eumetis, ii. 8;\nhis utterances at the Banquet of the Seven Wise Men, 12, 15, 20,\n21, 27, 39.\n\nAnatole, a mountain, v. 482.\n\nAnaxagoras, saying of, i. 159;\nsaid the sun was red-hot metal, 179;\nanecdote of, 332; ii. 357; iii. 35, 37;\nphilosophical opinions;\nHomoeomeries, 108;\nof the origin of bodies, 119;\nhow bodies are mixed, 126;\nof fortune, 131;\nof the world\u2019s inclination, 136;\nof the stars, 138, 140;\nof the sun, 142, 143;\nof the moon, 145, 147;\nof the milky way, 149;\nof shooting stars, 150;\nof thunder, lightning and hurricanes, 151;\nof the rainbow, 153;\nof earthquakes, 157;\nof the sea, 158;\nof the overflow of the Nile, 160;\nof the voice, 172;\nof generation, 178;\nof the generation of animals, 186;\nof reason in animals, 187;\nof sleep, 190; v. 145, 255.\n\nAnaxander, apothegm of, i. 401.\n\nAnaxilas, apothegm of, i. 402.\n\nAnaximander, philosophical opinions;\nof principles, iii. 107;\nthe stars were heavenly deities, 121;\nof the stars, 140;\nof the essence and magnitude of the sun, 141, 142;\nof eclipses of the sun, 144;\nof the moon, 145;\nof fire from clouds, 150;\nof winds, 154;\nof the earth, 155;\nof the sea, 158;\nof the generation of animals, 186.\n\nAnaximenes, philosophical opinions;\nair is the principle of all beings, iii. 107;\nof heaven, 137;\nof the stars, 139, 140;\ncause of summer and winter, 141;\nof the shape of the sun and summer and winter solstice, 143;\nof the moon, 146;\nof clouds, 151;\nof the rainbow, 153;\nof the earth, 155;\nof earthquakes, 157; v. 313.\n\nAncients, suppers of the, iii. 255-259.\n\nAndocides, one of the ten Attic orators, v. 21-23;\nof a noble family, 21;\naccused of impious acts, 22;\nhis adventures in Cyprus, 22, 23;\nhis exile, 23;\nhis orations, _ib._\n\nAndroclidas, apothegm of, i. 402.\n\nAnecdotes of\nAeschylus, ii. 458.\nAgathocles, i. 46.\nAgesilaus, i. 73, 219, 220; v. 67, 118.\nAgis, king of Sparta, v. 95.\nAlcibiades, ii. 108, 109.\nAlexander the Great, i. 45; ii. 473.\nAmmonius, ii. 147.\nAnaxagoras, i. 332.\nAntigonus, i. 44, 47, 67, 202, 205, 334; iv. 231.\nAntimachus, i. 307.\nAntiochus Hierax, iii. 60.\nAntipater, i. 64, 197, 205, 215.\nAntony and Cleopatra, ii. 127.\nApelles the painter, i. 16, 153; ii. 122, 133.\nAppius Claudius, v. 89.\nArcesilaus and Apelles, ii. 133.\nArchelaus of Macedon, i. 67, 193.\nArchidamus, i. 74.\nArchimedes, ii. 174; v. 71.\nArchytas of Tarentum, i. 18, 24.\nAristippus, i. 11, 55, 147, 459; ii. 55.\nAthenian barber, iv. 238.\nAttalus and Eumenes, iii. 61.\nAugustus Caesar and Fulvius, iv. 235, 236.\nBocchoris, i. 63.\nBrasidas, ii. 458.\nCaesar, i. 293; iv. 204, 205; v. 67.\nCato, i. 295; ii. 490.\nCato and Catulus, i. 73.\nCleon, v. 100, 116.\nCorinna, v. 404.\nCrassus, i. 288, 290.\nCroesus and Solon, ii. 122.\nDemades and Phocion, ii. 298.\nDemaratus and Philip, ii. 146.\nDemetrius Phalereus, ii. 145; iii. 21.\nDemosthenes, i. 15, 65, 334; ii. 460; v. 43-53.\nDiogenes, i. 51, 67, 141, 142, 166, 283,\n285, 311, 487; ii. 455, 458; iii, 21, 29.\nDiogenes and Philip, ii. 147.\nDiogenes and the mouse, ii. 453.\nDion, i. 64, 333.\nDionysius of Syracuse, i. 83, 152, 493; ii. 108, 140; iv. 238.\nEpaminondas, v. 72, 95, 101, 120, 121, 125, 401.\nEuclid, i. 55.\nEudoxus, ii. 174.\nEumenes, iii. 61; iv. 232.\nFulvius and Augustus, iv. 235, 236.\nHiero, i. 291.\nHyperides, v. 55, 56.\nIsocrates, v. 31.\nLeaena, iv. 229, 230.\nLucretia, i. 355.\nLycurgus, the lawgiver, i. 7.\nLycurgus, the orator, v. 39.\nLysander, i. 72; ii. 495.\nLysias, iv. 226.\nMagas, i. 45.\nMenander, v. 403.\nNasica, i. 285.\nNero, v. 123.\nNicias, the Athenian general, i. 177.\nNicias, the painter, ii. 173; v. 71.\nNicostratus and Archidamus, i. 74.\nOlympias, ii. 494, 495.\nPericles, i. 15, 18, 66, 211, 332; ii. 309, 315; v. 67, 106.\nPhilip of Macedon, i. 305; ii. 146, 147, 494.\nPhocion, ii. 298; v. 118.\nPindar, v. 404.\nPisistratus, iii. 41.\nPlato, i. 71.\nPlato and Socrates, ii. 148.\nPolemon, i. 55.\nPompey, v. 70.\nPostumia, i. 290.\nPriest of Hercules, iii. 90.\nPrometheus, i. 289.\nPtolemy Lagus, i. 45.\nPythagoras, ii. 174.\nRoman Senator and his wife, iv. 233-235.\nScaurus, i. 295.\nScilurus, a Scythian king, iv. 244.\nSeleucus Callinicus, iv. 237.\nSeneca, i. 53.\nSimonides, v. 68.\nSocrates, i. 11, 13, 23, 26, 38, 53, 141, 150.\nSocrates and Plato, ii. 148.\nSolon, v. 89.\nSolon and Croesus, ii. 122.\nSophocles, v. 68.\nStasicrates, i. 495.\nStilpo the philosopher, ii. 468.\nStratonicus, iii. 21.\nSylla, v. 72.\nTerpander, i. 91, 92.\nThemistocles, i. 73, 290, 296; iii. 21; v. 120.\nTheramenes, i. 306.\nTimotheus the musician, i. 92.\nValeria, i. 356.\nXanthippe, wife of Socrates, i. 53, 292.\nXenocrates, i. 71.\nXenophon, i. 333.\nXerxes and Ariamenes, iii. 59, 60.\nZeno, i. 72, 142, 283; ii. 455; iii. 25; iv. 225.\n\nAnger, concerning the cure of, i. 33-59.\n\nAnimal Food, shall it be eaten? Of Eating of Flesh, v. 3-16.\n\nAnimals, generation of, iii. 186;\nhow many species of, 187;\nappetites and pleasures of, 191;\nails and cures of, 510;\ntheir intelligence, v. 157-217.\n\nAnius, king of the Tuscans, v. 475.\n\nAntalcidas, his sayings, i. 222, 402;\nhis reply to a railing Athenian, v. 125.\n\nAnthes, the first author of hymns, i. 105.\n\nAnthias, the sacred fish, v. 208.\n\nAnthipphus, Lydian harmony first used by, i. 114.\n\nAntichthon, the, iii. 155.\n\nAntigonus, anecdote of, i. 25;\nsaying of, 44, 47, 67, 202, 205, 334,\n484; iv. 231.\n\nAntigonus the Second, his sayings, i. 205; ii. 319.\n\nAntimachus, anecdote of, i. 308.\n\nAntiochus and Charicles, iii. 49.\n\nAntiochus and Seleucus, iii. 60.\n\nAntiochus, apothegm of, i. 403.\n\nAntiochus Hierax, anecdotes of, i. 206; iii. 60.\n\nAntiochus Sidetes, anecdotes of, i. 207.\n\nAntiochus the Spartan, his saying, i. 221.\n\nAntiochus the Third, anecdotes of, i. 206.\n\nAntipater, anecdotes of, i. 64, 197, 205, 215; ii. 135, 298; iii. 517; v. 49.\n\nAntiperistasis of motion, v. 435.\n\nAntiphanes, witty saying of his, ii. 456.\n\nAntiphon, one of the ten Attic orators, ii. 142; v. 17-21;\nhis birth, education, &c., 17;\nwrote speeches for others, _ib._;\na man of great talent and learning, 18;\nconcerned in the revolution which subverted the popular government, _ib._;\non the overthrow of the oligarchical party he was involved in their ruin, _ib._;\nnumber of his orations, 19;\ndecree of the senate against him, 20;\nhis condemnation and punishment, 21;\nopinion concerning the moon, iii. 146;\nof the sea, 158.\n\nAntisthenes quoted, i. 77, 289, 496; v. 125.\n\nAntony and Cleopatra, ii. 127.\n\nApelles, the painter, anecdotes of, i. 16, 153;\nhis picture of Alexander, 494;\nand Megabyzus, ii. 122;\nand Arcesilaus, 133.\n\nAphareus, adopted son of Isocrates, wrote orations and tragedies, v. 32.\n\nApis, the sacred bull of the Egyptians, iv. 68;\nslain by Ochus, king of Persia, 74, 92.\n\nApollo and the dragon Python, iv. 20.\n\nApollo, inventor of the flute and harp, i. 113.\n\nApollo, temple of, iv. 478-498;\nthe inscription \u03b5\u03b9 over its gate, 479.\n\nApollodorus, first invented the mixing of colors and the softening of\nshadows, v. 400.\n\nApollonides, of shadow, v. 265;\nof spots in the moon, 269.\n\nApollonis of Cyzicum, iii. 41.\n\nApollonius, consolation to, i. 299-339.\n\nApollonius, the Peripatetic, iii. 57.\n\nApothegms of Kings and Great Commanders, i. 185-250.\nAgathocles, sayings of, i. 193.\nAgesilaus, 219.\nAgis, 218-221.\nAlcibiades, 211.\nAlexander the Great, 198-202.\nAntalcidas, 222.\nAntigonus, 202.\nAntigonus the Second, 205.\nAntiochus Sidetes, 207.\nAntiochus the Spartan, 221.\nAntiochus the Third, 206.\nAntipater, 205.\nArchelaus, 193.\nArchidamus, 218.\nAristides, 210.\nArtaxerxes Longimanus, 187.\nArtaxerxes Mnemon, 188.\nAteas, 189.\nAugustus Caesar, 248-250.\nBrasidas, 218.\nCaecilius Metellus, 239.\nCaius Fabricius, 227.\nCaius Marius, 239.\nCaius Popilius, 240.\nCato the Elder, 233-235.\nChabrias, 213.\nCharillus, 217.\nCicero, 244.\nCneus Domitius, 231.\nCneus Pompeius, 241-244.\nCotys, 189.\nCyrus the Elder, 186.\nCyrus the Younger, 188.\nDarius, 186.\nDemetrius, 204.\nDemetrius Phalereus, 217.\nDion, 193.\nDionysius the Elder, 191.\nDionysius the Younger, 192.\nEpaminondas, 222-226.\nEudaemonidas, 221.\nEumenes of Pergamus, 206.\nFabius Maximus, 227-228.\nGelo, 190.\nHegesippus, 213.\nHiero, 190.\nIdathyrsus, 189.\nIphicrates, 212.\nLucullus, 241.\nLycurgus, 217.\nLysander, 219.\nLysimachus, 205.\nManius Curius, 226.\nMemnon, 189.\nNicostratus, 221.\nOrontes, 188.\nParysatis, 188.\nPaulus Aemilius, 232.\nPelopidas, 225.\nPericles, 211.\nPhilip of Macedon, 194-198.\nPhocion, 213, 216.\nPisistratus, 216.\nPoltys, 189.\nPtolemy Lagus, 202.\nPyrrhus the Epirot, 207.\nPytheas, 213.\nScilurus, 190.\nScipio Junior, 235-239.\nScipio the Elder, 229.\nSemiramis, 187.\nTeres, 189.\nThemistocles, 208.\nTheopompus, 217.\nTimotheus, 212.\nTitus Quinctius, 230.\nXerxes, 187.\n\nAppius Claudius, anecdote of, v. 89.\n\nApple tree, of the, iii. 333.\n\nArar, a river in Gaul, v. 484.\n\nAratus, quoted, iii. 116;\nof the stars, 141;\nquoted, 334, 497; iv. 98; v. 112;\nquoted, 177.\n\nAraxes, a river in Armenia, v. 506.\n\nArcadian prophet in Herodotus, iii. 38.\n\nArcadio the Archaean, saying of, i. 44.\n\nArcesilaus, i. 53, 148;\nquoted, 258, 315;\nand Battus, ii. 115;\nhis kindness to Apelles, 133; v. 371.\n\nArchelaus, king of Macedon, anecdote of, i. 67, 193.\n\nArchelaus, his opinions concerning principles, iii. 109.\n\nArchias, ii. 379 _et seq._; iv. 314, 315.\n\nArchidamidas, apothegms of, i. 404.\n\nArchidamus, i. 4, 74, 218, 404; ii. 379 _et seq._\n\nArchilochus the poet, banished from Sparta, i. 96;\nquoted, 97;\nhis improvements in music, 122, 123, 177;\nphrase of, ii. 17, 61, 84; iii. 26; v. 108, 216, 320.\n\nArchimedes, of the sun\u2019s diameter, v. 71;\nanecdote of, ii. 173, 174.\n\nArchytas of Tarentum, anecdotes of, i. 18, 24.\n\nArdalus, a minstrel at the Banquet of the Seven Wise Men, ii. 11, 12.\n\nAregeus, apothegm of, i. 403.\n\nAretades Cnidus, his Macedonian History, v. 458;\nhis Second Book of Islands, 467.\n\nAretaphila, her fortitude and virtue, i. 367.\n\nArgive women, their repulse of the Spartan army, i. 346.\n\nArgives, wrestling matches of, i. 121;\nimposed a fine for playing with more than seven strings, 130;\ncombat of the, with the Lacedaemonians, v. 452.\n\nAriamenes yields the throne of Persia to his younger brother Xerxes, iii. 59.\n\nArion and the dolphins, ii. 33-36.\n\nAristarchus, iii. 36;\nconcerning the eclipse of the sun, 144; v. 246.\n\nAristides, his Persian History, v. 453.\n\nAristides, his sayings, i. 210.\n\nAristides Milesius, his Italian History, v. 451, 452, 453, 458, 459,\n460, 462, 463, 465, 466, 469, 473, 474, 475, 476;\nItalian Commentaries, 461;\nquoted, 462.\n\nAristippus, anecdotes of, i. 11, 55, 79, 147; ii. 295, 459.\n\nAristo of Chios, ii. 369.\n\nAristobolus, his Third Book of Italian History, v. 470.\n\nAristocles, Third Book of his Italian History, v. 466, 476.\n\nAristoclia, a beautiful maiden, iv. 312, 313.\n\nAristodemus, his Third Collection of Fables, v. 472.\n\nAristodemus, king of Messenia, i. 177.\n\nAristodemus the Epicurean, ii. 158, 159, 180.\n\nAristomenes, preceptor of Ptolemy, ii. 149.\n\nAriston, apothegm of, i. 403; iii. 18;\nhis opinion of moral virtue, 462; v. 111.\n\nAristonicus the musician, i. 494.\n\nAristonymus, a woman hater, v. 468.\n\nAristophanes, his comedy of \u201cThe Clouds,\u201d i. 23;\nquoted, 79, 125, 500;\nquoted, ii. 78, 149, 429;\nhis coarseness and buffoonery, iii. 11;\ncompared with Menander, 11-14;\nquoted, iv. 196, 273;\nquoted, v. 42, 405.\n\nAristotinus, tyranny of, i. 357-363; v. 172.\n\nAristotle, quoted, i. 37; 50;\non harmony, 119; 155, 272, 326;\nthe teacher of Alexander, 478, ii. 302, 319;\nletter of, 455;\nhis philosophical opinions; of nature, 105;\nof principles and elements, 106;\nof God, 121;\nof matter, 123;\nof ideas, 123;\nof causes, 124;\nof a vacuum, 127;\nof motion, 128;\nof fortune, 131;\nof the world, 133, 134, 135;\nof vacuum, 137;\nof the world, 137;\nof heaven, 137;\nof the stars, 140;\nof the sun, 142;\nof the summer and winter solstices, 143;\nof the moon, 146;\nof the milky way, 148, 149;\nof comets, 149;\nof thunder and lightning, 151;\nof earthquakes, 157;\nof tides, 159;\nof the motion of the soul, 164;\nof the senses, 166;\nof the voice, 172;\nof generative seed, 177;\nof the sperm, 177;\nof emission of women, 177;\nof conception, 178;\nof generation, 179;\nof the first form in the womb, 184;\nof seven months\u2019 children, 185;\nof the species of animals, 187;\nof sleep, 189;\nof plants, 190;\nquoted, 225, 226;\nopinions concerning the soul, 465;\nopinion concerning a plurality of worlds, iv. 33;\nconcerning prophetic inspiration, 54; v. 189, 253, 262, 313, 316, 355;\nquoted, 439;\nthe Second Book of Paradoxes, 468.\n\nAristoxenus, of music, i. 114, 115, 125, 134.\n\nArsinoe, Queen, i. 319.\n\nArtaxerxes Longimanus, his sayings, i. 187.\n\nArtaxerxes Mnemon, his sayings, i. 188.\n\nAruntius and Medullina, v. 463.\n\nAsclepiades, opinions: of the soul, iii. 161;\nof respiration, 174;\nof two or three children at one birth, 180;\nanimals in the womb, 188;\nof health, sickness, and old age, 193.\n\nAster the archer, v. 456.\n\nAstycratidas, apothegm of, i. 405.\n\nAteas, saying of, i. 189; ii. 177.\n\nAtepomarus, king of the Gauls, v. 469.\n\nAtheism and superstition compared, i. 168 _et seq._\n\nAthenian citizens, their number, v. 42;\ntheir temper and disposition, 100.\n\nAthenians, whether they were more renowned for their warlike\nachievements, or for their learning, v. 399-411.\n\nAthenodorus, memorable action of, iii. 50.\n\nAthens, was a democracy, v. 397;\nthe nurse of history, of painting, and poetry, 400, 401;\nnot renowned for epic or lyric verse, 404.\n\nAtoms, doctrine of, v. 345-348.\n\nAtreus and Thyestes, v. 470, 471.\n\nAttalus and Eumenes, their kindness and fidelity to each other, iii. 61, 62.\n\nAttica, invasion of, by Datis, v. 450, 451.\n\nAugustus Caesar, his sayings, i. 248-250;\nthe favored son of Fortune, iv. 205; v. 67.\n\nAugustus Caesar and Fulvius, anecdote of, iv. 235, 236.\n\nAutobulus, v. 156 _et seq._\n\nAutumn, dreams in, iii. 432.\n\n\nB.\n\nBaccho, iv. 256, 264, 269.\n\nBacchus, ii. 12, 29.\n\nBallenaeus, mount, v. 492.\n\nBanishment, or flying one\u2019s country, iii. 15-35.\n\nBanquet of the Seven Wise Men; Solon, Bias, Thales, Anacharsis,\nCleobulus, Pittacus, Chilo, ii. 3-41.\n\nBarley, sow, in dust, iii. 505.\n\nBarrenness in women, iii. 181.\n\nBarrenness of mules, iii. 182.\n\nBashfulness, i. 60-77.\n\nBasilocles, iii. 69, 70.\n\nBaths, hot and cold, iii. 512.\n\nBattus, ii. 115.\n\nBear, cunning of the, v. 185.\n\nBears, flesh of, iii. 509.\n\nBeasts, flesh of sacrificial, iii. 361.\n\nBees, cannot abide smoke, iii. 515;\nstinging of, 516.\n\nBellerophon, fable of, i. 351.\n\nBerecyntus, mount, v. 490.\n\nBerosus concerning the eclipse of the moon, iii. 146.\n\nBewitching, power of, iii. 327.\n\nBias, quoted, i. 17, 406;\nat the Banquet of the Seven Wise Men, ii. 4, 14, 128.\n\nBion, saying of, i. 76;\nhis opinion concerning the punishment of children for the sins of\ntheir fathers, iv. 171;\nsaying of, v. 170.\n\nBird or the egg, which was first, iii. 242-246.\n\nBirds, prophetic nature of, v. 193.\n\nBirth, two or three at one, iii. 180.\n\nBirthdays of famous men, iii. 400.\n\nBiton and Cleobis, their filial piety, i. 313.\n\nBoar and the toil, iii. 512.\n\nBocchoris, anecdote of, i. 63.\n\nBodies, of, iii. 124;\ndivision of, 126;\nhow mixed with one another, 126.\n\nBody, passions of the, iii. 175;\nwhat part is first formed, 184;\ndiseases of the, iv. 504-508.\n\nBoedromion, month of, iii. 444.\n\nBoethus, his opinion concerning comets, iii. 150.\n\nBook of Rivers, v. 455.\n\nBrasidas, apothegm of, i. 218; ii. 458.\n\nBrennus, king of the Gauls, v. 460.\n\nBritain, longevity in, iii. 193.\n\nBrixaba, mount, v. 494.\n\nBrotherly love, iii. 36-68.\n\nBrute animals, ails and cures of, iii. 510;\ntheir intelligence; which are the more crafty, water or land\nanimals? v. 157-217.\n\nBrute beasts make use of reason, v. 218-233.\n\nBucephalus, the horse, v. 183.\n\nBulimy, or the greedy disease, iii. 355.\n\nBusiris, king of Egypt, strangers murdered by, v. 474.\n\n\nC.\n\nCaecilius Metellus, apothegm of, i. 239.\n\nCaesar, Augustus, his sayings, i. 248-250;\nanecdote of, iv. 205;\nand Fulvius, 235, 236; v. 67, 132.\n\nCaesar, C. Julius, his sayings, i. 246-248;\nhis magnanimity, 293;\nhis reliance on fortune, iv. 205.\n\nCaesar, Tiberius, sayings of, i. 277; ii. 126; iii. 23.\n\nCaicus, a river, v. 503.\n\nCaius Fabricius, apothegm of, i. 227.\n\nCaius Gracchus, i. 40; v. 99.\n\nCaius Marius, apothegm of, i. 239.\n\nCaius Maximus, and his two sons, v. 466.\n\nCaius Popilius, apothegm of, i. 240.\n\nCallicratidas, apothegms of, i. 412;\nsaying of, ii. 187.\n\nCallimachus, saying of, i. 323; iii. 23, 118, 321.\n\nCallisthenes, saying of, i. 37;\nhis Book of Transformations, v. 454;\nThird Book of the Macedonics, 456;\nThird Book of History of Thrace, v. 469.\n\nCalpurnius Crassus, liberated from captivity, v. 465.\n\nCalpurnius and Florentia, v. 467.\n\nCalydon, mount, v. 505.\n\nCamillus, anecdote of, iv. 204.\n\nCamma, the Galatian, her revenge, i. 372.\n\nCanus the piper, v. 71.\n\nCaphene and Nymphaeus, i. 348.\n\nCaphisias, ii. 379 _et seq._\n\nCarneades, i. 160;\na striking observation of his, ii. 123.\n\nCassius, a Roman traitor, v. 457.\n\nCastor and Pollux, iii. 48.\n\nCato and Catulus, anecdotes of, i. 73.\n\nCato, saying of, i. 61;\nand Catulus, 73; 261;\nhis integrity, 295;\nhis sayings, ii. 42, 72, 76, 318; v. 10, 66, 67;\nanecdotes of, 83, 112, 120, 123, 144, 155.\n\nCato the Elder, apothegms of, i. 233-235;\nanecdote of, ii. 490.\n\nCatoptrics, doctrine of the, v. 257.\n\nCattle, salt given to, iii. 497.\n\nCatulus, v. 457.\n\nCaucasus, mount, v. 483.\n\nCaudine Forks, defeat of the Romans at the, v. 452, 453.\n\nCauses, of, iii. 123.\n\nCauses of sleep and death, iii. 188.\n\nCeltic women, virtue of the, i. 347.\n\nCephisocrates, ii. 133.\n\nCephisophan, a rhetorician, i. 98.\n\nCeres, mistress of earthly things, v. 285, 286.\n\nChabrias, his sayings, i. 213.\n\nChaeremon quoted, Frag., ii. 475.\n\nChameleon, the, v. 202.\n\nChaplet of flowers at table, iii. 260-265.\n\nCharicles and Antiochus, iii. 49.\n\nCharillus, his sayings, i. 217, 432; ii. 97, 116.\n\nCharon, the Theban, ii. 381.\n\nChasms in the earth closed by men leaping into them, v. 454.\n\nChersias at the Banquet of the Seven Wise Men, ii. 3-41.\n\nChian women, virtue of the, i. 344.\n\nChildren, training of, i. 3-32;\nsimilitude to their parents, iii. 180;\nsimilitude to strangers, 181.\n\nChilo, i. 280;\nat the Banquet of the Seven Wise Men, ii. 3-41.\n\nChilon, saying of, i. 471.\n\nChiomara of Galatia, i. 374.\n\nChorus of the Aeantis, iii. 226-228.\n\nChorus of the Leontis, iii. 226.\n\nChromatic scale, in music, i. 117.\n\nChrysermus, his Peloponnesian History, v. 452;\nSecond Book of Histories, 457.\n\nChrysippus, ii. 87;\nhis opinion concerning fate, iii. 130;\nof moral virtue, 462;\nhis doctrines refuted, 488; iv. 372 _et seq._, 428-477; v. 205;\nhis opinion concerning the cause of cold combated, 324;\nFirst Book of Italian History, 468.\n\nCicero, apothegm of, i. 244; ii. 310; v. 96.\n\nCilician geese, v. 175.\n\nCinesias, the lyric poet, i. 180.\n\nCinna stoned to death, v. 469.\n\nCios, maids of, i. 354.\n\nCirce, her supposed conversation with Ulysses, v. 218-219.\n\nCithaeron, mount, v. 479.\n\nCleanthes, his opinion concerning the stars, iii. 139, 140; v. 176, 420.\n\nCleobis and Biton, i. 313.\n\nCleobulus at the Banquet of the Seven Wise Men, ii. 3-41.\n\nCleodemus, at the Banquet of the Seven Wise Men, ii. 3-41;\nfirst brought the cupping-glass into request, 20.\n\nCleodorus, the physician, ii. 16.\n\nCleombrotus, i. 413; iv. 3, 4, 26.\n\nCleomenes, v. 161.\n\nCleomenes, apothegms of, i. 346, 413, 416.\n\nCleon, anecdotes of, v. 100, 116.\n\nClisthenes, vindicated from the aspersions of Herodotus, iv. 343.\n\nClitonymus, his Italian History, v. 458;\nSecond Book of his Sybaritics, v. 464.\n\nClitophon, his First Book of Gallican History, v. 460.\n\nCloelia and Valeria, i. 356.\n\nClonas, a musical composer, i. 107, 109.\n\nClouds, eruption of fire out of the, iii. 150;\nrain, hail, and snow, 151.\n\nCneus Domitius, apothegm of, i. 231.\n\nCneus Pompeius, apothegms of, i. 241-244.\n\nCocles, the Roman, v. 145.\n\nCodrus, king of Athens, v. 462.\n\nCoeranus and the dolphins, v. 215.\n\nCold, First Principle of, v. 309-330.\n\nColor, does it exist in the dark, v. 344, 345.\n\nColors, of, iii. 125.\n\nColotes, the Epicurean, ii. 187;\nbook written by, v. 338;\nmisrepresents Democritus, 341;\nhis doctrines, 349;\nmisrepresents Plato, 355, 356;\nfalls at the feet of Epicurus, 360;\ndisparagement of Socrates, 361;\nagainst Stilpo, 367;\nassaults the Philosophers, 367;\ncondemns the opinion of Epicurus, 368;\nCyrenaic philosophers ridiculed, 369;\ntreats Arcesilaus unfairly, 371;\nabsurdity of Epicureanism, 373;\nopinions of Epicurus, 374;\ndanger of his doctrines, 377, 378, 338-385.\n\nComets and shooting fires, iii. 149.\n\nComminius Super, a Laurentine, v. 472.\n\nCommon conceptions against the Stoics, iv. 372-427.\n\nComparison between the actions of the Greeks and Romans, v. 450-476.\n\nComparison betwixt Aristophanes and Menander, iii. 11-14.\n\nConception, how it is made, iii. 178.\n\nConcerning Music, i. 102-135.\n\nConcerning such whom God is slow to punish, iv. 140-188.\n\nConcerning the fortune of the Romans, iv. 198-219.\n\nConcerning the virtues of women, i. 340-384.\n\nConciseness of speech, recommended, iv. 243;\nexamples given, 243, 244.\n\nConjugal Precepts; Advice to a New-married Couple, ii. 486-507.\n\nConsolation to Apollonius, i. 299-339.\n\nConsolatory Letter from Plutarch to his Wife, Timoxena, on Occasion\nof the Death of their Daughter, two years old, v. 386-394.\n\nContingent and possible defined, v. 299.\n\nContradictions of the Stoics, iv. 428-477.\n\nCora and Proserpine, v. 285.\n\nCorinna, anecdote of, v. 404.\n\nCorinthian Hall at Delphi, iii. 80-82.\n\nCornelius Scipio, consul, v. 96, 112, 114, 136.\n\nCotys, his sayings, i. 189.\n\nCrabs charmed by fifes, v. 163.\n\nCranes, flight of, v. 175, 203.\n\nCrantor, quoted, i. 300, 304, 324, 326;\nhis opinion of the soul, ii. 327, 328, 345, 349, 360.\n\nCrassus, anecdotes of, i. 288, 290; v. 125.\n\nCrassus Calpurnius, v. 465.\n\nCrassus\u2019s mullet, v. 196.\n\nCrates, i. 141;\nsaying of, 495; ii. 145, 321;\nopinion of the stars, iii. 140; v. 419, 423.\n\nCratinus the comic poet, v. 410.\n\nCrato, iii. 198.\n\nCreon\u2019s daughter, i. 472.\n\nCretinus, the Magnesian, v. 121.\n\nCriticism on passages in Homer, ii. 69-72, 74-84, 89, 90, 91.\n\nCriticism on Sophocles, ii. 72.\n\nCritolaus, his History of the Epirots, v. 455;\nFourth Book of Celestial Appearances, 457.\n\nCrocodile, story of a, v. 196, 206, 210.\n\nCroesus, ii. 122; iii. 85; iv. 339.\n\nCronium, mount, v. 501.\n\nCtesiphon, his Third Book of the Boeotian History, v. 458.\n\nCtesiphon the Pancratiast, i. 42.\n\nCuratii and Horatii, v. 461.\n\nCure of anger, i. 33-59.\n\nCuriosity, of, ii. 424-445;\nmischiefs of vain, iv. 236.\n\nCuttle-fish, sign of a storm, iii. 505;\nwariness of the, v. 200.\n\nCyanippus, a Syracusan, v. 462.\n\nCyanippus, a Thessalian, v. 463.\n\nCyclades islands, iii. 24.\n\nCycloborus, a brook near Athens, v. 110.\n\nCynaegirus, an Athenian commander, story of, v. 450.\n\nCyprus, female parasites of, called Steps, ii. 103.\n\nCyrus the Elder, his sayings, i. 186; ii. 319;\nenlarges the Persian empire, iv. 85.\n\nCyrus the Younger, his sayings, i. 188.\n\n\nD.\n\nDaemon of Socrates, Discourse concerning the, ii. 378-423.\n\nDaemons, their nature, attributes, and actions, iv. 14 _et seq._;\nsome of them are malignant and cruel, 19;\nthey are mortal, 15, 23, 24;\nvainglorious, 28;\nhave the care of oracles, 21, 27;\nsometimes have quarrels and combats with one another, 27;\nour souls are by nature endued with similar powers, 50 _et seq._;\nin the Moon, v. 289;\nwill of the, 304;\nprovidence of the, 307, 308.\n\nDamindas, apothegm of, i. 407.\n\nDamis, apothegm of, i. 406.\n\nDamonidas, apothegm of, i. 406.\n\nDarius, his sayings, i. 186, 502; v. 458.\n\nDarkness, whether visible, iii. 169.\n\nDatis, a Persian commander, his invasion of Attica, v. 450.\n\nDaughters who had carnal knowledge of their fathers, v. 464.\n\nDeath appertains to soul or body, iii. 189.\n\nDeath a reward for distinguished piety; illustrated by the cases of\nBiton and Cleobis, of Agamedes and Trophonius, of Pindar and Euthynous, i. 313, 314.\n\nDeath of fire is the generation of air, v. 316.\n\nDeath the brother of sleep, i. 311.\n\nDebates at entertainments, iii. 394.\n\nDebt, Evils of. Against running in Debt, or Taking up Money upon Usury, v. 412-424.\n\nDebt of nature, i. 309.\n\nDecius of Rome, v. 462.\n\nDecrees proposed to the Athenians, v. 58.\n\nDeity, knowledge of a, whence derived, iii. 115.\n\nDelay of Providence in Punishing the Wicked. De sera Numinis Vindicta, iv. 140-188.\n\nDelight in hearing the passions of men represented, iii. 314.\n\nDelphi, a walk in, iii. 69;\nthe statues there, 70;\natmosphere of, 72;\nancient oracles of, 73;\nCorinthian Hall at, 80-82;\nstatue of Phryne, 83.\n\nDelphic Oracle, inscription on the, Know thyself, and Nothing too much, i. 328.\n\nDemades and Phocion, anecdotes of, ii. 298; v. 108, 141.\n\nDemaratus and Philip, anecdote of, ii. 146.\n\nDemaratus, apothegm of, i. 407, 482;\nhis Second Book of Arcadian History, v. 461.\n\nDemetrius Phalereus, his saying, i. 217;\nanecdotes of, ii. 145; iii. 21; v. 145.\n\nDemetrius, his sayings, i. 204.\n\nDemetrius of Tarsus, comes to Delphi, iv. 3.\n\nDemochares, a nephew of Demosthenes, procures a statue to be set up for his uncle, v. 58-60;\na decree for a statue for himself, 60, 61.\n\nDemocracy and Oligarchy, v. 395-398.\n\nDemocrates, saying of, v. 109.\n\nDemocritus, saying of, i. 22, 263, 275; ii. 440; iii. 7;\nhis philosophical opinions, 121, 123, 126, 127, 128, 129, 132, 133, 135, 139, 140, 142, 145, 149, 155,\n156, 157, 160, 162, 163, 164, 166, 168, 169, 171, 176, 177, 179, 183, 187, 227;\nhis opinions misrepresented, v. 341;\nhis doctrine concerning atoms, 345, 346, 381.\n\nDemodocus, i. 105.\n\nDemonides, the cripple, ii. 51.\n\nDemosthenes, the orator, anecdotes of, i. 15, 65;\nquoted, 67, 286, 325;\nanecdote of, 334, 481;\nquoted, ii. 145, 300, 312, 313;\nanecdote of, 460;\nquoted, iv. 212;\nquoted, v. 34, 35;\nsketch of his life, 43-53;\nhis birth, education, and early years, 43;\ncalls his guardians to account, _ib._;\nis chosen choregus, 44;\nhis methods to obtain excellence in speaking, _ib._;\nopposes the designs of Philip, 45;\ndescribes \u201caction\u201d as of supreme importance in oratory, _ib._;\nhis early failures as an orator, _ib._;\ndefends the Olynthians, 46;\nis admired by Philip, though an enemy, _ib._;\nhis magnanimity, 47;\nhis conduct at Chaeronea, _ib._;\nhis patriotism, _ib._;\nthe oration for the Crown, _ib._;\naccused of receiving a bribe, 48;\nhis exile, _ib._;\nrecalled, _ib._;\nreturns to the administration of public affairs, 49;\nleaves Athens to avoid being delivered up to Antipater, _ib._;\nhis death, 50;\nhis family, _ib._;\nhonors paid to his memory, 51;\nanecdotes of him, 49, 50-53;\nhis great temperance, 53;\nhis public services recounted in a decree, 58-60;\nquoted, 69, 109, 110, 124, 138, 146,\n    409, 411, 447, 448.\n\nDercyllidas, apothegm of, i. 407.\n\nDercyllus, his First Book of Foundations, v. 461;\nThird Book of Italian History, 474.\n\nDestiny, or fate, iii. 130.\n\nDeucalion [like Noah] sent forth a dove from the ark, and with like\npurpose, v. 179.\n\nDiagoras the Melian, iii. 118.\n\nDiana Orthia, rites of, i. 98.\n\nDicaearchus, opinion concerning the soul, iii. 161;\nof divination, 176; v. 93.\n\nDignity of places at table, iii. 210, 212.\n\nDinarchus, an Athenian orator, v. 57, 58;\nbecomes rich, 57;\nhis exile in Chalcis, 58;\nrestored, _ib._;\nhis orations, _ib._\n\nDiocles, at the Banquet of the Seven Wise Men, ii. 3-41;\nhis philosophical opinions, iii. 179, 182, 185, 192.\n\nDiogenes Laertius quoted, i. 77.\n\nDiogenes, quoted, i. 4, 12;\nanecdotes of, 51, 67, 141, 142, 166, 283, 285, 311, 487;\nquoted, ii. 58, 155, 193; 455, 458, 465, 466;\nstory of the mouse, 453; iii. 21, 27, 29, 31;\nhis philosophical opinions, 132, 136, 138, 143, 148, 163, 183, 187,\n189, 494; iv. 311; v. 8, 65.\n\nDiogenes and Philip, ii. 147.\n\nDiogenianus, iii. 71, 73, _et seq._\n\nDiomedes, ii. 41;\nliberated from captivity, v. 465.\n\nDion, example of, i. 64, 193, 333.\n\nDionysius, tyrant of Sicily, does not relish the Lacedaemonian broth, i. 83;\nhis unreasonable anger, 152;\nhis sayings, 449, 484, 491;\nhis ungenerous behavior, 493;\nparasites of, ii. 166; 314;\nanecdote of, iv. 238.\n\nDionysius and Plato, ii. 108, 140.\n\nDionysius the Elder, his sayings, i. 191; v. 84.\n\nDionysius the Younger, his sayings, i. 192, 501.\n\nDiophantus, saying of, i. 4.\n\nDiorphus, mount, v. 507.\n\nDiscourse to an Unlearned Prince, iv. 323-330.\n\nDiseases of the body, iv. 504-508.\n\nDivination, of, iii. 176; iv. 59.\n\nDog, habit of biting of stones, iii. 516;\naffection for his master, v. 180, 182, 184;\ndocility of the, 191.\n\nDolphin, sagacity of the, v. 200;\nnature of the, 204;\nstory of a, 213;\nits love of music, 214;\nstories of affection of, 215, 216.\n\nDolphin and Arion, ii. 33-36;\nand the lad of Jasus, v. 215.\n\nDomitian is mentioned [which fixes the era of Plutarch], ii. 443.\n\nDomitius, anecdote of, i. 288, 295; v. 125.\n\nDorian Mood of music, i. 109, 115.\n\nDorians pray for bad making of their hay, iii. 504.\n\nDorotheus, his First Book of Transformations, v. 466;\nhis Fourth Book of Italian History, v. 463.\n\nDositheus, his Third Book of Sicilian History, v. 463, 471, 472, 474;\nThird Book of Lydian History, 469;\nhis Pelopidae, 471;\nFirst Book of Italian History, 475.\n\nDream, a romantic, ii. 407-411.\n\nDreams and Omens, ii. 401, 402.\n\nDreams in Autumn, iii. 432.\n\nDreams, whence do they arise, iii. 176.\n\nDrink either five or three, iii. 282-284.\n\nDrink passeth through the lungs, iii. 363.\n\n\nE.\n\nEarth, its nature and magnitude, iii. 154;\nfigure of the, 155;\nsite and position of the, 155;\ninclination of the, 155;\nmotion of the, 156;\nzones of the, 156;\nexhalations from the, iv. 53;\nits form and its place, v. 247;\nan instrument of time, 439.\n\nEarthquakes, of, iii. 157.\n\nEcho, what gives the, iii. 172.\n\nEclipse of the moon, iii. 146.\n\nEclipses of the sun, iii. 144.\n\nEcphantus, his opinion concerning the motion of the earth, iii. 156.\n\nEgg or the bird, which was first, iii. 242-246.\n\nEgypt, its Religion and Philosophy; of Isis and Osiris, or of the\nAncient Religion and Philosophy of Egypt, iv. 65-139.\n\nEgyptian skeleton at feasts, ii. 7.\n\nEgyptians in Ethiopia, iii. 20.\n\n\u0395\u03b9 at Apollo\u2019s temple at Delphi, iv. 479-498.\n\nEleans, the, v. 426.\n\nElements, mixture of the, iii. 126.\n\nElephant, understanding of the, v. 178;\nstories of, 178;\nof King Porus, 183;\nmost beloved by the Gods, 187;\namour of the, 188;\nchirurgery of the, 192.\n\nElephas, mount, v. 478.\n\nElysian fields in the moon, v. 289.\n\nElysius the Terinean, vision of, i. 314.\n\nEmbryo, how nourished, iii. 183;\nis an animal, _ib._\n\nEmpedocles, i. 59;\nsaying of, 158, 469;\nquoted, ii. 49, 195; 357;\nquoted, iii. 34, 81;\nhis philosophical opinions, 112, 114, 125-129, 131, 132,\n136-138, 143, 145, 147, 154, 158, 163, 165,\n168-170, 173, 178-184, 188-191;\nquoted, 209, 262, 293, 333, 497, 509, 518;\nquoted, iv. 21, 52, 85, 87, 108, 273;\nquoted, v. 169, 239, 246, 249, 252, 255, 318, 348, 350, 351;\nmisunderstood by Colotes, 351;\nquoted, 381, 420, 421, 439.\n\nEmprepes, apothegm of, i. 408.\n\nEnemies, how a man may profit by his, i. 280-298.\n\nEntertainment, late to an, iii. 417.\n\nEnvy and Hatred, ii. 95-99.\n\nEpaminondas, his sayings, i. 222-226, 277;\nhis great actions, 225;\nhis consistency of character, ii. 109; 182, 185, 309, 313, 319,\n381, 396, 399, 414; iii. 6; v. 72, 75, 95,\n101, 121, 125;\nhis invasion of Laconia, 401, 407, 458.\n\nEpaminondas, son of, beheaded, v. 458.\n\nEphorus, his opinion concerning the overflowing of the Nile, iii. 161.\n\nEpicharmus, quoted, i. 315, 496; ii. 141; iv. 242.\n\nEpicureans, misrepresentations of the, v. 352-354.\n\nEpicurus, quoted, i. 138, 139, 159;\nfamous sentence of, ii. 92;\nhis doctrine; refutation of it; pleasure is not attainable, 157-203;\nreverence of his brothers, iii. 57;\nhis philosophical opinions, 111, 122, 124, 127, 128,\n131, 134, 135, 139, 142, 143, 151, 163, 164, 165, 169, 177, 183;\nopinions of, v. 350, 374;\ndanger of his doctrines, 377, 378;\ndisciples of, 383, 385.\n\nEpigenes, opinion concerning comets, iii. 150.\n\nEpimenides, long sleep of, v. 66; 279.\n\nErasistratus, his opinion of the soul, iii. 163;\nof superfetation, 180;\nhis definition of a fever, 192.\n\nEratosthenes, his philosophical opinions: of time, iii. 128;\nof the sun, 147; v. 456.\n\nErectheus, sacrifice of his daughter, v. 463.\n\nEryxo of Cyrene, i. 378.\n\nEsop, fable of, ii. 11, 12, 16, 19-22, 23;\ndog of, 25;\nat the Banquet of the Seven Wise Men, 3-41; iii. 63, 202.\n\nEteocles the Theban, i. 257.\n\nEuboea, king of, drawn in pieces by horses, v. 455.\n\nEuboidas, apothegm of, i. 408.\n\nEuclid, anecdote of, i. 55; ii. 173.\n\nEuclides, his brotherly love, iii. 61.\n\nEuctus and Eulaeus, ii. 146.\n\nEudaemonidas, his sayings, i. 221.\n\nEudamidas, apothegm of, i. 408.\n\nEudemus, of matter, ii. 334.\n\nEudorus, system of numbers, ii. 343, 345.\n\nEudoxus, anecdotes of, ii. 174;\nhis opinion of the cause of winter and summer, iii. 141;\nof the overflow of the Nile, 161.\n\nEuemerus, his opinion of God, iii. 118.\n\nEumenes of Pergamus, his sayings, i. 206;\nanecdotes of, iii. 61, iv. 232.\n\nEumetis at the Banquet of the Seven Wise Men, ii. 3-41;\nher riddle, 20.\n\nEuphorion quoted, iii. 321.\n\nEuphranor, the painter, v. 400.\n\nEuphrates, the river, v. 502.\n\nEupolis, saying of, ii. 112.\n\nEuripides, quoted, i. 3, 158, 291, 300, 301, 302, 308, 320, 329, 330, 335, 458;\nHippol., 4, 14, 471;\nProtesilaus, 23;\nDictys, 26, 58;\nBellerophon, 63, 141;\nFrag., 287, 472;\nPirithous, 70;\nOrestes, 37, 137, 140, 165, 170, 286;\nMedea, 64, 71, 255;\nIph. Aul., 152, 302;\nBacchae, 163;\nTroad, 170;\nPhoeniss, 257, 303, 327;\nDanae, 307;\nAdrastus, 288;\nStheneboea, 301;\nIno, 303, 304;\nAlcestis, 310;\nSuppliants, 316;\nCresphontes, 316;\nErectheus, 500;\nHypsipyle, 317, 465; ii. 54, 56, 62, 87, 92, 121, 148, 150, 251, 300, 306, 357, 363, 391, 472;\nCresphontes, 93;\nHippol., 73, 108, 173, 198, 373, 374;\nFrag., 86, 181, 318, 437, 501;\nOrestes, 143, 443;\nMedea, 66;\nIph. Aul., 49, 85;\nPhoeniss, 51, 61, 66, 130, 151;\nIon, 102, 144;\nIno, 131;\nErectheus, 132;\nElectra, 85;\nAeolus, 66, 85, 88, 175;\nHerc. Furens, 151;\nHecuba, 197;\nIph. Taur., 447; iii. 27, 99, 116, 194;\nFrag., 3, 19, 33, 41, 42, 94,\n    230, 458, 475, 512;\nHippol., 483;\nOrestes, 168, 437;\nPhoeniss, 16, 32, 43, 49, 257;\nStheneboea, 217;\nIph. Taur., 21;\nAndrom., 232;\nHipsipyle, 291, iv. 17, 128, 142, 270, 308,\n    450, 478, 497;\nFrag., 47, 220, 233, 251, 272, 273,\n    292, 301, 325, 392, 461, 475;\nBacchae, 223, 272, 422, 506;\nHippol., 294, 298;\nCyclops, 56;\nAeolus, 105;\nTroad, 132;\nOrestes, 141, 507;\nIno, 158, 231;\nAlcestis, 197;\nDanae, 274, 283;\nStheneboea, 288;\nAndrom., 401;\nHerc. Furens, 459, 467; v. 126, 128, 157, 172;\nFrag., 15, 79, 105, 108, 118, 345;\nAeolus, 71;\nHippol., 158;\nIph. Taur., 374;\nOrestes, 77, 380;\nTroad, 440;\nErectheus, 463;\nMeleager, 466.\n\nEurotas, a river in Laconia, v. 497.\n\nEurycratidas, apothegm of, i. 410.\n\nEurydice of Hierapolis, her epigram, i. 32.\n\nEuthrymenes, his opinion of the overflow of the Nile, iii. 160.\n\nEuthynous and Pindar, i. 313.\n\nEutropion, anecdote of, i. 25.\n\nEvenus quoted, ii. 102, 192.\n\nEvenus, son of Mars, v. 475.\n\nExercises, different kinds of, iii. 248-250.\n\nExile, consolations of, iii. 15-35.\n\nEyes, images of the, iii. 169.\n\n\nF.\n\nFabius Maximus, his sayings, i. 227, 228;\nin the Punic war, v. 453.\n\nFable of Minerva, i. 41.\n\nFable of the defeat of Neptune, iii. 444.\n\nFable of the Fox and Leopard, ii. 21.\n\nFable of the Lydian Mule, ii. 11.\n\nFabricianus, v. 474.\n\nFabricius, iv. 201.\n\nFace appearing in the moon, v. 234-292.\n\nFasting creates more thirst than hunger, iii. 339.\n\nFate, or destiny, iii. 130;\nnature of, 130; v. 293-308.\n\nFaunus, king of Italy, strangers murdered by, v. 474.\n\nFever, cause of a, iii. 192.\n\nFig-trees, of, iii. 250, 335.\n\nFigures, of, iii. 125.\n\nFilial treachery in Persian and Roman history, v. 458.\n\nFire or water, which is more useful, v. 331-337.\n\nFirmus and Nuceria, v. 471.\n\nFish called the fisherman, v. 201.\n\nFish, eating of, iii. 422.\n\nFisherman\u2019s nets, rotting of, iii. 503.\n\nFishes, of; the labrax, mullet, scate, anthias, dolphin, cuttle-fish,\nstar-fish, torpedo, the fisherman, tunny, amiae, pionetras,\nsponge, porphyrae, hegemon, whale, pinoterus, gilthead,\nphycides, galeus, tortoise, v. 195, 209.\n\nFittest time for a man to know his wife, iii. 274-279.\n\nFives, we reckon by, iv. 43-47.\n\nFive tragical histories of Love, iv. 312-322.\n\nFlattery: How to know a Flatterer from a Friend, ii. 100-156.\n\nFlattery fatal to whole kingdoms, ii. 118.\n\nFlesh exposed to the moon, iii. 284-287.\n\nFlute girls, whether they are to be admitted to a feast, iii. 387.\n\nFolly of Seeking Many Friends, i. 464-474.\n\nFood, digesting of, iii. 289-295.\n\nFortune, of, ii. 475-481; iii. 131;\nis a cause by accident, v. 302;\nnot the same as chance, 303;\nrelates to men only, 303.\n\nFortune of the Romans, iv. 198-219.\n\nFox, cunning of the, v. 179.\n\nFresh water washes clothes better than salt, iii. 224-226.\n\nFriends, folly of seeking many, i. 464-474.\n\nFrogs, croaking of, v. 210.\n\nFrost makes hunting difficult, iii. 510.\n\nFruit, salt not found in, iii. 498.\n\nFulvius and Augustus, anecdotes of, iv. 235, 236.\n\nFulvius Stellus, v. 468.\n\nFundanus, i. 34, 35.\n\n\nG.\n\nGalaxy, or milky way, iii. 148.\n\nGaleus, affection of, for their young, v. 209.\n\nGanges, the river, v. 481.\n\nGarlands at sacred games, iii. 411.\n\nGarrulity, or Talkativeness, iv. 220-253.\n\nGauran, mount, v. 508.\n\nGelo, his saying, i. 190.\n\nGeneration and corruption, iii. 128.\n\nGeneration of males and females, iii. 178;\nof animals, 186;\nof the Gods, 400.\n\nGenerative seed, iii. 177.\n\nGeniuses and heroes, opinions concerning, iii. 122.\n\nGermanicus, ii. 96.\n\nGnatho the Sicilian, iii. 3.\n\nGobryas, a Persian noble, ii. 104.\n\nGod always plays the Geometer, saying attributed to Plato, iii. 402.\n\nGod bade Socrates act the midwife\u2019s part, v. 425.\n\nGod, Father and Maker of all things, v. 428.\n\nGod, what is, iii. 118.\n\nGods, generation of the, iii. 400.\n\nGorgias, i. 340;\nat the Banquet of the Seven Wise Men, ii. 3-41; 44, 134; ii. 502; v. 405.\n\nGovernment. Of the Three Sorts of Government, Monarchy, Democracy,\nand Oligarchy, v. 395-398.\n\nGracchus, Caius, example of, i. 40.\n\nGreek music, principles of, i. 102, 103.\n\nGreek Questions, ii. 265-293.\n\nGroom, saying of the king\u2019s, i. 21.\n\nGryllus, v. 218 _et seq._\n\nGuests, should the entertainer seat the, iii. 203-210;\nto a wedding supper, 300;\nthat are called shadows, iii. 381.\n\nGylippus, his dishonesty, i. 23.\n\nH.\n\nHabits of animals, v. 173-177.\n\nHalcyon, of the, v. 211.\n\nHalo, of the, iii. 160.\n\nHannibal and Fabius, i. 228.\n\nHares, cunning of the, v. 185.\n\nHarp, an invention of Apollo, i. 113.\n\nHart, tears of the, iii. 507.\n\nHealth, preservation of, i. 251-279.\n\nHealth, sickness, and old age, iii. 192.\n\nHearing, of, i. 441-463; iii. 170.\n\nHeaven, its nature and essence, iii. 137;\ndivision of, 137.\n\nHebrus, a river of Thrace, v. 480.\n\nHedgehog, ingenuity of the, v. 186.\n\nHedgehog of the sea, v. 203.\n\nHegemon, of the fish, v. 206.\n\nHegesippus, sayings of, &c., i. 213.\n\nHegesistratus, an Ephesian, v. 476.\n\nHelicon the mathematician, i. 57.\n\nHephaestion, the friend of Alexander, i. 489, 505.\n\nHeracleo, v. 194.\n\nHeraclides, his compendium of music, i. 105; ii. 158;\nhis philosophical opinions, iii. 139, 149, 156, 159, 165.\n\nHeraclides the wrestler, iii. 220.\n\nHeraclitus, i. 44, 79, 276, 308, 448, 453; ii. 74, 165, 330, 358,\n477; iii. 26, 74;\nhis philosophical opinions, 111, 125, 128, 130, 131,\n143, 144, 145, 146, 162;\napothegm, v. 9;\nquoted, 73, 169, 425.\n\nHercules and Iole, v. 459.\n\nHercules in Antisthenes, precept of, i. 77.\n\nHercules, ridiculous representation of, v. 70;\nand King Faunus, 474.\n\nHercules the woman-hater, his temple in Phocis, iii. 90;\nsingular anecdote, _ib._\n\nHermes, iv. 74.\n\nHermias, v. 121.\n\nHermogenes, ii. 194.\n\nHerodotus, quoted, i. 80, 441;\nsaying of, ii. 202, 489;\nArcadian prophet, iii. 38;\nquoted, iv. 248, 335 _et seq._;\nmalice of, iv. 331-371; v. 397.\n\nHerondas, apothegm of, i. 410.\n\nHerons, artifices of the, v. 176.\n\nHerophilus, opinion of, iii. 128, 163.\n\nHesianax, his Third Book of African History, v. 465.\n\nHesiod, quoted, Works and Days, i. 22, 65, 70, 138, 156, 178, 261, 296, 307, 325;\nWorks and Days, ii. 24;\nspare diet recommended by, 27;\nand the dolphin, 36, 37;\nWorks and Days, 63, 64, 65, 73, 87, 92,\n    302, 303, 449, 452, 480, 483;\nTheogony, 102;\nWorks and Days, iii. 64, 210, 382, 416, 436, 438;\nTheogony, 118, 324, 458; iv. 15;\nWorks and Days, 48, 49, 68, 87, 154, 173,\n    264, 385, 442, 457;\nTheogony, 53;\nWorks and Days, v. 153, 168, 172, 279.\n\nHicetes, his opinion of the earth, iii. 154.\n\nHiero, his sayings, i. 190;\nanecdote of, 291.\n\nHiero the Spartan, statue of, iii. 76.\n\nHiero the Tyrant, statue of, iii. 75.\n\nHieronymus, saying of, i. 38, 50, 462.\n\nHimerius, an Athenian parasite, ii. 126.\n\nHippasus, opinions of, iii. 111.\n\nHippocrates, saying of, i. 40;\nquoted, 261, 292; ii. 165, 185;\nhis magnanimity, ii. 466.\n\nHippocratidas, apothegm of, i. 412.\n\nHippodamus, apothegm of, i. 411.\n\nHippolytus, son of Theseus, v. 471, 472.\n\nHippomachus, ii. 294.\n\nHipponax, i. 108.\n\nHistory of music, i. 104 _et seq._\n\nHistory of wind instruments, i. 108.\n\nHomer, passages in, criticised, ii. 69-72, 74-84, 89, 90.\n\nHomer quoted: Iliad, i. 34, 38, 39, 51, 52, 55,\n62, 104, 132, 133, 134, 138, 141, 151, 153, 154, 156,\n161, 165, 178, 180, 181, 200, 236, 251, 292, 303, 305, 306,\n310, 324, 325, 329, 330, 331, 385, 466, 469, 475, 486, 490,\n507, 508, 510, 511; ii. 25, 32, 41, 44, 47, 48, 49, 52,\n53, 55, 56, 59, 62, 63, 65,\n67, 68, 74, 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84,\n88, 89, 90, 91, 108, 114, 115,\n120, 123, 131, 140, 142, 145, 150, 151,\n152, 154, 185, 197, 198, 200, 237,\n295, 305, 310, 311, 314, 317, 319,\n413, 501, 505; iii. 25, 26, 47, 53, 54, 107, 120, 152, 206, 207,\n221, 231, 248, 255, 285, 301, 313, 317, 321, 323, 325, 336, 354,\n364, 381, 394, 401, 413, 418, 437, 442, 447, 448, 449, 450,\n480, 486, 492, 493, 515; iv. 16, 65, 108, 111, 152, 191, 194,\n195, 216, 237, 238, 280, 285, 291, 327, 329, 383, 386, 401, 405,\n434, 462, 483, 490, 499, 504; v. 78, 79, 85, 88, 90, 92, 96,\n104, 119, 122, 123, 134, 135, 138, 146, 147, 171, 182, 200,\n208, 214, 266, 276, 281, 315, 339, 350, 371, 386, 394, 400,\n418, 443, 444, 447;\nOdyss. i. 52, 134, 138, 154, 236, 252,\n    305, 310, 318, 325, 452, 469; ii. 41, 43, 47, 48, 52, 53, 54,\n    56, 59, 63, 65, 67, 70, 71, 82, 83, 108, 110, 114, 115,\n    127, 149, 158, 159, 162, 184, 195, 304, 316, 317, 320, 371, 427,\n    463, 467, 478; iii. 10, 42, 45, 72, 81, 101, 196, 201, 207,\n    226, 232, 233, 249, 259, 280, 333, 359, 365, 395, 419, 425, 437,\n    438, 451, 466, 477, 499; iv. 5, 30, 86, 97, 191, 200, 219,\n    224, 226, 230, 231, 289, 307, 325, 401, 405; v. 3, 11, 105, 106, 143,\n    171, 184, 281, 285, 290, 315, 323, 403, 416, 422, 423,\n    446.\n\nHoratii and Curatii, v. 460, 461.\n\nHoratius Cocles, v. 456.\n\nHorsehair for fishing lines, iii. 505.\n\nHorses, called \u03bb\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2, iii. 253.\n\nHorus, son of Osiris, iv. 80, 114 _et seq._\n\nHounds that hunt hares, v. 184.\n\nHow a man may praise himself without being envied, ii. 306.\n\nHow a man may receive advantage and profit from his enemies, i. 280-298.\n\nHow animals are begotten, iii. 186.\n\nHow a young man ought to hear poems, ii. 42.\n\nHow plants grow, and whether they are animals, iii. 190.\n\nHow to know a flatterer, ii. 100-156.\n\nHunger, cause of, iii. 341;\nallayed by drinking, 345.\n\nHurricanes, of, iii. 150.\n\nHyagnis, first that sung to the pipe, i. 107.\n\nHydaspes, a river in India, v. 477.\n\nHyperides, the Athenian orator, ii. 140; v. 53-57;\nhis part in public affairs, 53;\nhis friendship for Demosthenes, 54;\nthis friendship broken, _ib._;\ndemanded by Antipater, he escapes to Aegina, _ib._;\nis apprehended, tortured, and put to death, 55;\nan excellent orator, _ib._;\nhis amorous propensities, 55, 56;\nhis patriotism, 56;\nsent as ambassador, 56, 57.\n\nHypsipyle, foster-child of, i, 465.\n\n\nI.\n\nIbis, habits of, imitated by the Egyptians, v. 192.\n\nIbycus, the poet, iv. 240.\n\nIchneumon, of the, v. 174.\n\nIda, mount, v. 493.\n\nIdathyrsus, his sayings, i. 189.\n\nIdeas, of, iii. 123.\n\nImages presented to our eyes in mirrors, iii. 169.\n\nImagination, imaginable and phantom, difference between, iii. 167.\n\nImmortality of the soul, argument for it, iv. 169, 170.\n\nImpotency in men, iii. 181.\n\nImprobabilities of the Stoics, iii. 194-196.\n\nInachus, a river in Argolis, v. 498.\n\nIncest, case of, v. 467.\n\nIndus, the river, v. 508.\n\nInfants, seven months\u2019, iii. 184.\n\nInquisitiveness, or vain curiosity; of curiosity, or an over-busy\ninquisitiveness into things impertinent, ii. 424-445.\n\nIole, the beloved of Hercules, v. 459.\n\nIon the tragedian, i. 322, 328; v. 186, 254.\n\nIphicrates, his saying, i. 80, 212; v. 105.\n\nIphigenia at Aulis, v. 459, 460.\n\nIrascible faculty, v. 441.\n\nIsaeus, an Athenian orator, v. 33;\nconsidered by some equal to Lysias, _ib._;\nthe teacher of Demosthenes, _ib._;\nnumber of his orations, _ib._\n\nIsis and Osiris, iv. 66-139.\n\nIsmenodora, iv. 256, 264, 269, 311.\n\nIsmenus, a river of Boeotia, v. 478.\n\nIsocrates, an Athenian orator, iii. 198; v. 27-33;\nhis parentage, birth, and education, 27;\ncomposed orations for others, 28;\nhis school at Chios, _ib._;\nhis great success as a teacher of rhetoric, _ib._;\nlived to a great age, 29;\nhis death and burial, 30;\nnumber of his orations, 31;\nhis timidity, 27, 31;\nhis description of the use of rhetoric, 31;\nthe two suits against him, 32, 409;\nhis Panegyric, 410.\n\nIsthmian games, iii. 318.\n\nIvy, nature of, iii. 265-268.\n\nJ.\n\nJason, saying of, v. 140.\n\nJewish religion, statements and conjectures respecting it, iii. 307-312.\n\nJews, their fatal inaction in war because it was their Sabbath day, i. 178.\n\nJuba, his third Book of Lybian History, v. 465.\n\nL.\n\nLacedaemonians, their laws and customs, i. 82-101;\ntheir currency, 99;\ninflux of gold and silver, 100;\nrefuse to assist Philip and Alexander in their designs against Persia, 101;\nlose all their ancient glory, 101;\ncombat with the Argives, v. 452.\n\nLachares, tyranny of, ii. 166.\n\nLaconic answers, iv. 243.\n\nLaconic Apothegms, of, i. 385-440.\nAcrotatus, 400.\nAgasicles, 385.\nAgesilaus, 385-397.\nAgesipolis, 397, 398.\nAgis, son of Archidamus, 398.\nAgis the Last, 400.\nAgis the Younger, 400.\nAlcamenes, the son of Teleclus, 400.\nAlexandridas, 401.\nAnaxander, 401.\nAnaxilas, 402.\nAndroclidas, 402.\nAntalcidas, 402.\nAntiochus, 403.\nArchidamidas, 403.\nArchidamus, son of Agesilaus, 404.\nArchidamus, son of Zeuxidamus, 404.\nAregeus, 403.\nAriston, 403.\nAstycratidas, 405.\nBias, 406.\nCallicratidas, 412.\nCharillus, 432.\nCleombrotus, 413.\nCleomenes, son of Cleombrotus, 413, 416.\nDamindas, 407.\nDamis, 406.\nDamonidas, 406.\nDemaratus, 407.\nDercyllidas, 407.\nEmprepes, 408.\nEuboidas, 408.\nEudamidas, son of Archidamas, 408.\nEurycratidas, 410.\nHerondas, 410.\nHippocratidas, 412.\nHippodamus, 411.\nLeonidas, the son of Anaxandrias, 417.\nLeo, the son of Eucratidas, 417.\nLeotychides, 416.\nLycurgus the Lawgiver, 419-425.\nLysander, 425.\nNamertes, 427.\nNicander, 427.\nPaedaretus, 429.\nPanthoidas, 427.\nPausanias, son of Cleombrotus, 428.\nPausanias, son of Plistoanax, 428.\nPhoebidas, 431.\nPlistoanax, 430.\nPolycratidas, 431.\nPolydorus, 430.\nSoos, 431.\nTelecrus, 431.\nThectamenes, 411.\nThemisteas, 410.\nTheopompus, 410.\nThorycion, 411.\nZeuxidamus, 410.\n\nLacydes, King of the Argives, i. 290.\n\nLais, murder of, iv. 302.\n\nLampis, a sea commander, v. 73.\n\nLampsace, anecdote of, i. 366.\n\nLamps and tables of the ancients, iii. 372.\n\nLand, food of the, iii. 302-306.\n\nLasus, his innovation upon ancient music, i. 123.\n\nLeaena, anecdote of, iv. 229, 230.\n\nLeast things in nature, iii. 125.\n\nLeo, apothegm of, i. 417.\n\nLeo Byzantinus, saying of, i. 288;\nand his wife, v. 110.\n\nLeonidas, apothegm of, i. 417;\nvindicated from the statements of Herodotus, iv. 354; v. 157;\nat Thermopylae, 453.\n\nLeotychides, apothegm of, i. 422.\n\nLeprosy caused by dewy trees, iii. 500.\n\nLeptis, custom in, ii. 499.\n\nLeucippus, his opinions of the world, iii. 135;\nof the earth, 155;\nof the senses, 165.\n\nLight and darkness, of, v. 325.\n\nLightning, of, iii. 150.\n\nLight, of reflected, iii. 168, 169; v. 236 _et seq._\n\nLilaeus, mount, v. 508, 509.\n\nLinus, elegies of, i. 105.\n\nLions, of, v. 187.\n\nLiquids, of, iii. 359.\n\nLive concealed, whether\u2019t were rightly said, iii. 3-10.\n\nLives of the ten Attic orators, v. 17-63.\n\nLove: Five tragical histories of, iv. 312-322.\n\nLove, of, iv. 254-311;\nmakes a man a poet, iii. 217-219.\n\nLove of wealth, ii. 294-305.\n\nLucretia, the Roman matron, i. 355.\n\nLucullus, apothegm of, i. 241;\nquoted, iii. 51; v. 84.\n\nLugdunum, mount, v. 485.\n\nLyaeus and choraeus, i. 54.\n\nLybian crows, v. 175.\n\nLycastus and Parasius, v. 473.\n\nLycian women, virtue of the, i. 351.\n\nLycormas, a river in Aetolia, v. 487.\n\nLycurgus, an Athenian orator, v. 36-42;\ntreasurer of the commonwealth, 36;\nhis great public services, 37;\nhis fidelity in office and great reputation, 37;\nhis justice and integrity, 37, 38;\nuseful laws procured by his influence, 38;\nhis diligence in the study and practice of oratory, 39;\nhis incorruptible honesty, 40;\nhis death, _ib._;\nhonors paid to his memory, _ib._;\nhis family, 40, 41;\nhis orations and success as an orator, 41;\nhis benevolence, 42;\na decree for honors to be paid to his memory, 61-63.\n\nLycurgus, the Spartan lawgiver, anecdote of, i. 7;\nhis institutions, 82 _et seq._;\ntheir final overthrow, 101, 217, 419-425;\nhis sayings, ii. 22; v. 12, 92.\n\nLydian mood of music, i. 109, 114.\n\nLyric nomes, i. 106.\n\nLysander, i. 72;\nhis great victory over the Athenians, 99;\nintroduces gold and silver into Lacedaemon, 100;\nthe results, _ib._;\nhis sayings, 219, 425;\nsaying of, ii. 149;\nanecdote of, 495; iii. 100; v. 92.\n\nLysias, the Athenian orator, his remarks on music, i. 104;\nanecdote of, iv. 226; v. 24-26;\nhis birth, early residence in Athens, residence in Thurii, and return to Athens, 24;\nbanished by the Thirty Tyrants, 25;\nreturn after their overthrow, _ib._;\ndeath, _ib._;\nnumber of his orations, _ib._;\nhis other works, 26;\nhis eloquence, _ib._; v. 33.\n\nLysimache, the priestess, i. 73.\n\nLysimachus, his sayings, i. 205, 259.\n\nLysippus, his statue of Alexander, i. 494.\n\n\nM.\n\nMadness of animals, v. 167.\n\nMaeander, a river in Asia, v. 488.\n\nMagas, anecdote of, i. 45.\n\nMagpie, story of a, v. 189.\n\nMaimactes, king of the gods, i. 45.\n\nMan, perfection of a, iii. 189;\nmost unhappy of all creatures, iv. 504;\ncompounded of three parts, v. 286.\n\nManeros, the foster-son of Isis, iv. 79.\n\nManius Curius, apothegm of, i. 226.\n\nManlius, son of, beheaded, v. 458.\n\nMan\u2019s progress in virtue, ii. 446-474.\n\nMantinea, battle of, v. 401.\n\nMarius, sacrifice of his daughter, v. 463.\n\nMars, some bad actions of his, v. 466, 467.\n\nMarsyas, a river in Phrygia, v. 490.\n\nMarsyas, the musician, i. 41, 108.\n\nMassinissa, his vigorous old age, v. 83.\n\nMathematics, applied to Music, i. 118-121;\naffords unspeakable delight, ii. 172, 174.\n\nMatter, of, iii. 122.\n\nMedius, the parasite, ii. 137.\n\nMegasthenes, saying of, v. 275.\n\nMegisto and Micca, and other women of Elis, i. 357-363.\n\nMeilichius, king of the gods, i. 45.\n\nMelanippides, quoted, iv. 278.\n\nMelanthius, quoted, i. 35, 449; ii. 103; iv. 147.\n\nMelian women, virtue of the, i. 348.\n\nMelisponda and Nephalia, i. 59.\n\nMelissus, his opinion of generation, iii, 128.\n\nMemnon, his saying, i. 189.\n\nMenalippides, i. 114, 123.\n\nMenander, quoted, i. 70, 139, 158, 161, 164, 335,\n    470;\nquoted, ii. 52, 57, 65, 86, 87, 124, 192,\n    297;\nhis superiority to Aristophanes, iii. 11-14;\nquoted, 38, 65, 196, 488; iv. 290;\nanecdote of, v. 403;\nsaying of, 425.\n\nMendesian goat, v. 225.\n\nMenedemus, i. 77; ii. 115, 464;\nhis opinion of the nature of moral virtue, iii. 461.\n\nMenelaus, the mathematician, v. 257.\n\nMen, impotency in, iii. 181;\nelements of, 188;\nhave better stomachs in autumn, 240;\ntemper of, 270-272;\nwhen asleep are never thunderstruck, 295-300;\nhaving carnal knowledge of brutes, 468.\n\nMenon, his definition of virtue, i. 464.\n\nMenyllus, his First Book of Boeotic History, v. 460;\nThird Book of Italian History, 467.\n\nMessenians, saying among the, v. 416.\n\nMetellus, quoted, iii. 53; iv. 202; v. 459, 461.\n\nMeteors, of, which resemble rods, iii. 153.\n\nMetiochus, his misuse of power, v. 127.\n\nMetius Fufetius, king of Alba, torn in pieces, v. 455.\n\nMetrocles, i. 144.\n\nMetrodorus, ii. 158, 160, 161, 167, 169, 175,\n    180, 183, 496;\nhis philosophical opinions, iii. 115, 127, 132, 149, 150, 151,\n153, 154, 155, 157, 158; v. 378, 383, 384.\n\nMicca and Megisto, and other women of Elis, i. 357-363.\n\nMidas, i. 326; v. 454.\n\nMiletus, maidens of, i. 354.\n\nMills of the gods grind slowly, but they grind fine, iv. 143.\n\nMiltiades, v. 407-411.\n\nMimnermus, quoted, iii. 475.\n\nMind, tranquillity of the, i. 136-167.\n\nMinerva, admonished by a satyr, i. 41; iii. 195;\ntemple of, v. 461.\n\nMirrors, causes and reasons of, iii. 169; v. 236 _et seq._\n\nMithridates, i. 204; ii. 121;\nstory of, iii. 219.\n\nMixture of the elements, iii. 126.\n\nMnemosyne, the mother of the Muses, i. 22.\n\nMnesarete, statue of, iii. 83.\n\nMnesiphilus, at the Banquet of the Seven Wise Men, ii. 3-41.\n\nMnesitheus, the physician, iii. 511.\n\nMonarchy, Democracy, and Oligarchy, v. 395-398.\n\nMoney upon usury, v. 412-424.\n\nMonstrous births, of, iii. 179.\n\nMoon: essence of the, iii. 145;\nmagnitude of the, 145;\nfigure of the, 145;\nwhence her light, 145;\neclipses of the, 146;\nphases of the, 147;\ndistance from the sun, 147;\nof the face appearing within the orb of the moon, v. 234-292;\nits distance from the earth, 246;\nits nature, 253-260;\nits size, 261;\nwhy called Glaucopis, 267;\nis it inhabited, 274, 275.\n\nMoot point in Homer\u2019s Iliad, iii. 446.\n\nMoral virtue, essay on, iii. 461-494.\n\nMoschio, dialogue on health, i. 251, 252.\n\nMotherland a Cretan expression, v. 85.\n\nMotion, of, iii. 128.\n\nMount Athos\u2019 shade, v. 270.\n\nMule and the salt, v. 184.\n\nMule, superannuated, v. 182.\n\nMules, barrenness of, iii. 182.\n\nMullet, of the, v. 213.\n\nMuses, number of the, iii. 450.\n\nMushrooms produced by thunder, iii. 295-300.\n\nMusic, treatise concerning, i. 102-135;\npleasures from bad, iii. 376;\nfor entertainments, 389.\n\nMusonius, his rule of health, i. 35.\n\nMust, sweet, iii. 511.\n\nMycenae, mount, v. 501.\n\nN.\n\nNamertes, apothegm of, i. 427.\n\nNames of rivers and mountains, and of such things as are to be found\ntherein, and the fables connected therewith, v. 477-509.\n\nNasica, his saying, i. 285.\n\nNatural affection towards one\u2019s offspring, iv. 189-197.\n\nNatural philosophy, iii. 105.\n\nNatural Questions, Plutarch\u2019s, iii. 495-518.\n\nNature, of, iii. 131;\nwhat is, 105;\nthings that are least in, 125;\nanimated, v. 160.\n\nNecessity, of, iii. 129;\nnature of, 129;\ndefined, v. 299.\n\nNephalia and Melisponda, i. 59.\n\nNeptune, ii. 38, 39, 41.\n\nNero, i. 53; iv. 228, 229;\nanecdote of, v. 123.\n\nNew diseases and how caused, iii. 426.\n\nNew-married couple, advice to, ii. 486-507.\n\nNew wine, of, iii. 279.\n\nNicander, apothegm of, i. 427, 441.\n\nNicias Maleotes, quoted, v. 459.\n\nNicias, the Athenian general, superstition of, i. 177; v. 107.\n\nNicias, the painter, anecdote of, ii. 173; v. 71.\n\nNicostratus and Archidamus, i. 74;\napothegm of, 221.\n\nNiger, anecdote of, i. 267.\n\nNightingale, of the, v. 189.\n\nNile, the river, v. 495;\noverflow of the, iii. 160;\nwater of the, 415.\n\nNiloxenus, at the Banquet of the Seven Wise Men, ii. 3-41.\n\nNiobe, i. 328.\n\nNoises in the night and day, iii. 406.\n\nNuma, of the reign of, iv. 208-210.\n\n\nO.\n\nOenopides, his discovery of the obliquity of the Zodiac, iii. 138.\n\nOgygia, an island west from Britain and its neighbor islands,\ndescribed, v. 281-283.\n\nOil, top of the, iii. 370;\non the sea, 503;\nis transparent, v. 318;\ndoes not easily freeze, 319.\n\nOld age, health, and sickness, iii. 192.\n\nOld men, love pure wine, iii. 221;\nread best at a distance, 222-224;\neasily foxed, 268-270;\nin state affairs, v. 64-96.\n\nOligarchy, Monarchy, and Democracy, v. 395-398.\n\nOlympias, anecdotes of, ii. 494, 495.\n\nOlympus, a Phrygian player, i. 107, 108, 110, 112, 115, 116,\n    123.\n\nOmens and dreams, ii. 401, 402.\n\nOnesicrates, banquet of, i. 103, 133.\n\nOnomademus, wisdom of, i. 295; v. 129.\n\nOpinions of philosophers, iii. 104-193.\n\nOptatus, v. 171.\n\nOracle in Cilicia, iv. 55.\n\nOracles of Delphi, iii. 73.\n\nOracles, why they cease to give answers, iv. 3-64.\n\nOrestes slays his mother, v. 474.\n\nOrigin of things, opinions concerning the, iii. 107-113.\n\nOrontes, his saying, i. 188.\n\nOrpheus never imitated any one, i. 107.\n\nOrphic Fragments, iv. 59, 404.\n\nOryx, fables of the, v. 193.\n\nOsiris, iv. 75-135;\nstory about his birth, 74;\ngreat actions of, 75;\nhis death, 76;\nhis body torn in pieces by Typhon, 80;\nis identical with Serapis and Bacchus, 89;\nwith the bull Apis, 90;\nsacred vestments of, 135.\n\nOthryadas, iv. 338.\n\nOtus, the bird, v. 163.\n\nOxen, teaching of, v. 193.\n\n\nP.\n\nPaeans, makers of, i. 110.\n\nPaedaretus, apothegm of, i. 429.\n\nPainter, neat saying of a, ii. 378.\n\nPainting is silent poetry, v. 402.\n\nPalladium in Ilium and in Rome, v. 461.\n\nPalm tree, of the, iii. 514.\n\nPanaetius, sayings of, i. 57.\n\nPancrates, i. 117.\n\nPandora\u2019s box, i. 306.\n\nPangaeus, mount, v. 480.\n\nPanthoidas, apothegm of, i. 427.\n\nPapirius Tolucer, v. 468.\n\nParallels, or a comparison between the actions of Greeks and Romans, v. 450-476.\n\nParmenides, v. 357;\nhis philosophical opinions: of generation and corruption, iii. 128;\nof necessity, 129;\nof the world, 135;\nof the moon, 145;\nof the galaxy, 149;\nof the earth, 155;\nof earthquakes, 157;\nof the soul, 163;\ndefended from the misrepresentations of the Epicureans, v. 352-354;\nquoted, 357, 359, 381.\n\nPartridge, cunning of the, v. 185.\n\nParysatis, her saying, i. 188.\n\nPassions of the body, iii. 175.\n\nPassions of the soul, or diseases of the body: which are worse, iv. 504, 508.\n\nPaulus Aemilius, apothegm of, i. 232.\n\nPausanias, the Spartan traitor, v. 457.\n\nPausanius, i. 305;\napothegm of, 428.\n\nPauson the painter, iii. 73.\n\nPederasty, or the love of boys, iv. 259;\ndefended, 259, 260;\ninstances of its power, 284-286;\nseverely condemned, 304;\nthe connection is uncertain and short-lived, 307;\nit ceases on the sprouting of the beard, 307.\n\nPelopidas, his saying, i. 225.\n\nPelops and his two sons, v. 470, 471.\n\nPemptides, iv. 272, 275, 279.\n\nPergamus, woman of, i. 374.\n\nPeriander, at the Banquet of the Seven Wise Men, ii. 3-41;\ntyrant of Corinth sends three hundred boys to be castrated, iv. 341;\nthe crime prevented, 342.\n\nPericles, anecdotes of, i. 15, 18, 66, 211, 332; ii. 309, 315; v. 67, 102;\nhis absolute sway over the Athenians, 106;\nhis soliloquy when about to address the people, 130, 131, 410, 413.\n\nPericlitus, a Lesbian harper, i. 108.\n\nPersaeus, anecdote of, i. 70.\n\nPerseus, king of Macedonia, his sorrow on losing his kingdom, i. 160.\n\nPersian Magi, killers of mice, ii. 96.\n\nPersian women, virtue of the, i. 347.\n\nPersians had a monarchy, v. 397.\n\nPestilence, relief from, a virgin sacrificed for, v. 472.\n\nPetron, doctrine of, iv. 30.\n\nPhaedimus, v. 171, 194.\n\nPhaeton, i. 141.\n\nPhalaris, brazen cow of, v. 474.\n\nPharnaces, of the moon, v. 265.\n\nPhasis, a river of Thrace, v. 482.\n\nPhayllus, iv. 282.\n\nPhemius, the poet, i. 105.\n\nPherecrates, fragment of, i. 124.\n\nPhidias, statue of Venus, ii. 498; iv. 133.\n\nPhilammon, verses in honor of Latona, Diana, and Apollo, i. 105.\n\nPhilemon and Magas, i. 45.\n\nPhilinus, iii. 69, 70.\n\nPhilip of Macedonia, examples from, i. 44, 45;\nsayings of, 194-198, 305;\nanecdotes of, ii. 141, 146, 147, 494; iii. 22; v. 115.\n\nPhilippides the comedian, ii. 430.\n\nPhilippus, his demonstration of the figure of the moon, ii. 173.\n\nPhilolaus, his philosophical opinions: of the nutriment of the world, iii. 134;\nof the essence of the sun, 142;\nof the position of the earth, 155;\nof the motion of the earth, 156.\n\nPhilosophers ought chiefly to converse with great men, ii. 368-377.\n\nPhilosophers, their various opinions. Of those sentiments concerning\nnature with which philosophers were delighted, iii. 104-193.\n\nPhilosophical discourses at merry meetings, iii. 198-203.\n\nPhilosophy, threefold division of, iii. 104.\n\nPhilotas and Antigona, i. 504.\n\nPhilotas, son of Parmenio, i. 504.\n\nPhilotimus, the physician, i. 452; ii. 153.\n\nPhiloxenus, i. 125;\nsayings of, ii. 42; iii. 3; iv. 289; v. 423.\n\nPhocian women, virtue of the, i. 343, 355.\n\nPhocion, his saying on the death of Alexander, i. 49;\nhis sayings, 70;\nwife of, 102, 216; ii. 135, 298, 311, 321,\n    328; v. 83, 109, 118;\nhis magnanimity, 122;\nhis reply to Demades, 125, 142, 149.\n\nPhocus, a story of love respecting him, iv. 319.\n\nPhocylides the poet, quoted, i. 9, 462.\n\nPhoebidas, apothegm of, i. 431.\n\nPhoenix, tutor to Achilles, i. 9; ii. 150.\n\nPhrygian mood of music, i. 109.\n\nPhryne, the statue of, iii. 83.\n\nPhrynis, the musician, ii. 470.\n\nPieria and other women of Myus, i. 363, 364.\n\nPierus, the first that wrote in praise of the Muses, i. 105.\n\nPindar and Euthynous, i. 314.\n\nPindar, his sayings, i. 77, 114;\nquoted, 143, 173, 174, 286, 293, 303,\n    304, 310, 313, 328;\nhis description of the state of the blessed, 336;\nquoted, ii. 57, 143, 177, 193, 306;\nquoted, iii. 9, 23, 74, 93, 95, 96, 194,\n    207, 218, 377, 455, 458, 491, 516;\nquoted, iv. 10, 15, 96, 138, 145, 150, 163,\n    260, 289, 405;\nquoted, v. 64, 111, 117, 148, 194, 197,\n    202, 214, 316, 331, 404;\nanecdote of, 404, 440.\n\nPine, sacred to Neptune and Bacchus, iii. 318.\n\nPine trees, of, iii. 250.\n\nPinoteras, the fish, v. 205.\n\nPisias, of love, iv. 270 _et seq._\n\nPisistratus, i. 216;\nanecdote of, iii. 41, 200.\n\nPittacus, sayings of, i. 31, 151;\nhis reply to Myrsilus, ii. 5;\nat the Banquet of the Seven Wise Men, 3-41; iii. 50; iv. 231; v. 145.\n\nPitwater, of, iii. 514.\n\nPlace at table called Consular, iii. 210-212.\n\nPlace, of, iii. 127.\n\nPlague in Falerie and in Lacedaemon, v. 472.\n\nPlain of truth, iv. 29.\n\nPlanetiades, iv. 9, 11.\n\nPlants, grow how, iii. 190;\nnourishment and growth of, 191.\n\nPlato, quoted, i. 9, 19, 24, 26;\nsaying of, 27;\nquoted, 41, 57, 71, 74, 79;\non harmony, 115, 118;\nquoted, 141, 173, 256, 264, 279,\n    287;\nlaws, 292;\nquoted, 297, 311, 314, 321, 337, 339,\n    456;\nquoted, ii. 49, 92, 100, 104, 106;\nat the court of Dionysius, 108, 109, 141, 146;\nand Socrates, 148, 150, 168, 174, 326;\nconcerning the soul, 328 _et seq._, 334;\nquoted, 344, 352, 353, 355, 356, 359,\n    364, 455, 456, 457, 492, 496, 504;\nquoted, iii. 19, 81;\nhis philosophical opinions: of the universe, 112, 114, 115;\nof the understanding, 116;\nwhat is God, 119;\nof God, 121;\nof matter and ideas, 123;\nof causes and of bodies, 124;\nof colors, 125;\nof bodies, 126;\nof place and time, 127, 128;\nof motion, 128;\nof necessity, 129;\nof fate, 130;\nof fortune, 131;\nof the world, 134, 135, 137;\nof the stars, 137-141;\nof the sun, 142, 143;\nof the moon, 145, 146;\nof the rainbow, 152;\nof earthquakes, 158;\nof the sea, 159;\nof the soul, 161-165;\nof sight, 168;\nof hearing, 170;\nof the voice, 171;\nof the echo, 172;\nof divination, 176;\nof generative seed, 177;\nof the embryo, 183;\nof reason in animals, 187;\nof sleep, 189;\nthat plants are animals, 190;\nquoted, 200, 201, 213, 221, 223, 243,\n    365, 368-370, 401, 462, 464, 499;\niv. 18, 28, 30, 41, 45;\nhis opinion about daemons, 86, 87, 109, 115-117, 119,\n    146, 254, 261, 292, 305;\nquoted, v. 10, 82, 103, 116, 120, 172, 257,\n    276, 288, 293, 295, 297, 302, 305, 306, 338, 355, 364,\n    377, 381, 412, 425-433, 435, 440, 441, 444.\n\nPleasure not attainable according to Epicurus, ii. 157-203.\n\nPleasures from bad music, iii. 376.\n\nPlistoanax, apothegm of, i. 430.\n\nPlurality of worlds, iv. 29-39.\n\nPlutarch, his rules for the preservation of health, i. 251-279;\nhis Symposiacs, iii. 197-460;\nhis natural questions, 495-518;\non the immortality of the soul, iii. 164, iv. 169; v. 393;\nconsolatory letter to his wife, 386-394;\nhis Platonic questions, 425-449;\nhis spurious remains, 450-509.\n\nPoet, love makes a man a, iii. 217-219.\n\nPoetry, essay on. How a young man ought to hear poems, ii. 42-94.\n\nPolemon, his kind reply, i. 55.\n\nPolicy or government defined, v. 396.\n\nPolitical precepts, v. 97-156.\n\nPoltys, saying of, i. 189.\n\nPolus the tragedian, v. 69.\n\nPolybus, of seven-months\u2019 infants, iii. 185.\n\nPolycephalus, the nome, i. 108.\n\nPolycratidas, apothegm of, i. 431.\n\nPolycrita, a woman of Naxos, i. 364, 366.\n\nPolydorus, apothegm of, i. 430.\n\nPolyhistor, his Third Book of Italian History, v. 476.\n\nPolymnestus, his improvements in music, i. 107, 110, 112, 123.\n\nPolypus, why it changes color, iii. 506;\nmany-colored, v. 202.\n\nPolysperchon\u2019s treachery, i. 64, 71.\n\nPompey, his great actions and sayings, i. 241 _et seq._, 290;\nstatues of, 293, v. 70, 102, 112, 114;\nowed his success to Sylla, 115.\n\nPorsena of Clusium, war with the Romans, v. 451, 456.\n\nPorus, an Indian king, i. 202.\n\nPosidonius, his opinion of fate, iii. 130;\nof a vacuum, 137;\nof eclipses, v. 262.\n\nPossible and contingent defined, v. 299.\n\nPostumia, chastity of, i. 290.\n\nPower, necessity, &c., defined, v. 300.\n\nPraise, inordinate, a sign of a flatterer, ii, 116, 117, 120;\nyoung people are often spoiled by it, 123.\n\nPreservation of health, rules for, i. 251-279.\n\nPriam and Polydore, v. 465.\n\nPrice of peace, women given as the, v. 468.\n\nPriest of Hercules, iii. 90.\n\nPrinciple and element, difference between, iii. 106.\n\nPrinciple of cold, v. 309-330.\n\nPrinciples, what they are, iii. 106.\n\nPrize for poets at the games, iii. 316.\n\nProcles, tyrant of Epidaurus, puts Timarchus to death, iii. 89;\nhis own unhappy end, _ib._\n\nProcreation of the soul as discussed in the Timaeus of Plato, ii. 326-367.\n\nProgress in virtue, how it may be ascertained, ii. 446-474.\n\nPrometheus, anecdote of, i. 289.\n\nProserpine, the same as Isis, iv. 88;\nand Cora, v. 285, 286.\n\nProsodia, songs called, i. 106.\n\nProtagoras quoted, i. 332.\n\nProtogenes, iv. 257, 258, 260-265.\n\nProvidence, of God, iv. 140-188; v. 305;\nof the inferior gods, 306;\nof the daemons, 307, 308.\n\nPtolemaeus Philadelphus, i. 25.\n\nPtolemaeus Soter, iv. 88.\n\nPtolemy Lagus, anecdote of, i. 45;\nhis saying, 202; ii. 177.\n\nPublius Decius, his dream, v. 462.\n\nPublius Nigidius, v. 96.\n\nPunishment of the wicked, why so long delayed, iv. 140-188.\n\nPupius Piso, the rhetorician, iv. 245.\n\nPurple shell fish, v. 205.\n\nPylades and Orestes, their friendship, i. 465.\n\nPyraechmes\u2019s horses, v. 455.\n\nPyrander, his Fourth Book of Peloponnesian Histories, v. 474.\n\nPyrandrus, the commissary, v. 469.\n\nPyrrhon, the Stoic philosopher, anecdote of, ii. 467.\n\nPyrrhus the Epirot, his saying, i. 207.\n\nPythagoras, his aphorisms, i. 28, 29;\nof music, 130;\nquoted, 175;\naphorism, 179, 294;\nsymbols of, 454, 471;\nhis unseasonable reproof, ii. 148;\nhis joy on discovering the relation to each other of the three\nsides of a right-angled triangle, 174;\nhis philosophical opinions: of the principles of things, iii. 109;\nof the unity of God, 121;\nof geniuses and heroes, 122;\nof matter, 123;\nof causes, 124;\nof bodies, 126;\nof time, 127;\nof motion, 128;\nof generation and corruption, 129;\nof the world, 132-137;\nof the zodiac, 138;\nof the summer and winter solstice, 143;\nof the moon, 145;\nof the zones, 156;\nof the soul, 161-164;\nof the voice, 172;\nof divination, 176;\nof generative seed, 177;\nof reason in animals, 187;\nprecepts of, derived his philosophy from Egyptian priests, iv. 72.\n\nPythagorean philosophy of dreams, daemons, ii. 412, 413.\n\nPythagoreans, precept of, iii. 22;\nwhy they do not eat fish, 422-426.\n\nPytheas, his saying, i. 213; iii. 159;\napothegm of, v. 107, 110.\n\nPythes, the Lydian, i. 382.\n\nPythian games, iii. 316.\n\nPythian priestess, iv. 8, 9, 62, 63;\nwhy she now ceases to deliver her oracles in verse, iii. 69-103.\n\nPythocles, his Third Book of Italian History, v. 460;\nThird Book of the Georgics, 476.\n\nPythoclides the flute player, i. 114.\n\nPython of Aenos, ii. 314.\n\n\nQ.\n\nQuarry of Carystus, iv. 54.\n\nQuestions or Causes, Second Book of, v. 475.\n\n\nR.\n\nRaillery, of, iii. 229-240.\n\nRainbow, of the, iii. 151.\n\nRain, snow, and hail, of, iii. 151.\n\nRational faculty, of the, v. 441.\n\nReason, beasts make use of, v. 218-233.\n\nReason, habit of our, iii. 166.\n\nRemarkable speeches of some obscure men amongst the Spartans, i. 432-440.\n\nRemora or Echeneis, iii. 252.\n\nReproof, how to be administered, ii. 138-156.\n\nRespiration or breathing, iii, 173.\n\nRhesus and Similius, v. 466.\n\nRhodope and Haemus, mountains, v. 491.\n\nRiddles and their solutions, ii. 19, 20.\n\nRoman questions, ii. 204-264.\n\nRoman senator and his wife, iv. 233-235.\n\nRomans, fortune of the, iv. 198-219.\n\nRome, saved by the cackling of geese, iv. 217;\nfavored by fortune, 219.\n\nRomulus, his birth and education, iv. 206-208;\nmurdered in the senate, v. 470;\nand Remus, suckled by a she-wolf, 473.\n\nRules for the preservation of health, i. 251-279.\n\nRutilius the usurer, v. 419.\n\n\nS.\n\nSabinus of Galatia, iv. 308.\n\nSacadas, a flute player, i. 109, 110, 112.\n\nSacred games, garlands of, iii. 411.\n\nSacrificed beasts, iii. 361.\n\nSagaris, a river in Phrygia, v. 492.\n\nSalmantica, women of, i. 352.\n\nSalt and cummin, why does Homer call it divine, iii. 336.\n\nSalt given to cattle, iii. 497;\nnot found in fruit, 498.\n\nSappho, i. 42, 114; ii. 506;\nquoted, iii. 95, 263;\nquoted, iv. 260.\n\nSappho\u2019s measures, grace in, iii. 74.\n\nSardanapalus, his luxury and lust, i. 497.\n\nSardians and Smyrnaeans, v. 468.\n\nSaturn and his four children, v. 456, 457.\n\nSatyrus the orator, i. 47.\n\nScamander, a river in Troas, v. 493.\n\nScaurus, his magnanimity, i. 295.\n\nScilurus, anecdote of, iv. 244.\n\nScipio the Elder, apothegm of, i. 229; ii. 475; iv. 201; v. 96, 112, 114, 136.\n\nScipio the Younger, his sayings and great actions, i. 235-239.\n\nScopas, saying of, ii. 303.\n\nScythinus, verses of, iii. 86.\n\nSea calves, of, v. 210.\n\nSea, of the, iii. 158;\nebbing and flowing of the, 159;\nfood of the, 302-306;\nmade hot by wind, 501.\n\nSea-sickness, iii. 502.\n\nSea water nourishes not trees, iii. 495;\nupon wine, 502;\noil on the, 503.\n\nSeed, nature of generative, iii. 177;\nthat fall on the oxen\u2019s horns, 368;\nwatering of, 496;\nwatered by thunder showers, 498.\n\nSeleucus the mathematician, iii. 159.\n\nSeleucus Callinicus, anecdote of, iv. 237.\n\nSelf-praise. How a man may inoffensively praise himself without being\nliable to envy, ii. 306-325.\n\nSemiramis, her saying, i. 187, 497; iv. 85.\n\nSeneca, anecdote of, i. 53.\n\nSenses, of the, iii. 164;\nrepresent what is true, 165;\nnumber of the, 165;\nactions of the, 166.\n\nSentiments concerning Nature with which Philosophers were delighted, iii. 104-193.\n\nSerapio, iii. 74, 79, 81, 82.\n\nSerapis is Pluto, iv. 88, 89.\n\nSerpent and the Aetolian woman, v. 188.\n\nSeven months\u2019 infants, of, iii. 184.\n\nSeven Wise Men, Banquet of the, ii. 3-41.\n\nServius Tullius, his birth, elevation, and prosperous reign, iv. 212, 213.\n\nShadows, guests called, iii. 381.\n\nSheep bitten by wolves, iii. 254.\n\nShe-wolves, of, iii. 517.\n\nShips in winter, sailing of, iii. 500.\n\nShoe pinches, where the, ii. 494.\n\nSibyl with her frantic grimaces, iii. 74.\n\nSight, of our, iii. 168.\n\nSilence commended, iv. 230, 243.\n\nSimonides, quoted, i. 149, 257, 295, 305, 309, 318;\nquoted, ii. 44, 101, 136, 436, 457, 471;\nquoted, iii. 22, 87, 259, 409, 451, 459,\n    473;\nquoted, iv. 158;\nsaying of, v. 66, 68, 71, 121.\n\nSipylus, mount, v. 489.\n\nSiramnes, saying of, i. 185.\n\nSleep or death, causes of, iii. 188;\nwhether it appertains to the soul or body, 189.\n\nSmelling, of, iii. 170.\n\nSmyrna and Cinyras, v. 464.\n\nSnow, preservation of, iii. 350.\n\nSoclarus, iv. 292; v. 156, 158, 160, 166, 169, 170,\n    171, 216.\n\nSocrates, anecdotes of, i. 11, 13, 23, 26, 38, 53,\n    141, 150, 162;\nrules of health, 255;\nquoted, 307, 310, 312, 337; ii. 46, 148,\n    150, 338, 441;\nhis Daemon, 378-423, 441, 495; iii. 4, 19, 35,\n    112, 121, 123; iv. 249; v. 93, 359, 361, 362-364, 377, 381.\n\nSocrates, his Second Book of Thracian History, v. 462.\n\nSoil, deep, for wheat, iii. 504;\nlean soil for barley, 504.\n\nSolon and Croesus, anecdote of, ii. 122.\n\nSolon, quoted, i. 155, 297;\nat the Banquet of the Seven Wise Men, ii. 3-41;\nquoted, 297, 454, 487;\nquoted,\niii. 50; iv. 72;\nquoted, 260;\nanecdote of, 304; v. 89, 113, 117, 118, 131.\n\nSophocles, quoted, i. 46, 57, 244, 288;\nThamyras, 39;\nFrag., 58, 63;\nTyre, 206, 467;\nAntig., 51, 462;\nOed. Tyr., 179, 470;\nquoted, ii. 45, 57, 61, 72;\ncriticisms on, 72;\nFrag., 173, 241, 244, 298, 431, 452,\n    456, 470, 495;\nOed. Tyr., 60, 172, 442, 476, 495;\nAntig., 110;\nTrachin., 311;\nElectra, 440;\nquoted, iii. 97, 210, 222;\nFrag., 7;\nAntig. 45;\nOed. Tyr., 235, 474;\nOed. Col., 232;\nElectra, 437;\nquoted, iv. 87, 246, 287, 304;\nOed. Tyr., 197, 202;\nTrachin., 281;\nAntig., 239, 283, 404;\nFrag., 221, 226, 274, 284, 301;\nquoted, v. 69, 76, 158, 216;\nOed. Col., 68;\nFrag., 75, 84;\nanecdote of, 68.\n\nSostratus, his Second Book of Tuscan History, v. 468.\n\nSotades, jest of, i. 25.\n\nSoterichus, the musician, i. 103, 112.\n\nSoul of Ajax, her place in hell, iii. 442.\n\nSoul or body, death appertains to, iii. 189.\n\nSoul, procreation of the, ii. 326-367;\nits nature and essence, iii. 161, 163;\nparts of the, 162;\nin what part of the body it resides, 163;\nmotion of the, 163;\nimmortality of the, 164;\nprincipal part of the, 173;\nthree sorts of motion in the, v. 371;\nstate of, after death, 393, 394;\nancienter than the body, 432.\n\nSouls dispersed into the earth, moon, &c., v. 438.\n\nSounds in the night and day, iii. 406.\n\nSows, tame and wild, iii. 508.\n\nSpace, of, iii. 127.\n\nSparta had an oligarchy, v. 397.\n\nSpeech composed of nouns and verbs, v. 444.\n\nSpeech of a statesman, what it should be, v. 107.\n\nSperm, whether it be a body, iii. 177.\n\nSpermatic emission of women, iii. 177.\n\nSphodrias, v. 118.\n\nSpiders, labor of the, v. 174.\n\nSponge, of the, v. 205.\n\nSpurious remains of Plutarch, v. 450-509.\n\nStar-fish, subtlety of the, v. 201.\n\nStark drunk, those that are, iii. 281.\n\nStars, essence of the, iii. 138;\nwhat figure they are, 139;\norder and place of, 139;\nmotion and circulation of, 140;\nwhence do they receive their light, 140;\nwhich are called the Dioscuri, the twins, or Castor and Pollux, 141;\nhow they prognosticate, 141;\nnumber of the, whether odd or even, 446.\n\nStasicrates proposes to turn Mount Athos into a statue of Alexander, i. 495.\n\nStesichorus, i. 109, 112; iv. 497.\n\nSteward of a feast, iii. 212-216.\n\nStilpo, the philosopher, i. 13, 76, 144, 161;\nanecdote of, ii. 468;\ndefended, v. 365-367.\n\nStoics speak greater improbabilities than the poets, iii. 194-196;\ntheir opinions concerning daemons, iv. 24;\ncommon conceptions against the, 372-427;\ncontradictions of the, 428-477.\n\nStrabo, quoted, i. 27.\n\nStrato, i. 155; iii. 163; v. 161.\n\nStratonica of Galatia, i. 373.\n\nStratonicus, anecdote of, ii. 298; iii. 21.\n\nStrymon, a river in Thrace, v. 491.\n\nSummer and winter, cause of, iii. 141.\n\nSummer and winter solstice, iii. 143.\n\nSun, essence of the, iii. 141;\nmagnitude of the, 142;\nfigure or shape of the, 143;\nturning and returning of the, 143;\neclipses of the, 144.\n\nSuperstition of the Gauls, Scythians, and Carthaginians, i. 182, 183.\n\nSuperstition, or indiscreet devotion, i. 168-184;\nfolly of, ii. 387.\n\nSupper, many guests at, iii. 323.\n\nSupper-room, why too narrow at first for guests, iii. 326.\n\nSuppers of the ancients, iii. 255-259.\n\nSwallows in the house, iii. 419;\nintelligence of the, v. 174.\n\nSylla, i. 32-35;\nanecdote of, v. 72, 115, 135.\n\nSymposiacs, or table discourses, iii. 197-460.\n\nSynorix and Camma, iv. 302.\n\nT.\n\nTable, dignity of places at, iii. 210-212.\n\nTables and lamps of the ancients, iii. 372.\n\nTalkativeness, or garrulity, iv. 220-253.\n\nTalk, deliberate or tumultuous, iii. 395.\n\nTanais, a river in Scythia, v. 494.\n\nTarpeia, a virgin, the story of, v. 460.\n\nTaste, of, iii. 170.\n\nTaxiles of India, i. 201.\n\nTaygetus, mount, v. 498.\n\nTears of the hart, iii. 507.\n\nTears of wild boars, iii. 507.\n\nTelamon and Periboea, v. 467.\n\nTelamon and Phocus, v. 466.\n\nTelecrus, apothegm of, i. 431.\n\nTelegonus, son of Ulysses, v. 476.\n\nTelephanes of Megara, i. 117.\n\nTelephus, i. 289.\n\nTelesias the Theban, an eminent flute-player, i. 125.\n\nTelesphorus, in an iron cage, iii. 31.\n\nTemple of Apollo, iv. 478-498.\n\nTeres, his saying, i. 189.\n\nTeribazus, anecdote of, i. 176.\n\nTerpander, the musician, fined by the Ephori, and why? i. 91, 92;\nan inventor of ancient music, 102, 105, 109;\nan excellent composer to the harp, 106, 112;\nadded the octave to the heptachord, 102, 122.\n\nTeuthras, mount, v. 504.\n\nThales, at the Banquet of the Seven Wise Men, ii. 3-41;\nfirst of philosophers; the Ionic sect took its denomination from him, iii. 107;\nhis philosophical opinions; difference between a principle and an element, 106;\nthat the intelligence of the world was God, 121;\nof geniuses and heroes, 122;\nof division of bodies, 126;\nof necessity, 129;\nof the division of heaven, 137;\nof the eclipses of the sun, 144;\nthat the moon borrows her light from the sun, 146;\nthat the earth is globular, and the centre of the universe, 155;\nof earthquakes, 157;\nof the overflow of the Nile, 160;\nof the soul, 161; iv. 337, 480.\n\nThaletas, a composer, i. 110, 112;\npower of his music, 133.\n\nThamyras, the singer, i. 105.\n\nTheanor, ii. 395, 396.\n\nThebes, liberation of, ii. 414-423.\n\nThectamenes, apothegm of, i. 411.\n\nThemisteas, apothegm of, i. 410.\n\nThemistocles, quoted, i. 73;\nhis saying, 208;\nsuspected of treason, 290, 296, 480;\nquoted, ii. 97, 311, 471;\nhis kind reception by the Persian king, iii. 21, 30; iv. 208, 361, 365; v. 101, 116, 120, 121, 127.\n\nTheo, iii. 70, 71, 74, 88.\n\nTheocritus, his remark and death, i. 25, 73; ii. 380; iii. 516.\n\nTheodorus, saying of, i. 142; ii. 321, 349; iii. 31;\nhis Book of Transformations, v. 464.\n\nTheognis, i. 473; ii. 59; iii. 506.\n\nTheon, ii. 157 _et seq._; v. 273-275.\n\nTheophilus, his Third Book of Italian History, v. 459;\nSecond Book of Peloponnesian Histories, 470.\n\nTheophrastus, sayings of, i. 276, 304, 442; ii. 303; iii. 45, 64,\n218, 219, 334; v. 202, 427.\n\nTheopompus, his sayings, i. 217, 410; v. 137.\n\nTheotimus, his Italian History, v. 456.\n\nTheramenes, anecdote of, i. 306.\n\nThermodon, a river in Scythia, v. 495.\n\nThero, anecdote of, iv. 286.\n\nTheseus and his son Hippolytus, v. 471.\n\nThespesius, iv. 177, 182 _et seq._, 188.\n\nThirst, cause of, iii. 341.\n\nThorycion, apothegm of, i. 411.\n\nThrasonides quoted, ii. 297.\n\nThucydides, quoted, i. 70, 76, 472, 490;\nquoted, ii. 98, 117, 149, 152, 458;\nquoted, iii. 88;\nquoted, iv. 141;\nquoted, v. 65, 106, 403.\n\nThunder, of, iii. 150.\n\nThymbris, and his son Rustius, v. 466.\n\nTides, of, iii. 159.\n\nTigris, the river, v. 507.\n\nTimaeus, his opinion of tides, iii. 159.\n\nTimesias, the oracle and, i. 471;\nanecdote of, v. 127.\n\nTime, essence and nature of, iii. 127, 128.\n\nTimoclea, at the taking of Thebes, i. 376.\n\nTimoleon, ii. 314.\n\nTimotheus, the musician, anecdote of, i. 92, 106, 112; ii. 83, 306; v. 76.\n\nTitus Quinctius, apothegm of, i. 230.\n\nTmolus, mount, v. 486.\n\nTorpedo, or crampfish, v. 201.\n\nTorquatus and Clusia, v. 459.\n\nTortoise, their care for their young, v. 209.\n\nTraining of children, i. 3-32.\n\nTranquillity of the mind, the, i. 136-167.\n\nTransmutation of bodies, v. 14.\n\nTrees and seeds, watering of, iii. 496.\n\nTrees not nourished by sea-water, iii. 495.\n\nTriangles, of, v. 433.\n\nTrisimachus, his book of Foundations of Cities, v. 455.\n\nTrochilus and crocodile, v. 206.\n\nTroilus wept less than Priam, i. 323.\n\nTrojan women, virtue of the, i. 342.\n\nTrophonius and Agamedes, i. 313.\n\nTrue friendship, of, i. 464-474; ii. 100-134.\n\nTrue happiness, of, v. 392.\n\nTullus Hostilius, v. 455.\n\nTunnies, dim sight of the, v. 204.\n\nTyphon, in Egyptian mythology, iv. 80, 81, 86, 88, 91, 92,\n99, 101, 105, 110, 114, 118, 122.\n\nTyrrhene women, virtue of the, i. 349.\n\nU.\n\nUlysses, i. 160;\nin the island of Circe, v. 218 _et seq._\n\nUnity of God. Of the word \u03b5\u1f30 engraven over the gate of the temple of\nApollo at Delphi, iv. 478-498.\n\nUniverse, whether it is one, iii. 114;\ndivision of the, v. 429.\n\nUnlearned Prince, Discourse to an, iv. 323-330.\n\nUsurers, what sort of men they are, 417.\n\nUsury, evils of, v. 412-424.\n\n\nV.\n\nVacuum, of a, iii. 126;\nthere can be none in nature, iv. 33;\nsuppose there were, it would have no beginning, middle, or end, 34.\n\nValeria and Cloelia, i. 356.\n\nValeria Tusculanaria, v. 464.\n\nValerius Conatus swallowed up alive, v. 455.\n\nVenus\u2019s hands wounded by Diomedes, iii. 441.\n\nVerses seasonably and unseasonably applied, iii. 436.\n\nVice and virtue, ii. 482-485.\n\nVice, whether it is sufficient to render a man unhappy, iv. 499-503.\n\nVines irrigated with wine, iii. 513;\nrank of leaves, iii. 513.\n\nVirtue and vice, ii. 482-485.\n\nVirtue may be taught, i. 78-81.\n\nVirtue or fortune, to which of these was due the greatness and glory of Rome? iv. 198-219.\n\nVirtue, progress in, ii. 446-474.\n\nVirtues of women, i. 340-384.\n\nVision, doctrine of, iii. 168; v. 236 _et seq._\n\nVoice is incorporeal, iii. 172.\n\nVoice, of the, iii. 171.\n\nVowels and semi-vowels, iii. 438.\n\nW.\n\nWater made colder by stones and lead, iii. 348.\n\nWater or fire, which is more useful? v. 331-337.\n\nWater, white and black, iii. 518.\n\nWealth, the love of, ii. 294-305.\n\nWell water, change of the temperature in, iii. 347.\n\nWest wind the swiftest, iii, 515.\n\nWhale, of the, v. 207.\n\nWheat, sow, in clay, iii. 505.\n\nWhether an aged man ought to meddle in state affairs, v. 64-96.\n\nWhether the passions of the soul, or diseases of the body, are worse, iv. 504-508.\n\nWhether \u2019twere rightly said, \u201cLive concealed,\u201d iii. 3-10.\n\nWhether vice is sufficient to render a man unhappy, iv. 499-503.\n\nWhirlwinds, of, iii. 150.\n\nWhy the oracles cease to give answers, iv. 3-64.\n\nWicked, delay of Providence in punishing the, iv. 140-188.\n\nWidows in India, iv. 502.\n\nWild beasts, steps of, iii. 509;\ntheir tracks, 509.\n\nWild boars, tears of the, iii. 507.\n\nWinds, of, iii. 154.\n\nWine, whether it is potentially cold, iii. 272-274;\nstraining of, 351;\nmiddle of, 370;\nsea water upon, 502;\nirrigation with, 513.\n\nWinter and summer, cause of, iii. 141, 154.\n\nWinter, ships in, iii. 500;\nsea least hot in, 501.\n\nWise Men, the Seven, Banquet of, ii. 3-41;\ntheir names, iv. 480.\n\nWoman, of Pergamus, i. 374.\n\nWoman of Thessaly torn in pieces by dogs, v. 463.\n\nWomen, the virtues of, i. 340-384;\nbarrenness in, iii. 181;\nare hardly foxed, 268-270;\ntemper of, 270-272;\ngiven as the price of peace, v. 468.\n\nWord \u03b5\u03b9 at Apollo\u2019s temple at Delphi. iv. 478-498.\n\nWorld, how it was brought into its present order, iii. 113.\n\nWorld, of the, iii. 132;\nfigure of the, 133;\nwhether it be an animal, 133;\nwhether it is eternal and incorruptible, 133;\nits nutriment, 134;\nfrom what element was it raised, 134;\nin what form and order was it composed, 135;\ncause of its inclination, 136;\nthing which is beyond the, 136;\nwhat parts on the right and left hand, 137.\n\nWorlds, plurality of, iv. 29-38.\n\nWrestling, of, iii. 246.\n\nX.\n\nXanthippe, wife of Socrates, anecdotes of, i. 53, 292.\n\nXenaenetus, v. 109.\n\nXenocrates, anecdote of; i. 71, 442;\nhis opinions concerning the soul, ii. 327, 439;\nof triangles, iii. 24, 139, 494;\nhis opinion about daemons, iv. 17, 87;\nsaying of, v. 10, 494.\n\nXenocritus, a composer, i. 110, 380.\n\nXenodamus, a composer, i. 110.\n\nXenophanes, his reply, i. 65, 183;\nhis philosophical opinions, iii. 134, 138, 141, 144, 145, 150,\n    155;\nquoted, ii. 49; iv. 291.\n\nXenophon, quoted, i. 137;\nmaxim of, 281, 333, 447; ii. 115, 144, 178,\n    307;\nthe scene of his old age, iii. 24; v. 67, 72, 121, 139.\n\nXerxes, his saying, i. 39, 187;\nand Arimanes, iii. 59, 60;\ninvasion of Greece, v. 451, 452.\n\nY.\n\nYear, length of, in different planets, iii. 147.\n\nZ.\n\nZaleucus, laws of, ii. 315.\n\nZaratas, ii. 327.\n\nZeno, saying of, i. 56;\nanecdotes of, 72, 142, 283; ii. 321, 365, 455;\nquoted, 467, 481; iii. 25, 113, 125, 128;\nhis definition of virtue, 462;\nanecdote of, iv. 225; v. 382.\n\nZenocrates, v. 288, 377, 441.\n\nZeuxidamus, apothegm of, i. 410.\n\nZeuxippus, dialogue on health, i. 251-279; ii. 157 _et seq._; iv. 270, 278, 288.\n\nZeuxis, reply of, i. 468.\n\nZopyrus Byzantius, his Third Book of Histories, v. 473.\n\nZoroaster, ii. 357; iv. 106.","title":"Plutarch's essays and miscellanies, Vol. 3 (of 5) : $b Comprising all his works collected under the title of \"Morals\"","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":181966}