Lucius Apuleius: De deo Socratis — On the God of Socrates
Lucius Apuleius De deo Socratis
Plato omnem naturam rerum, quod eius ad animalia præcipua pertineat, trifariam divisit censuitque esse summos deos. Summum, medium et infimum fac intellegas non modo loci disclusione verum etiam naturæ dignitate, quæ et ipsa neque uno neque gemino modo sed pluribus cernitur. Ordiri tamen manifestius fuit a loci dispositione. Nam proinde ut maiestas postulabat, diis inmortalibus cælum dicavit, quos quidem deos cælites partim visu usurpamus, alios intellectu vestigamus. Ac visu quidem cernimus
... vos, o clarissima mundi
lumina, labentem cælo quæ ducitis annum;
— Verg. Georg. 1,5-6
nec modo ista præcipua: diei opificem lunamque, solis æmulam, noctis decus, seu corniculata seu dividua seu protumida seu plena sit, varia ignium face, quando longius facessat a sole, tanto largius conlustrata, pari incremento itineris et luminis, mensem suis auctibus ac dehinc paribus dispendiis æstimans; sive illa proprio sed perpeti candore pollens, ut Chaldæi arbitrantur, parte luminis conpos, parte altera cassa fulgoris, pro circumversione oris discoloris multiiuga speciem sui variat, seu tota proprii candoris expers, alienæ lucis indigua, denso corpore sed levi ceu quodam speculo radios solis obstipi vel adversi usurpat et, ut verbis utar Lucreti,
notham iactat de corpore lucem; — Lucr. 5,575.
Plato gives a triple division to the whole nature of things, and especially to that part of it which pertains to animals; and he likewise is of opinion, that there are Gods in the highest, in the middle, and in the lowest place of the universe. Understand, however, that this division is not only derived from local separation, but also from dignity of nature, which is itself distinguished not by one or two, but by many modes. Nevertheless, it will be more manifest to begin from the distribution of place; for this order assigns the heavens to the immortal Gods, conformably to what their majesty demands. And of these celestial Gods, some we apprehend by the sight, but others we investigate by intellect; and by the sight, indeed, we perceive -
... Ye, the world’s most refulgent lights,
Who through the heavens conduct the gliding year.
We do not, however, only perceive by the eyes those principal Gods, the Sun the artificer of the day, and the Moon the emulator of the Sun, and the ornament of night; whether she is cornicular, or divided [i.e. a new quarter], or gibbous, or full; exhibiting a various ignited torch; being more largely illuminated the farther she departs from the Sun; and, by an equal augment both of her path and her light, defining the month through her increments, and after wards by her equal decrements; [for this must be admitted] whether, as the Chaldeans think, she possesses a proper and permanent light of her own, being in one part of herself endued with light, but in another part deprived of splendour, and possessing manifold convolution of her various- coloured face, and thus changes her form; or whether, being wholly deprived of a peculiar light, and requiring extraneous splendour, with a dense body, or with a body polished like a mirror, she receives either the oblique or direct rays of the Sun, and, that I may use the words of Lucretius, [in lib. v.]
... throws from her orb a spurious light.
Utracumque harum vera sententia est nam hoc postea videro, tamen neque de luna neque de sole quisquam Græcus aut barbarus facile cunctaverit deos esse, nec modo istos, ut dixi, verum etiam quinque stellas, quæ vulgo vagæ ab inperitis nuncupantur, quæ tamen indeflexo et certo et stato cursu meatus longe ordinatissimos divinis vicibus æterno efficiunt. Varia quippe curriculi sui specie, sed una semper et æquabili pernicitate, tunc progressus, tunc vero regressus mirabili vicissitudine adsimulant pro situ et flexu et instituto circulorum, quos probe callet qui signorum ortus et obitus conperit. In eodem visibilium deorum numero cetera quoque sidera, qui cum Platone sentis, locato:
Arcturum pluviasque Hyadas geminosque Triones
— Verg. Aen. 3,516
aliosque itidem radiantis deos, quibus cæli chorum comptum et coronatum suda tempestate visimus, pictis noctibus severa gratia, torvo decore, suspicientes in hoc perfectissimo mundi, ut ait Ennius, clipeo miris fulguribus variata cælamina. Est aliud deorum genus, quod natura visibus nostris denegavit, nec non tamen intellectu eos rimabundi contemplamur, acie mentis acrius contemplantes. Quorum in numero sunt illi duodecim (numero) situ nominum in duo versus ab Ennio coartati:
Iuno, Vesta, Minerva, Ceres, Diana, Venus, Mars,
Mercurius, Iovis, Neptunus, Vulcanus, Apollo
— Enn. An. 240-41
ceterique id genus, quorum nomina quidem sunt nostris auribus iam diu cognita, potentiæ vero animis coniectatæ per varias utilitates in vita agenda animadversas in iis rebus, quibus eorum singuli curant.
Whichever of these opinions is true, for this I shall afterwards consider, there is not any Greek, or any barbarian, who will not easily conjecture that the Sun and Moon are Gods; and not these only, as I have said, but also the five stars, which are commonly called by the unlearned erratic, though, by their undeviating, certain, and established motions, they produce by their divine revolutions the most orderly and eternal transitions; by a various form of convolution indeed, but with a celerity perpetually equable and the same, representing, through an admirable vicissitude, at one time progressions, and at another regressions, according to the position, curvature, and obliquity of their circles, which he will know in the best manner, who is skilled in the risings and settings of the stars. You who accord with Plato must also rank in the same number of visible Gods those other stars,
The rainy Hyades, Arcturus, both the Bears: — Æneid book iii
and likewise other radiant Gods, by whom we perceive, in a serene sky, the celestial choir adorned and crowned, when the nights are painted with a severe grace and a stern beauty; beholding, as Ennius says, in this most perfect shield of the world, engravings diversified with admirable splendours. There is another species of Gods, which nature has denied us the power of seeing, and yet we may with astonishment contemplate them through intellect, acutely surveying them with the eye of the mind. In the number of these are those twelve Gods [of the super-celestial or liberated order] which are comprehended by Ennius, with an appropriate arrangement of their names, in two verses:
Juno, Vesta, Minerva, Ceres, Diana, Venus, Mars,
Mercurius, Jovi, Neptunus, Vulcanus, Apollo;
and others of the like kind, whose names indeed have been for a long time known by our ears, but whose powers are conjectured by our minds, being perceived through the various benefits which they impart to us in the affairs of life, in those things over which they severally preside.
Ceterum profana philosophiæ turba inperitorum, vana sanctitudinis, priva veræ rationis, inops religionis, inpos veritatis, scrupulosissimo culto, insolentissimo spretu deos neglegit, pars in superstitione, pars in contemptu timida vel tumida. Hoc namque cunctos deos in sublimi ætheris vertice locatos, ab humana contagione procul discretos plurimi sed non rite venerantur, omnes sed inscie metuunt, pauci sed impie diffitentur. Quos deos Plato existimat naturas incorporalis, animalis, neque fine ullo neque exordio, sed prorsus ac retro æviternas, a corporis contagione suapte netura remotas, ingenio ad summam beatitudinem perfecto, nullius extrarii boni participatione sed ex sese bonas et ad omnia conpetentia sibi promptu facili, simplici, libero, absoluto. Quorum parentem, qui omnium rerum dominator atque auctor est, solutum ab omnibus nexibus patiendi aliquid gerendive, nulla vice ad alicuius rei munia obstrictum, cur ergo nunc dicere exordiar, cum Plato cælesti facundia præditus, æquiperabilia diis inmortalibus disserens, frequentissime prædicet hunc solum maiestatis incredibili quadam nimietate et ineffabili non posse penuria sermonis humani quavis oratione vel modice conprehendi, vix sapientibus viris, cum se vigore animi, quantum licuit, a corpore removerunt, intellectum huius dei, id quoque interdum, velut in artissimis tenebris rapidissimo coruscamine lumen candidum intermicare? Missum igitur hunc locum faciam, in quo non mihi (quidem) tantum, sed ne Platoni quidem meo quiverunt ulla verba pro amplitudine rei suppetere, [f]ac iam rebus mediocritatem meam [in] longe superantibus receptui canam tandemque orationem de cælo in terram devocabo. In qua præcipuum animal homines sumus, quamquam plerique se incuria veræ disciplinæ ita omnibus erroribus ac piacularibus depravaverint, sceleribus inbuerint et prope exesa mansuetudine generis sui inmane efferarint, ut possit videri nullum animal in terris homine postremius. Sed nunc non de errorum disputatione, sed de naturæ distributione disserimus.
The crowd, however, of the ignorant, who are rejected by Philosophy as profane, whose sanctity is vain, who are deprived of right reason, destitute of religion, and incapable of obtaining truth, dishonour the Gods, either by a most scrupulous worship or a most insolent disdain of them; one part being timid through superstition, but another tumid through contempt. Many venerate all these Gods, who are established on the lofty summit of ether, far removed from human contagion; but they venerate them improperly. For all fear them, but ignorantly; and a few deny their existence, but impiously. Plato thought these Gods to be incorporeal and animated natures, without any end or beginning; but eternal both with reference to the time past and the time to come; spontaneously separated from the contagion of body; through a perfect intellect possessing supreme beatitude; good, not through the participation of any extraneous good, but from themselves; and able to procure for themselves every thing which is requisite, with prompt facility, with simple, unrestrained, and absolute power. But of the father of these, who is the lord and author of all things, and who is liberated from all necessity of acting or suffering, not being bound by any duty to the performance of any offices, why should I now begin to speak? Since Plato, who was endued with celestial eloquence, when employing language worthy of the immortal Gods, frequently proclaims that this cause of all things, on account of his incredible and ineffable transcendency, cannot be even moderately comprehended by any definition, through the poverty of human speech; and that the intellectual apprehension of this God can scarcely be obtained by wise men, when they have separated themselves from body, as much as possible, through the vigorous energies of the mind. He also adds, that this knowledge sometimes shines forth with a most rapid coruscation, like a bright and clear light in the most profound darkness. I will therefore omit the discussion of this, in which all words adequate to the amplitude of the thing are not only wanting to me, but could not even be found by my master Plato. Hence, I shall now sound a retreat, in things which far surpass my mediocrity, and at length bring down my discourse from heaven to earth, in which we men are the principal animal, though most of us, through the neglect of good discipline, are so depraved by all errors, so imbued with the most atrocious crimes, and have become so excessively ferocious, through having nearly destroyed the mildness of our nature, that it may seem there is not any animal on the earth viler than man. Our discussion, however, at present is not concerning errors, but concerning the natural distribution of things.
Igitur homines ratione gaudentes, oratione pollentes, inmortalibus animis, moribundis membris, levibus et anxiis mentibus, brutis et obnoxiis corporibus, dissimilis moribus, similibus erroribus, pervicaci audacia, pertinaci spe, casso labore, fortuna caduca, singillatim mortales, cunctim tamen universo genere perpetui, vicissim sufficienda prole mutabiles, volucri tempore, tarda sapientia, cita morte, querula vita, terras incolunt. Habetis interim bina animalia: deos ab hominibus plurimum differentis loci sublimitate, vitæ perpetuitate, naturæ perfectione, nullo inter se propinquo communicatu, cum et habitacula summa ab infimis tanta intercapedo fastigii dispescat et vivacitas illic æterna et indefecta sit, hic caduca et subsiciva, et ingenia illa ad beatitudinem sublimata sint, hæc ad miserias infimata. Quid igitur? Nullone conexu natura se vinxit, sed in divinam et humanam partem partitam se et interruptam ac veluti debilem passa est? Nam, ut idem Plato ait, nullus deus miscetur hominibus, sed hoc præcipuum eorum sublimitatis specimen est, quod nulla adtrectatione nostra contaminantur. Pars eorum tantummodo obtutu hebeti visuntur, ut sidera, de quorum adhuc et magnitudine et coloribus homines ambigunt, ceteri autem solo intellectu neque prompto noscuntur. Quod quidem mirari super diis inmortalibus nequaquam congruerit, cum alioquin et inter homines, qui fortunæ munere opulenti elatus et usque ad regni nutabilem suggestum et pendulum tribunal evectus est, raro aditu sit, longe remotis arbitris in quibusdam dignitatis suæ penetralibus degens. Parit enim conversatio contemptum, raritas conciliat admirationem.
Men, therefore, dwell on the earth, being endued with reason, possessing the power of speech, having immortal souls, but mortal members, light and anxious minds, brutal and infirm bodies, dissimilar manners, but similar errors, pervinacious audacity, pertinacious hope, vain labour, and decaying fortune, severally mortal, yet all of them eternal in their whole species, and mutable in this, that they alternately leave offspring to supply their place; [and besides all this] are conversant with fleeting time, slow wisdom, a rapid death, and a querulous life. In the meanwhile you will have two kinds of animals, Gods very much differing from men, in sublimity of place, in perpetuity of life, in perfection of nature, and having no proximate communication with them; since those supreme are separated from the lowest habitations by such an interval of altitude; and the life there is eternal and never-failing, but is here decaying and interrupted; and the natures there are elevated to beatitude, but those that are here are depressed to calamity. What then? Does nature connect itself by no bond, but leave itself separated into the divine and human part, and suffer itself to be interrupted, and as it were debile? For, as the same Plato says, no God is mingled with men. But this is a principal indication of the sublimity of the Gods, that they are not contaminated by any contact with us [i.e. by any habitude or alliance to our nature.]. One part of them is only to be seen by us with debilitated vision; as the stars, about whose magnitude and colour men are still ambiguous. But the rest are only known by intellect, and not by this with a prompt perception. This, however, must not be considered as an admirable circumstance in the immortal Gods, since even among men, who are elevated by the opulent gifts of Fortune to the tottering throne and pendulous tribunal of a kingdom, the access is rare, in consequence of their living remote from witnesses, in certain penetralia of their dignity: for familiarity produces contempt, but infrequency conciliates admiration. What, therefore, shall I do (some orator may object) after this decision of yours, which is indeed celestial, but inhuman [or foreign from human nature]? This, however, must not be considered as an admirable circumstance in the immortal Gods, since even among men, who are elevated by the opulent gifts of Fortune to the tottering throne and pendulous tribunal of a kingdom, the access is rare, in consequence of their living remote from witnesses, in certain penetralia of their dignity: for familiarity produces contempt, but infrequency conciliates admiration.
Quid igitur, orator, obiecerit aliqui, post istam cælestem quidem sed pæne inhumanam tuam sententiam faciam, si omnino homines a diis inmortalibus procul repelluntur atque ita in hæc terræ tartara relegantur, ut omnis sit illis adversus cælestes deos communio denegata nec quisquam eos e cælitum numero velut pastor vel equiso vel busequa ceu balantium vel hinnientium vel mugientium greges intervisat, qui ferocibus moderetur, morbidis medeatur, egenis opituletur? Nullus, inquis, deus humanis rebus intervenit: cui igitur preces allegabo? Cui votum nuncupabo? Cui victimam cædam? Quem miseris auxiliatorem, quem fautorem bonis, quem adversatorem malis in omni vita ciebo? Quem denique, quod frequentissimum est, iuri iurando arbitrum adhibebo? An ut Vergilianus Ascanius
per caput hoc iuro, per quod pater ante solebat?
— Verg. Aen. 9,300
At enim, o Iule, pater tuus hoc iure iurando uti poterat inter Troianos stirpe cognatos et fortasse an inter Græcos proelio cognitos; at enim inter Rutulos recens cognitos si nemo huic capiti crediderit, quis pro te deus fidem dicet? An ut (se) ferocissimo Mezentio dextra et telum? Quippe hæc sola advenerat, quibus propugnabat:
dextra mihi deus et telum, quod missile libro.
— Verg. Aen. 10,773
Apage sis tam cruentos deos, dextram cædibus fessam telumque sanguine robiginosum: utrumque idoneum non est, propter quod adiures, neve per ista iuretur, cum sit summi deorum hic honor proprius. Nam et ius iurandum Iovis iurandum dicitur, ut ait Ennius. Quid igitur censes? Iurabo per Iovem lapidem Romano vetustissimo ritu? Atque si Platonis vera sententia est, numquam se deum se deum cum homine communicare, facilius me audierit lapis quam Iuppiter.
What, therefore, shall I do (some orator may object) after this decision of yours, which is indeed celestial, but inhuman [or foreign from human nature]? If men are entirely removed far from the immortal Gods, and are so banished into these Tartarean realms of earth that all communication with the celestial Gods is denied to them, nor any one of the number of the celestials occasionally visits them, in the same manner as a shepherd visits his flocks of sheep, or an equerry his horses, or a herdsman his lowing cattle, in order that he may repress the more ferocious, heal the morbid, and assist those that are in want? You say that no God intervenes in human affairs. To whom, therefore, shall I pray? To whom shall I make vows? To whom shall I immolate victims? Whom shall I invoke through the whole of my life, as my helper in misery, as the favourer of the good, and the adversary of the evil? And lastly (which is a thing that most frequently occurs), whom shall I adduce as a witness to my oath? Shall I say, as the Virgilian Ascanius,
Now by this head I swear, by which before My father used to swear,
But, O Iulus, your father might employ this oath among the Trojans, who were allied to him by their origin, and also perhaps among the Greeks, who were known to him in battle; but among the Rutuli, who were recently known by you, if no one believed in this head, what God would be a surety for you? Would your right hand and your dart, as they were to the most ferocious Mezentius? For these only, by which he defended himself, he adjured:
To me my right hand and the missile dart,
Which now well-poised I hurl, are each a God. — Ænied book x
Take away, I beseech you, such sanguinary Gods; a right hand weary with slaughter, and a dart rusty with gore. It is not fit that you should invoke either of these, nor that you should swear by them, since this is an honour peculiar to the highest of the Gods. For a solemn oath, as Ennius says, is also called Jovisjurandum, as pertaining to Jupiter, by whom alone it is proper to swear. What, therefore, do you think? Shall I swear by Jupiter, holding a stone in my hand, after the most ancient manner of the Romans? But if the opinion of Plato is true, that God never mingles himself with man, a stone will hear me more easily than Jupiter.
Non usque adeo responderit enim Plato pro sententia sua mea voce non usque adeo, inquit, seiunctos et alienatos a nobis deos prædico, ut ne vota quidem nostra ad illos arbitrer pervenire. Neque enim illos a cura rerum humanarum, sed contrectatione sola removi. Ceterum sunt quædam divinæ mediæ potestates inter summum æthera et infimas terras in isto intersitæ æris spatio, per quas et desideria nostra et merita ad eos commeant. Hos Græci nomine dæmonas nuncupant, inter terricolas cælicolasque vectores hinc petitiones inde suppetias ceu quidam utri[u]sque interpretes et salutigeri. Per hos eosdem, ut Plato in Symposio autumat, cuncta denuntiata et magorum varia miracula omnesque præsagiorum species reguntur. Eorum quippe de numero præditi curant singuli [eorum], proinde ut est cuique tributa provincia, vel somniis conformandis vel extis fissiculandis vel præpetibus gubernandis vel ostinibus erudiendis vel vatibus inspirandis vel fulminibus iaculandis vel nubibus coruscandis ceterisque adeo, per quæ futura dinoscimus. Quæ cuncta cælestium voluntate et numine et auctoritate, sed dæmonum obsequio et opera et ministerio fieri arbitrandum est.
This, however, is not true: for Plato will answer for his opinion by my voice. I do not, says he, assert that the Gods are separated and alienated from us, so as to think that not even our prayers reach them; for I do not remove them from an attention to, but only from a contact with, human affairs. Moreover, there are certain divine middle powers, situated in this interval of the air, between the highest ether and earth, which is in the lowest place, through whom our desires and our deserts pass to the Gods. These are called by a Greek name daemons, who, being placed between the terrestrial and celestial inhabitants, transmit prayers from the one, and gifts from the other. They likewise carry supplications from the one, and auxiliaries from the other, as certain interpreters and saluters of both. Through these same daemons, as Plato says in the Banquet, all denunciations, the various miracles of enchanters, and all the species of presages, are directed. Prefects, from among the number of these, providentially attend to every thing, according to the province assigned to each; either by the formation of dreams, or causing the fissures in entrails, or governing the flights of some birds, and instructing the songs of others, or by inspiring prophets, or hurling thunder, or producing the coruscations of lightning in the clouds; or causing other things to take place, by which we obtain a knowledge of future events. And it is requisite to think that all these particulars are effected by the will, the power, and authority of the celestial Gods, but by the compliance, operations, and ministrant offices of daemons.
Horum enim munus atque opera atque cura est, ut Hannibali somnia orbitatem oculi commin[ar]entur, flaminio extispicia periculum cladis prædicant, Attio Navio auguria miraculum cotis addicant; item ut nonnullis regni futuri signa præcurrant, ut Tarquinius Priscus aquila obumbretur ad apice, Servius Tullius flamma conluminetur a capite; postremo cuncta hariolorum præsagia, Tuscorum piacula, fulguratorum bidentalia, carmina Sibyllarum. Quæ omnia, ut dixi, mediæ quæpiam potestates inter homines ac deos obeunt. Neque enim pro maiestate deum cælestium fuerit, ut eorum quisquam vel Hannibali somnium fingat vel Flaminio hostiam conruget vel Attio Navio
For it was through the employment, the operations, and the providential attention of these, that dreams predicted to Hannibal the loss of one of his eyes; that the inspection of the viscera previously announced to Flaminius the danger of a great slaughter; and that auguries granted to Accius Navius the miracle of the whetstone. It is also through these that forerunning indications of future empire are imparted to certain persons; as that an eagle covered the head of Tarquinius Priscus, and that a flame illuminated the head of Servius Tullius. And lastly, to these are owing all the presages of diviners, the expiations of the Hetruscans, the enclosure of places struck by lightning, and the verses of the Sibyls; all which, as I have said, are effected by certain powers that are media between men and Gods. For it would not be conformable to the majesty of the celestial Gods, that any one of them should either devise a dream for Hannibal, or snatch the victim from Flaminius, or direct the flight of the bird to Accius Navius, or versify the predictions of the Sibyl, or be willing to snatch the hat from the head of Tarquin, and immediately restore it, or produce a splendid flame from the head of Servius, but not such as would burn him. It is not fit that the supernal Gods should descend to things of this kind. This is the province of the intermediate Gods, who dwell in the regions of the air, which border on the earth, and yet are no less conversant with the confines of the heavens; just as in every part of the world there are animals adapted to the several parts, the volant living in the air, and the gradient on the earth.
Nam cum quattuor sint elementa notissima, veluti quadrifariam natura magnis partibus disterminata, sintque propria animalia terrarum, aquarum, flammarum, Siquidem Aristoteles auctor est in Fornacibus flagrantibus quædam (propria) animalia, pennulis apta volitare totumque ævum suum in igne deversari, cum eo exoriri cumque eo extingui, præterea cum totiuga sidera, ut iam prius dictum est, sursum in æthere, id est in ipso liquidissimo ignis ardore, conpareant, cum hoc solum quartum elementum æris, quod tanto spatio intersitum est, cassum ab omnibus, desertum a cultoribus suis natura pateretur, quin in eo quoque æria animalia gignerentur, ut in igni flammida, in unda fluxa, in terra glebulenta? Nam quidem qui aves æri attribuet, falsum sententiæ meritissimo dixeris, quippe (quæ aves) nulla earum ultra Olympi verticem sublimatur. Qui cum excellentissimus omnium perhibeatur, tamen altitudinem perpendiculo si metiare, ut geometræ autumant, decem stadia altitudo fastigii non æquiperat, cum sit æris agmen inmensum usque ad citiman lunæ helicem, quæ porro ætheris sursum versus exordium est. Quid igitur tanta vis æris, quæ ab humillimis lunæ anfractibus usque ad summum Olympi verticem interiacet? Quid tandem? Vacabitne animalibus suis atque erit ista naturæ pars mortua ac debilis? Immo enim si sedulo advertas, ipsæ quoque aves (per) terrestre animal, non ærium rectius perhibeantur. Enim semper illis victus ommis in terra, ibidem pabulum, ibidem cubile, tantum quod æra proximum terræ volitando transuerberant. Ceterum cum illis fessa sunt remigia pinnarum, terra ceu portus est.
For since there are four most known elements, nature being as it were quadrifariously separated into large parts, and there are animals appropriate to earth and fire; since Aristotle asserts, that certain peculiar animals, furnished with wings, fly in burning furnaces, and pass the whole of their life in fire [see Aristotle, in book v, ch. xix of his History of Animals], rise into existence with it, and together with it are extinguished; and, besides this, since, as we have before said, so many various stars are beheld supernally in ether, i.e. in the most clear flagrancy of fire, - since this is the case, why should nature alone suffer this fourth element, the air, which is so widely extended, to be void of every thing, and destitute of [proper] inhabitants? Are not animals, however, generated in the air; in the same manner as flame-coloured animals are generated in fire, such as are unstable in water, and such as are glebous in earth? For you may most justly say, that his opinion is false, who attributes birds to the air; since no one of them is elevated above the summit of mount Olympus, which, though it is said to be the highest of all mountains, yet the perpendicular altitude of its summit is not equal, according to geometricians, to ten stadia; but there is an immense mass of air, which extends as far as to the nearest spiral gyrations of the moon, from which ether supernally commences. What, therefore, shall we say of such a great abundance of air, which is expanded from the lowest revolutions of the moon, as far as to the highest summit of mount Olympus? Will it be destitute of its appropriate animals, and will this part of nature be without life, and debile? But, if you diligently observe, birds themselves may, with greater rectitude, be said to be terrestrial than a‰rial animals; for the whole of their life is always on the earth; there they procure food, and there they rest; and they only pass through that portion of the air in flying which is proximate to the earth. But, when they are weary with the rowing of their wings, the earth is to them as a port.
Quod si manifestum flagitat ratio debere propria animalia etiam in ære intellegi, superest ut, quæ tandem et cuiusmodi ea sint, disseramus. Igitur terrena nequaquam devergant enim pondere sed nec flammida, ne sursum versus calore rapiantur. Temperanda est ergo nobis pro loci medietate media natura, ut ex regionis ingenio si etiam cultoribus eius ingenium. Cedo igitur mente formemus et gignamus animo id genus corporum texta, quæ neque tam bruta quam terrea neque tam levia quam ætheria, sed quodam modo utrimque seiugata vel enim utrimque commixta sint, sive amolita seu modificata utrisque rei participatione: sed facilius ex utroque quam ex neutro intellegentur. Habeant igitur hæc dæmonum corpora et modicum ponderis, ne ad superna inscendant, et aliquid levitatis, ne ad inferna præcipitentur.
If, therefore, reason evidently requires that proper animals must also be admitted to exist in the air, it remains that we should consider what they are, and what the species is to which they belong. They are then by no means terrene animals; for these verge downwards by their gravity. But neither are they of a fiery nature, lest they should be hastily raised on high by their heat. A certain middle nature, therefore must be fashioned for us, of a temperature adapted to the middle condition of the place, so that the disposition of the inhabitants may be conformable to the quality of the region. Let us then form in our mind and generate bodies, so constituted as neither to be so heavy as terrene, nor so light as ethereal bodies, but after a manner separated from both, or mingled from both, whether they are removed from, or are modified by, the participation of each. They will, however, be more easily conceived, if they are admitted to be mingled from both, than if they are said to be mingled with neither. These bodies of daemons, therefore, will have a little weight, in order that they may not proceed to supernal natures; and they will also have something of levity, in order that they may not be precipitated to the realms beneath.
Quod ne vobis videar poetico ritu incredibilia confingere, dabo primum exemplum huius libratæ medietatis: neque enim procul ab hac corporis subtilitate nubes concretas videmus; quæ si usque adeo leves forent ut ea quæ omnino carent pondere, numquam infra iuga, ut sæpenumero animadvertimus, gravatæ caput editi montis ceu quibusdam curvis torquibus coronarent. Porro si suapte natura spissæ tam graves forent ut nulla illas vegetioris levitatis admixtio subleverat, profecto non secus quam plumbi robus et lapis suopte nisu caducæ terris inliderentur. Nunc enimvero pendulæ et mobiles huc atque illuc vice navium in æris pelago ventis gubernantur, paululum inmutantes proximitate et longinquitate. Quippe si aliquo umore fecundæ sunt, veluti ad fetum edendum deorsus degrassantur. Atque ideo umectiores humilius meant aliquo[nis] agmine, tractu segniore(s), sudis vero sublimior cursus est, cum lanarum velleribus similes aguntur, cano agmine, volatu pernicione. Nonne audis, quid super tonitru Lucretius facundissime disserat?
principio tonitru quatiuntur cærula cæli
propterea quia concurrunt sublime volantes
ætheriæ nubes contra pugnantibus ventis.
— Lucr. 6,96-98
And, that I may not seem to you to devise incredible things, after the manner of the poets, I will give you, in the first place, an example of this equiponderant mediocrity. For we see that the clouds coalesce, in a way not much different from this tenuity of body; and if these were equally as light as those bodies which are entirely without weight, they would never crown the summit of a lofty mountain with, as it were, certain bent chains, being depressed beneath its vertex, as we frequently perceive they do. Moreover, if they were naturally so dense and ponderous that no admixture, of a more active levity, could elevate them, they would certainly strike against the earth, by their own effort, no otherwise than a rude mass of lead and a stone. Now, however, being pendulous and moveable, they are governed in different directions by the winds in the sea of air, in the same manner as ships, suffering some little variation by their proximity and remoteness; for, if they are prolific with the moisture of water, they are depressed downward, as if delivering a foetus into light. And on this account clouds that are more moist descend lower, in a black troop, and with a slower motion; but those that are serene ascend higher, like fleeces of wool, in a white troop, and with a more rapid flight; or have you not heard what Lucretius most eloquently sings concerning thunder [in his sixth book]:
The azure heavens by thunders dire are shook,
Because th’ ethereal clouds, ascending high,
Dash on each other, driven by adverse winds.
Quod si nubes sublime volitant, quibus omnis et exortus est terrenus et retro defluxus in terras, quid tandem censes dæmonum corpora, quæ sunt concretio multo tanta subtilior? Non enim ex hac fæculenta nubecula et umida caligine conglobata, sicuti nubium genus est, sed ex illo purissimo æris liquido et sereno elemento coalita eoque nemini hominum temere visibilia, nisi divinitus speciem sui offerant, quod nulla in illis terrena soliditas locum luminis occuparit, quæ nostris oculis possit obsistere, qua soliditate necessario offensa acies inmoretur, sed fila corporum possident rara et splendida et tenuia usque adeo ut radios omnis nostri tuoris et raritate transmittant et splendore reverberent et subtilitate frustrentur. Hinc est illa Homerica Minerva, quæ mediis coetibus Graium cohibendo Achilli intervenit. Versum Græcum, si paulisper opperiamini, Latine enuntiabo, atque adeo hic sit inpræsentiarum: Minerva igitur, ut dixi, Achilli moderando iussu Iunonis advenit:
soli perspicua est, aliorum nemo tuetur.
— Hom. Il. 1,198
Hinc et illa Vergiliana Iuturna, quæ mediis milibus auxiliabunda fratri conversatur
miscetque viris neque cernitur ulli,
— Verg. Aen. 1,440
prorsus quod Plautinus miles super clipeo suo gloriatur,
præstringens oculorum aciem hostibus.
— Plaut. Mil. 4
But if the clouds fly loftily, all of which originate from, and again flow downward to, the earth, what should you at length think of the bodies of daemons, which are much less dense, and therefore so much more attenuated than clouds? For they are not conglobed from a feculent nebula and a tumid darkness, as the clouds are, but they consist of that most pure, liquid, and serene element of air, and on this account are not easily visible to the human eye, unless they exhibit an image of themselves by divine command. For no terrene solidity occupies in them the place of light, so as to resist our perception, since the energies of our sight, when opposed by opaque solidity, are necessarily retarded; but the frame of their bodies is rare, splendid, and attenuated, so that they pass through the rays of the whole of our sight by their rarity, reverberate them by their splendour, and escape them by their subtlety. From hence is that Homeric Minerva; who was present in the midst of the assembly of the Greeks, for the purpose of repressing the anger of Achilles. If you wait a little, I will enunciate to you, in Latin, the Greek verse [in which this is mentioned by Homer], or rather let it be now given. Minerva, therefore, as I have said, by the command of Juno, was present, in order to restrain the rage of Achilles,
Seen by him only, by the rest unseen. — Iliad i, 198
From hence also is that Juturna in Virgil, who had intercourse with many thousands of men, for the purpose of giving assistance to her brother,
With soldiers mingled, but by none perceived. — Æneid xii
Entirely accomplishing that which the soldier of Plautus boasted of having effected by his shield,
Which dazzled by its light the vision of his foes.
Ac ne ceteros longius persequar, ex hoc ferme dæmonum numero poetæ solent haudquaquam procul a veritate osores et amatores quorundam hominum deos fingere: hos prosperare et evehere, illos contra adversari et adfligere; igitur et misereri et indignari et angi et lætari omnemque humani animi faciem pati, simili motu cordis et salo mentis ad omnes cogitationum æstus fluctuare, quæ omnes turbelæ tempestatesque procul a deorum cælestium tranquillitate, exulant. Cuncti enim cælites semper eodem statu mentis æterna æquabilitate potiuntur, qui numquam illis nec ad dolorem versus nec ad voluptatem finibus suis pellitur nec quoquam a sua perpetua secta ad quempiam subitum habitum demovetur nec alterius vi nam nihil est deo potentius neque suapte natura nam nihil est deo perfectius. Porro autem qui potest videri perfectus fuisse, qui a priore statu ad alium rectiorem statum migrat, cum præsertim nemo sponte capessat nova, nisi quem pænituit priorum? Non potest enim subsequi illa mutata ratio sine præcedentium infirmatione. Quapropter debet deus nullam perpeti vel odii vel amoris temporalem perfunctionem et idcirco nec indignatione nec misericordia contingi, nullo angore contrahi, nulla alacritate gestire, sed ab omnibus animi passionibus liber nec dolere umquam nec aliquando lætari nec aliquid repentinum velle vel nolle.
And that I may not prolixly discuss what remains, poets, from this multitude of daemons, are accustomed, in a way by no means remote from truth, to feign the Gods to be haters and lovers of certain men; and to give prosperity and elevation to these; but on the contrary, to be averse from and afflict those. Hence, they are influenced by pity, are indignant, solicitous, and delighted, and suffer all the mutations of the human soul; and are agitated by all the ebullitions of human thought, with a similar motion of the heart, and tempest of the mind. [According to the ancient theology, the lowest orders of those powers that are the perpetual attendants of the Gods, preserve the characteristics of their leaders, though in a partial and multiplied manner, and are called by their names. Hence, the passions of the subjects of their government are, in fables, proximately referred to these.] All which storms and tempests are far exiled from the tranquillity of the celestial Gods. For all the celestials always enjoy the same state of mind, with an eternal equability: which in them is never driven from its proper seat, either towards pleasure or pain. Nor are they removed by any thing, from their own perpetual energy, to any sudden habitude; neither by any foreign force, because nothing is more powerful than deity; nor of their own accord, because nothing is more perfect than themselves. Moreover, how can he appear to have been perfect, who migrates from a former condition of being to another which is better? Especially since no one spontaneously embraces any thing new, except he despises what he possessed before. For that altered mode of acting cannot take place, without the debilitation of the preceding modes. Hence, it is requisite that God should neither be employed in giving temporal assistance, or be impelled to love; and, therefore, he is neither influenced by indignation nor by pity, nor is disquieted by any anxiety, nor elated by any hilarity; but is liberated from all the passions of the mind, so that he never either grieves or rejoices, nor wills, nor is averse to any thing subitaneous.
Sed et hæc cuncta et id genus cetera dæmonum mediocritati rite congruunt. Sunt enim inter nos ac deos ut loco regionis ita ingenio mentis intersiti, habentes communem cum superis inmortalitatem, cum inferis passionem. Nam proinde ut nos pati possunt omnia animorum placamenta vel incitamenta, ut et ira incitentur et misericordia flectantur et donis invitentur et precibus leniantur et contumeliis exasperentur et honoribus mulceantur aliisque omnibus ad similem nobis modum varient. Quippe, ut fine conprehendam, dæmones sunt genere animalia, ingenio rationabilia, animo passiva, corpore æria, tempore æterna. Ex his quinque, quæ commemoravi, tria a principio eadem quæ nobis sunt, quartum proprium, postremum commune cum diis inmortalibus habent, sed differunt ab his passione. Quæ propterea passiva non absurde, ut arbitror, nominavi, quod sunt iisdem, quibus nos, turbationibus mentis obnoxii.
But all these, and other things of the like kind, properly accord with the middle nature of daemons. [This, however, applies only to the lowest order of daemons.] For as they are media between us and the Gods, in the place of their habitation, so likewise is the nature of their mind; having immortality in common with the Gods, and passion in common with the beings subordinate to themselves. For they are capable, in the same manner as we are, of suffering all the mitigations or incitements of souls; so as to be stimulated by anger, made to incline by pity, allured by gifts, appeased by prayers, exasperated by contumely, soothed by honours, and changed by all other things, in the same way that we are. Indeed, that I may comprehend the nature of them by a definition, daemons are in their genus animals, in their species rational, in mind passive, in body aërial, and in time perpetual. Of these five characteristics which I have mentioned, the three first are the same as those which we possess, the fourth is peculiar to them, and the last is common to them with the immortal Gods, from whom they differ in being obnoxious to passion. Hence, as I think, daemons are not absurdly denominated passive, because they are subject to the same perturbations that we are.
Vnde etiam religionum diversis observationibus et sacrorum variis suppliciis fides inpertienda est, esse nonnullos ex hoc divorum numero, qui nocturnis vel diurnis, promptis vel occultis, lætioribus vel tristioribus hostiis vel cærimoniis vel ritibus gaudeant, uti ægyptia numina ferme plangoribus, Græca plerumque choreis, barbara autem strepitu cymbalistarum et tympanistarum et choraularum. Itidem pro regionibus et cetera in sacris differunt longe varietate: pomparum agmina, mysteriorum silentia, sacerdotum officia, sacrificantium obsequia; item deorum effigiæ et exuviæ, templorum religiones et regiones, hostiarum cruores et colores. Quæ omnia pro cuisque more loci sollemnia et rata sunt, ut plerumque somniis et vaticinationibus et oraculis conperimus sæpenumero indignata numina, si quid in sacris socordia vel superbia neglegatur. Cuius generis mihi exempla adfatim suppetunt, sed adeo celebrata et frequentata sunt ut nemo ea commemorare adortus sit, quin multo plura omiserit quam recensuerit. Idcirco supersedebo inpræsentiarum in his rebus orationem occupare, quæ si non apud omnis certam fidem, at certe penes cunctos notitiam promiscuam possident. Id potius præstiterit Latine dissertare, varias species dæmonum philosophis perhiberi, quo liquidius et plenius de præsagio Socratis deque eius amico numine cognoscatis.
On which account, also, it is requisite to believe in the different observances of religions, and the various supplications employed in sacred rites. There are, likewise, some among this number of Gods who rejoice in victims, or ceremonies or rites, which are nocturnal or diurnal, obvious or occult, more joyful or more sad. Thus the Egyptian deities are almost all of them delighted with lamentations, the Grecian for the most part with choirs, but the Barbarian with the sound produced by cymbals, drums, and pipes. In like manner, other things pertaining to sacred rites differ by a great variety, according to different regions; as, for instance, the crowds of sacred processions, the arcana of mysteries, the offices of priests, and the compliances of those that sacrifice; and farther still, the effigies of the Gods, and the spoils dedicated to them, the religions and situations of temples, and the variety of blood and colour in victims. All which particulars are rightly accomplished, and after the accustomed manner, if they are effected appropriately to the regions to which they belong. Thus from dreams, predictions, and oracles, we have for the most part found that the divinities have been indignant, if any thing in their sacred riles has been neglected through indolence or pride; of which kind of things I have an abundance of examples. They are, however, so celebrated, and so generally known, that no one would attempt to relate them, without omitting much more than he narrated. On this account, I shall desist at present from speaking about these particulars, which if they are not believed by all men, yet certainly a promiscuous knowledge of them is universal. It will be better, therefore, to discuss this in the Latin tongue, viz. that various species of daemons are enumerated by philosophers, in order that you may more clearly and fully understand the nature of the presage of Socrates, and of his familiar daemon.
Nam quodam significatu et animus humanus etiam nunc in corpore situs dæmon nuncupatur:
... diine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?
— Verg. Aen. 9,184-85
Igitur et bona cupido animi bonus deus est. Vnde nonnulli arbitrantur, ut iam prius dictum est, eudæmonas dici beatos, quorum dæmon bonus id est animus virtute perfectus est. Eum nostra lingua, ut ego interpretor, haud sciam an bono, certe quidem meo periculo poteris Genium vocare, quod is deus, qui est animus sui cuique, quamquam sit inmortalis, tamen quodam modo cum homine gignitur, ut eæ preces, quibus Genium et genua precantur, coniunctionem nostram nexumque videantur mihi obtestari, corpus atque animum duobus nominibus conprehendentes, quorum communio et copulatio sumus. Est et secundo significatus species dæmonum animus humanus emeritis stipendiis vitæ corpore suo abiurans. Hunc vetere Latina lingua reperio Lemurem dictitatum. Ex hisce ergo Lemuribus qui posterorum suorum curam sortitus placato et quieto numine domum possidet, Lar dicitur familiaris; qui vero ob adversa vitæ merita nullis (bonis) sedibus incerta vagatione ceu quodam exilio punitur, inane terriculamentum bonis hominibus, ceterum malis noxium, id genus plerique Larvas perhibent. Cum vero incertum est, quæ cuique eorum sortitio evenerit, utrum Lar sit an Larva, nomine Manem deum nuncupant: scilicet et honoris gratia dei vocabulum additum est; quippe tantum eos deos appellant, qui ex eodem numero iuste ac prudenter curriculo vitæ gubernato pro numine postea ab hominibus præditi fanis et cærimoniis vulgo advertuntur, ut in Boeotia Amphiaraus, in Africa Mopsus, in ægypto Osiris, alius alibi gentium, æsculapius ubique.
The human soul, therefore, even when situated in the present body, is called, according to a certain signification, a daemon.
O say, Euryalus, do Gods inspire
In minds this ardour, or does fierce desire
Rule as a God in its possessor’s breast? — Æneid ix
For if this be the case, the upright desire of the soul is a good daemon. Hence, some persons think, as we have before observed, that the blessed are called eudaemones, the daemon of whom is good, i.e. whose mind is perfect in virtue. You may call this daemon in our tongue, according to my interpretation, a Genius, I know not whether rightly, but certainly at my peril; because this God (or daemon), who is the mind of every one, though it is immortal, nevertheless, is after a certain manner generated with man; so that those prayers by which we implore the Genius, and which we employ when we embrace the knees [genua] of those whom we supplicate, appear to me to testify our connection and union; since they comprehend in two words the body and mind; through the communion and copulation of which we exist. There is also another species of daemons, according to a second signification, and this is a human soul, which, after its departure from the present life, does not enter into another body. I find that souls of this kind are called in the ancient Latin tongue Lemures. Of these Lemures, therefore, he who, being allotted the guardianship of his posterity, dwells in a house with an appeased and tranquil power, is called a familiar [or domestic] Lar. But those are for the most part called Larvae, who, having no proper habitation, are punished with an uncertain wandering, as with a certain exile, on account of the evil deeds of their life, and become a vain terror to good, and are noxious to bad men. And when it is uncertain what the allotted condition is of any one of these, they call the God by the name of Manes; the name of God being added for the sake of honour. For they alone call those Gods, who being of the same number of Lemures, and having governed the course of their life justly and prudently, have afterwards been celebrated by men as divinities, and are every where worshipped in temples, and honoured by religious rites; such for instance as Amphiaraus in Boeotia, Mopsus in Africa, Osiris in Egypt, and some other in other nations, but Esculapius every where.
Verum hæc omnis distributio eorum dæmonum fuit, qui quondam in corpore humano fuere. Sunt autem non posteriore numero, præstantiore longe dignitate, superius aliud, augustius genus dæmonum, qui semper a corporis conpedibus et nexibus liberi certis potestatibus curant. Quorum e numero Somnus atque Amor diversam inter se vim possident, Amor vigilandi, Somnus soporandi. Ex hac igitur sublimiore dæmonum copia Plato autumat (singulis) hominibus in vita agenda testes et custodes singulis additos, qui nemini conspicui semper adsint arbitri omnium non modo actorum verum etiam cogitatorum. At ubi vita edita remeandum est, eundem illum, qui nobis præditus fuit, raptare ilico et trahere veluti custodiam suam ad iudicium atque illic in causa dicunda adsistere, si qua commentiatur, redarguere, si qua vera dicat, adseverare, prorsus illius testimonio ferri sententiam. Proinde vos omnes, qui hanc Platonis divinam sententiam me interprete auscultatis, ita animos vestros ad quæcumque agenda vel meditanda formate, ut sciatis nihil homini præ istis custodibus nec intra animum nec foris esse secreti, quin omnia curiose ille participet; omnia visitet, omnia intellegat, in ipsis penitissimis mentibus vice conscientiæ deversetur. Hic, quem dico, privus custos, singularis præfectus, domesticus speculator, proprius curator, intimus cognitor, adsiduus observator, individuus arbiter, inseparabilis testis, malorum inprobator, bonorum probator, si rite animadvertatur, sedulo cognoscatur, religiose colatur, ita ut a Socrate iustitia et innocentia cultus est, in rebus incertis prospector, dubiis præmonitor, periculosis tutator, egenis opitulator, qui tibi queat tum insomniis, tum signis, tum etiam fortasse coram, cum usus postulat, mala averruncare, bona prosperare, humilia sublimare, nutantia fulcire, obscura clarare, secunda regere, adversa corrigere.
All this distribution, however, was of those daemons, who once existed in a human body. But there is another species of daemons, more sublime and venerable, not less numerous, but far superior in dignity, who, being always liberated from the bonds and conjunction of the body, preside over certain powers. In the number of these are Sleep and Love, who possess powers of a different nature; Love, of exciting to wakefulness, but Sleep of lulling to rest. From this more sublime order of daemons, Plato asserts that a peculiar daemon is allotted to every man, who is a witness and a guardian of his conduct in life, who, without being visible to any one, is always present, and who is an arbitrator not only of his deeds, but also of his thoughts. [According to Plato, our guardian daemons belong to that order of daemons, which is arranged under the Gods that preside over the ascent and descent of souls. Olympiodorus in his Commentary on the Phaedo of Plato observes, “that there is one daemon who leads the soul to its judges from the present life; another who is ministrant to the judges, giving completion, as it were, to the sentence which is passed; and a third, who is again allotted the guardianship of life.”] But when, life being finished, the soul returns [to the judges of its conduct], then the daemon who presided over it immediately seizes, and leads it as his charge to judgement and is there present with it while it pleads its cause. Hence, this daemon reprehends it, if it has acted on any false pretence; solemnly confirms what it says, if it asserts any thing that is true; and conformably to its testimony passes sentence. All you, therefore, who hear this divine opinion of Plato, as interpreted by me, so form your minds to whatever you may do, or to whatever may be the subject of your meditation, that you may know there is nothing concealed from those guardians either within the mind, or external to it; but that the daemon who presides over you inquisitively participates of all that concerns you, sees all things, understands all things, and in the place of conscience dwells in the most profound recesses of the mind. For he of whom I speak is a perfect guardian, a singular prefect, a domestic speculator, a proper curator, an intimate inspector, an assiduous observer, an inseparable arbiter, a reprobater of what is evil, an approver of what is good; and if he is legitimately attended to, sedulously known, and religiously worshipped, in the way in which he was reverenced by Socrates with justice and innocence, will be a predictor in things uncertain, a premonitor in things dubious, a defender in things dangerous, and an assistant in want. He will also be able, by dreams, by tokens, and perhaps also manifestly, when the occasion demands it, to avert from you evil, increase your good, raise your depressed, support your falling, illuminate your obscure, govern your prosperous, and correct your adverse circumstances.
Igitur mirum, si Socrates, vir adprime perfectus et Apollinis quoque testimonio sapiens, hunc deum suum cognovit et coluit, ac propterea eius custos prope dicam Lar contubernio familiaris cuncta et arcenda arcuit et præcavenda præcavit et præmonenda præmonuit, sicubi tamen interfectis sapientiæ officiis non consilio sed præsagio indigebat, ut ubi dubitatione clauderet, ibi divinatione consisteret? Multa sunt enim, multa de quibus etiam sapientes viri ad hariolos et oracula cursitent. An non apud Homerum, ut quodam ingenti speculo, clarius cernis hæc duo distributa, seorsus divinationis, seorsus sapientiæ officia? Nam cum duo columina totius exercitus dissident, Agamemnon regno pollens et Achilles bello potens, desideraturque vir facundia laudatus et peritia memoratus, qui Atridæ superbiam sedet, Pelidæ ferociam conpescat atque eos auctoritate advertat, exemplis moneat, oratione permulceat, quis igitur tali in tempore me ad dicendum exhor
It is not therefore wonderful, if Socrates, who was a man exceedingly perfect, and also wise by the testimony of Apollo, should know and worship this his God; and that hence, this his keeper, and nearly, as I may say, his equal, his associate and domestic, should repel from him every thing which ought to be repelled, foresee what ought to be noticed, and pre-admonish him of what ought to be foreknown by him, in those cases in which, human wisdom being no longer of any use, he was in want, not of counsel, but of presage; in order that when he was vacillating through doubt, he might be rendered firm through divination. For there are many things, concerning the development of which even wise men betake themselves to diviners and oracles. Or do you not more clearly perceive in Homer, as in a certain large mirror, these two offices of divination and wisdom distributed apart from each other? For when those two pillars of the whole army were discordant, Agamemnon powerful in empire, and Achilles invincible in battle, a man praised for his eloquence and renowned for his skill was wanting, who might humble the pride of the son of Atreus, and repress the rage of Pelides, and who might engage their attention by his authority, admonish them by examples, and allure them by his words. Who, therefore, at such a time undertook to speak? The Pylian orator, who was courteous in his eloquence, cautious through experience, and venerable by his age; who was known by all to have a body debilitated by time, but a mind flourishing in wisdom, and words abounding with sweetness.
Itidem cum rebus crepis et adflictis speculatores deligendi sunt, qui nocte intempesta castra hostium penetrent, nonne Vlixes cum Diomede deliguntur veluti consilium et auxilium, mens et manus, animus et gladius? Enimvero cum ab Aulide desidibus et obsessis ac tædio abnuentibus difficultas belli et facultas itineris et tranquillitas maris et clementia ventorum per fibrarum notas et alitum vias et serpentium escas exploranda est, tacent nemque mutuo duo illa sapientiæ Graiæ summa cacumina, Ithacensis et Pylius. Calchas autem longe præstabilis hariolari simul alites et altaria et arborem contemplatus est, actutum sua divinatione et tempestates flexit et classem deduxit et decennium prædixit; non secus et in Troiano exercitu cum divinatione res indigent, tacet ille sapiens senatus nec audet aliquid pronuntiare vel Hicetaon vel Lampo vel Clytius, sed omnes silentio auscultant aut ingrata auguria Heleni aut incredita vaticinia Cassandræ. Ad eundem modum Socrates quoque, sicubi locorum aliena sapientiæ officiis consultatio ingruerat, ibi vi dæmonis præsagiri egebat. Verum eius monitis sedulo oboediebat eoque erat deo suo longe acceptior.
In like manner, when in dubious and adverse circumstances, spies are to be chosen, who may penetrate into the camps of the enemy at midnight, are not Ulysses and Diomed selected for this purpose, as counsel and aid; mind and hand, spirit and sword? But when the Greeks, ceasing from hostilities through weariness, and being detained in Aulis, applied themselves to explore the difficulty of the war, the facility of the journey, the tranquillity of the sea, and the clemency of the winds, through the indications of fibres, the food administered by birds, and the paths of serpents then those two supreme summits of Grecian wisdom, Ulysses and Nestor, were mutually silent; but Calchas, who was far more skilful in divination, as soon as he had surveyed the birds, and the altars, and the tree, immediately by his divination appeased the tempests, brought the fleet into the sea, and predicted the ten years’ war. No otherwise also in the Trojan army, when the affairs require divination, that wise senate is silent, nor either Hicetaon, or Lampus, or Clytius, dares to assert any thing; but all of them listen in silence, either to the odious auguries of Helenus, or to the never-to-be- believed predictions of Cassandra. After the same manner Socrates, if at any time consultation foreign from the province of wisdom was requisite, was then governed by the prophetic power of his daemon. But he was sedulously obedient to its admonitions, and on that account was far more acceptable to his God.
Quod autem incepta Socratis quæpiam dæmon ille ferme prohibitum ibat, numquam adhortatum, quodam modo ratio prædicta est. Enim Socrates, utpote vir adprime perfectus, ex sese ad omnia congruentia sibi officia promptus, nullo adhortatore umquam indigebat, at vero prohibitore nonnumquam, si quibus forte conatibus eius periculum suberat, ut monitus præcaveret, omitteret coepta inpræsentiarum, quæ tutius vel postea capesseret vel alia via adoriretur. In huiuscemodi rebus (dixit) vocem quampiam divinitus exortam dicebat audire ita enim apud Platonem, ne quisquam arbitretur omina eum vulgo loquentium captitasse. Quippe etiam semotis arbitris uno cum Phædro extra pomerium sub quodam arboris opaco umbraculo signum illud adnuntium sensit, ne prius transcendet Ilissi amnis modicum fluentum, quam increpitu(m) indignatum Amorem recinendo placasset. Cum præterea, si omina observitaret, aliquando eorum nonnulla etiam hortamenta haberet, ut videmus plerisque usu evenire, qui nimia ominum superstitione non suopte corde sed alterius verbo reguntur ac per angiporta reptantes consilia ex alienis vocibus conligunt et, ut ita dixerim, non animo sed auribus cogitant.
The reason, however, has been after a manner already assigned, why the daemon of Socrates was nearly accustomed to prohibit him from what he was going to undertake, but never exhorted him to the performance of any deed. For Socrates, as being a man of himself exceedingly perfect, and prompt to the performance of all the duties pertaining to him, never was in want of any exhorter; but sometimes required a prohibiter, if danger happened to be latent in any of his undertakings; in order that, being admonished, he might be cautious, and omit for the present his attempt, which he might either more safely resume afterwards, or enter upon in some other way. In things of this kind, he said, “That he heard a certain voice which originated from divinity.” For thus it is narrated by Plato; lest any one should think that Socrates assumed omens from the conversation of men in common. For once also, when he was with Phaedrus, beyond the precinct of the town, under the covering of a certain umbrageous tree, and without any witnesses, he perceived that sign which announced to him that he should not pass over the small current of the river Ilissus, till he had appeased Love, who was indignant at his reprehension of him, by a recantation. To which may be added, that, if he had observed omens, he would sometimes also have received some exhortations from them, as we see frequently happens to many of those, who, through a too superstitious observance of omens, are not directed by their own mind, but by the words of others; and in wandering through the streets, gather counsel from what is said by passengers, and, as I may say, do not think with the understanding, but with the ears.
Verum enimvero, ut ista sunt, certe quidem ominum harioli vocem audiunt sæpenumero auribus suis usurpatam, de qua nihil cunctentur (de qua sciunt) ex ore humano profectam. At enim Socrates non vocem sibi sed „vocem quampiam“ dixit oblatam, quo additamento profecto intellegas non usitatam vocem nec humanam significari. Quæ si foret, frustra „quæpiam“, quin potius aut „vox“ aut certe „cuiuspiam vox“ diceretur, ut ait illa Terentiana meretrix:
audire vocem visa sum modo militis.
— Ter. Eun. 454
Quid vero vocem quampiam dicat audisse, aut nescit unde ea exorta sit, aut in ipsa aliquid addubitat, aut eam quiddam insolitum et arcanum demonstrat habuisse, ita ut Socrates eam, quam sibi (ac) divinitus editam tempestive accidere dicebat. Quod equidem arbitror non modo auribus eum verum etiam oculis signa dæmonis sui usurpasse. Nam frequentius non (præ)vocem sed signum divinum sibi oblatum præ se ferebat. Id signum potest et ipsius dæmonis species fuisse, quam solus Socrates cerneret, ita ut Homericus Achilles Minervam. Credo plerosque vestrum hoc, quod commodum dixi, cunctantius credere et inpendio mirari formam dæmonis Socrati visitatam. At enim (secundum) Pythagoricos contra mirari oppido solitos, si quis se negaret umquam vidisse dæmonem, satis, ut reor, idoneus auctor est Aristoteles. Quod si cuivis potest evenire facultas contemplandi divinam effigiem, cur non adprime potuerit Socrati optingere, quem cuivis amplissimo numini sapientiæ dignitas coæquarat? Nihil est enim deo similius et gratius quam vir animo perfecte bonus, qui hominibus ceteris antecellit, quam ipse a diis immortalibus distat.
Nevertheless, in whatever manner these things may take place, it is certain that those who hear the words of diviners, frequently receive a voice through their ears, concerning the meaning of which they are not at all dubious; and which they know proceeds from a human mouth. But Socrates did not simply say that he heard a voice, but a certain voice, divinely transmitted to him. By which addition, you must understand, that neither a usual nor a human voice is signified; for if it had been a thing of this kind he would not have said a certain voice, but rather either merely a voice, or the voice of some one, as the harlot in Terence says,
I seemed just now to hear a soldier’s voice.
But he who says that he hears a certain voice, is either ignorant from whence that voice originated, or is somewhat dubious concerning it, or shows that it contained something unusual and arcane, as Socrates did in that voice, which he said was transmitted to him opportunity and divinely. And, indeed, I think that he perceived the indication of his daemon, not only with his ears, but also with his eyes; for he frequently asserted that not a voice, but a divine sign, was exhibited to him. That sign might also have been the resemblance of his daemon, which Socrates alone beheld, in the same manner as the Homeric Achilles beheld Minerva. I am of opinion, that the greatest part of you will with difficulty believe what I have now said, and will wonder in the extreme at the form of the daemon which was seen by Socrates alone. But Aristotle, whose authority is, I think, sufficient, asserts, that it was usual with the Pythagoreans very much to admire, if any one denied that he had ever seen a daemon. If, therefore, the power of beholding a divine resemblance may be possessed by any one, why might it not, in an eminent degree, befall Socrates, whom the divinity of wisdom rendered similar to the most excellent divinity? For nothing is more similar and more acceptable to God, than a man intellectually good in perfection, who as much excels other men as he himself is surpassed by the immortal Gods.
Quia potius non quoque Socratis exemplo et commemoratione erigimur ac nos secundo studio philosophiæ [pari similitudini numinum caventes permittimus? De quo quidem nescio qua ratione detrahimur. Et nihil æque miror quam, cum omnes et cupiant optime vivere et sciant non alia re quam animo vivi nec fieri posse quin, ut optime vivas, animus colendus sit, tamen animum suum non colant. At si quis velit acriter cernere, oculi curandi sunt, quibus cernitur; si velis perniciter currere, pedes curandi sunt, quibus curritur; itidem si pugillare valde velis, brachia vegetanda sunt, quibus pugillatur. Similiter in omnibus ceteris membris sua cuique cura pro studio est. Quod cum omnes facile perspiciant, nequeo satis mecum reputare et proinde, ut res est, admirari cur non etiam animum suum ratione excolant. Quæ quidem ratio vivendi omnibus æque necessaria est, non ratio pingendi nec ratio psallendi, quas quivis bonus vir sine ulla animi vituperatione, sine turpitudine, sine rubore contempserit. Nescio ut Ismenias tibiis canere, sed non pudet me tibicinem non esse; nescio ut Apelles coloribus pingere, sed non pudet me non esse significem; itidem in ceteris artibus, ne omnis persequar, licet tibi nescire nec pudeat.
Should not we also rather elevate ourselves by the example and remembrance of Socrates? And should we not deliver ourselves to the felicitous study of a similar philosophy, and pay attention to similar divinities? From which study we are drawn away, though I know not for what reason. Nor is there any thing which excites in me so much wonder, as that all men should desire to live most happily, and should know that they cannot so live in any other way than by cultivating the mind, and yet leave the mind uncultivated. If, however, any one wishes to see acutely, it is requisite that he should pay attention to his eyes through which he sees; if you desire to run with celerity, attention must be paid to the feet, by which you run; and thus also, if you wish to be a powerful pugilist, your arms must be strengthened, through which you engage in this exercise. In a similar manner, in all the other members, attention to each must be paid in the place of study. And, as all men may easily see that this is true, I cannot sufficiently think with myself, and admire, in such a way as the thing deserves to be admired, why they do not also cultivate their mind by [right] reason: for this art of living [i.e. according to right reason] is equally necessary to all men; but this is not the case with the art of painting, nor with the art of singing, which any worthy man may despise, without any mental vituperation, without turpitude, and without a blemish [in his reputation]. I know not how to play on the flute like Ismenias, yet I feel no shame that I am not a piper: I know not how to paint in colours like Apelles, nor to carve like Lysippus, but I am not ashamed that I am neither a painter nor a statuary.
Enimvero dic, sodes: „nescio bene vivere, ut Socrates, ut Plato, ut Pythagoras vixerunt, nec pudet me nescire bene vivere“; numquam hoc dicere audebis. Sed cumprimis mirandum est, quod ea, quæ minime videri volunt nescire, discere tamen neglegunt et eiusdem artis disciplinam simul et ignorantiam detrectant. Igitur cotidiana eorum æra dispungas: invenias in rationibus multa prodige profusa et in semet nihil, in sui dico dæmonis cultum, qui cultus non aliud quam philosophiæ sacramentum est. Plane quidem villas opipare exstruunt et domos ditissime exornant et familias numerosissime conparant. Sed in istis omnibus tanta adfluentia rerum nihil est præterquam ipse dominus pudendum; nec iniuria: cumulata enim habent, quæ sedulo percolunt, ipsi autem horridi, indocti incultique circumeunt. Igitur illa spectes, in quæ patrimonia sua profuderunt: amoenissima et exstructissima et ornatissima deprehendas, villas æmulas urbium conditas, domus vice templorum exornatas, familias numerosissimas et calamistratas, opiparam supellectilem, omnia adfluentia, omnia opulentia, omnia ornata præter ipsum dominum, qui solus Tantali vice in suis divitiis inops, egens, pauper non quidem fluentum illud fugitivum captat et fallacis undæ sitit, sed veræ beatitudinis, id est secundæ vitæ et prudentiæ fortunatissimæ, esurit et sitit. Quippe non intellegit æque divites spectari debere ut equos mercamur.
But say, my friend, I know not how to live with rectitude; as Socrates, as Plato, as Pythagoras lived, and yet I feel no shame that I know not how to live rightly. You will never dare to say this. It is, however, especially admirable in the multitude, that they should neglect to learn those things of which they are by no means desirous of appearing to be ignorant, and reject, at one and the same time, both the discipline and ignorance of the same art. Hence, if you examine their daily conduct, you will find that they are prodigally profuse in other things, but bestow nothing on themselves, I mean, in a proper attention to their daemon, which proper attention is nothing else than the sacrament of philosophy. They build, indeed, magnificent villas, most sumptuously adorn their houses, and procure numerous servants; but in all these, and amidst such great affluence, there is nothing to be ashamed of but the master of this abundance: and deservedly; for they have an accumulation of things to which they are devoted, but they themselves wander about them, unpolished, uncultivated, and ignorant. Hence you will find the forms of those buildings, in which they idly waste their patrimony, to be most pleasing to the view, most exquisitely built, and most elegantly adorned. You will also see villas raised, which emulate cities, houses decorated like temples, most numerous servants, and those with curled locks, costly furniture, every thing exhibiting affluence, opulence, every where, and every thing ornamented, except the master himself, who alone, like Tantalus, being needy and poor in the midst of his riches, does not indeed pant after that fugitive river, nor endeavour to quench his thirst with fallacious water, but hungers and thirsts after true beatitude, i.e. after a genuine, prudent, and most fortunate life.
Neque enim in emendis equis phaleras consideramus et baltei polimina inspicimus et ornatissimæ cervicis divitias contemplamur, si ex auro et argento et gemmis monilia variegata dependent, si plena artis ornamenta capiti et collo circumiacent, si frena cælata, si ephippia fucata, si cingula aurata sunt. Sed istis omnibus exuviis amolitis equum ipsum nudum et solum corpus eius et animum contemplamur, ut sit et ad speciem honestus et ad cursuram vegetus et ad vecturam validus: iam primum in corpore si sit
argutum caput, brevis alvus obesaque terga
luxuriatque toris animosum pectus honesti;
— Verg. Georg. 3,80-81
præterea si duplex agitur per lumbos spina: volo enim non modo perniciter verum etiam molliter pervehat. Similiter igitur et in hominibus contemplandis noli illa aliena æstimare, sed ipsum hominem penitus considera, ipsum ut meum Socratem pauperem specta. Aliena autem voco, quæ parentes pepererunt et quæ fortuna largita est. Quorum nihil laudibus Socratis mei admisceo, nullam generositatem, nullam prosapiam, nullos longos natales, nullas invidiosas divitias. Hæc enim cuncta, ut dico, aliena sunt. Sat Parthaonio gloriæ est, qui talis fuit, ut eius nepotem non puderet. Igitur omnia similiter aliena numeres licebit; „generosus est“: parentes laudas. „Dives est“: non credo fortunæ. Nec magis ista adnumero: „validus est“: ægritudine fatigabitur. „Pernix est“: stabit in senectute. „Formosus est“: exspecta paulisper et non erit. „At enim bonis artibus doctus et adprime est eruditus et, quantum licet homini, sapiens et boni consultus“: tandem aliquando ipsum virum laudas. Hoc enim nec a patre hereditarium est nec a casu pendulum nec a suffragio anniculum nec a corpore caducum nec ab ætate mutabile. Hæc omnia meus Socrates habuit et ideo cetera habere contempsit.
For he does not perceive that it is usual to consider rich men in the same way that we do horses when we buy them; for in purchasing these we do not look to the trappings, nor the decorations of the belt, nor do we contemplate the riches of the most ornamented neck, and examine whether variegated chains, consisting of silver, gold, or gems, depend from it; whether ornaments full of art surround the head and neck; and whether the bridles are carved, the saddles are painted, and the girths are gilt; but, all these spoils being removed, we survey the naked horse itself, and alone direct our attention to his body and his soul, in order that we may be able to ascertain whether his form is good, and whether he is likely to be vigorous in the race, and strong for carriage. And in the first place we consider whether there is in his body,
A head that’s slender, and a belly small,
A back obese, and animated breast
In brawny flesh luxuriant. — Virgil, Georgics iii
And, besides this, whether a twofold spine passes through his loins; for I wish that he may not only carry me swiftly, but also gently. In a similar manner therefore, in surveying men, do not estimate those foreign particulars, but intimately consider the man himself, and behold him poor, as was my Socrates. But I call those things foreign which parents have procreated, and which Fortune has bestowed, none of which do I mingle with the praises of my Socrates; no nobility, no pedigree, no long series of ancestors, no envied riches; for all these, as I say, are foreign. When you say, O son of Prothanius, the glory of him who was this son is this, that he was not a disgrace to his grandson, in like manner you may enumerate every thing of a foreign nature. Is he of noble birth? You praise his parents. Is he rich? I do not trust in Fortune; nor do I rank these, more [than their contraries], among things really good. Is he strong? He will be debilitated by disease. Is he swift in the race? He will arrive at old age. Is he beautiful? Wait a little, and he will not be so. But is he instructed, and very learned in excellent disciplines, and also wise, and skilled in the knowledge of good, as much as it is possible for man to be? Now at length you praise the man himself; for this is neither an hereditary possession from his father, nor depends on Fortune, nor on the annual suffrages of the people, nor is it decaying through body, nor mutable by age. All these my Socrates possessed, and therefore despised the possession of other things.
Quin igitur et tu ad studium sapientiæ accingeris vel properas saltem, ut nihil alienum in laudibus tuis audias, sed ut, qui te volet nobilitare, æque laudet, ut Accius Vlixen laudavit in Philocteta suo, in eius tragoediæ principio:
inclite, parva prodite patria,
nomine celebri claroque potens
pectore, Achivis classibus auctor,
gravis Dardaniis gentibus ultor,
Laërtiade?
— Accii, Trag. Rom. Frag. 520 sqq. Ribb.
Novissime patrem memorat. Ceterum omnes laudes eius viri audisti: nihil inde nec Lærtes sibi nec Anticlia nec Arcisius vindicat: [nec] tota, ut vides, laudis huius propria Vlixi possessio est. Nec aliud te in eodem Vlixe Homerus docet, qui semper ei comitem voluit esse prudentiam, quam poetico ritu Minervam nuncupavit. Igitur hac eadem comite omnia horrenda subiit, omnia adversa superavit. Quippe ea adiutrice Cyclopis specus introiit, sed egressus est; Solis boves vidit, sed abstinuit; ad inferos demeavit et ascendit; eadem sapientia comite Scyllam præternavigavit nec ereptus est; Charybdi consæptus est nec retentus est; Circæ poculum bibit nec mutatus est; ad Lotophagos accessit nec remansit; Sirenas audiit nec accessit.
Why therefore do not you apply yourself to the study of wisdom? Or at least you should earnestly endeavour that you may hear nothing of a foreign nature in your praise; but that he who wishes to ennoble you, may praise you in the same manner as Accius praises Ulysses, in his Philoctetes, in the beginning of that tragedy:
Fam’d hero, in a little island born,
Of celebrated name and powerful mind,
Once to the Grecian ships war’s leading cause,
And to the Dardan race th’ avenger dire,
Son of Laertes.
He mentions his father in the last place. Moreover, you have heard all the praises of that man; but Laertes, Anticlea, and Acrisius, vindicate to themselves nothing from thence; for the whole of this praise, as you see, is a possession peculiarly pertaining to Ulysses. Nor does Homer teach you any thing else in the same Ulysses, by always giving him Wisdom as a companion, whom he poetically calls Minerva. Hence, attended by this, he encounters all horrible dangers, and vanquishes all adverse circumstances. For, assisted by her, he entered the cavern of the Cyclops, but escaped from it; saw the oxen of the Sun, but abstained from them; and descended to the realms beneath, but emerged from them. With the same Wisdom also for his companion, he passed by Scylla, and was not seized by her; was enclosed by Charybdis, yet was not retained by it; drank the cup of Circe, and was not transformed; came to the Lotophagi, yet did not remain with them; and heard the Sirens, yet did not approach to them.
