diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/65478-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/65478-0.txt | 9638 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 9638 deletions
diff --git a/old/65478-0.txt b/old/65478-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 1bf9f51..0000000 --- a/old/65478-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,9638 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of Philosophumena, Volume I, by Hippolytus - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: Philosophumena, Volume I - The Refutation of All Heresies - -Author: Hippolytus - -Translator: George Francis Legge - -Release Date: May 31, 2021 [eBook #65478] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -Produced by: Wouter Franssen and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team - at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images - generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian - Libraries) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PHILOSOPHUMENA, VOLUME I *** - - - - - TRANSLATIONS OF CHRISTIAN LITERATURE - - GENERAL EDITORS: W. J. SPARROW-SIMPSON, D.D., - W. K. LOWTHER CLARKE, B.D. - - SERIES I - GREEK TEXTS - - PHILOSOPHUMENA - OR THE - REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES - - - - - PHILOSOPHUMENA - OR THE - REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES - - FORMERLY ATTRIBUTED TO ORIGEN, BUT - NOW TO HIPPOLYTUS, BISHOP AND - MARTYR, WHO FLOURISHED - ABOUT 220 A.D. - - TRANSLATED FROM THE TEXT OF CRUICE - BY - F. LEGGE, F.S.A. - - VOL. I. - - LONDON - SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING - CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE - NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY - 1921 - - - - - PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY - RICHARD CLAY & SONS, LIMITED, - PARIS GARDEN, STAMFORD ST., S.E. 1, - AND BUNGAY, SUFFOLK. - - - - - CONTENTS - - - PAGE - INTRODUCTION 1-30 - - 1. THE TEXT, ITS DISCOVERY, PUBLICATION AND - EDITIONS 1 - - 2. THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORK 5 - - 3. THE CREDIBILITY OF HIPPOLYTUS 8 - - 4. THE COMPOSITION OF THE WORK 11 - - 5. THE STYLE OF THE WORK 23 - - 6. THE VALUE OF THE WORK 28 - - - BOOK I: THE PHILOSOPHERS 31-64 - - PROÆMIUM 32 - - THALES 35 - - PYTHAGORAS 36 - - EMPEDOCLES 40 - - HERACLITUS 41 - - ANAXIMANDER 42 - - ANAXIMENES 43 - - ANAXAGORAS 44 - - ARCHELAUS 46 - - PARMENIDES 47 - - LEUCIPPUS 48 - - DEMOCRITUS 48 - - XENOPHANES 49 - - ECPHANTUS 50 - - HIPPO 50 - - SOCRATES 51 - - PLATO 51 - - ARISTOTLE 55 - - THE STOICS 57 - - EPICURUS 58 - - THE ACADEMICS 59 - - THE BRACHMANS AMONG THE INDIANS 60 - - THE DRUIDS AMONG THE CELTS 61 - - HESIOD 62 - - - BOOK II ? 65 - - - BOOK III ? 65 - - - BOOK IV: THE DIVINERS AND MAGICIANS 67-117 - - 1. OF ASTROLOGERS 67 - - 2. OF MATHEMATICIANS 83 - - 3. OF DIVINATION BY METOPOSCOPY 87 - - 4. THE MAGICIANS 92 - - 5. RECAPITULATION 103 - - 6. OF DIVINATION BY ASTRONOMY 107 - - 7. OF THE ARITHMETICAL ART 114 - - - BOOK V: THE OPHITE HERESIES 118-180 - - 1. NAASSENES 118 - - 2. PERATÆ 146 - - 3. THE SETHIANI 160 - - 4. JUSTINUS 169 - - - - - PHILOSOPHUMENA - - - - - INTRODUCTION - - - 1. THE TEXT, ITS DISCOVERY, PUBLICATION AND EDITIONS - -The story of the discovery of the book here translated so resembles -a romance as to appear like a flower in the dry and dusty field -of patristic lore. A short treatise called _Philosophumena_, or -“Philosophizings,” had long been known, four early copies of it being -in existence in the Papal and other libraries of Rome, Florence and -Turin. The superscriptions of these texts and a note in the margin of -one of them caused the treatise to be attributed to Origen, and its -_Edito princeps_ is that published in 1701 at Leipzig by Fabricius -with notes by the learned Gronovius. As will be seen later, it is by -itself of no great importance to modern scholars, as it throws no new -light on the history or nature of Greek philosophy, while it is mainly -compiled from some of those epitomes of philosophic opinion current in -the early centuries of our era, of which the works of Diogenes Laertius -and Aetius are the best known. In the year 1840, however, Mynoïdes -Mynas, a learned Greek, was sent by Abel Villemain, then Minister of -Public Instruction in the Government of Louis Philippe, on a voyage of -discovery to the monasteries of Mt. Athos, whence he returned with, -among other things, the MS. of the last seven books contained in these -volumes. This proved on investigation to be Books IV to X inclusive of -the original work of which the text published by Fabricius was Book -I, and therefore left only Books II and III to be accounted for. The -pagination of the MS. shows that the two missing books never formed -part of it; but the author’s remarks at the end of Books I and IX, -and the beginning of Books V and X[1] lead one to conclude that if -they ever existed they must have dealt with the Mysteries and secret -rites of the Egyptians, or rather of the Alexandrian Greeks,[2] -with the theologies and cosmogonies of the Persians and Chaldæans, -and with the magical practices and incantations of the Babylonians. -Deeply interesting as these would have been from the archæological and -anthropological standpoint, we perhaps need not deplore their loss -overmuch. The few references made to them in the remainder of the work -go to show that here too the author had no very profound acquaintance -with, or first-hand knowledge of, his subject, and that the scanty -information that he had succeeded in collecting regarding it was only -thrown in by him as an additional support for his main thesis. This -last, which is steadily kept in view throughout the book, is that the -peculiar tenets and practices of the Gnostics and other heretics of his -time were not derived from any misinterpretation of the Scriptures, -but were a sort of amalgam of those current among the heathen with the -opinions held by the philosophers[3] as to the origin of all things. - -The same reproach of scanty information cannot be brought against the -books discovered by Mynas. Book IV, four pages at the beginning of -which have perished, deals with the arts of divination as practised by -the arithmomancers, astrologers, magicians and other charlatans who -infested Rome in the first three centuries of our era; and the author’s -account, which the corruption of the text makes rather difficult to -follow, yet gives us a new and unexpected insight into the impostures -and juggleries by which they managed to bewilder their dupes. Books V -to IX deal in detail with the opinions of the heretics themselves, and -differ from the accounts of earlier heresiologists by quoting at some -length from the once extensive Gnostic literature, of which well-nigh -the whole has been lost to us.[4] Thus, our author gives us excerpts -from a work called the _Great Announcement_, attributed by him to Simon -Magus, from another called _Proastii_ used by the sect of the Peratæ, -from the _Paraphrase of Seth_ in favour with the Sethiani, from the -_Baruch_ of one Justinus, a heresiarch hitherto unknown to us, and from -a work by an anonymous writer belonging to the Naassenes or Ophites, -which is mainly a Gnostic explanation of the hymns used in the worship -of Cybele.[5] Besides these, there are long extracts from Basilidian -and Valentinian works which may be by the founders of those sects, and -which certainly give us a more extended insight into their doctrines -than we before possessed; while Book X contains what purports to be a -summary of the whole work. - -This, however, does not exhaust the new information put at our disposal -by Mynas’ discovery. In the course of an account of the heresy of -Noetus, who refused to admit any difference between the First and -Second Persons of the Trinity, our author suddenly develops a violent -attack on one Callistus, a high officer of the Church, whom he -describes as a runaway slave who had made away with his master’s money, -had stolen that deposited with him by widows and others belonging to -the Church, and had been condemned to the mines by the Prefect of -the City, to be released only by the grace of Commodus’ concubine, -Marcia.[6] He further accuses Callistus of leaning towards the heresy -of Noetus, and of encouraging laxity of manners in the Church by -permitting the marriage and re-marriage of bishops and priests, and -concubinage among the unmarried women. The heaviness of this charge -lies in the fact that this Callistus can hardly be any other than -the Saint and Martyr of that name, who succeeded Zephyrinus in the -Chair of St. Peter about the year 218, and whose name is familiar -to all visitors to modern Rome from the cemetery which still bears -it, and over which the work before us says he had been set by his -predecessor.[7] The explanation of these charges will be discussed when -we consider the authorship of the book, but for the present it may be -noticed that they throw an entirely unexpected light upon the inner -history of the Primitive Church. - -These facts, however, were not immediately patent. The MS., written as -appears from the colophon by one Michael in an extremely crabbed hand -of the fourteenth century, is full of erasures and interlineations, -and has several serious lacunæ.[8] Hence it would probably have -remained unnoticed in the Bibliothèque Royale of Paris to which it was -consigned, had it not there met the eye of Bénigne Emmanuel Miller, a -French scholar and archæologist who had devoted his life to the study -and decipherment of ancient Greek MSS. By his care and the generosity -of the University Press, the MS. was transcribed and published in -1851 at Oxford, but without either Introduction or explanatory notes, -although the suggested emendations in the text were all carefully -noted at the foot of every page.[9] These omissions were repaired -by the German scholars F. G. Schneidewin and Ludwig Duncker, who in -1856-1859 published at Göttingen an amended text with full critical -and explanatory notes, and a Latin version.[10] The completion of this -publication was delayed by the death of Schneidewin, which occurred -before he had time to go further than Book VII, and was followed by the -appearance at Paris in 1860 of a similar text and translation by the -Abbé Cruice, then Rector of a college at Rome, who had given, as he -tells us in his _Prolegomena_, many years to the study of the work.[11] -As his edition embodies all the best features of that of Duncker and -Schneidewin, together with the fruits of much good and careful work of -his own, and a Latin version incomparably superior in clearness and -terseness to the German editors’, it is the one mainly used in the -following pages. An English translation by the Rev. J. H. Macmahon, the -translator for Bohn’s series of a great part of the works of Aristotle, -also appeared in 1868 in Messrs. Clark’s _Ante-Nicene Library_. Little -fault can be found with it on the score of verbal accuracy; but fifty -years ago the relics of Gnosticism had not received the attention that -has since been bestowed upon them, and the translator, perhaps in -consequence, did little to help the general reader to an understanding -of the author’s meaning. - - - 2. THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORK - -Even before Mynas’ discovery, doubts had been cast on the attribution -of the _Philosophumena_ to Origen. The fact that the author in his -_Proæmium_ speaks of himself as a successor of the Apostles, a sharer -in the grace of high priesthood, and a guardian of the Church,[12] had -already led several learned writers in the eighteenth century to point -out that Origen, who was never even a bishop, could not possibly be the -author, and Epiphanius, Didymus of Alexandria, and Aetius were among -the names to which it was assigned. Immediately upon the publication -of Miller’s text, this controversy was revived, and naturally became -coloured by the religious and political opinions of its protagonists. -Jacobi in a German theological journal was the first to declare that it -must have been written by Hippolytus, a contemporary of Callistus,[13] -and this proved to be like the letting out of waters. The dogma of -Papal Infallibility was already in the air, and the opportunity was at -once seized by the Baron von Bunsen, then Prussian Ambassador at the -Court of St. James’, to do what he could to defeat its promulgation. In -his _Hippolytus and his Age_ (1852), he asserted his belief in Jacobi’s -theory, and drew from the abuse of Callistus in Book IX of the newly -discovered text, the conclusion that even in the third century the -Primacy of the Bishops of Rome was effectively denied. The celebrated -Christopher Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln, followed with a scholarly -study in which, while rejecting von Bunsen’s conclusion, he admitted -his main premises; and Dr. Döllinger, who was later to prove the chief -opponent of Papal claims, appeared a little later with a work on the -same side. Against these were to be found none who ventured to defend -the supposed authorship of Origen, but many who did not believe that -the work was rightly attributed to Hippolytus. Among the Germans, -Fessler and Baur pronounced for Caius, a presbyter to whom Photius -in the ninth century gave the curious title of “Bishop of Gentiles,” -as author; of the Italians, de Rossi assigned it to Tertullian -and Armellini to Novatian; of the French, the Abbé Jallabert in a -doctoral thesis voted for Tertullian; while Cruice, who was afterwards -to translate the work, thought its author must be either Caius or -Tertullian.[14] Fortunately there is now no reason to re-open the -controversy, which one may conclude has come to an end by the death of -Lipsius, the last serious opponent of the Hippolytan authorship. Mgr. -Duchesne, who may in such a matter be supposed to speak with the voice -of the majority of the learned of his own communion, in his _Histoire -Ancienne de l’Église_[15] accepts the view that Hippolytus was the -author of the _Philosophumena_, and thinks that he became reconciled -to the Church under the persecution of Maximin.[16] We may, therefore, -take it that Hippolytus’ authorship is now admitted on all sides. - -A few words must be said as to what is known of this Hippolytus. A -Saint and Martyr of that name appears in the Roman Calendar, and a -seated statue of him was discovered in Rome in the sixteenth century -inscribed on the back of the chair with a list of works, one of which -is claimed in our text as written by its author.[17] He is first -mentioned by Eusebius, who describes him as the “Bishop of another -Church” than that of Bostra, of which he has been speaking;[18] -then by Theodoret, who calls him the “holy Hippolytus, bishop and -martyr”;[19] and finally by Prudentius, who says that he became a -Novatianist, but on his way to martyrdom returned to the bosom of -the Church and entreated his followers to do the same.[20] We have -many writings, mostly fragmentary, attributed to him, including among -others one on the Paschal cycle which is referred to on the statue -just mentioned, a tract against Noetus used later by Epiphanius, and -others on Antichrist, Daniel, and the Apocalypse, all of which show -a markedly chiliastic tendency. In the MSS. in which some of these -occur, he is spoken of as “Bishop of Rome,” and this seems to have been -his usual title among Greek writers, although he is in other places -called “Archbishop,” and by other titles. From these and other facts, -Döllinger comes to the conclusion that he was really an anti-pope -or schismatic bishop who set himself up against the authority of -Callistus, and this, too, is accepted by Mgr. Duchesne, who agrees -with Döllinger that the schism created by him lasted through the -primacies of Callistus’ successors, Urbanus and Pontianus, and only -ceased when this last was exiled together with Hippolytus to the mines -of Sardinia.[21] Though the evidence on which this is based is not -very strong, it is a very reasonable account of the whole matter; -and it becomes more probable if we choose to believe--for which, -however, there is no distinct evidence--that Hippolytus was the head -of the Greek-speaking community of Christians at Rome, while his enemy -Callistus presided over the more numerous Latins. In that case, the -schism would be more likely to be forgotten in time of persecution, -and would have less chance of survival than the more serious ones of -a later age; while it would satisfactorily account for the conduct of -the Imperial authorities in sending the heads of both communities into -penal servitude at the same time. By doing so, Maximin or his pagan -advisers doubtless considered they were dealing the yet adolescent -Church a double blow. - - - 3. THE CREDIBILITY OF HIPPOLYTUS - -Assuming, then, that our author was Hippolytus, schismatic Bishop -of Rome from about 218 to 235, we must next see what faith is to be -attached to his statements. This question was first raised by the -late Dr. George Salmon, Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, who was -throughout his life a zealous student of Gnosticism and of the history -of the Church during the early centuries. While working through -our text he was so struck by the repetition in the account of four -different sects of the simile about the magnet drawing iron to itself -and the amber the straws, as to excogitate a theory that Hippolytus -must have been imposed upon by a forger who had sold him a number of -documents purporting to be the secret books of the heretics, but in -reality written by the forger himself.[22] This theory was afterwards -adopted by the late Heinrich Stähelin, who published a treatise -in which he attempted to show in the laborious German way, by a -comparison of nearly all the different passages in it which present -any similarity of diction, that the whole document was suspect.[23] -The different passages on which he relies will be dealt with in the -notes as they occur, and it may be sufficient to mention here the -opinion of M. Eugène de Faye, the latest writer on the point, that the -theory of Salmon and Stähelin goes a long way beyond the facts.[24] -As M. de Faye points out, the different documents quoted in the work -differ so greatly from one another both in style and contents, that -to have invented or concocted them would have required a forger of -almost superhuman skill and learning. To which it may be added that -the mere repetition of the phrases that Stähelin has collated with -such diligence would be the very thing that the least skilful forger -would most studiously avoid, and that it could hardly fail to put -the most credulous purchaser on his guard. It is also the case that -some at least of the phrases of whose repetition Salmon and Stähelin -complain can be shown to have come, not from the Gnostic author quoted, -but from Hippolytus himself, and that others are to be found in the -Gnostic works which have come down to us in Coptic dress.[25] These -Coptic documents, as the present writer has shown elsewhere,[26] are -so intimately linked together that all must be taken to have issued -from the same school. They could not have been known to Hippolytus or -he would certainly have quoted them in the work before us; nor to the -supposed forger, or he would have made greater use of them. We must, -therefore, suppose that, in the passages which they and our text have -in common, both they and it are drawing from a common source which can -hardly be anything else than the genuine writings of earlier heretics. -We must, therefore, agree with M. de Faye that the Salmon-Stähelin -theory of forgery must be rejected. - -If, however, we turn from this to such statements of Hippolytus as -we can check from other sources, we find many reasons for doubting -not indeed the good faith of him or his informants, but the accuracy -of one or other of them. Thus, in his account of the tenets of the -philosophers, he repeatedly alters or misunderstands his authorities, -as when he says that Thales supposed water to be the end as it had -been the beginning of the Universe,[27] or that “Zaratas,” as he calls -Zoroaster, said that light was the father and darkness the mother of -beings,[28] which statements are directly at variance with what we -know otherwise of the opinions of these teachers. So, too, in Book I, -he makes Empedocles say that all things consist of fire, and will be -resolved into fire, while in Book VII, he says that Empedocles declared -the elements of the cosmos to be six in number, whereof fire, one -of the two instruments which alter and arrange it, is only one.[29] -Again, in Book IX, he says that he has already expounded the opinions -of Heraclitus, and then sets to work to describe as his a perfectly -different set of tenets from that which he has assigned to him in Book -I; while in Book X he ascribes to Heraclitus yet another opinion.[30] -Or we may take as an example the system of arithmomancy or divination -by the “Pythagorean number” whereby, he says, its professors claim to -predict the winner of a contest by juggling with the numerical values -of the letters in the competitors’ names, and then gives instances, -some of which do and others do not work out according to the rule -he lays down. So, too, in his unacknowledged quotations from Sextus -Empiricus, he so garbles his text as to make it unintelligible to us -were we not able to restore it from Sextus’ own words. So, again, in -his account of the sleight-of-hand and other stage tricks, whereby he -says, no doubt with truth, the magicians used to deceive those who -consulted them, his account is so carelessly written or copied that -it is only by means of much reading between the lines that it can -be understood, and even then it recounts many more marvels than it -explains.[31] Some of this inaccuracy may possibly be due to mistakes -in copying and re-copying by scribes who did not understand what they -were writing; but when all is said there is left a sum of blunders -which can only be attributed to great carelessness on the part of the -author. Yet, as if to show that he could take pains if he liked, the -quotations from Scripture are on the whole correctly transcribed and -show very few variations from the received versions. Consequently when -such variations do occur (they are noted later whenever met with), we -must suppose them to be not the work of Hippolytus, but of the heretics -from whom he quotes, who must, therefore, have taken liberties with -the New Testament similar to those of Marcion. Where, also, he copies -Irenæus with or without acknowledgment, his copy is extremely faithful, -and agrees with the Latin version of the model more closely than the -Greek of Epiphanius. It would seem, therefore, that our author’s -statements, although in no sense unworthy of belief, yet require -in many cases strict examination before they can be unhesitatingly -accepted.[32] - - - 4. THE COMPOSITION OF THE WORK - -In these circumstances, and in view of the manifest discrepancies -between statements in the earlier part of the text and what purports to -be their repetition in the later, the question has naturally arisen as -to whether the document before us was written for publication in its -present form. It is never referred to or quoted by name by any later -author, and although the argument from silence has generally proved -a broken reed in such cases, there are here some circumstances which -seem to give it unusual strength. It was certainly no reluctance to -call in evidence the work of a schismatic or heretical writer which -led to the work being ignored, for Epiphanius, a century and a half -later, classes Hippolytus with Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria as one -from whose writings he has obtained information,[33] and Theodoret, -while making use still later of certain passages which coincide with -great closeness with some in Book X of our text,[34] admits, as has -been said, Hippolytus’ claim to both episcopacy and martyrdom. But the -passages in Theodoret which seem to show borrowing from Hippolytus, -although possibly, are not necessarily from the work before us. The -author of this tells us in Book I that he has “aforetime”[35] expounded -the tenets of the heretics “within measure,” and without revealing all -their mysteries, and it might, therefore, be from some such earlier -work that both Epiphanius and Theodoret have borrowed. Some writers, -including Salmon,[36] have thought that this earlier work of our author -is to be found in the anonymous tractate _Adversus Omnes Hæreses_ -usually appended to Tertullian’s works.[37] Yet this tractate, which is -extremely short, contains nothing that can be twisted into the words -common to our text and to Theodoret, and we might, therefore, assert -with confidence that it was from our text that Theodoret copied them -but for the fact that he nowhere indicates their origin. This might be -only another case of the unacknowledged borrowing much in fashion in -his time, were it not that Theodoret has already spoken of Hippolytus -in the eulogistic terms quoted above, and would therefore, one would -think, have been glad to give as his informant such respectable -authority. As he did not do so, we may perhaps accept the conclusion -drawn by Cruice with much skill in a study published shortly after the -appearance of Miller’s text,[38] and say with him that Theodoret did -not know that the passages in question were to be found in any work of -Hippolytus. In this case, as the statements in Book IX forbid us to -suppose that our text was published anonymously or pseudonymously, the -natural inference is that both Hippolytus and Theodoret drew from a -common source. - -What this source was likely to have been there can be little doubt. -Our author speaks more than once of “the blessed elder Irenæus,” who -has, he says, refuted the heretic Marcus with much vigour, and he -implies that the energy and power displayed by Irenæus in such matters -have shortened his own work with regard to the Valentinian school -generally.[39] Photius, also, writing as has been said in the ninth -century, mentions a work of Hippolytus against heresies admittedly -owing much to Irenæus’ instruction. The passage runs thus:-- - - “A booklet of Hippolytus has been read. Now Hippolytus was a - disciple of Irenæus. But it (i. e. the booklet) was the compilation - against 32 heresies making (the) Dositheans the beginning (of them) - and comprising (those) up to Noetus and the Noetians. And he says - that these heresies were subjected to refutations by Irenæus in - conversation[40] (or in lectures). Of which refutations making also - a synopsis, he says he compiled this book. The phrasing however is - clear, reverent and unaffected, although he does not observe the Attic - style. But he says some other things lacking in accuracy, and that the - Epistle to the Hebrews was not by the Apostle Paul.” - -These words have been held by Salmon and others to describe the -tractate _Adversus Omnes Hæreses_. Yet this tractate contains not -thirty-two heresies, but twenty-seven, and begins with Simon Magus to -end with the Praxeas against whom Tertullian wrote. It also notices -another heretic named Blastus, who, like Praxeas, is mentioned neither -by Irenæus nor by our author, nor does it say anything about Noetus or -the Apostle Paul. It does indeed mention at the outset “Dositheus the -Samaritan,” but only to say that the author proposes to keep silence -concerning both him and the Jews, and “to turn to those who have wished -to make heresy from the Gospel,” the very first of whom, he says, is -Simon Magus.[41] As for refutations, the tractate contains nothing -resembling one, which has forced the supporters of the theory to assume -that they were omitted for brevity’s sake. Nor does it in the least -agree with our text in its description of the tenets and practices of -heresies which the two documents treat of in common, such as Simon, -Basilides, the Sethiani and others, and the differences are too great -to be accounted for by supposing that the author of the later text was -merely incorporating in it newer information.[42] - -On the other hand, Photius’ description agrees fairly well with our -text, which contains thirty-one heresies all told, or thirty-two if we -include, as the author asks us to do, that imputed by him to Callistus. -Of these, that of Noetus is the twenty-eighth, and is followed by those -of the Elchesaites, Essenes, Pharisees and Sadducees only. These four -last are all much earlier in date than any mentioned in the rest of the -work, and three of them appeared to the author of the tractate last -quoted as not heresies at all, while the fourth is not described by -him, and there is no reason immediately apparent why in any case they -should be put after and not before the post-Christian ones. The early -part of the summary of Jewish beliefs in Book X is torn away, and may -have contained a notice of Dositheus, whose name occurs in Eusebius and -other writers,[43] as a predecessor of Simon Magus and one who did not -believe in the inspiration of the Jewish Prophets. The natural place -in chronological order for these Jewish and Samaritan sects would, -therefore, be at the head rather than at the tail of the list, and if -we may venture to put them there and to restore to the catalogue the -name of Dositheus, we should have our thirty-two heresies, beginning -with Dositheus and ending with Noetus. We will return later to the -reason why Photius should call our text a Biblidarion or “booklet.” - -Are there now any reasons for thinking that our text is founded on -such a synopsis of lectures as Photius says Hippolytus made? A fairly -cogent one is the inconvenient and awkward division of the books, which -often seem as if they had been arranged to occupy equal periods of time -in delivery. Another is the unnecessary and tedious introductions and -recapitulations with which the descriptions of particular philosophies, -charlatanic practices, and heresies begin and end, and which seem as -if they were only put in for the sake of arresting or holding the -attention of an audience addressed verbally. Thus, in the account of -Simon Magus’ heresy, our author begins with a long-winded story of -a Libyan who taught parrots to proclaim his own divinity, the only -bearing of which upon the story of Simon is that Hippolytus asserts, -like Justin Martyr, that Simon wished his followers to take him for -the Supreme Being.[44] So, too, he begins the succeeding book with the -age-worn tale of Ulysses and the Sirens[45] by way of introduction to -the tenets of Basilides, with which it has no connection whatever. -This was evidently intended to attract the attention of an audience so -as to induce them to give more heed to the somewhat intricate details -which follow. In other cases, he puts at the beginning or end of a -book a more or less detailed summary of those which preceded it, lest, -as he states in one instance, his hearers should have forgotten what -he has before said.[46] These are the usual artifices of a lecturer, -but a more salient example is perhaps those ends of chapters giving -indications of what is to follow immediately, which can hardly be -anything else than announcements in advance of the subject of the next -lecture. Thus, at the end of Book I, he promises to explain the mystic -rites[47]--a promise which is for us unfulfilled in the absence of -Books II and III; at the end of Book IV, he tells us that he will deal -with the disciples of Simon and Valentinus[48]; at that of Book VII, -that he will do the same with the Docetæ[49]; and at that of Book VIII -that he will “pass on” to the heresy of Noetus.[50] In none of these -cases does he more than mention the first of the heresies to be treated -of in the succeeding book, which the reader could find out for himself -by turning over the page, or rather by casting his eye a little further -down the roll. - -Again, there are repetitions in our text excusable in a lecturer who -does not, if he is wise, expect his hearers to have at their fingers’ -ends all that he has said in former lectures, and who may even find -that he can best root things in their memory by saying them over and -over again; but quite unpardonable in a writer who can refer his -readers more profitably to his former statements. Yet, we find our -author in Book I giving us the supposed teaching of Pythagoras as to -the monad being a male member, the dyad a female and so on up to the -decad, which is supposed to be perfect.[51] This is gone through all -over again in Book IV with reference to the art of arithmetic[52] -and again in Book VI where it is made a sort of shoeing-horn to the -Valentinian heresy[53]. The same may be said of the “Categories” or -accidents of substance which Hippolytus in one place attributes to -Pythagoras, but which are identical with those set out by Aristotle -in the _Organon_. He gives them rightly to Aristotle in Book I, but -makes them the invention of the Pythagoreans in Book VI only to return -them to Aristotle in Book VII.[54] Here again is a mistake such as a -lecturer might make by a slip of the tongue, but not a writer with any -pretensions to care or seriousness. - -Beyond this, there is some little direct evidence of a lecture origin -for our text. In his comments on the system of Justinus, which he -connects with the Ophites, our author says: “Though I have met with -many heresies, O beloved, I have met with none viler in evil than -this.” The word “beloved” is here in the plural, and would be the -phrase used by a Greek-speaking person in a lecture to a class or group -of disciples or catechumens.[55] I do not think there is any instance -of its use in a _book_. In another place he says that his “discourse” -has proved useful, not only for refuting heretics, but for combating -the prevalent belief in astrology;[56] and although the word might be -employed by other authors with regard to writings, yet it is not likely -to have been used in that sense by Hippolytus, who everywhere possible -refers to his former “books.” There is, therefore, a good deal of -reason for supposing that some part of this work first saw the light as -spoken and not as written words. - -What this part is may be difficult to define with great exactness; -but there are abundant signs that the work as we have it was not -written all at one time. In Book I, the author expresses his intention -of assigning every heresy to the speculations of some particular -philosopher or philosophic school.[57] So far from doing so, however, -he only compares Valentinus with Pythagoras and Plato, Basilides -with Aristotle, Cerdo and Marcion with Empedocles, Hermogenes with -Socrates, and Noetus with Heraclitus, leaving all the Ophite teachers, -Satornilus, Carpocrates, Cerinthus and other founders of schools -without a single philosopher attached to them. At the end of Book -IV, moreover, he draws attention more than once to certain supposed -resemblances in the views linked with the name of Pythagoras, to those -underlying the nomenclature of the Simonian and Valentinian heresies, -and concludes with the words that he must proceed to the doctrines of -these last.[58] Before he does so, however, Book V is interposed and -is entirely taken up with the Ophites, or worshippers of the Serpent, -to whom he does not attempt to assign a philosophic origin. In Book -VI he carries out his promise in Book IV by going at length into the -doctrines of Simon, Valentinus and the followers of this last, and -in Book VII he takes us in like manner through those of Basilides, -Menander, Marcion and his successors, Carpocrates, Cerinthus and many -others of the less-known heresiarchs. Book VIII deals in the same way -with a sect that he calls the Docetæ, Monoimus the Arabian, Tatian, -Hermogenes and some others. In the case of the Ophite teachers, Simon, -and Basilides, he gives us, as has been said, extracts from documents -which are entirely new to us, and were certainly not used by Irenæus, -while he adds to the list of heresies described by his predecessor, -the sects of the Docetæ, Monoimus and the Quartodecimans. In all the -other heresies so far, he follows Irenæus’ account almost word for -word, and with such closeness as enables us to restore in great part -the missing Greek text of that Father. With Book IX, however, there -comes a change. Mindful of the intention expressed in Book I, he here -begins with a summary of the teaching of Heraclitus the Obscure, which -no one has yet professed to understand, and then sets to work to -deduce from it the heresy of Noetus. This gives him the opportunity -for the virulent attack on his rival Callistus, to whom he ascribes a -modification of Noetus’ heresy, and he next, as has been said, plunges -into a description of the sect of the Elchesaites, then only lately -come to Rome, and quotes from Josephus without acknowledgment and with -some garbling the account by this last of the division of the Jews into -the three sects of Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes. Noetus’ heresy -was what was known as Patripassian, from its involving the admission -that the Father suffered upon the Cross, and although he manages to see -Gnostic elements in that of the Elchesaites, there can be little doubt -that these last-named “heretics,” whose main tenet was the prescription -of frequent baptism for all sins and diseases, were connected with the -pre-Christian sect of Hemerobaptists, Mogtasilah or “Washers” who are -at once pre-Christian, and still to be found near the Tigris between -Baghdad and Basra. Why he should have added to these the doctrines of -the Jews is uncertain, as the obvious place for this would have been, -as has been said, at the beginning of the volume:[59] but a possible -explanation is that he was here resuming a course of instruction by -lectures that he had before abandoned, and was therefore in some sort -obliged to spin it out to a certain length. - -Book X seems at first sight likely to solve many of the questions -which every reader who has got so far is compelled to ask. It begins, -in accordance with the habit just noted, with the statement that the -author has now worked through “the Labyrinth of Heresies” and that the -teachings of truth are to be found neither in the philosophies of the -Greeks, the secret mysteries of the Egyptians, the formulas of the -Chaldæans or astrologers, nor the ravings of Babylonian magic.[60] -This links it with fair closeness to the reference in Book IV to the -ideas of the Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians and Chaldæans, only the -first-named nation being here omitted from the text. It then goes on -to say that “having brought together the opinions[61] of all the wise -men among the _Greeks_ in four books and those of the heresiarchs in -five,” he will make a summary of them. It will be noted that this -is in complete contradiction to the supposition that the missing -Books II and III contained the doctrines of the Babylonians, as he -now says that they comprised those of the Greeks only. The summary -which follows might have been expected to make this confusion clear, -but unfortunately it does nothing of the kind. It does indeed give -so good an abstract of what has been said in Books V to IX inclusive -regarding the chief heresiarchs, that in one or two places it enables -us to correct doubtful phrases and to fill in gaps left in earlier -books. There is omitted from the summary, however, all mention of the -heresies of Marcus, Satornilus, Menander, Carpocrates, the Nicolaitans, -Docetæ, Quartodecimans, Encratites and the Jewish sects, and the list -of omissions will probably be thought too long to be accounted for -on the ground of mere carelessness. But when the summarizer deals -with the earlier books, the discrepancy between the summary and the -documents summarized is much more startling. Among the philosophers, he -omits to summarize the opinions of Pythagoras, Empedocles, Ecphantus, -Hippo, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, Academics, Brachmans, -or Druids, while he does mention those of Hippasus, Ocellus Lucanus, -Heraclides of Pontus and Asclepiades, who were not named in any of -the texts of Book I which have come down to us. As for the tenets -and practices of the Persians, Egyptians and others, supposed on the -strength of the statement at the beginning of Book V to have been -narrated in Books II and III, nothing further is here said concerning -them, and, by the little table of contents with which Book X like the -others is prefaced, it will appear that nothing was intended to be -said. For this last omission it might be possible to assign plausible -reasons if it stood alone; but when it is coupled with the variations -between summary and original as regards Book I, the only inference that -meets all the facts is that the summarizer did not have the first four -books under his eyes. - -This has led some critics to conclude that the summary is by another -hand. There is nothing in the literary manners of the age to compel us -to reject this supposition, and similar cases have been quoted. The -evidence of style is, however, against it, and it is unlikely that -if the summarizer were any other person than Hippolytus, he would -have taken up Hippolytus’ personal quarrel against Callistus. Yet in -the text of Book X before us the charge of heresy against Callistus -is repeated, although perhaps with less asperity than in Book IX, -the accusations against his morals being omitted. Nor is it easy to -dissociate from Hippolytus the really eloquent appeal to men of all -nations to escape the terrors of Tartarus and gain an immortality of -bliss by becoming converted to the Doctrine of Truth with which the -Book ends, after an excursion into Hebrew Chronology, a subject which -always had great fascination for Hippolytus. Although the matter is not -beyond doubt, it would appear, therefore, that the summary, like the -rest of the book, is by Hippolytus’ own hand. - -In these circumstances there is but one theory that in the opinion -of the present writer will reconcile all the conflicting facts. This -is that the foundation of our text _is_ the synopsis that Hippolytus -made, as Photius tells us, after receiving instruction from Irenæus; -that those notes were, as Hippolytus himself says, “set forth” by him -possibly in the form of lectures, equally possibly in writing, but in -any case a long time before our text was compiled; and that when his -rivalry with Callistus became acute, he thought of republishing these -discourses and bringing them up to date by adding to them the Noetian -and other non-Gnostic heresies which were then making headway among the -Christian community, together with the facts about the divinatory and -magical tricks which had come to his knowledge during his long stay in -Rome. We may next conjecture that, after the greater part of his book -was written, chance threw in his way the documents belonging to the -Naassene and other Ophite sects, which went back to the earliest days -of Christianity and were probably in Hippolytus’ time on the verge -of extinction.[62] He had before determined to omit these sects as -of slight importance,[63] but now perceiving the interest of the new -documents, he hastily incorporated them in his book immediately after -his account of the magicians, so that they might appear as what he with -some truth said they were, to wit, the fount and source of all later -Gnosticism. To do this, he had to displace the account of the Jewish -and Samaritan sects with which all the heresiologists of the time -thought it necessary to begin their histories. He probably felt the -less reluctance in doing so, because the usual mention of these sects -as “heresies” in some sort contradicted his pet theory, which was that -the Gnostic tenets were not a mere perversion of Christian teaching, -but were derived from philosophic theories of the creation of things, -and from the mystic rites. - -Next let us suppose that at the close of his life, when he was perhaps -hiding from Maximin’s inquisitors, or even when he was at the Sardinian -mines, he thought of preserving his work for posterity by re-writing -it--such copies as he had left behind him in Rome having been doubtless -seized by the Imperial authorities.[64] Not having the material that he -had before used then at his disposal, he had to make the best summary -that he could from memory, and in the course of this found that the -contents of the Books I, II, and III--the material for which he had -drawn in the first instance from Irenæus--had more or less escaped -him. He was probably able to recall some part of Book I by the help of -heathen works like those of Diogenes Laertius, Aetius, or perhaps that -Alcinous whose summary of Plato’s doctrines seem to have been formerly -used by him.[65] The Ophite and other Gnostic heresies he remembers -sufficiently to make his summary of their doctrines more easy, -although he omits from the list heresiarchs like Marcus, Satornilus -and Menander, about whom he had never had any exclusive information, -and he now puts Justinus after instead of before Basilides. Finally, -he remembered the Jewish sects which he had once intended to include, -and being perhaps able to command, even in the mines, the work of a -Romanized but unconverted Jew like Josephus, took from it such facts as -seemed useful for his purpose as an introduction to the chronological -speculation which had once formed his favourite study. With this -summary as his guide he continued, it may be, to warn the companions in -adversity to whom he tells us he had “become an adviser,” against the -perils of heresy, and to appeal to his unconverted listeners with what -his former translator calls not unfitly “a noble specimen of patristic -eloquence.” That he died in the mines is most probable, not only from -his advanced age at the time of exile and the consequent unlikelihood -that he would be able to withstand the pestilential climate, but also -from the record of his body having been “deposited” in the Catacombs -on the same day with that of his fellow-Pope and martyr Pontianus.[66] -Yet the persecution of Maximin, though sharp, was short, and on the -death of the tyrant after a reign of barely three years, there is no -reason why the transcript of Book X should not have reached Rome, where -there is some reason to think it was known from its opening words as -“the Labyrinth.” Later it was probably appended to Books IV to IX of -Hippolytus’ better known work, and the whole copied for the use of -those officials who had to enquire into heresy. To them, Books II and -III would be useless, and they probably thought it inexpedient to -perpetuate any greater knowledge than was necessary for their better -suppression, of the unclean mysteries of either pagan or Gnostic. As -for Book I, besides being harmless, it had possibly by that time become -too firmly connected with the name of Origen for its attribution to -this other sufferer in the Maximinian persecution to be disturbed in -later times. - -It only remains to see how this theory fits in with the remarks of -Photius given above. It is fairly evident that Photius is speaking -from recollection only, and that the words do not suggest that -he had Hippolytus’ actual work before him when writing, while he -throughout speaks of it in the past tense as one might speak of a -document which has long since perished, although some memory of its -contents have been preserved. If this were so, we might be prepared -to take Photius’ description as not necessarily accurate in every -detail; yet, as we have it, it is almost a perfect description of -our text. The 32 heresies, as we have shown above, appear in our -text as in Photius’ document. Our text contains not only the large -excerpts from Irenæus which we might expect from Photius’ account -of its inception, but also the “refutations” which do not appear in -the _Adversus Omnes Hæreses_. It extends “up to,” as Photius says, -Noetus and the Noetians, and although it does not contain any mention -of Dositheus or the Dositheans, this may have been given in the part -which has been cut out of Book X.[67] If that were the case, or if -Photius has made any mistake in the matter, as one might easily do -when we consider that all the early heresiologies begin with Jewish -and Samaritan sects, the only real discrepancy between our text and -Photius’ description of Hippolytus’ work is in the matter of length. -But it is by no means certain that Photius ever saw the whole work -put together, and it is plain that he had never seen or had forgotten -the first four books dealing with the philosophers, the mysteries and -the charlatans. Without these, and without the summary, Books V to IX -do not work out to more than 70,000 words in all, and this might well -seem a mere “booklet” to a man then engaged in the compilation of his -huge _Bibliotheca_. Whether, then, Hippolytus did or did not reduce -to writing the exposition of heresies which he made in his youth, it -seems probable that all certain trace of this exposition is lost. It is -certainly not to be recognized in pseudo-Tertullian’s _Adversus Omnes -Hæreses_, and the work of Hippolytus recorded by Photius was probably a -copy of our text in a more or less complete form. - - - 5. THE STYLE OF THE WORK - -Photius’ remark that Hippolytus did not keep to the Attic style is an -understatement of the case with regard to our text. Jacobi, its first -critic, was so struck by the number of “Latinisms” that he found in it -as to conjecture that it is nothing but a Greek translation of a Latin -original.[68] This is so unlikely as to be well-nigh impossible if -Hippolytus were indeed the author; and no motive for such translation -can be imagined unless it were made at a fairly late period. In that -case, we should expect to find it full of words and expressions used -only in Byzantine times when the Greek language had become debased by -Slav and Oriental admixtures. This, however, is not the case with our -text, and only one distinctly Byzantine phrase has rewarded a careful -search.[69] On the other hand neologisms are not rare, especially in -Book X,[70] and everything goes to show the truth of Cruice’s remark -that the author was evidently not a trained writer. This is by no means -inconsistent with the theory that the whole work is by Hippolytus, -and is the more probable if we conclude that it was originally spoken -instead of written. - -This is confirmed when we look into the construction of the author’s -sentences. They are drawn out by a succession of relative clauses -to an extent very rare among even late Greek writers, more than one -sentence covering 20 or 30 lines of the printed page without a full -stop, while the usual rules as to the place and order of the words -are often neglected. Another peculiarity of style is the constant -piling up of several similes or tropes where only one would suffice, -which is very distinctly marked in the passages whenever the author -is speaking for long in his own person and without quoting the words -of another. In all these we seem to be listening to the words of a -fluent but rather laborious orator. Thus in Book I he compares the -joy that he expects to find in his work to that of an athlete gaining -the crown, of a merchant selling his goods after a long voyage, of a -husbandsman with his hardly won crops, and of a despised prophet seeing -his predictions fulfilled.[71] So in Book V, after mentioning a book -by Orpheus called _Bacchica_ otherwise unknown, he goes on to speak of -“the mystic rite of Celeus and Triptolemus and Demeter and Core and -Dionysus in Eleusis,”[72] when any practised writer would have said the -Eleusinian mysteries simply. A similar piling up of imagery is found in -Book VIII, where he speaks of the seed of the fig-tree as “a refuge for -the terror-stricken, a shelter for the naked, a veil for modesty, and -the sought-for produce to which the Lord came in search of fruit three -times and found none.”[73] But it is naturally in the phrases of the -pastoral address with which Book X ends that the most salient examples -occur. Thus, the unconverted are told that by being instructed in the -knowledge of the true God, they will escape the imminent menace of the -judgment fire, and the unillumined vision of gloomy Tartarus, and the -burning of the everlasting shore of the Gehenna of fire, and the eye of -the Tartaruchian angels in eternal punishment, and the worm that ever -coils as if for food round the body whence it was bred,[74]--or, as he -might have said in one word, the horrors of hell. - -Less distinctive than this, although equally noticeable, is the play -of words which is here frequently employed. This is not unknown among -other ecclesiastical writers of the time, and seems to have struck -Charles Kingsley when, fresh from a perusal of St. Augustine, he -describes him as “by a sheer mistranslation” twisting one of the Psalms -to mean what it never meant in the writer’s mind, and what it never -could mean, and then punning on the Latin version.[75] Hippolytus -when writing in his own person makes but moderate use of this figure. -Sometimes he does so legitimately enough, as when he speaks of the -Gnostics initiating a convert into their systems and delivering to him -“the perfection of wickedness”--the word used for perfection having the -mystic or technical meaning of initiation as well as the more ordinary -one of completion[76]; or when he says that the measurements of stellar -distances by Ptolemy have led to the construction of measureless -“heresies.”[77] At others he consciously puns on the double meaning of -a word, as when he says that those who venture upon orgies are not far -from the wrath (ὀργή) of God.[78] Sometimes, again, he is led away by -a merely accidental similarity of sounds as when he tries to connect -the name of the Docetæ, which he knows is taken from δοκεῖν, “to seem,” -with “the _beam_ (δοκός) in the eye” of the Sermon on the Mount.[79] He -makes a second and more obvious pun on the same word later when he says -that the Docetæ do more than _seem_ to be mad; but he is most shameless -when he derives “prophet” from προφαίνειν instead of πρόφημι[80]--a -perversion which one can hardly imagine entering into the head of any -one with the most modest acquaintance with Greek grammar. - -But these puns, bad as they are, are venial compared with some of -the authors from whom he quotes. None can equal in this respect the -efforts of the Naassene author, whose plays upon words and audacious -derivations might put to the blush those in the _Cratylus_. Adamas and -Adam, Corybas and κορυφή (the head), Geryon and Γηρυόνην (“flowing -from earth”), Mesopotamia and “a river from the middle,” Papas and -παῦε, παῦε (“Cease! cease!”), Αἰπόλος (“goat herd”) and ἀεὶ πολῶν -(“ever turning”), _naas_ (“serpent”) and ναός (“temple”), Euphrates -and εὐφραίνει (“he rejoices”) are but a few of the terrible puns he -perpetrates.[81] The Peratic author is more sober in this respect, -and yet he, or perhaps Hippolytus for him, derives the name of the -sect from περᾶν (“to pass beyond”),[82] although Theodoret with -more plausibility would take it from the nationality of its teacher -Euphrates the Peratic or Mede; and the chapter on the Sethians does -not contain a single pun. Yet that on Justinus makes up for this by -deriving the name of the god Priapus from πριοποιέω, a word made -up for the occasion.[83] “The great Gnostics of Hadrian’s time,” -viz.:--Basilides, Marcion and Valentinus, seem to have had souls above -such puerilities; but the Docetic author resumes the habit with a -specially daring parallel between Βάτος (“a bush”) and βάτος (Hera’s -robe or “mist”)[84] and Monoimus the Arab follows suit with a sort -of jingle between the Decalogue and the δεκάπληγος or ten plagues -of Egypt, which would hardly have occurred to any one without the -Semitic taste for assonance.[85] Of the less-quoted writers there is -no occasion to speak, because there are either no extracts from their -works given in our text or they are too short for us to judge from them -whether they, too, were given to punning. - -Apart from such comparatively small matters, however, the difference in -style between the several Gnostic writers here quoted is well marked. -Nothing can be more singular at first sight than the way in which the -Naassene author expresses himself. It seems to the reader on the first -perusal of his lucubrations as if the writer had made up his mind to -follow no train of thought beyond the limits of a single sentence. -Beginning with the idea of the First Man, which we find running like -a thread through so many Eastern creeds, from that of the Cabalists -among the Jews to the Manichæans who perhaps took it directly from -its primitive source in Babylon,[86] he immediately turns from this -to declare the tripartite division of the universe and everything it -contains, including the souls and natures of men, and to inculcate the -strictest asceticism. Yet all this is written round, so to speak, a -hymn to Attis which he declares relates to the Mysteries of the Mother -with several allusions to the most secret rites of the Eleusinian -Demeter and, as it would appear, of those of the Greek Isis. The -Peratic author, on the other hand, also teaches a tripartite division -of things and souls, but draws his proofs not from the same mystic -sources as the Naassene but from what Hippolytus declares to be the -system of the astrologers. This system, which is not even hinted at in -any avowedly astrological work, is that the stars are the cause of all -that happens here below, and that we can only escape from their sway -into one of the two worlds lying above ours by the help of Christ, here -called the Perfect Serpent, existing as an intermediary between the -Father of All and Matter. Yet this doctrine, which we can also read -without much forcing of the text into the rhapsody of the Naassene, is -stated with all the precision and sobriety of a scientific proposition, -and is as entirely free from the fervour and breathlessness of the -last-named writer as it is from his perpetual allusions to the Greek -and especially to the Alexandrian and Anatolian mythology.[87] Both -these again are perfectly different in style from the “Sethian” author -from whom Hippolytus gives us long extracts, and who seems to have -trusted mainly to an imagery which is entirely opposed to all Western -conventions of modesty.[88] Yet all three aver the strongest belief -in the Divinity and Divine Mission of Jesus, whom they identify with -the Good Serpent, which was according to many modern authors the chief -material object of adoration in every heathen temple in Asia Minor.[89] -They are, therefore, rightly numbered by Hippolytus among the Ophite -heresies, and seem to be founded upon traditions current throughout -Western Asia which even now are not perhaps quite extinct. Yet each of -the three authors quoted in our text writes in a perfectly different -style from his two fellow heresiarchs, and this alone is sufficient to -remove all doubt as to the genuineness of the document. - -These three Ophite chapters are taken first because in our text they -begin the heresiology strictly so called.[90] As has been said, the -present writer believes them to be an interpolation made at the last -moment by the author, and by no means the most valuable, though they -are perhaps the most curious part of the book. They resemble much, -however, in thought the quotations in our text attributed to Simon -Magus, and although the ideas apparent in them differ in material -points, yet there seems to be between the two sets of documents a -kind of family likeness in the occasional use of bombastic language -and unclean imagery. But when we turn from these to the extracts from -the works attributed to Valentinus and Basilides which Hippolytus -gives us, a change is immediately apparent. Here we have dignity of -language corresponding to dignity of thought, and in the case of -Valentinus especially the diction is quite equal to the passages from -the discourses of that most eloquent heretic quoted by Clement of -Alexandria. We feel on reading them that we have indeed travelled from -the Orontes to the Tiber, and the difference in style should by itself -convince the most sceptical critic at once of the good faith of our -careless author and of the authenticity of the sources from which he -has collected his information. - - - 6. THE VALUE OF THE WORK - -What interest has a work such as this of Hippolytus for us at the -present day? In the first place it preserves for us many precious -relics of a literature which before its discovery seemed lost for ever. -The pagan hymn to Attis and the Gnostic one on the Divine Mission -of Jesus, both appearing in Book V, are finds of the highest value -for the study of the religious beliefs of the early centuries of our -Era, and with these go many fragments of hardly less importance, -including the Pindaric ode in the same book. Not less useful or less -unexpected are the revelations in the same book of the true meaning -of the syncretistic worship of Attis and Cybele, and the disclosure -here made of the supreme mystery of the Eleusinian rites, which we now -know for the first time culminated in the representation of a divine -marriage and of the subsequent birth of an infant god, coupled with the -symbolical display of an “ear of corn reaped in silence.” For the study -of classical antiquity as well as for the science of religions such -facts are of the highest value. - -But all this will for most of us yield in interest to the picture -which our text gives us of the struggles of Christianity against its -external and internal foes during the first three centuries. So far -from this period having been one of quiet growth and development for -the infant Church, we see her in Hippolytus’ pages exposed not only to -fierce if sporadic persecution from pagan emperors, but also to the -steady and persistent rivalry of scores of competing schools led by -some of the greatest minds of the age, and all combining some of the -main tenets of Christianity with the relics of heathenism. We now know, -too, that she was not always able to present an unbroken front to these -violent or insidious assailants. In the highest seats of the Church, -as we now learn for the first time, there were divisions on matters of -faith which anticipated in some measure those which nearly rent her -in twain after the promulgation of the Creed of Nicæa. Such a schism -as that between the churches of Hippolytus and Callistus must have -given many an opportunity to those foes who were in some sort of her -own household; while round the contest, like the irregular auxiliaries -of a regular army, swarmed a crowd of wonder-workers, diviners, and -other exploiters of the public credulity, of whose doings we have -before gained some insight from writers like Lucian and Apuleius, but -whose methods and practices are for the first time fully described by -Hippolytus. - -The conversion of the whole Empire under Constantine broke once for all -the power of these enemies of the Church. Schisms were still to occur, -but grievous as they were, they happily proved impotent to destroy the -essential unity of Christendom. The heathen faiths and the Gnostic -sects derived from them were soon to wither like plants that had no -root, and both they and the charlatans whose doings our author details -were relentlessly hunted down by the State which had once given them -shelter: while if the means used for this purpose were not such as the -purer Christian ethics would now approve, we must remember that these -means would probably have proved ineffective had not Christian teaching -already destroyed the hold of these older beliefs on the seething -populations of the Empire. That the adolescent Church should thus have -been enabled to triumph over all her enemies may seem to many a better -proof of her divine guidance than the miraculous powers once attributed -to her. We may not all of us be able to believe that a rainstorm put -out the fire on which Thekla was to be burned alive, or that the -crocodiles in the tank in the arena into which she was cast were struck -by lightning and floated to the surface dead.[91] Still less can we -credit that the portraits of St. Theodore and other military saints -left their place in the palace of the Queen of Persia and walked about -in human form.[92] Such stories are for the most of us either pious -fables composed for edification or half-forgotten records of natural -events seen through the mist of exaggeration and misrepresentation -common in the Oriental mind. But that the Church which began like a -grain of mustard seed should in so short a time come to overshadow the -whole civilized world may well seem when we consider the difficulties -in her way a greater miracle than any of those recorded in the -Apocryphal Gospels and Acts; and the full extent of these difficulties -we should not have known save for Mynas’ discovery of our text. - - - FOOTNOTES - -[Footnote 1: pp. 63, 117, 119; Vol. II, 148, 150 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 2: Hippolytus, like all Greek writers of his age, must have -been entirely ignorant of the Egyptian religion of Pharaonic times, -which was then extinct. The only “Egyptian” Mysteries of which he could -have known anything were those of the Alexandrian Triad, Osiris, Isis, -and Horus, for which see the translator’s _Forerunners and Rivals of -Christianity_, Cambridge, 1915, I, c. 2.] - -[Footnote 3: The pre-Christian origins of Gnosticism and its relations -with Christianity are fully dealt with in the work quoted in the last -note.] - -[Footnote 4: Save for a few sentences quoted in patristic writings, -the only extant Gnostic works are the Coptic collection in the British -Museum and the Bodleian at Oxford, known as the _Pistis Sophia_ and the -Bruce Papyrus respectively. There are said to be some other fragments -of Coptic MSS. of Gnostic origin in Berlin which have not yet been -published.] - -[Footnote 5: An account by the present writer of this worship in Roman -times is given in the _Journal_ of the Royal Asiatic Society for -October 1917, pp. 695 ff.] - -[Footnote 6: II, pp. 125 ff. _infra_.] - -[Footnote 7: II, p. 124 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 8: The facsimile of a page of the MS. is given in Bishop -Wordsworth’s _Hippolytus and the Church of Rome_, London, 1880.] - -[Footnote 9: B. E. Miller, _Origenis Philosophumena sive Omnium -Hæresium Refutatio_, Oxford, 1851.] - -[Footnote 10: L. Duncker and F. G. Schneidewin, _Philosophumena_, etc. -Göttingen, 1856-1859.] - -[Footnote 11: P. M. Cruice, _Philosophumena_, etc. Paris, 1860.] - -[Footnote 12: p. 34 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 13: _Deutsche Zeitschrift für Christliche Wissenschaft und -Christliches Leben_, 1852.] - -[Footnote 14: References to nearly all the contributions to this -controversy are correctly given in the Prolegomena to Cruice’s edition, -pp. x ff. An English translation of Dr. Döllinger’s _Hippolytus und -Kallistus_ was published by Plummer, Edinburgh, 1876, and brings the -controversy up to date. Cf. also the Bibliography in Salmon’s article -“Hippolytus Romanus” in Smith and Wace’s _Dictionary of Christian -Biography_ (hereafter quoted as _D.C.B._).] - -[Footnote 15: See the English translation: _Early History of the -Christian Church_, London, 1909, I, pp. 227 ff.] - -[Footnote 16: This is confirmed by Dom. Chapman in the _Catholic -Encyclopedia_, _s. vv._ “Hippolytus,” “Callistus.”] - -[Footnote 17: The statue and its inscription are also reproduced by -Bishop Wordsworth in the work above quoted.] - -[Footnote 18: _Hist. Eccles._, VI, c. 20.] - -[Footnote 19: _Haer. Fab._, III, 1.] - -[Footnote 20: _Peristeph II._ For the chronological difficulty that -this involves see Salmon, _D.C.B._, _s.v._ “Hippolytus Romanus.”] - -[Footnote 21: Duchesne, _op. cit._, p. 233.] - -[Footnote 22: “The Cross-references in the Philosophumena,” -_Hermathena_, Dublin, No. XI, 1885, pp. 389 ff.] - -[Footnote 23: “Die Gnostischen Quellen Hippolyts” in Gebhardt and -Harnack’s _Texte und Untersuchungen_, VI, (1890).] - -[Footnote 24: _Introduction à l’Étude du Gnosticisme_, Paris, 1903, p. -68; _Gnostiques et Gnosticisme_, Paris, 1913, p. 167.] - -[Footnote 25: The theory that all existing things come from an -“indivisible point” which our text gives as that of Simon Magus and -of Basilides reappears in the Bruce Papyrus. Basilides’ remark about -only 1 in 1000 and 2 in 10,000 being fit for the higher mysteries -is repeated _verbatim_ in the _Pistis Sophia_, p. 354, Copt. Cf. -_Forerunners_, II, 172, 292, n. 1.] - -[Footnote 26: _Scottish Review_, Vol. XXII, No. 43 (July 1893).] - -[Footnote 27: p. 35 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 28: p. 39 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 29: p. 41; II, p. 83 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 30: II, pp. 119, 151 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 31: For the arithmomancy see p. 83 ff. _infra_; the -borrowings from Sextus begin on p. 70, the tricks of the magicians on -p. 92. For other mistakes, see the quotation about the Furies in II, -p. 23, which he ascribes to Pythagoras, but which is certainly from -Heraclitus (as Plutarch tells us), and the Categories of Aristotle -which a few pages earlier are also assigned to Pythagoras. His -treatment of Josephus will be dealt with in its place.] - -[Footnote 32: This is especially the case with the story of Callistus, -as to which see II, pp. 124 ff. _infra_.] - -[Footnote 33: _Haer._ xxxi., p. 205, Oehler.] - -[Footnote 34: _Haeret. fab._ I, 17-24.] - -[Footnote 35: πάλαι.] - -[Footnote 36: In _D.C.B._, _art. cit. supra_.] - -[Footnote 37: See Oehler’s edition of Tertullian’s works, II, 751 -ff. The parallel passages are set out in convenient form in Bishop -Wordsworth’s book before quoted.] - -[Footnote 38: _Études sur de nouveaux documents historiques empruntés à -l’ouvrage récemment découvert des Philosophumena_, Paris, 1853.] - -[Footnote 39: II, pp. 43, 47 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 40: ὁμιλοῦντος Εἰρηναίου. For the whole quotation, see -Photius, _Bibliotheca_, 121 (Bekker’s ed.).] - -[Footnote 41: Tertullian (Oehler’s ed.), II, 751. St. Jerome in quoting -this passage says the heretics have mangled the Gospel.] - -[Footnote 42: Thus the tractate makes Simon Magus call his Helena -Sophia, and says that Basilides named his Supreme God Abraxas. It knows -nothing of the God-who-is-not and the three Sonhoods of our text: -and it gives an entirely different account of the Sethians, whom it -calls Sethitæ, and says that they identified Christ with Seth. In this -heresy, too, it introduces Sophia, and makes her the author of the -Flood.] - -[Footnote 43: Euseb., _Hist. Eccles._ IV, c. 22. He is quoting -Hegesippus. See also Origen _contra Celsum_, VI, c. 11.] - -[Footnote 44: II, p. 3 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 45: II, pp. 61 ff. _infra_.] - -[Footnote 46: pp. 103, 119; II, pp. 1, 57, 148, 149 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 47: p. 66 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 48: p. 117 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 49: II, p. 97 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 50: II, p. 116 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 51: p. 37 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 52: p. 115 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 53: II, p. 20. In II, p. 49, it is mentioned in connection -with the heresy of Marcus, and on p. 104 the same theory is attributed -to the “Egyptians.”] - -[Footnote 54: p. 66; II, pp. 21, 64 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 55: ἀγαπητοί, p. 113 and p. 180 _infra_. It also occurs on p. -125 of Vol. II in the same connection.] - -[Footnote 56: λόγος, pp. 107 and 120 _infra_. He uses the word in the -same sense on p. 113.] - -[Footnote 57: p. 35 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 58: p. 117 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 59: Pseudo-Hieronymus, Isidorus Hispalensis, and Honorius -Augustodunensis, like Epiphanius, begin their catalogues of heresies -with the Jewish and Samaritan sects. Philastrius leads off with the -Ophites and Sethians whom he declares to be pre-Christian, and then -goes on to Dositheus, and the Jewish “heresies” before coming to Simon -Magus. Pseudo-Augustine and Prædestinatus begin with Simon Magus and -include no pre-Christian sects. See Oehler, _Corpus Hæreseologicus_, -Berlin, 1866, t. i.] - -[Footnote 60: II, p. 150 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 61: δόγματα, p. _cit_.] - -[Footnote 62: So Origen, _Cont. Cels._, VI, 24, speaks of “the very -insignificant sect called Ophites.”] - -[Footnote 63: II, p. 116 _infra_, where he says that he did not think -them worth refuting.] - -[Footnote 64: For the search made both by pagan and Christian -inquisitors for their opponents’ books, see _Forerunners_, II, 12.] - -[Footnote 65: See n. on p. 51 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 66: Cf. Salmon in _D.C.B._, s.v. “Hippolytus Romanus.”] - -[Footnote 67: Hippolytus’ denial of the Pauline authorship of the -Epistle to the Hebrews probably appeared in some work other than -our text. Or it may have been cut out by the scribe as offensive to -orthodoxy.] - -[Footnote 68: A flagrant case is to be found in p. 81 Cr. where Π (P) -has, according to Schneidewin, been written for R, a mistake that -could only be made by one used to Roman letters. Cf. _Serpens_ and -_serviens_, p. 487 Cr.] - -[Footnote 69: ἀφότε for ἀφ’ οὗ, p. 453 Cr.] - -[Footnote 70: _e. g._ φυσιογονική (p. 9 Cr.), κοπιαταὶ (p. 86), -ἰχθυοκόλλα (p. 103), ἀρχανθρώπος (p. 153), ἀπρονοήτος (p. 176), -κλεψιλόγος (p. 370), πρωτογενέτειρα (p. 489), κατιδιοποιούμενος (p. -500), ἀδίστακτος (p. 511), ταρταρούχος (p. 523).] - -[Footnote 71: p. 35 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 72: p. 166 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 73: II, p. 99 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 74: II, pp. 177 ff.] - -[Footnote 75: See Augustine’s sermon in _Hypatia_.] - -[Footnote 76: p. 33 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 77: p. 83 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 78: II, p. 2 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 79: II, p. 99 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 80: II, p. 175 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 81: See pp. 122, 133, 134, 135, 137, 142, 143 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 82: p. 154 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 83: p. 178 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 84: II, p. 102.] - -[Footnote 85: II, p. 109.] - -[Footnote 86: See _Forerunners_, I, lxi ff.] - -[Footnote 87: This applies to the chief Peratic author quoted. The long -catalogue connecting personages in the Greek mythology with particular -stars is, as is said later, by another hand, and is introduced by a -bombastic utterance like that attributed to Simon Magus.] - -[Footnote 88: Hippolytus attributes it to the Orphics; but see de Faye -for another explanation.] - -[Footnote 89: _Forerunners_, II, 49.] - -[Footnote 90: Justinus is left out of the account because he does -not seem to have been an Ophite at all. The Serpent in his system is -entirely evil, and therefore not an object of worship, and his sect is -probably much later than the other three in the same book.] - -[Footnote 91: _Acts of Paul and Thekla_, _passim_.] - -[Footnote 92: E. A. T. Wallis Budge, _Miscellaneous Coptic Texts in -Dialect of Upper Egypt_, London, 1915, pp. 579 ff.] - - - - - BOOK I[1] - - THE PHILOSOPHERS - - -[Sidenote: p. 1, Cruice.] These are the contents[2] of the First Part[3] -of the Refutation of all Heresies; - -What were the tenets of the natural philosophers and who these were; -and what those of the ethicists and who these were; and what those of -the dialecticians and who the dialecticians were. - -Now the natural philosophers mentioned are Thales, Pythagoras, -Empedocles, Heraclitus, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Archelaus, -Parmenides, Leucippus, Democritus, Xenophanes, Ecphantus, and -[Sidenote: p. 2.] Hippo. The ethicists are Socrates, pupil of Archelaus -the physicist and Plato, pupil of Socrates. These mingled together the -three kinds of philosophy. The dialecticians are Aristotle, pupil of -Plato and the founder of dialectics, and the Stoics Chrysippus and Zeno. - -Epicurus, however, maintained an opinion almost exactly contrary -to all these. So did Pyrrho the Academic[4] who asserts the -incomprehensibility of all things. There are also the Brachmans[5] -among the Indians, the Druids among the Celts, and Hesiod. - - - (PROÆMIUM) - -No fable made famous by the Greeks is to be neglected. For even those -opinions of theirs which lack consistency are believed through the -extravagant madness of the heretics, who, from hiding in silence their -own unspeakable mysteries, are supposed by many to worship God. Whose -opinions also we aforetime set forth within measure, not displaying -them in detail but refuting them in the rough,[6] as we did not hold it -fit to bring their unspeakable deeds [Sidenote: p. 3.] to light. This -we did that, as we set forth their tenets by hints only, they, becoming -ashamed lest by telling outright their secrets we should prove them -to be godless, might abate somewhat from their unreasoned purpose and -unlawful enterprise.[7] But since I see that they have not been put to -shame by our clemency, and have not considered God’s long-suffering -under their blasphemies, I am forced, in order that they may either -be shamed into repentance, or remaining as they are may be rightly -judged, to proceed to show their ineffable mysteries which they impart -to those candidates for initiation who are thoroughly trustworthy. -Yet they do not previously avow them, unless they have enslaved such -a one by keeping him long in suspense and preparing him by blasphemy -against the true God,[8] and they see him longing for the jugglery of -the disclosure. And then, when they have proved him to be bound fast -by iniquity,[9] they initiate him and impart to him the perfection -of evil things,[10] first binding him by oath neither to tell nor to -impart them to any one unless he too has been enslaved in the same -way. Yet from him to whom they have been only communicated, no oath is -[Sidenote: p. 4.] longer necessary. For whoso has submitted to learn -and to receive their final mysteries will by the act itself and by -his own conscience be bound not to utter them to others. For were he -to declare to any man such an offence, he would neither be reckoned -longer among men, nor thought worthy any more to behold the light. -Which things also are such an offence that even the dumb animals do not -attempt them, as we shall say in its place.[11] But since the argument -compels us to enter into the case very deeply, we do not think fit to -hold our peace, but setting forth in detail the opinions of all, we -shall keep silence on none. And it seems good to us to spare no labour -even if thereby the tale be lengthened. For we shall leave behind us -no small help to the life of men against further error, when all see -clearly the hidden and unspeakable orgies of which the heretics are -the stewards and which they impart only to the initiated. But none -other will refute these things than the Holy Spirit handed down in the -Church which the Apostles having first received did distribute to those -who rightly believed. Whose successors we chance to be and partakers -of the same grace of high priesthood[12] and of [Sidenote: p. 5.] -teaching and accounted guardians of the Church. Wherefore we close not -our eyes nor abstain from straight speech; but neither do we tire in -working with our whole soul and body worthily to return worthy service -to the beneficent God. Nor do we make full return save that we slacken -not in that which is entrusted to us; but we fill full the measures -of our opportunity and without envy communicate to all whatsoever the -Holy Spirit shall provide. Thus we not only bring into the open by -refutation the affairs of the enemy;[13] but also whatever the truth -has received by the Father’s grace and ministered to men. These things -we preach[14] as one who is not ashamed, both interpreting them by -discourse and making them to bear witness by writings. - -In order then, as we have said by anticipation, that we may show these -men to be godless alike in purpose, character and deed, and from what -source their schemes have come--and because they have in their attempts -taken nothing from the Holy Scriptures, nor is it from guarding the -succession of any saint that they have been hurried into [Sidenote: p. -6.] these things, but their theories[15] take their origin from the -wisdom of the Greeks, from philosophizing opinions,[16] from would-be -mysteries and from wandering astrologers--it seems then proper that we -first set forth the tenets of the philosophers of the Greeks and point -out to our readers[17] which of them are the oldest and most reverent -towards the Divinity.[18] Then, that we should match[19] each heresy -with a particular opinion so as to show how the protagonist of the -heresy, meeting with these schemes, gained advantage by seizing their -principles and being driven on from them to worse things constructed -his own system.[20] Now the undertaking is full of toil and requires -much research. But we shall not be found wanting. For at the last -it will give us much joy, as with the athlete who has won the crown -with much labour, or the merchant who has gained profit after great -tossing of the sea, or the husbandman who gets the benefit of his -crops from the sweat of his brow, or the prophet who after reproaches -and insults sees his predictions come to pass.[21] We will therefore -begin by declaring which of the Greeks first made demonstration of -natural philosophy. For of them especially have the protagonists of -the heretics become the plagiarists, as we [Sidenote: p. 7.] shall -afterwards show by setting them side by side. And when we have restored -to each of these pioneers his own, we shall put the heresiarchs beside -them naked and unseemly.[22] - - - 1. _Thales._ - -It is said that Thales the Milesian, one of the seven sages, was -the first to take in hand natural philosophy.[23] He said that the -beginning and end of the universe was water;[24] for that from its -solidification and redissolution all things have been constructed and -that all are borne about by it. And that from it also come earthquakes -and the turnings about of the stars and the motions of the winds.[25] -And that all things are formed and flow in accordance with the nature -of the first cause of generation; but that the Divinity is that which -has neither beginning nor end.[26] Thales, having devoted himself to -the system of the stars and to an enquiry into them, became for the -Greeks the first who was responsible for this branch of learning. -And he, gazing upon the heavens and saying that he was apprehending -[Sidenote: p. 8.] with care the things above, fell into a well; -whereupon a certain servant maid of the name of Thratta[27] laughed at -him and said: “While intent on beholding things in heaven, he does not -see what is at his feet.” And he lived about the time of Crœsus. - - - 2. _Pythagoras._ - -And not far from this time there flourished another philosophy founded -by Pythagoras, who some say was a Samian. They call it the Italic -because Pythagoras, fleeing from Polycrates, the tyrant of Samos, -took up his abode in a city of Italy and there spent his life. Whose -successors in the school did not differ much from him in judgment. And -he, after having enquired into physics, combined with it astronomy, -geometry and music.[28] And thus he showed that unity is God,[29] and -after curiously studying the nature of number, he said that the cosmos -makes melody and was put together by harmony, and he first reduced -the movement of the seven stars[30] to rhythm and melody. Wondering, -however, at the arrangement of the universals,[31] he [Sidenote: p. 9.] -expected his disciples to keep silence as to the first things learned -by them, as if they were mystæ of the universe coming into the cosmos. -Thereafter when it seemed that they had partaken sufficiently of the -schooling of the discourses, and could themselves philosophize about -stars and Nature, he, having judged them purified, bade them speak. -He divided the disciples into two classes, and called these Esoterics -and those Exoterics. To the first-named he entrusted the more complete -teaching, to the others the more restricted. He applied himself[32] -to magic[33] also, as they say, and himself invented a philosophy of -the origin of Nature,[34] based upon certain numbers and measures, -saying that the origin of the arithmetical philosophy comprised this -method by synthesis. The first number became a principle which is -one, illimitable, incomprehensible, and contains within itself all -the numbers that can come to infinity by multiplication.[35] But the -first unit was by hypothesis the origin of numbers, the which is a -male monad begetting like a father all the other numbers. In the -second place is the dyad, a female number, and the same is called even -by [Sidenote: p. 10.] the arithmeticians. In the third place is the -triad, a male number, and it has been called odd by the arithmeticians’ -decree. After all these is the tetrad, a female number, and this is -also called even, because it is female. Therefore all the numbers -derived from the genus[36] (now the illimitable genus is “number”) -are four, from which was constructed, according to them, the perfect -number, the decad. For the 1, 2, 3, 4 become 10 if for each number -its appropriate name be substantially kept.[37] This decad Pythagoras -said was a sacred Tetractys, a source of everlasting Nature containing -roots within itself, and that from the same number all the numbers have -their beginning. For the 11 and the 12 and the rest share the beginning -of their being from the 10. The four divisions of the same decad, the -perfect number, are called number, monad,[38] square[39] and cube. The -conjunctions and minglings of [Sidenote: p. 11.] which make for the -birth of increase and complete naturally the fruitful number. For when -the square is multiplied[40] by itself, it becomes a square squared; -when into the cube, the square cubed; when the cube is multiplied by -the cube, it becomes a cube cubed. So that all the numbers from which -comes the birth of things which are, are seven; to wit: number, monad, -square, cube, square of square, cube of square and cube of cube. - -He declared also that the soul is immortal and that there is a change -from one body to another.[41] Wherefore he said that he himself had -been before Trojan times Aethalides,[42] and that in the Trojan era -he was Euphorbus, and after that Hermotimus the Samian, after which -Pyrrho of Delos, and fifthly Pythagoras. But Diodorus the Eretrian -and Aristoxenus the writer on music[43] say that Pythagoras went to -visit Zaratas[44] the Chaldæan; and Zaratas explained to him that -there are from the beginning two causes of things that are, a father -and mother: and that the father is light and the mother, darkness: and -the divisions of the light are hot, dry, light (in weight) and swift; -but those of the darkness cold, moist, heavy and slow. From these the -[Sidenote: p. 12.] whole cosmos was constructed, to wit: from a female -and a male; and that the nature of the cosmos[45] is according to -musical harmony, wherefore the sun makes his journey rhythmically. And -about the things which come into being from the earth and cosmos, they -say Zaratas spoke thus: there are two demons,[46] a heavenly one and -an earthly. Of these the earthly one sent on high a thing born from -the earth which is water; but that the heavenly fire partook of the -air, hot and cold. Wherefore, he says, none of these things destroys -or pollutes the soul, for the same are the substance of all. And it is -said that Pythagoras ordered that beans should not be eaten, because -Zaratas said that at the beginning and formation of all things when -the earth was still being constructed and put together, the bean was -produced. And he says that a proof of this is, that if one chews a bean -to pulp and puts it in the sun for some time (for this plays a direct -part in the matter), it will give out the smell of human seed. And he -says that another proof is even clearer. If when the bean is in flower, -we take the bean [Sidenote: p. 13.] and its blossom, put it into a jar, -anoint this, bury it in earth, and in a few days dig it up, we shall -see it at first having the form of a woman’s _pudenda_ and afterwards -on close examination a child’s head growing with it. - -Pythagoras perished at Crotona in Italy having been burned along with -his disciples. And he had this custom that when any one came to him -as a disciple, he had to sell his possessions and deposit the money -under seal with Pythagoras, and remain silent sometimes for three and -sometimes for five years while he was learning. But on being again set -free, he mixed with the others and remained a disciple and took his -meals along with them. But if he did not, he took back what belonged to -him and was cast out. Now the Esoterics were called Pythagoreans and -the others Pythagorists. And of his disciples who escaped the burning -were Lysis and Archippus and Zamolxis, Pythagoras’ house-slave, who -is said to have taught the Druids among the Celts to cultivate the -Pythagorean philosophy. And they say that Pythagoras learned numbers -and measures from the Egyptians, and being struck with the plausible, -imposing and with difficulty disclosed wisdom of the priests, -[Sidenote: p. 14.] he imitated them also in enjoining silence and, -lodging his disciples in cells, made them lead a solitary life.[47] - - - 3. _About Empedocles._ - -But Empedocles, born after these men, also said many things about the -nature of demons, and how they being very many go about managing things -upon the earth. He said that the beginning of the universe was Strife -and Friendship and that the intellectual fire of the monad is God, -and that all things were constructed from fire and will be resolved -into fire.[48] In which opinion the Stoics also nearly agree, since -they expect an ecpyrosis. But most of all he accepted the change into -different bodies, saying: - - “For truly a boy I became, and a maiden, - And bush, and bird of prey, and fish, - A wanderer from the salt sea.”[49] - -[Sidenote: p. 15.] He declared that all souls transmigrated into all -living things.[50] For Pythagoras the teacher of these men said -he himself had been Euphorbus who fought at Ilion, and claimed to -recognize the shield.[51] This of Empedocles. - - - 4. _About Heraclitus._ - -But Heraclitus of Ephesus, a physicist, bewailed all things, -accusing the ignorance of all life and of all men, and pitying the -life of mortals. For he claimed that he knew all things and other -men nothing.[52] And he also made statements nearly in accord with -Empedocles, as he said that Discord and Friendship were the beginning -of all things, and that the intellectual fire was God and that all -things were borne in upon one another and did not stand still. And -like Empedocles he said that every place of ours was filled with evil -things, and that these come as far as the moon extending from the -place surrounding the earth, but go no further, since the whole place -above the moon is very pure.[53] Thus, too, it seemed to Heraclitus. -[Sidenote: p. 16.] And after these came other physicists whose opinions -we do not think it needful to declare as they are in no way incongruous -with those aforesaid. But since the school was by no means small, -and many physicists afterwards sprang from these, all discoursing in -different fashion on the nature of the universe, it seems also fit to -us, now that we have set forth the philosophy derived from Pythagoras, -to return in order of succession to the opinions of those who adhered -to Thales, and after recounting the same to come to the ethical -and logical philosophies, whereof Socrates founded the ethical and -Aristotle the dialectic. - - - 5. _About Anaximander._ - -Now Anaximander was a hearer of Thales. He was Anaximander of Miletus, -son of Praxiades.[54] He said that the beginning of the things that are -was a certain nature of the Boundless from which came into being the -heavens and the ordered worlds[55] within them. And that this principle -is eternal and grows not old and encompasses all the ordered worlds. -And he says time is limited by birth, [Sidenote: p. 17.] substance,[56] -and death. He said that the Boundless is a principle and element of the -things that are and was the first to call it by the name of principle. -But that there is an eternal movement towards Him wherein it happens -that the heavens are born. And that the earth is a heavenly body[57] -supported by nothing, but remaining in its place by reason of its equal -distance from everything. And that its form is a watery cylinder[58] -like a stone pillar; and that we tread on one of its surfaces, but that -there is another opposite to it. And that the stars are a circle of -fire distinct from the fire in the cosmos, but surrounded by air. And -that certain fiery exhalations exist in those places where the stars -appear, and by the obstruction of these exhalations come the eclipses. -And that the moon appears sometimes waxing and sometimes waning through -the obstruction or closing of her paths. And that the circle of the sun -is 27 times greater than that of the moon and that the sun is in the -highest place in the heavens and the circles of the fixed [Sidenote: -p. 18.] stars in the lowest. And that the animals came into being in -moisture evaporated by the sun. And that mankind was at the beginning -very like another animal, to wit, a fish. And that winds come from the -separation and condensation of the subtler atoms of the air[59] and -rain from the earth giving back under the sun’s heat what it gets from -the clouds,[60] and lightnings from the severance of the clouds by -the winds falling upon them. He was born in the 3rd year of the 42nd -Olympiad.[61] - - - 6. _About Anaximenes._ - -Anaximenes, who was also a Milesian, the son of Eurystratus, said that -the beginning was a boundless air from which what was, is, and shall -be and gods and divine things came into being, while the rest came -from their descendants. But that the condition of the air is such that -when it is all over alike[62] it is invisible to the eye, but it is -made perceptible by cold and heat, by damp and by motion. And that -it is ever-moving, for whatever is changeable[63] changes not unless -it be moved. For it appears different when condensed and rarefied. -For when it diffuses into greater rarity fire is produced; but when -again halfway [Sidenote: p. 19.] condensed into air, a cloud is formed -from the air’s compression; and when still further condensed, water, -and when condensed to the full, earth; and when to the very highest -degree, stones. And that consequently the great rulers of formation -are contraries, to wit, heat and cold. And that the earth is a flat -surface borne up on the air in the same way as the sun and moon and -the other stars.[64] For all fiery things are carried through the air -laterally.[65] And that the stars are produced from the earth by reason -of the mist which rises from it and which when rarefied becomes fire, -and from this ascending fire[66] the stars are constructed. And that -there are earth-like natures in the stars’ place carried about with -them. But he says that the stars do not move under the earth, as others -assume, but round the earth[67] as a cap is turned on one’s head, and -that the sun is hidden, not because it is under the earth, but because -it is hidden by the earth’s higher parts, and by reason of its greater -distance from us. And because of their great distance, the stars give -out no heat. And that [Sidenote: p. 20.] winds are produced when the -air after condensation escapes rarefied; but that when it collects and -is thus condensed[68] to the full, it becomes clouds and thus changes -into water. Also that hail is produced when the water brought down -from the clouds is frozen; and snow when the same clouds are wetter -when freezing. And lightning come when the clouds are forced apart -by the strength of the winds; for when thus driven apart, there is a -brilliant and fiery flash. Also that a rainbow is produced by the solar -rays falling upon solidified air, and an earthquake from the earth’s -increasing in size by heating and cooling. This then Anaximenes. He -flourished about the 1st year of the 58th Olympiad.[69] - - - 7. _About Anaxagoras._ - -After him was Anaxagoras of Clazomene, son of Hegesibulus. He said -that the beginning of the universe was mind and matter, mind being the -creator and matter that which came unto being.[70] For that when all -things were together, mind came and arranged them. He says, however, -that the material principles are boundless, even the smallest of them. -And that all things partake of movement, being [Sidenote: p. 21.] moved -by mind, and that like things come together. And that the things in -heaven were set in order by their circular motion.[71] That therefore -what was dense and moist and dark and cold and everything heavy came -together in the middle, and from the compacting of this the earth was -established;[72] but that the opposites, to wit, the hot, the brilliant -and the light were drawn off to the distant æther. Also that the earth -is fat in shape and remains suspended[73] through its great size, and -from there being no void and because the air which is strongest bears -(up) the upheld earth. And that the sea exists from the moisture on -the earth and the waters in it evaporating and then condensing in a -hollow place;[74] and that the sea is supposed to have come into being -by this and from the rivers flowing into it. And the rivers, too, are -established by the rains and the waters within the earth; for the earth -is hollow and holds water in its cavities. But that the Nile increases -in summer when the snows from the northern parts are carried down into -it. And that the sun and moon and all the stars are burning stones and -are [Sidenote: p. 22.] carried about by the rotation of the æther. -And that below the stars are the sun and moon and certain bodies not -seen by us whirled round together. And that the heat of the stars is -not felt by us because of their great distance from the earth; but yet -their heat is not like that of the sun from their occupying a colder -region. Also that the moon is below the sun and nearer to us; and that -the size of the sun is greater than that of the Peloponnesus. And that -the moon has no light of her own, but only one from the sun. And that -the revolution of the stars takes place under the earth. Also that the -moon is eclipsed when the earth stands in her way, and sometimes the -stars which are below the moon,[75] and the sun when the moon stands -in his way during new moons. And that both the sun and moon make -turnings (solstices) when driven back by the air; but that the moon -turns often through not being able to master the cold. He was the first -to determine the facts about eclipses and renewals of light.[76] And -he said that the moon was like the earth and had within it plains and -ravines. And that the Milky Way was the reflection of the light of the -stars which are not lighted up by the sun. And that the shooting stars -[Sidenote: p. 23.] are as it were sparks which glance off from the -movement of the pole. And that winds are produced by the rarefaction -of the air by the sun and by their drying up as they get towards the -pole and are borne away from it. And that thunderstorms are produced by -heat falling upon the clouds. And that earthquakes come from the upper -air falling upon that under the earth; for when this last is moved, -the earth upheld by it is shaken. And that animals at the beginning -were produced from water, but thereafter from one another, and that -males are born when the seed secreted from the right parts of the body -adheres to the right parts of the womb and females when the opposite -occurs. He flourished in the 1st year of the 88th Olympiad, about which -time they say Plato was born.[77] They say also that Anaxagoras came to -have a knowledge of the future. - - - 8. _About Archelaus._ - -Archelaus was of Athenian race and the son of Apollodorus. He like -Anaxagoras asserted the mixed nature of matter and agreed with him as -to the beginning of things. But he said that a certain mixture[78] -was directly inherent in mind, and that the source of movement is the -separation from one another of heat and cold and that the [Sidenote: p. -24.] heat is moved and the cold remains undisturbed. Also that water -when heated flows to the middle of the universe wherein heated air -and earth are produced, of which one is borne aloft while the other -remains below. And that the earth remains fixed and exists because of -this and abides in the middle of the universe, of which, so to speak, -it forms no part and which is delivered from the conflagration.[79] The -first result of which burning is the nature of the stars, the greatest -whereof is the sun and the second the moon while of the others some are -greater and some smaller. And he says that the heaven is arched over -us[80] and has made the air transparent and the earth dry. For that -at first it was a pool; since it was lofty at the horizon, but hollow -in the middle. And he brings forward as a proof of this hollowness, -that the sun does not rise and set at the same time for all parts as -must happen if the earth were level. And as to animals, he says that -the earth first became heated in the lower part when the hot and cold -mingled and man[81] and the other animals appeared. And all things were -unlike [Sidenote: p. 25.] one another and had the same diet, being -nourished on mud. And this endured for a little, but at last generation -from one another arose, and man became distinct from the other animals -and set up chiefs, laws, arts, cities and the rest. And he says that -mind is inborn in all animals alike. For that every body is supplied -with[82] mind, some more slowly and some quicker than the others. - -Natural philosophy lasted then from Thales up to Archelaus. Of this -last Socrates was a hearer. But there are also many others putting -forward different tenets concerning the Divine and the nature of the -universe, whose opinions if we wished to set them all out would take -a great mass of books. But it would be best, after having recalled by -name those of them who are, so to speak, the chorus-leaders of all who -philosophized in later times and who have furnished starting-points for -systems, to hasten on to what follows.[83] - - - 9. _About Parmenides._ - -[Sidenote: p. 26.] For truly Parmenides also supposed the universe to be -eternal and ungenerated and spherical in form.[84] Nor did he avoid the -common opinion making fire and earth the principles of the universe, -the earth as matter, but the fire as cause and creator. [He said that -the ordered world would be destroyed, but in what way, he did not -say.][85] But he said that the universe was eternal and ungenerated and -spherical in form and all over alike, bearing no impress and immoveable -and with definite limits. - - - 10. _About Leucippus._ - -But Leucippus, a companion of Zeno, did not keep to the same opinion -(as Parmenides), but says that all things are boundless and ever-moving -and that birth and change are unceasing. And he says that fulness and -the void are elements. And he says also that the ordered worlds came -into being thus: when many bodies were crowded together [Sidenote: -p. 27.] and flowed from the ambient[86] into a great void, on coming -into contact with one another, those of like fashion and similar form -coalesced, and from their intertwining yet others were generated -and increased and diminished by a certain necessity. But what that -necessity may be he did not define. - - - 11. _About Democritus._ - -But Democritus was an acquaintance of Leucippus. This was Democritus of -Abdera, son of Damasippus,[87] who met with many Gymnosophists among -the Indians and with priests and astrologers[88] in Egypt and with -Magi in Babylon. But he speaks like Leucippus about elements, to wit, -fulness and void, saying that the full is that which is but the void -that which is not, and he said this because things are ever moving in -the void. He said also that the ordered worlds are boundless and differ -in size, and that in some there is neither sun nor moon, but that in -others both are greater than with us, and in yet others more in number. -[Sidenote: p. 28.] And that the intervals between the ordered worlds -are unequal, here more and there less, and that some increase, others -flourish and others decay, and here they come into being and there they -are eclipsed.[89] But that they are destroyed by colliding with one -another. And that some ordered worlds are bare of animals and plants -and of all water. And that in our cosmos the earth came into being -first of the stars and that the moon is the lowest of the stars, and -then comes the sun and then the fixed stars: but that the planets are -not all at the same height. And he laughed at everything, as if all -things among men deserved laughter. - - - 12. _About Xenophanes._ - -But Xenophanes of Colophon was the son of Orthomenes.[90] He survived -until the time of Cyrus. He first declared the incomprehensibility of -all things,[91] saying thus: - - Although anyone should speak most definitely - He nevertheless does not know, and it is a guess[92] which occurs - about all things. - -[Sidenote: p. 29.] But he says that nothing is generated, or -perishes or is moved, and that the universe which is one is beyond -change. But he says that God is eternal, and one and alike on every -side, and finite and spherical in form, and conscious[93] in all -His parts. And that the sun is born every day from the gathering -together of small particles of fire and that the earth is boundless -and surrounded neither by air nor by heaven. And that there are -boundless (innumerable) suns and moons and that all things are from -the earth. He said that the sea is salt because of the many compounds -which together flow into it. But Metrodorus said it was thanks to its -trickling through the earth that the sea becomes salt. And Xenophanes -opines that there was once a mixture of earth with the sea, and that -in time it was freed from moisture, asserting in proof of this that -shells are found in the centre of the land and on mountains, and that -in the stone-quarries of Syracuse were found the impress of a fish -and of seals, and in Paros the cast of an anchor below the surface of -the rock[94] and in Malta layers of all sea-things. And he says that -these came when all things were of old time buried in mud, and that the -impress of them dried in the mud; but [Sidenote: p. 30.] that all men -were destroyed when the earth being cast into the sea became mud, and -that it again began to bring forth and that this catastrophe happened -to all the ordered worlds.[95] - - - 13. _About Ecphantus._ - -A certain Ecphantus, a Syracusan, said that a true knowledge of the -things that are could not be got. But he defines, as he thinks, -that the first bodies are indivisible and that there are three -differences[96] between them, to wit, size, shape and power. And the -number of them is limited and not boundless; but that these bodies are -moved neither by weight nor by impact, but by a divine power which he -calls [Sidenote: p. 31.] Nous and Psyche. Now the pattern of this is -the cosmos, wherefore it has become spherical in form by Divine power. -And that the earth in the midst of the cosmos is moved round its own -centre from west to east.[97] - - - 14. _About Hippo._ - -But Hippo of Rhegium[98] said that the principles were cold, like -water, and heat, like fire. And that the fire came from the water, and, -overcoming the power of its parent, constructed the cosmos. But he said -that the soul was sometimes brain and sometimes water; for the seed -also seems to us to be from moisture and from it he says the soul is -born. - -These things, then, we seem to have sufficiently set forth. Wherefore, -as we have now separately run through the opinions of the physicists, -it seems fitting that we return to Socrates and Plato, who most -especially preferred (the study of) ethics. - - - 15. _About Socrates._ - -Now Socrates became a hearer of Archelaus the physicist, and giving -great honour to the maxim “Know thyself” and having established a large -school, held Plato to be the most competent of all his disciples. -He left no writings [Sidenote: p. 32.] behind him; but Plato being -impressed with all his wisdom[99] established the teaching combining -physics, ethics and dialectics. But what Plato laid down is this:-- - - - 16. _About Plato._ - -Plato makes the principles of the universe to be God, matter and (the) -model. He says that God is the maker and orderer of this universe and -its Providence.[100] That matter is that which underlies all things, -which matter he calls a recipient and a nurse.[101] From which, after -it had been set in order, came the four elements of which the cosmos is -constructed, to wit, fire, air, earth and water,[102] whence in turn -all the other so-called compound things, viz., animals and plants have -been constructed. But the model is the thought of God which Plato also -calls _ideas_, to which giving heed as to an image in the soul,[103] -God fashioned[104] all [Sidenote: p. 33.] things. He said that God was -without body or form and could only be comprehended by wise men; but -that matter is potentially body, but not yet actively. For that being -itself without form or quality, it receives forms and qualities to -become body.[105] That matter, therefore, is a principle and the same -is coeval with God, and the cosmos is unbegotten. For, he says, it -constructed itself out of itself.[106] And in all ways it is like the -unbegotten and is imperishable. But in so far as body[107] is assumed -to be composed of many qualities and ideas, it is so far begotten and -perishable. But some Platonists mixed together the two opinions making -up some such parable as this: to wit, that, as a wagon can remain -undestroyed for ever if repaired part by part, as even though the parts -perish every time, the wagon remains complete; so, the cosmos, although -it perish part by part, is yet reconstructed and compensated for the -parts taken away, and remains eternal. - -Some again say that Plato declared God to be one, unbegotten and -imperishable, as he says in the _Laws_:--“God, [Sidenote: p. 34.] -therefore, as the old story goes, holds the beginning and end and -middle of all things that are.”[108] Thus he shows Him to be one -through His containing all things. But others say that Plato thought -that there are many gods without limitation[109] when he said, “God -of gods, of whom I am the fashioner and father.”[110] And yet others -that he thinks them subject to limitation when he says: “Great Zeus, -indeed, driving his winged chariot in heaven;”[111] and when he gives -the pedigree[112] of the children of Uranos and Gê. Others again that -he maintained the gods to be originated and that because they were -originated they ought to perish utterly, but that by the will of God -they remain imperishable as he says in the passage before quoted, “God -of gods, of whom I am the fashioner and father, and who are formed -by my will indissoluble.” So that if He wished them to be dissolved, -dissolved they would easily be. But he accepts the nature of demons, -and says some are good, and some bad. - -And some say that he declared the soul to be unoriginated and -imperishable[113] when he says: “All soul is immortal for that which is -ever moving is immortal,” and when he shows that it is self-moving and -the beginning of movement. But others say that he makes it originated -but imperishable[114] through God’s will; and yet others composite and -originated and perishable. For he also supposes that [Sidenote: p. -35.] there is a mixing-bowl for it,[115] and that it has a splendid -body, but that everything originated must of necessity perish. But -those who say that the soul is immortal are partly corroborated by -those words wherein he says that there are judgments after death, and -courts of justice in the house of Hades, and that the good meet with -a good reward and that the wicked are subjected to punishments.[116] -Some therefore say that he also admits a change of bodies and the -transfer of different pre-determined souls into other bodies according -to the merit of each; and that after certain definite peregrinations -they are again sent into this ordered world to give themselves another -trial of their own choice. Others, however, say not, but that they -obtain a place according to each one’s deserts. And they call to -witness that he says some souls are with Zeus, but that others of -good men are going round with other gods, and that others abide in -everlasting punishments, (that is), so many as in this life have -wrought evil and unjust deeds.[117] And they say that he declared -some conditions to be [Sidenote: p. 36.] without intermediates, some -with intermediates and some to be intermediates. Waking and sleep are -without intermediates and so are all states like these. But there are -those with intermediates like good and bad; and intermediates like -grey which is between black and white or some other colour.[118] And -they say that he declares the things concerning the soul to be alone -supremely good, but those of the body or external to it to be no longer -supremely good, but only said to be so. And that these last are very -often named intermediates also; for they can be used both well and -ill. He says therefore that the virtues are extremes as to honour, but -means as to substance.[119] For there is nothing more honourable than -virtue; but that which goes beyond or falls short of these virtues ends -in vice. For instance, he says that these are the four virtues, to wit, -Prudence, Temperance, Justice, and Fortitude, and that there follow on -each of these two vices of excess and deficiency respectively. Thus on -Prudence follow thoughtlessness by deficiency and cunning by excess; on -Temperance, intemperance by deficiency and sluggishness by excess; on -Justice, over-modesty by deficiency and greediness by excess; and on -Fortitude, [Sidenote: p. 37.] cowardice by deficiency and foolhardiness -by excess.[120] And these virtues when inborn in a man operate for -his perfection and give him happiness. But he says that happiness is -likeness to God as far as possible. And that any one is like God when -he becomes holy and just with intention. For this he supposes to be the -aim of the highest wisdom and virtue.[121] But he says that the virtues -follow one another in turn and are of one kind, and never oppose one -another; but that the vices are many-shaped and sometimes follow and -sometimes oppose one another.[122] - -He says, again, that there is destiny, not indeed that all things -are according to destiny, but that we have some choice, as he says -in these words: “The blame is on the chooser: God is blameless,” and -again, “This is a law of Adrasteia.” And if he thus affirms the part -of destiny, he knew also that something was in our choice.[123] But he -says that transgressions are involuntary. For to the most beautiful -thing in us, which is the soul, none would admit something evil, that -is, injustice; but that by ignorance and mistaking the good, thinking -to do something fine, they [Sidenote: p. 38.] arrive at the evil.[124] -And his explanation on this is most clear in the _Republic_, where -he says: “And again do you dare to say that vice is disgraceful and -hateful to God? How then does any one choose such an evil? He does -it, you would say, who is overcome by the pleasures (of sense). -Therefore this also is an involuntary action, if to overcome be a -voluntary one. So that from all reasoning, reason proves injustice -to be involuntary.” But some one objects to him about this: “Why -then are men punished if they transgress involuntarily?” He answers: -“So that they may be the more speedily freed from vice by undergoing -correction.”[125] For that to undergo correction is not bad but good, -if thereby comes purification from vices, and that the rest of mankind -hearing of it will not transgress, but will be on their guard against -such error.[126] He says, however, that the nature of evil comes not by -God nor has it any special nature of its own; but it comes into being -by contrariety and by following upon the good, either as excess or -deficiency as we have before said about the virtues.[127] Now Plato, -as [Sidenote: p. 39.] we have said above, bringing together the three -divisions of general philosophy, thus philosophized. - - - 17. _About Aristotle._ - -Aristotle, who was a hearer of this last, turned philosophy into a -science and reasoned more strictly, affirming that the elements of -all things are substance and accident.[128] He said that there is -one substance underlying all things, but nine accidents, which are -Quantity, Quality, Relation, the Where, the When, Possession, Position, -Action and Passion. And that therefore Substance was such as God, man -and every one of the things which can fall under the like definition: -but that as regards the accidents, Quality is seen in expressions like -white or black; Quantity in “2 cubits or 3 cubits long or broad”; -Relation in “father” or “son”; the Where in such as “Athens” or -“Megara”; the When in such as “in the Xth Olympiad”; for Possession -in such as “to have acquired wealth”; Action in such as “to write and -generally to do anything”; and Passion in such as “to be struck.” He -also assumes that some things have means and that others have not, as -we have said also about Plato. [Sidenote: p. 40.] And he is in accord -with Plato about most things save in the opinion about the soul. For -Plato thinks it immortal; but Aristotle that it remains behind after -this life and that it is lost in the fifth Body which is assumed to -exist along with the other four, to wit, fire, earth, water and air, -but is more subtle than they and like a spirit.[129] Again whereas -Plato said that the only good things were those which concerned the -soul and that these sufficed for happiness, Aristotle brings in a triad -of benefits and says that the sage is not perfect unless there are -at his command the good things of the body and those external to it. -Which things are Beauty, Strength, Keenness of Sense and Completeness; -while the externals are Wealth, High Birth, Glory, Power, Peace, and -Friendship; but that the inner things about the soul are, as Plato -thought: Prudence, Temperance, Justice and Fortitude.[130] Also -Aristotle says that evil things exist, and come by contrariety to the -good, and are below the place about the moon, but not above it. - -Again, he says that the soul of the whole ordered world is eternal, -but that the soul of man vanishes as we have said [Sidenote: p. 41.] -above. Now, he philosophized while delivering discourses in the Lyceum; -but Zeno in the Painted Porch. And Zeno’s followers got their name -from the place, _i. e._ they were called Stoics from the Stoa; but -those of Aristotle from their mode of study. For their enquiries were -conducted while walking about in the Lyceum, wherefore they were called -Peripatetics. This then Aristotle.[131] - - - 18. _About the Stoics._ - -The Stoics themselves also added to philosophy by the increased use of -syllogisms,[132] and included it nearly all in definitions, Chrysippus -and Zeno being here agreed in opinion. Who also supposed that God -was the beginning of all things, and was the purest body, and that -His providence extends through all things.[133] They say positively, -however, that existence is everywhere according to destiny using some -such simile as this: viz. that, as a dog tied to a cart, if he wishes -to follow it, is both drawn along by it and follows of his own accord, -doing at the same time [Sidenote: p. 42.] what he wills and what he -must by a compulsion like that of destiny.[134] But if he does not wish -to follow he is wholly compelled. And they say that it is the same -indeed with men. For even if they do not wish to follow, they will be -wholly compelled to come to what has been foredoomed. And they say -that the soul remains after death, and that it is a body[135] and is -born from the cooling of the air of the ambient, whence it is called -Psyche.[136] But they admit that there is a change of bodies for Souls -which have been marked out for it.[137] And they expect that there will -be a conflagration and purification of this cosmos, some saying that -it will be total but others partial, and that it will be purified part -by part. And they call this approximate destruction and the birth of -another cosmos therefrom, _catharsis_.[138] And they suppose that all -things are bodies, and that one body passes through another; but that -there is a resurrection[139] and that all things are filled full and -that there is no void. Thus also the Stoics. - - - 19. _About Epicurus._ - -[Sidenote: p. 43.] But Epicurus held an opinion almost the opposite -of all others. He supposed that the beginnings of the universals -were atoms and a void; that the void was as it were the place of the -things that will be; but that the atoms were matter, from which all -things are. And that from the concourse of the atoms both God and all -the elements came into being and that in them were all animals and -other things, so that nothing is produced or constructed unless it be -from the atoms. And he said that the atoms were the most subtle of -things, and that in them there could be no point, nor mark nor any -division whatever; wherefore he called them atoms.[140] And although -he admits God to be eternal and imperishable, he says that he cares -for no one and that in short there is no providence nor destiny, but -all things come into being automatically. For God is seated in the -metacosmic spaces, as he calls them. For he held that there was a -certain dwelling-place of God outside the cosmos called the metacosmia, -and that He [Sidenote: p. 44] took His pleasure and rested in supreme -delight; and that He neither had anything to do Himself nor provided -for others. In consequence of which Epicurus made a theory about wise -men, saying that the end of all wisdom is pleasure. But different -people take the name of pleasure differently. For some understood by it -the desires, but others the pleasure that comes by virtue. But he held -that the souls of men were destroyed with their bodies as they are born -with them. For that these souls are blood, which having come forth or -being changed, the whole man is destroyed. Whence it follows that there -are no judgments nor courts of justice in the House of Hades, so that -whatever any one may do in this life and escapes notice, he is in no -way called to account for it.[141] Thus then Epicurus. - - - 20. _About (the) Academics._ - -But another sect of philosophers was called Academic, [Sidenote: p. -45.] from their holding their discussions in the Academy, whose founder -was Pyrrho, after whom they were called Pyrrhonian philosophers. He -first introduced the dogma of the incomprehensibility of all things, so -that he might argue on either side of the question, but assert nothing -dogmatically. For he said that there is nothing grasped by the mind -or perceived by the senses which is true, but that it only appears to -men to be so. And that all substance is flowing and changing and never -remains in the same state. Now some of the Academics say that we ought -not to make dogmatic assertions about the principle of anything, but -simply argue about it and let it be; while others favoured more the -“no preference”[142] adage, saying that fire was not fire rather than -anything else. For they did not assert what it is, but only what sort -of a thing it is.[143] - - - 21. _About (the) Brachmans among the Indians._ - -The Indians have also a sect of philosophizers in the Brachmans[144] -who propose to themselves an independent life and abstain from all -things which have had life and from [Sidenote: p. 46.] meats prepared -by fire. They are content with fruits[145] but do not gather even -these, but live on those fallen on the earth and drink the water of the -river Tagabena.[146] But they spend their lives naked, saying that the -body has been made by God as a garment to the soul. They say that God -is light; not such light as one sees, nor like the sun and fire, but -that it is to them the Divine Word, not that which is articulated, but -that which comes from knowledge, whereby the hidden mysteries of nature -are seen by the wise. But this light which they say is (the) Word, the -God, they declare that they themselves as Brachmans alone know, because -they alone put away vain thinking which is the last tunic of the soul. -They scorn death; but are ever naming God in their own tongue, as we -have said above, and send up hymns to Him. But neither are there women -among them, nor do they beget children.[147] Those, however, who have -desired a life like theirs, after they [Sidenote: p. 47.] have crossed -over to the opposite bank of the river,[148] remain there always and -never return; but they also are called Brachmans. Yet they do not -pass their life in the same way; for there are women in the country, -from whom those dwelling there are begotten and beget. But they say -that this Word, which they style God, is corporeal, girt with the -body outside Himself, as if one should wear a garment of sheepskins; -but that the body which is worn, when taken off, appears visible to -the eye.[149] But the Brachmans declare that there is war in the body -worn by them [and they consider their body full of warring elements] -against which body as if arrayed against foes, they fight as we have -before made plain. And they say that all men are captives to their own -congenital enemies, to wit, the belly and genitals, greediness, wrath, -joy, grief, desire and the like. But that he alone goes to God who has -triumphed[150] over these. Wherefore the Brachmans make Dandamis, to -whom Alexander of Macedon paid a visit, divine[151] as one who had won -the war in the body. But they accuse Calanus of having impiously fallen -away from their philosophy. But the Brachmans putting away the body, -like [Sidenote: p. 48.] fish who have leaped from the water into pure -air, behold the Sun.[152] - - - 22. _About the Druids among the Celts._ - -The Druids among the Celts enquired with the greatest minuteness into -the Pythagorean philosophy, Zamolxis, Pythagoras’ slave, a Thracian -by race, being for them the author of this discipline. He after -Pythagoras’ death travelled into their country and became as far as -they were concerned the founder of this philosophy.[153] The Celts -glorify the Druids as prophets and as knowing the future because -they foretell to them some things by the ciphers and numbers of the -Pythagoric art. On the principles of which same art we shall not be -silent, since some men have ventured to introduce heresies constructed -from them. Druids, however, also make use of magic arts. - - - [Sidenote: p. 49.] 23. _About Hesiod._[154] - -But Hesiod the poet says that he, too, heard thus from the Muses about -Nature. The Muses, however, are the daughters of Zeus. For Zeus having -from excess of desire companied with Mnemosyne for nine days and nights -consecutively, she conceived these nine in her single womb, receiving -one every night. Now Hesiod invokes the nine Muses from Pieria, that is -from Olympus, and prays them to teach him:[155] - - “How first the gods and earth became; - The rivers and th’ immeasureable sea - High-raging in its foam: the glittering stars; - The wide-impending heaven; ... - Say how their treasures,[156] how their honours each - Allotted shared: how first they held abode - On many-caved Olympus:--this declare - [Sidenote: p. 50.] Ye Muses! dwellers of the heavenly mount - From the beginning; say who first arose? - - “First Chaos was, next ample-bosomed Earth, - The seat eternal and immoveable - Of deathless gods, who still the Olympian height - Snow-topt inhabit. Third in hollow depth - Of the vast ground, expanded wide above - The gloomy Tartarus, Love then arose - Most beauteous of immortals: he at once - Of every god and every mortal man - Unnerves the limbs; dissolves the wiser breast - By reason steel’d, and quells the very soul. - - “From Chaos, Erebus and sable Night... - From Night arose the Sunshine and the Day[157] - Whom she with dark embrace of Erebus - Commingling bore. - - “Her first-born Earth produced - Of like immensity,[158] the starry Heaven: - That he might sheltering compass her around - On every side, and be for evermore - To the blest gods a mansion unremoved. - - “Next the high hills arose, the pleasant haunts - Of goddess-nymphs, who dwell among the glens - Of mountains. With no aid of tender love - [Sidenote: p. 51.] Gave she to birth the sterile Sea, high-swol’n - In raging foam; and Heaven-embraced, anon - She teemed with Ocean, rolling in deep whirls - His vast abyss of waters - - “Crœus then, - Cœus, Hyperion and Iäpetus, - Themis and Thea rose; Mnemosyne - And Rhea; Phœbe diademed with gold, - And love-inspiring Tethys; and of these, - Youngest in birth, the wily Kronos came, - The sternest of her sons; and he abhorred - The sire that gave him life - - “Then brought she forth - The Cyclops haughty of spirit.” - -And he enumerates all the other Giants descended from Kronos. But last -he tells how Zeus was born from Rhea. - -All these men, then, declared, as we have set forth, their opinions -about the nature and birth of the universe. But they all, departing -from the Divine for lower things, busied themselves about the substance -of the things that are. So that when struck with the grandeurs of -creation and thinking that these were the Divine, each of them -preferred before the rest a different part of what was created. But -they discovered not the God and fashioner of them. - -The opinions therefore of those among the Greeks who [Sidenote: p. 52.] -have undertaken to philosophize, I think I have sufficiently set forth. -Starting from which opinions the heretics have made the attempts we -shall shortly narrate. It seems fitting, however, that we, first making -public the mystic rites,[159] should also declare whatever things -certain men have superfluously fancied about stars or magnitudes; for -truly those who have taken their starting-points from these notions are -deemed by the many to speak prodigies. Thereafter, we shall make plain -consecutively the vain opinions[160] invented by them.[161] - - - END OF BOOK I - - - FOOTNOTES - -[Footnote 1: As has been said in the Introduction (p. 1 _supra_) four -early codices of the First Book exist, the texts being known from the -libraries where they are to be found as the Medicean, the Turin, the -Ottobonian and the Barberine respectively. That published by Miller -was a copy of the Medicean codex already put into print by Fabricius, -but was carefully worked over by Roeper, Scott and others who like -Gronovius, Wolf and Delarue, collated it with the other three codices. -The different readings are, I think, all noted by Cruice in his edition -of 1860, but are not of great importance, and I have only noticed them -here when they make any serious change in the meaning of the passage. -Hermann Diels has again revised the text in his _Doxographi Græci_, -Berlin, 1879, with a result that Salmon (_D.C.B._ s. v. “Hippolytus -Romanus”) declares to be “thoroughly satisfactory,” and the reading -of this part of our text may now, perhaps, be regarded as settled. -Only the opening and concluding paragraphs are of much value for our -present purpose, the account of philosophic opinions which lies between -being, as has been already said, a compilation of compilations, and -not distinguished by any special insight into the ideas of the authors -summarized, with the works of most of whom Hippolytus had probably but -slight acquaintance. An exception should perhaps be made in the case -of Aristotle, as it is probable that Hippolytus, like other students -of his time, was trained in Aristotle’s dialectic and analytic system -for the purpose of disputation. But this will be better discussed in -connection with Book VII.] - -[Footnote 2: τάδε ἔνεστιν ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ τοῦ κατὰ πασῶν αἰρέσεων ἐλέγχου. -This formula is repeated at the head of Books V-X with the alteration -of the number only.] - -[Footnote 3: The word missing after πρώτῃ was probably μερίδι, the -only likely word which would agree with the feminine adjective. It -would be appropriate enough if the theory of the division of the work -into spoken lectures be correct. The French and German editors alike -translate _in libro primo_.] - -[Footnote 4: There seems no reason for numbering Pyrrho of Elis among -the members of the Academy, Old or New. Diogenes Laertius, from whose -account of his doctrines Hippolytus seems to have derived the dogma of -incomprehensibility which he here attributes to Pyrrho, makes him the -founder of the Sceptics. He was a contemporary of Alexander the Great, -and probably died before Arcesilaus founded the New Academy in 280 B.C.] - -[Footnote 5: Mr. Macmahon here reads “Brahmins.” Their habits appear -more like those of Yogis or Sanyasis.] - -[Footnote 6: ἁδρομερῶς: in contradistinction to κατὰ λεπτὸν just above.] - -[Footnote 7: ἀλογίστου γνώμης καὶ ἀθεμίτου ἐπιχειρήσεως. The Turin MS. -transposes the adjectives.] - -[Footnote 8: πρὸς το͂ν ὄντως Θεὸν. The phrase is used frequently -hereafter, particularly in Book X.] - -[Footnote 9: Cf. the “bond of iniquity” in St. Peter’s speech to Simon -Magus, Acts viii. 23.] - -[Footnote 10: τὸ τέλειον τῶν κακῶν. τέλειον being a mystic word for -final or complete initiation.] - -[Footnote 11: ἃ καὶ τὰ ἄλογα κ. τ. λ. Schneidewin and Cruice both read -εἰ καὶ, Roeper εἰ simply, others εἰ ὅτι. The first seems the best -reading; but none of the suggestions is quite satisfactory. The promise -to say what it was that even the dumb animals would not have done is -unfulfilled. It cannot have involved any theological question, but -probably refers to the obscene sacrament of the _Pistis Sophia_, the -Bruce Papyrus and Huysmans’ _Là-Bas_. Yet Hippolytus does not again -refer to it, and of all the heretics in our text, the Simonians are the -only ones accused of celebrating it, even by Epiphanius.] - -[Footnote 12: Ἀρχιερατεία. A neologism. This is the passage relied upon -to show that our author was a bishop]. - -[Footnote 13: ἀλλότρια = foreign. Cruice has _aliena_. But it is -here evidently contrasted with the “things of the truth” in the next -sentence.] - -[Footnote 14: κηρύσσομεν.] - -[Footnote 15: τὰ δοξαζόμενα, lit., “matters of opinion.”] - -[Footnote 16: ἐκ δογμάτων φιλοσοφουμένων. The context shows that here, -and probably elsewhere in the book, the phrase is used contemptuously.] - -[Footnote 17: τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσιν. As in Polybius, the word can be -translated in this sense throughout. Yet as meaning “those who fall in -with this” it is as applicable to spoken as to written words.] - -[Footnote 18: τὸ θεῖον. Both here and in Book X our author shows a -preference for this phrase instead of the more usual ὁ Θεός.] - -[Footnote 19: συμβάλλω.] - -[Footnote 20: δόγμα.] - -[Footnote 21: τὰ λαληθέντα ἀποβαίνοντα. Note the piling up of similes -natural in a _spoken_ peroration.] - -[Footnote 22: γυμνοὺς καὶ ἀσχήμονας, _nudos et turpes_, Cr. Stripped of -originality seems to be the threat intended.] - -[Footnote 23: φιλοσοφίαν φυσικήν. What we should now call Physics.] - -[Footnote 24: τὸ πᾶν is the phrase here and elsewhere used for the -universe or “whole” of Nature, and includes Chaos or unformed Matter. -The κόσμος or ordered world is only part of the universe. Diog. Laert., -I, _vit. Thales_, c. 6, says merely that Thales thought water to be -the ἀρχή or beginning of all things. As this is confirmed by all other -Greek writers who have quoted him, we may take the further statement -here attributed to him as the mistake of Hippolytus or of the compiler -he is copying.] - -[Footnote 25: ἀέρων in text. Roeper suggests ἄστρων, “stars.”] - -[Footnote 26: So Clement of Alexandria, _Stromateis_, V, c. 14, and -Diog. Laert., I. _vit. cit._, c. 9.] - -[Footnote 27: Diog. Laert., I, _vit. cit._, c. 8, makes his derider an -old woman. Θρᾶττα is not a proper name, but means a Thracian woman, as -Hippolytus should have known.] - -[Footnote 28: Roeper adds καὶ ἀριθμετικήν, apparently in view of the -speculations about the monad.] - -[Footnote 29: Aristotle in his _Metaphysica_, Bk. I, c. 5, attributes -the first use of this dogma to Xenophanes.] - -[Footnote 30: By these are meant the planets, including therein the Sun -and Moon. Cf. Sextus Empiricus, _Adversus Astrologos_, p. 343 (Cod.) -_passim_.] - -[Footnote 31: τὰ ὅλα = entities which must needs differ from one -another in kind. The phrase is thus used by Plato, Aristotle and all -the neo-Platonic writers.] - -[Footnote 32: ἐφήψατο, _attigit_, Cr. Frequent in Pindar.] - -[Footnote 33: So Timon in the _Silli_, as quoted by Diog. Laert., VIII, -_vit. Pyth._, c. 20.] - -[Footnote 34: φυσιογονικὴν. The Barberine MS. has φυσιογνωμονικὴν, -evidently inserted by some scribe who connected it with the absurd -system of metoposcopy described in Book IV.] - -[Footnote 35: κατὰ τὸ πλῆθος, _multitudine_, Cr.] - -[Footnote 36: For definitions and examples of this term see Aristot., -_Metaphys._, IV. c. 28.] - -[Footnote 37: I cannot trace Hippolytus’ authority for attributing -these neo-Pythagorean puerilities to Pythagoras himself. Diog. Laert., -Aristotle and the rest represent him as saying only that the monad -was the beginning of everything, and that from this and the undefined -dyad numbers proceed. The general reader may be recommended to Mr. -Alfred Williams Benn’s statement in _The Philosophy of Greece_ (Lond., -1898), pp. 78 ff. that “the Greeks did not think of numbers as pure -abstractions, but in the most literal sense as figures, that is to say, -limited portions of space.”] - -[Footnote 38: Macmahon thinks “number” and “monad” should here be -transposed, as Pythagoras considered according to him the monad as “the -highest generalization of number and a conception in abstraction.” -Yet the monad was not the highest abstraction of current (Greek) -philosophy. See Edwin Hatch, _Influence of Greek Ideas upon the -Christian Church_ (Hibbert Lectures), Lond., 1890, p. 255.] - -[Footnote 39: δύναμις is here used like our own mathematical expression -“power.” Why Hippolytus should associate it especially with the power -of 2 does not appear. By Greek mathematicians it seems rather to be -applied to the square root.] - -[Footnote 40: κυβισθῇ, _involvit_, Cr. It cannot here mean “cubed.” -Another mistake occurs in the same sentence, where it is said that the -square multiplied by the cube is a cube. The sentence is fortunately -repeated with the needful correction in Book IV, p. 116 _infra_. -Macmahon gives the proper notation as (a²)² = a⁴, (a²)³ = a⁶, -(a³)³ = a⁹.] - -[Footnote 41: μετενσωμάτωσις. The phrase which is here correctly -used throughout, but which has somehow slipped into English as -metempsychosis.] - -[Footnote 42: So Diog. Laert., VIII, _vit. Pyth._, c. 4.] - -[Footnote 43: Diodorus of Eretria is not otherwise known, Aristoxenus -is mentioned by Cicero, _Quæst. Tusculan._, I, 18, as a writer on music.] - -[Footnote 44: That is, of course, Zoroaster. The account here given -of his doctrines does not agree with what we know of them from other -sources. The minimum date for his activity (700 B.C.) makes it -impossible for him to have been a contemporary of Pythagoras. See the -translator’s _Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity_, I, p. 126; II, -p. 232.] - -[Footnote 45: Reading with Roeper τὴν κόσμου φύσιν καὶ. Cruice has τὸν -κόσμον φύσιν κατὰ, “that the cosmos is a nature according to,” etc.] - -[Footnote 46: δαίμονες, spirits or dæmons in the Greek sense, not -necessarily evil. But Aetius, _de Placit. Philosoph. ap._ Diels -_Doxogr._ 306, makes Pythagoras use the word as equivalent to τὸ κακόν. -Cf. pp. 52, 92 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 47: Hippolytus like nearly every other writer of his time -here confuses the Egyptians with the Alexandrian Greeks. It was these -last and not the subjects of the Pharaohs who were given to mathematics -and geometry, of which sciences they laid the foundations on which -we have since built. Certain devotees of the Alexandrian god Serapis -also shut themselves up in cells of the Serapeum, which they could -hardly have done in any temple in Pharaonic times. See _Forerunners_, -I, 79. Hippolytus gives a much more elaborate and detailed account of -Pythagorean teaching in Book VI, II, pp. 20 ff. _infra_.] - -[Footnote 48: Diog. Laert., VIII, _vit. Heraclit._, c. 6, attributes -this opinion to Heraclitus.] - -[Footnote 49: This verse appears in Diog. Laert., VIII, _vit. -Empedocles_, c. 6.] - -[Footnote 50: So Diog. Laert., _ubi. cit._] - -[Footnote 51: This sentence seems to have got out of place. It should -probably follow that on Lysis and Archippus, etc., on the last page. -The story of the shield is told by Diog. Laert., VIII, _vit. Pyth._, c. -4, and by Ovid, _Metamorph._, XV, 162 ff. For more about Empedocles see -Book VII, II, pp. 82 ff. _infra_.] - -[Footnote 52: Diog. Laert., VIII, _vit. Heraclit._, from whom -Hippolytus is probably quoting, says that in his boyhood, Heraclitus -used to say, he knew nothing, in his manhood everything. Has Hippolytus -garbled this?] - -[Footnote 53: There is nothing of this in what Hippolytus, Diogenes -Laertius or any other author extant gives as Empedocles’ opinions. τὰ -κακά seems to be equivalent to δαίμονες, as suggested in n. on p. 39 -_supra_. Hippolytus returns to Heraclitus’ opinions in Book IX, II, pp. -119 ff. _infra_.] - -[Footnote 54: So Diog. Laert., II, _vit. Anaximander_, c. 1, -_verbatim_.] - -[Footnote 55: κόσμοι. He therefore believed in a plurality of worlds.] - -[Footnote 56: οὐσία. It may here mean essence or being. A good -discussion of the changes in the meaning of the word and its -successors, ὑπόστασις and πρόσωπον, is to be found in Hatch, _op. -cit._, pp. 275-278.] - -[Footnote 57: μετέωρον, a phenomenon in the heavens, but also something -hung up or suspended.] - -[Footnote 58: στρογγύλον, used by Theophrastus for logs of timber.] - -[Footnote 59: Lit., “from the separation of the finest atoms of the air -and from their movement when crowded together.”] - -[Footnote 60: So Roeper. Cruice agrees.] - -[Footnote 61: A. W. Benn, _op. cit._, p. 51, gives a readable account -of Anaximander’s speculations in physics. Diels, _op. cit._, pp. 132, -133 shows in an excellently clear conspectus of parallel passages the -different authors from whom Hippolytus took the statements in our text -regarding the Ionians. The majority are to be found in Simplicius’ -commentaries on Aristotle, Simplicius’ source being, according to -Diels, the fragments of Theophrastus’ book on physics. Next in order -come Plutarch’s _Stromata_ and Aetius’ _De Placitis Philosophorum_, -many passages being common to both.] - -[Footnote 62: ὁμαλώτατος, _aequabilis_, Cr., “homogeneous.”] - -[Footnote 63: Lit., “whatever changes.”] - -[Footnote 64: Planets. See n. on p. 36 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 65: διὰ πλάτος. Cruice translates _ob latitudinem_, Macmahon -“through expanse of space.”] - -[Footnote 66: μετεωριζόμενου. See n. on p. 42 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 67: So Diog. Laert., II, _vit. Anaxim._, c. 1. This is the -feature of Anaximenes’ teaching which seems to have most impressed the -Greeks.] - -[Footnote 68: παχυθέντα.] - -[Footnote 69: Diog. Laert., _ubi cit._, puts Anaximander in the 58th -Olympiad (548 B.C.) and Anaximenes in the 63rd. This is more probable -than the dates in our text. For Anaximenes’ sources, mostly Aetius and -Theophrastus, see Diels’ conspectus mentioned in n. on p. 43 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 70: τὴν δὲ ὕλην γινομένην, _fieri materiam_, Cr.] - -[Footnote 71: τῆς ἐγκυκλίου κινήσεως. Macmahon says “orbicular,” but -it means if anything centripetal and centrifugal, as appears in next -sentence.] - -[Footnote 72: ὑποστῆναι. Hippolytus seems most frequently to use the -word in this sense.] - -[Footnote 73: μετέωρον. See n. on p. 42 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 74: τά τε ἐν αὐτῇ ὕδατα ἐξατμισθέντα ... ὑποστάντα οὕτως -γεγονέναι. I propose to fill the lacuna with καὶ πυκνωθέντα ἐν κοίλῳ. -For a description of this cavity see the _Phædo_ of Plato, c. 138. I do -not understand Roeper’s suggested emendation as given by Cruice.] - -[Footnote 75: There must be some mistake here. He has just said that -the sun and moon are below the stars.] - -[Footnote 76: φωτισμοί, _illuminationes_, Cr. So Macmahon. It clearly -means here “shinings forth again,” or “lightings up.”] - -[Footnote 77: Diog. Laert. quotes from Apollodorus’ _Chronica_ that -Anaxagoras died in the 1st year of the 78th Olympiad, or ten years -before Plato’s birth. For Hippolytus’ sources for his teaching, mainly -Diog. Laert., Aetius and Theophrastus, see Diels, _ubi cit._] - -[Footnote 78: μῖγμα, not μῖξις. But of what could the creative mind be -compounded before anything else had come into being?] - -[Footnote 79: ἐκ τῆς πυρῶσεως. Does he mean the heated air, and why -should the earth form no part of the universe? Something is probably -omitted here.] - -[Footnote 80: Ἐπικλιθῆναι, _de super incumbere_, Cr., “inclined at an -angle,” Macmahon. Evidently Archelaus imagined a concave heaven fitting -over the earth like a dish cover or an upturned boat or coracle. This -was the Babylonian theory. Cf. Maspero, _Hist. anc^{nne} de l’Orient -classique_, Paris, 1895, I, p. 543, and illustration. Many of the -Ionian ideas about physics doubtless come from the same source.] - -[Footnote 81: Reading, as Cruice suggests, καὶ ἀνθρώπους for καὶ -ἀνόμοια. So Diog. Laert., II, _vit. Archel._, c. 17.] - -[Footnote 82: χρήσασθαι, _uti_, Cr., “employed,” Macmahon.] - -[Footnote 83: A fair specimen of Hippolytus’ verbose and inflated -style.] - -[Footnote 84: No other philosopher has yet been quoted as saying that -the earth was spherical.] - -[Footnote 85: This sentence is said to have been interpolated.] - -[Footnote 86: ἐκ τοῦ περιέχοντος, “from the surrounding (æther).” An -expression much used by writers on astrology and generally translated -“ambient.”] - -[Footnote 87: Diog. Laert., IX, _vit. Dem._, c. 1, says either -Damasippus or Hegesistratus or Athenocritus.] - -[Footnote 88: It is doubtful whether astrology was known in Egypt -before the Alexandrian age. Diog. Laert., _vit. cit._, quotes from -Antisthenes that Democritus studied mathematics there, and astrology -was looked on by the Romans as a branch of mathematics. Cf. Sextus -Empiricus, _ubi cit., supra_.] - -[Footnote 89: καὶ τῇ μὲν γένεσθαι, τῇ δὲ ἐκλείπειν.] - -[Footnote 90: So Apollodorus. Diog. Laert., IX, _vit. Xenophan._, c. 1, -says of Dexius.] - -[Footnote 91: Diog. Laert., _ubi cit._, says Sotion of Alexandria is -the authority for this, but that he was mistaken. Hippolytus says later -in Book I (p. 59 _infra_) that Pyrrho was the first to assert the -incomprehensibility of everything. If, as Sotion asserted, Xenophanes -was a contemporary of Anaximander, he must have died two centuries -before Pyrrho was born.] - -[Footnote 92: δόκος δ’ ἐπὶ πᾶσι τέτυκται, _sed in omnibus opinio est_, -Cr. Yet δόκος is surely a “guess.”] - -[Footnote 93: αἰσθητικός.] - -[Footnote 94: ἐν τῷ βάθει τοῦ λίθου, “deep down in the stone.” Perhaps -the earliest mention of fossils.] - -[Footnote 95: Is this a survival of the Babylonian legends of the -Flood?] - -[Footnote 96: παραλλαγγάς, _differentias_, Cr. Perhaps “alternations.”] - -[Footnote 97: The whole of this section on Ecphantus is corrupt. He is -not alluded to again in the book.] - -[Footnote 98: Hippo is mentioned by Iamblichus in his life of -Pythagoras.] - -[Footnote 99: ἀπομαξάμενος, “been sealed with,” or “copied.” Cf. Diog. -Laert., II, _vit._ _Socrates_, c. 12.] - -[Footnote 100: προνοούμενον αὐτοῦ. The τόδε τὸ πᾶν of the line above -shows that Plato did not mean that the forethought extended to other -worlds than this.] - -[Footnote 101: This expression, like many others in this epitome of -Plato’s doctrines, is found in the Εἰς τὰ τοῦ Πλάτωνος Εἰσαγωγή of -Alcinous, who flourished in Roman times. The best edition still seems -to be Bishop Fell’s, Oxford, 1667. Alcinous’ work was, as will appear, -the main source from which Hippolytus drew his account of Plato’s -doctrines.] - -[Footnote 102: Alcinous, _op. cit._, c. 12.] - -[Footnote 103: _Ibid._, cc. 9, 12.] - -[Footnote 104: ἐδημιούργει. Not created _ex nihilo_, but made out of -existing material as an architect makes a house.] - -[Footnote 105: Alcinous, _op. cit._, cc. 8, 10.] - -[Footnote 106: ἐξ αὐτοῦ συνεστάναι αὐτόν. So Cruice. Macmahon reads -with Roeper αὐτῆς for αὐτοῦ, “the world was made out of it” (_i. e._ -matter).] - -[Footnote 107: The body of the cosmos is evidently meant. Cf. Alcinous, -c. 12.] - -[Footnote 108: _de Legg._, IV, 7.] - -[Footnote 109: ἀορίστως.] - -[Footnote 110: _Timæus_, c. 16.] - -[Footnote 111: _Phædrus_, c. 166.] - -[Footnote 112: γενεαλογῇ.] - -[Footnote 113: Alcinous, c. 25.] - -[Footnote 114: _Phædrus_, cc. 51, 52.] - -[Footnote 115: For this see the _Timæus_, c. 17.] - -[Footnote 116: This sentence is corrupt throughout, and there are at -least three readings which can be given to it. I have taken that which -makes the smallest alteration in Cruice’s text.] - -[Footnote 117: _Phædo_, c. 43.] - -[Footnote 118: I do not think this can be found in any writings of -Plato that have come down to us. Hippolytus probably took it from -Aristotle, to whom he also attributes it; but I cannot find it in this -writer either. A passage in Arist., _Nicomachean Ethics_, Book II, c. -6, is the nearest to it.] - -[Footnote 119: So Alcinous, c. 29. The other statements in this -sentence seem to be Aristotle’s rather than Plato’s. Cf. Diog. Laert., -V, _vit. Arist._, c. 13, where he describes the good things of the -soul, the body and of external things respectively.] - -[Footnote 120: Alcinous, cc. 28, 29.] - -[Footnote 121: _Ibid._, c. 27.] - -[Footnote 122: _Ibid._, c. 29.] - -[Footnote 123: _Ibid._, c. 26. The passage about the choice [of virtue] -is in the _Republic_, X, 617 C. Hippolytus had evidently not read the -original, which says that according as a man does or does not choose -virtue, so he will have more or less of it.] - -[Footnote 124: Alcinous, c. 30.] - -[Footnote 125: This passage is not in the _Republic_, but in the -_Clitopho_, as to Plato’s authorship of which there are doubts. Cruice -quotes the Greek text from Roeper in a note on p. 38 of his text.] - -[Footnote 126: Alcinous, c. 30.] - -[Footnote 127: _Ibid._, c. 29.] - -[Footnote 128: “Substance” (οὐσία) and “accident” (συμβεβηκός) -are defined by Aristotle in the _Metaphysica_, Bk. IV, cc. 8, 9 -respectively. The definitions in no way bear the interpretation that -Hippolytus here puts on them. In the _Categories_, which, whether by -Aristotle or not, are not referred to by him in any of his extant -works, it is said (c. 4) that “of things in complex enunciated, each -signifies _either_ Substance or Quantity, or Quality or Relation, or -Where or When, or Position, or Possession, or Action, or Passion.” It -is from this that Hippolytus probably took the statement in our text. -The illustrations are in part found in _Metaphysica_, c. 4.] - -[Footnote 129: The famous “Quintessence.” So Aetius, _De Plac. Phil._, -Bk. I, c. 1, § 38. But see Diog. Laert. in next note.] - -[Footnote 130: This is practically _verbatim_ from Diog. Laert., V, -_vit. Arist._, c. 13.] - -[Footnote 131: Hippolytus gives as is usual with him a more detailed -account of Aristotle’s doctrines on these points later. (See Book VII, -II, pp. 62 ff. _infra_.) He there admits that he cannot say exactly -what was Aristotle’s doctrine about the soul. He also refers to books -of Aristotle on Providence and the like which, _teste_ Cruice, no -longer exist. Cf. Macmahon’s note on same page (p. 272 of Clark’s -edition).] - -[Footnote 132: ἐπὶ τὸ συλλογιστικώτερον τὴν φιλοσοφίαν ηὔξησαν. -_Syllogisticæ artis expolitione philosophiam locupletarunt._] - -[Footnote 133: Prof. Arnold in his lucid book on _Roman Stoicism_ -(Cambridge, 1911, p. 219, n. 4) quotes this as a genuine Stoic -doctrine. But Diog. Laert., VII, _vit. Zeno_, c. 68, represents Zeno, -Cleanthes, Chrysippus, Archedemus and Posidonius as agreeing that -principles and elements differ from one another in being respectively -indestructible and destroyed, and because elements are bodies while -principles have none. For the Stoic idea of God, see _op. cit._, c. 70. -So Cicero, _De Natura Deorum_, Bk. I, cc. 8, 18, makes Zeno say that -the cosmos is God, but in the _Academics_, II, 41 that Aether is the -Supreme God, with which doctrine, he says, nearly all Stoics agree. -Perhaps Hippolytus is here quoting Clement of Alexandria, _Stromateis_, -VI, 71, who says that the Stoics dare to make the God of all things -“a corporeal spirit.” For the Stoic doctrine of Providence, see Diog. -Laert., _vit. Zeno_, c. 70.] - -[Footnote 134: ποιῶν καὶ τὸ αὐτεξούσιον μετὰ τῆς ἀνάγκης οἷον τῆς -εἱμαρμένης. Τὸ αὐτεξούσιον is the recognized expression for free will. -Note the difference between ἀνάγκη, “compulsion,” and εἱμαρμένη, -“destiny.” For the Stoic doctrine of Fate, see Diog. Laert., _vit. -cit._, c. 74.] - -[Footnote 135: Diog. Laert., _ubi cit._, c. 84.] - -[Footnote 136: From ψῦξις, “cooling”--a bad pun.] - -[Footnote 137: It is extremely doubtful whether the metempsychosis ever -formed part of Stoic doctrine.] - -[Footnote 138: Zeno and Cleanthes both accepted the ecpyrosis. See -Diog. Laert., _ubi cit._, c. 70. The same author says that Panætius -said that the cosmos was imperishable.] - -[Footnote 139: σῶμα διὰ σώματος μὲν χωρεῖν, _corpusque per corpus -migrare_, Cr. Macmahon inserts a “not” in the sentence, but without -authority. The Stoic resurrection assumed that in the new world created -out of the ashes of the old, individuals would take the same place as -in this last. See Arnold, _op. cit._, p. 193 for authorities.] - -[Footnote 140: ἀτόμοι, “that cannot be cut.” The rest of this sentence -is taken from Diog. Laert., X, _vit. Epicur._, c. 24, and is quoted -there from Epicurus’ treatise on Nature.] - -[Footnote 141: With the exception of the Deity’s seat in the -intercosmic spaces and the idea that the souls of men consist of blood, -all the above opinions of Epicurus are to be found in Diog. Laert., X, -_vit. Epic._] - -[Footnote 142: οὐ μᾶλλον, “not rather.”] - -[Footnote 143: See n. on p. 49 _supra_. The doctrines here given are -those of the Sceptics, and are to be found in Diog. Laert., IX, _vit. -Pyrrho_, c. 79 ff. and in Sextus Empiricus, _Hyp. Pyrrho_, I, 209 ff. -Diog. Laert. quotes from Ascanius of Abdera that Pyrrho introduced the -dogma of incomprehensibility, and Hippolytus seems to have copied this -without noticing that he has said the same thing about Xenophanes.] - -[Footnote 144: Diog. Laert., I, _Prooem._, c. 1, mentions both -Gymnosophists and Druids, but if he ever gave any account of their -teaching it must be in the part of the book which is lost. Clem. Alex., -_Stromateis_, I, c. 15, describes the two classes of Gymnosophists -as Sarmanæ and Brachmans. The Sarmanæ or Samanæi (Shamans?) seem the -nearer of the two to the Brachmans of our text.] - -[Footnote 145: ἀκροδρύοι, hard-shelled fruit such as acorns or -chestnuts.] - -[Footnote 146: Roeper suggests the Ganges.] - -[Footnote 147: Megasthenes, for whom see Strabo V, 712, differs from -Hippolytus in making the abstinence of the Gymnosophists endure for -thirty-seven years only.] - -[Footnote 148: Nothing has yet been said about any bank.] - -[Footnote 149: The whole of this sentence is corrupt. Macmahon -following Roeper would read: “This discourse whom they name God they -affirm to be incorporeal, but enveloped in a body outside himself, just -as if one carried a covering of sheepskin to have it seen; but having -stripped off the body in which he is enveloped, he no longer appears -visibly to the naked eye.”] - -[Footnote 150: ἐγείρας τρόπαιον, lit., “raised a trophy.”] - -[Footnote 151: θεολογοῦσι. Eusebius, _Præp. Ev._, uses the word in this -sense. For the Dandamis and Calanus stories, see Arrian, _Anabasis_, -Bk. VII, cc. 2, 3.] - -[Footnote 152: This is quite unintelligible as it stands. It probably -means that the Brachmans worship the light of which the Sun is the -garment, and that they think they are united with it when temporarily -freed from the body. Is he confusing them on the one hand with the -Yogis, whose burial trick is referred to later in connection with Simon -Magus, and on the other with some Zoroastrian or fire-worshipping sect -of Central Asia?] - -[Footnote 153: ὃς ... ἐκεῖ χωρήσας αἴτιος τούτοις ταύτης τῆς φιλοσοφίας -ἐγένετο. Does the ἐκεῖ mean Galatia, whose inhabitants were Celts -by origin? Hippolytus has probably copied the sentence without -understanding it.] - -[Footnote 154: Hesiod is treated by Aristotle, _Metaphysica_, Bk. -II, c. 15, as one who philosophizes, which perhaps accounts for the -introduction of his name here.] - -[Footnote 155: διδαχθῆναι, _ut se edocerent_, Cr. So Macmahon. The -context, however, plainly requires that it is Hesiod and not the Muse -who is to be taught. The rendering of poetry into prose is seldom -satisfactory, so I have ventured to give here the version of Elton, -which is as close to the original as it is poetic in form.] - -[Footnote 156: ὡς στέφανον δάσσαντο.] - -[Footnote 157: Αἰθήρ τε καὶ Ἡμέρη. One would prefer to keep the word -“Aether,” which is hardly “sunshine.”] - -[Footnote 158: ἶσον ἑαυτῇ.] - -[Footnote 159: τὰ μυστικὰ. The expression generally used for Mysteries -such as those of Eleusis. Either he employs it here to include the -tricks of the magicians described in Book IV, or he did not mean to -describe these last when the sentence was written, but to go instead -straight from the astrologers to the heresies. The last alternative -seems the more probable.] - -[Footnote 160: ἀδρανῆ, _infirmas_, Cr.] - -[Footnote 161: The main question which arises on this First Book of our -text is, What were the sources from which Hippolytus drew the opinions -he here summarizes? Diels, who has taken much pains over the matter, -thinks that his chief source was the epitome that Sotion of Alexandria -made from Heraclides. As we have seen, however, Diogenes Laertius is -responsible for a fair number of Hippolytus’ statements, especially -concerning the opinions of those to whom he gives little space. Certain -phrases seem taken directly from Theophrastus or from whatever author -it was that Simplicius used in his commentaries on Aristotle, and the -likeness between Alcinous’ summary of Plato’s doctrines and those of -our author is too close to be accidental. It therefore seems most -probable that Hippolytus did not confine himself to any one source, but -borrowed from several. This would, after all, be the natural course for -a lecturer as distinguished from a writer to adopt, and goes some way -therefore towards confirming the theory as to the origin of the book -stated in the Introduction.] - - - - - BOOKS II AND III - - -(These are entirely missing, no trace of them having been found -attached to any of the four codices of Book I or to the present text of -Books IV to X. We know that such books must have once existed, as at -the end of Book IV (p. 117 _infra_) the author tells us that all the -famous opinions of earthly philosophy have been included by him in the -preceding _four_ books, of which as has been said only Books I and IV -have come down to us. - -Our only ground for conjecture as to the contents of Books II and III -is to be found in Hippolytus’ statement at the end of Book I, that he -will _first_ make public the mystic rites[1] and then the fancies of -certain philosophers as to stars and magnitudes. As the promise in the -last words of the sentence seems to be fulfilled in Book IV, where he -gives not only the method of the astrologers of his time, but also the -calculations of the Greek astronomers as to the relative distances of -the heavenly bodies, it may be presumed that this was preceded and not -followed by a description of the Mysteries more elaborate and fuller -than the casual allusions to them which appear in Book V. So, too, in -Chap. 5 of the same Book IV, which he himself describes in the heading -as a “Recapitulation” of what has gone before, he refers to certain -dogmas of the Persians and the Babylonians as to the nature of God, -which have certainly not been mentioned in any other part of the book -which has come down to us. So, again, at the beginning of Book X, which -purports to be a summary of the whole work, he tells us that having now -gone through the “labyrinth of heresies,” it will be shown that the -Truth is not derived from “the wisdom (philosophy) of the Greeks, the -secret mysteries of the Egyptians,[2] the fallacies of the astrologers, -or the demon-inspired ravings of the Babylonians.” The Greek philosophy -and astrological fallacies are dealt with at sufficient length in Books -I and IV respectively, but nothing of importance is said in these or -elsewhere in the work as to the mysteries of the “Egyptians,” by whom -he probably means the worshippers of the Alexandrian divinities, and -nothing at all as to Babylonian demonolatry or magic. It is quite -true that he follows this up immediately by the statement that he -has included the tenets of all the wise men among the _Greeks_ in -four books, and the doctrines of the heretics in five; but it has -been explained in the Introduction (pp. 18 ff. _supra_) that there -are reasons why the summarizer’s recollection of the earlier books -may not be verbally accurate, nor does he say that the description -of the philosophic and heretical teachings exhausted the contents -of the first four books. On the whole, therefore, Cruice appears to -be justified in his conclusion that the missing books contained an -account of the “Egyptian” Mysteries and of “the sacred sciences of the -Babylonians.”)[3] - - - FOOTNOTES - -[Footnote 1: τὰ μυστικά.] - -[Footnote 2: Αἰγυπτίων δόγματα ... ὡς ἄρρητα διδαχθείς.] - -[Footnote 3: M. Adhémar d’Alès in his work _La Théologie de St. -Hippolyte_, Paris, 1906, argues that the existing text of Book -IV contains large fragments of the missing Books II and III. His -argument is chiefly founded on the supposed excessive length of Book -IV, although as a fact Book V is in Cruice’s pagination some 20 -pages longer than this and Book VI, 10. Apart from this, it seems -very doubtful if any author would describe the arithmomantic and -arithmetical nonsense in Book IV as either μυστικά or δόγματα ἄρρητα, -and it is certain that he cannot be alluding, when he speaks of the -Βαβυλωνίων ἀλογίστῳ μανίᾳ δι’ ἐν(εργί)ας δαιμόνων καταπλαγείς, to the -jugglery in the same book, which he there attributes not to the agency -of demons but to the tricks of charlatans.] - - - - - BOOK IV - - DIVINERS AND MAGICIANS - - -(The first pages of this book have been torn away from the MS., and we -are therefore deprived of the small Table of Contents which the author -has prefixed to the other seven. From the headings of the various -chapters it may be reproduced in substance thus:-- - -1. The “Chaldæans” or Astrologers, and the celestial measurements of -the Greek astronomers. - -2. The Mathematicians or those who profess to divine by the numerical -equivalents of the letters in proper names. - -3. The Metoposcopists or those who connect the form of the body and the -disposition of the mind with the Zodiacal sign rising at birth. - -4. The Magicians and the tricks by which they read sealed letters, -perform divinations, produce apparitions of gods and demons, and work -other wonders. - -5. Recapitulation of the ideas of Greek and Barbarian on the nature of -God, and the views of the “Egyptians” or neo-Pythagoreans as to the -mysteries of number. - -6. The star-diviners or those who find religious meaning in the -grouping of the constellations as described by Aratus. - -7. The Pythagorean doctrine of number and its relation to the heresies -of Simon Magus and Valentinus.) - - - [Sidenote: p. 53.] [1. _About Astrologers_.[1]] - -... (And they (_i. e._ the Chaldæans) declare there are “terms”[2] -of the stars in each zodiacal sign extending from one given part)[3] -to [another given part in which some particular star has most power. -About which there is no mere chance difference] among them [as appears -from their tables]. But they say that the stars are guarded[4] [when -they are midway between two other stars] in zodiacal succession. -For instance, if [a certain star should occupy the first part] of a -zodiacal sign and another [the last parts, and a third those of the -middle, the one in the middle is said to be guarded] by those occupying -the parts at the extremities. [And they say that the stars behold -one another and are in accord with one another] when they appear -triangularly or quadrangularly. Now those form a triangular [Sidenote: -p. 54.] figure[5] and behold one another which have an interval of -three zodiacal signs between them and a square those which have one of -two signs.... - -([6]Such then seems to be the character of the Chaldæan method. And -in that which has been handed down it remains easy to understand and -follow the contradictions noted. And some indeed try to teach a rougher -way as if earthly things have no sympathy[7] at all with the heavenly -ones. For thus they say, that the ambient[8] is not united as is the -human body, so that according to the condition) of the head the lower -parts [suffer with it and the head with the lower] parts, and earthly -things should suffer along with those above the moon. But there is a -certain difference and want of sympathy between them as they have not -one and [the] same unity. - -2. Making use of these statements, Euphrates the Peratic and -Akembes the Carystian[9] and the rest of the band of these people, -miscalling the word of Truth, declare that there is a war of æons and -a falling-away of good powers to the bad, calling them Toparchs and -Proastii[10] and many other names. All which heresy undertaken by them, -I shall set forth and refute when we come to the discussion concerning -them. But now, lest any one should deem trustworthy and unfailing -the rules laid down[11] by the Chaldæans [Sidenote: p. 55.] for the -astrological art, we shall not shrink from briefly setting forth their -refutation and pointing out that their art is vain and rather deceives -and destroys the soul which may hope for vain things than helps it. In -which matters we do not hold out any expertness in the art, but only -that drawn from knowledge of the practical words.[12] Those who, having -been trained in this science, become pupils of the Chaldæans and who -having changed the names only, have imparted mysteries as if they were -strange and wonderful to men, have constructed a heresy out of this. -But since they consider the astrologers’ art a mighty one and making -use of the witness of the Chaldæans wish to get their own systems -believed because of them, we shall now prove that the astrological art -as it appears to-day is unfounded, and then that the Peratic heresy is -to be put aside as a branch growing from a root which does not hold.[13] - -3.[14] Now the beginning and as it were the basis of the affair -is the establishment of the horoscope. From this the rest of the -cardinal points, and the cadents and succeedents and the trines and -the squares[15] and the configuration of the stars in them are known, -from all which things the predictions [Sidenote: p. 56.] are made. -Wherefore if the horoscope be taken away, of necessity neither the -midheaven nor the descendant nor the anti-meridian is known. But the -whole Chaldaic system vanishes if these are not disclosed. [And how -the zodiacal sign ascending is to be discovered is taught in divers -ways. For in order that this may be apprehended, it is necessary first -of all that the birth of the child falling under consideration be -carefully taken, and secondly that the signalling of the time[16] be -unerring, and thirdly that the rising in the heaven of the ascending -sign be observed with the greatest care. For at the birth[17] the -rising of the sign ascending in the heaven must be closely watched, -since the Chaldæans determining that which ascends, on its rising make -that disposition of the stars which they call the Theme,[18] from -which they declare their predictions. But neither is it possible to -take the birth of those falling under consideration, as I shall show, -nor is the time established [Sidenote: p. 57.] unerringly, nor is the -ascending sign ascertained with care. How baseless the system of the -Chaldæans is, we will now say. It is necessary before determining -the birth of those falling under consideration, to inquire whether -they take it from the deposition of the seed and its conception or -from the bringing forth. And if we should attempt to take it from the -conception, the accurate account of this is hard to grasp, the time -being short and naturally so. For we cannot say whether conception -takes place simultaneously with the transfer of the seed or not. For -this may happen as quick as thought, as the tallow put into heated -pots sticks fast at once, or it may take place after some time.[19] -For there being a distance from the mouth of the womb to the other -extremity, where conceptions are said by doctors to take place, it -is natural that nature depositing the seed should take some time to -accomplish this distance. Therefore the Chaldæans being ignorant of -the exact length of time will never discover exactly the time of -conception, the seed being sometimes [Sidenote: p. 58.] shot straight -forward and falling in those places of the womb fitted by nature for -conception, and sometimes falling broadcast to be only brought into -place by the power of the womb itself. And it cannot be known when the -first of these things happens and when the second, nor how much time is -spent in one sort of conception and how much in the other. But if we -are ignorant of these things, the accurate discovery of the nature of -the conception vanishes.[20] Nor if, as some physiologists say, seed -being first seethed and altered in the womb then goes forward to its -gaping vessels as the seeds of the earth go to the earth; why then, -those who do not know the length of time taken by this change will not -know either the moment of conception. And again, as women differ from -one another in energy and other causes of action in other parts of the -body, so do they differ in the energy of the womb, some conceiving -quicker and others slower. And this is not unexpected, since if we -compare them, they are seen now to be good conceivers and now not at -all so. This being so, it is impossible to say with exactness when the -seed deposited is secured, so that from this time the Chaldæans may -establish the horoscope[21] of the birth. - -[Sidenote: p. 59.] 4. For this reason it is impossible to establish the -horoscope from the conception; nor can it be done from the bringing -forth. For in the first place, it is very hard to say when the bringing -forth is: whether it is when the child begins to incline towards the -fresh air or when it projects a little, or when it is brought down -altogether to the ground. But in none of these cases is it possible -to define the time of birth accurately.[22] For from presence of mind -and suitableness of body, and through preference of places and the -expertness of the midwife and endless other causes, the time is not -always the same when, the membranes being ruptured, the infant inclines -forward, or when [Sidenote: p. 60.] it projects a little, or when it -falls to the ground. But it is different with different women. Which, -again, the Chaldæans being unable to measure definitely and accurately, -they are prevented from determining as they should the hour of the -bringing forth. - -That the Chaldæans, therefore, while asserting that they know the -sign ascending at the time of birth, do not know it, is plain from -the facts. And that there is no means either of unerringly observing -the time,[23] is easy to be judged. For when they say that the person -sitting by the woman in labour at the bringing forth signifies the -same to the Chaldæan who is looking upon the stars from a high place -by means of the gong,[24] and that this last gazing upon the heaven -notes down the sign then rising, we shall show that as the bringing -forth happens at no defined time,[25] it is not possible either to -signify the same by the gong. For even if it be granted that the actual -bringing forth can be ascertained, yet the time cannot be signified -accurately. For the sound of the gong, being capable of divisions -by perception into much and more time,[26] it happens that it is -[Sidenote: p. 61.] carried (late) to the high place. And the proof of -this is what is noticed when trees are felled a long way off.[27] For -the sound of the stroke is heard a pretty long time after the fall of -the axe, so as to reach the listener later. And from this cause it -is impossible for the Chaldæans to obtain accurately the time of the -rising sign and that which is in truth on the ascendant.[28] And indeed -not only does more time pass after the birth before he who sits beside -the woman in labour, strikes the gong, and again after the stroke -before it is heard by him upon the high place, but also before he can -look about and see in which sign is the moon and in which is each of -the other stars. It seems inevitable then that there must be a great -change in the disposition of the stars,[29] [from the movement of the -Pole being whirled along with indescribable swiftness] before the -hour of him who has been born as it is seen in heaven can be observed -carefully.[30] - -[Sidenote: p. 62.] 5. Thus the art according to the Chaldæans has been -shown to be baseless. But if any one should fancy that by enquiries, -the geniture[31] of the enquirer is to be learned, we may know that -not in this way either can it be arrived at with certainty. For if -such great care in the practice of the art is necessary, and yet as we -have shown they do not arrive at accuracy, how can an unskilled person -take accurately the time of birth, so that the Chaldæan on learning -it may set up the horoscope truthfully?[32] But neither by inspection -of the horizon will the star ascending appear the same everywhere, -but sometimes the cadent sign will be considered the ascendant and -sometimes the succeedent, according as the coming in view of the places -is higher or lower. So that in this respect the prediction will not -appear accurate, many people being born all over the world at the same -hour, while every observer will see the stars differently. - -But vain also is the customary taking of the time by water-jars.[33] -For the pierced jar will not give the same flow when full as when -nearly empty, while according to [Sidenote: p. 63.] the theory of these -people the Pole itself is borne along in one impulse with equal speed. -But if they answer to this that they do not take the time accurately -but as it chances in common use,[34] they will be refuted merely by -the starry influences themselves.[35] For those who have been born -at the same time have not lived the same life; but some for example -have reigned as kings while others have grown old in chains. None at -any rate of the many throughout the inhabited world at the same time -as Alexander of Macedon were like unto him, and none to Plato the -philosopher. So that if the Chaldæan observes carefully the time in -common use, he will not be able to say[36] if he who is born at that -time will be fortunate. For many at any rate born at that time, will be -unfortunate, so that the likeness between the genitures is vain. - -Having therefore refuted in so many different ways the vain speculation -of the Chaldæans, we shall not omit this, that their prognostications -lead to impossibility. For if he who is born under the point of -Sagittarius’ arrow must be slain, as the astrologers[37] say, how -was it that so many [Sidenote: p. 64.] barbarians who fought against -the Greeks at Marathon or Salamis were killed at the same time? For -there was not at any rate the same horoscope for all. And again, if -he who is born under the urn of Aquarius will be shipwrecked, how was -it that some of the Greeks returning from Troy were sunk together in -the furrows of the Eubœan sea? For it is incredible that all these -differing much from one another in age should all have been born under -Aquarius’ urn. For it cannot be said often that because of one who was -destined to perish by sea, all those in the ship should be destroyed -along with him. For why should the destiny of this one prevail over -that of all, and yet that not all should be saved because of one who -was destined to die on land? - -6. But since also they make a theory about the influence of the -zodiacal signs to which they say the things brought forth are likened, -we shall not omit this. For example, they say that he who is born -under Leo will be courageous,[38] and he who is born under Virgo -straight-haired, pale-complexioned, [Sidenote: p. 65.] childless -and bashful. But these things and those like them deserve laughter -rather than serious consideration.[39] For according to them an -Ethiopian can be born under Virgo, and if so they allow he will be -white, straight-haired and the rest. But I imagine that the ancients -gave the names of the lower animals to the stars rather because of -arbitrariness[40] than from natural likeness of shape. For what -likeness to a bear have the seven stars which stand separate from one -another? Or to the head of a dragon those five of which Aratus says:-- - - Two hold the temples, two the eyes, and one beneath - Marks the chin point of the monster dread.-- - (Aratus, _Phainomena_, vv. 56, 57.) - -7. That these things are not worthy of so much labour is thus proved -to the right-thinkers aforesaid, and to those who give no heed to the -inflated talk of the Chaldæans, who with assurance of indemnity make -kings to disappear [Sidenote: p. 66.] and incite private persons to -dare great deeds.[41] But if he who has given way to evil fails, he -who has been deceived does not become a teacher to all whose minds -the Chaldæans wish to lead endlessly astray by their failures. For -they constrain the minds of their pupils when they say that the same -configuration of the stars cannot occur otherwise than by the return -of the Great Year in 7777 years.[42] How then can human observation -agree[43] in so many ages upon one geniture? And this not once but many -times, since the destruction of the cosmos as some say will interrupt -the observation, or its gradual transformation will cause to disappear -entirely the continuity of historical tradition.[44]] The Chaldaic art -must be refuted by more arguments, although we have been recalling -it to memory on account of other matters and not for its own sake. -But since we have before said that we will omit none of the opinions -current among the Gentiles,[45] by reason of the many-voiced craft of -the heresies, let us see what they say also who have [Sidenote: p. 67.] -dared to speculate about magnitudes. Who, recognizing the variety of -the work of most of them, when another has been utterly deceived in a -different manner and has been yet held in high esteem, have dared to -say something yet more grandiose than he, so that they may be yet more -glorified by those who have already glorified their petty frauds. These -men postulate circles and triangular and square measures doubly and -triply.[46] There is much theory about this, but it is not necessary -for what lies before us. - -8. I reckon it enough therefore to declare the marvels described by -them. Wherefore I shall employ their epitomes,[47] as they call them, -and then turn to other things. They say this:[48] he who fashioned the -universe, gave rule to the revolution of the Same and Like, for that -alone he left undivided; but the inner motion he divided 6 times and -made 7 unequal circles divided by intervals in ratios of 2 and 3, 3 -of each, and bade the circles revolve in directions opposite to one -another--3 of them to revolve at equal pace, and 4 with a velocity -unlike that of the 3, but in [Sidenote: p. 68.] due proportion.[49] And -he says that rule was given to the orbit of the 7, not only because it -embraces the orbit of the Other, _i. e._, the Wanderers; but because -it has so much rule, _i. e._, so much power, that it carries along -with it the Wanderers to the opposite positions, bearing them from -West to East and from East to West by its own strength. And he says -that the same orbit was allowed to be one and undivided, first because -the orbits of all the fixed stars are equal in time and not divided -into greater and lesser times.[50] And next because they all have the -same appearance,[51] which is that of the outermost orbit, while the -Wanderers are divided into more and different kinds of movements and -into unequal distances from the Earth. And he says that the Other orbit -has been cut in 6 places into 7 circles according to ratio.[52] For as -many cuts as there are of each, so many segments are there _plus_ a -monad. For example if one cut be made,[53] there are 2 segments; if 2 -cuts, 3 segments; and so, if a thing be cut 6 times there [Sidenote: -p. 69.] will be 7 segments. And he says that the intervals between -them are arranged alternately in ratios of 2 and 3, 3 of each, which -he has proved with regard to the constitution of the soul also, as to -the 7 numbers. For 3 among them, viz., 2, 4, 8, are doubles from the -monad onwards and 3 of them, viz., 3, 9, 27 [triples][54].... But the -diameter of the Earth is 80,008 stadia and its perimeter 250,543.[55] -And the distance from the Earth’s surface to the circle of the Moon, -Aristarchus of Samos writes as ...[56] stadia but Apollonius as -5,000,000 and Archimedes as 5,544,130. And Archimedes says that from -the Moon’s circle to that of the Sun is 50,262,065 stadia; from this -to the circle of Aphrodite 20,272,065; and from this to the circle of -Hermes 50,817,165; and from the same to the circle of [Sidenote: p. -70.] the Fiery One[57] 40,541,108; and from this to the circle of Zeus -20,275,065; but from this to the circle of Kronos, 40,372,065; and from -this to the Zodiac and the last periphery 20,082,005 stadia. - -9. The differences from one another of the circles and the spheres -in height are also given by Archimedes. He takes the perimeter of -the Zodiac at 447,310,000 stadia, so that a straight line from the -centre of the Earth to its extreme surface is the sixth part of the -said number, and from the surface of the Earth on which we walk to -the Zodiac is exactly one-sixth of the said number less 40,000 stadia -which is the distance from the centre of the Earth to its surface. -And from the circle of Kronos to the Earth, he says, the interval is -2,226,912,711 stadia; and from the [Sidenote: p. 71.] circle of the -Fiery One to the Earth, 132,418,581; and from the Sun to the Earth, -121,604,454; from the Shining One to the Earth, 526,882,259; and from -Aphrodite to the Earth, 50,815,160.[58] - -10. And about the Moon we have before spoken. The distances and -depths[59] of the spheres are thus given by Archimedes, but Hipparchus -speaks differently about them, and Apollonius the mathematician -differently again. But it is enough for us in following the Platonic -theory to think of the intervals between the Wanderers as in ratios -of 2 and 3. For thus is kept alive the theory of the harmonious -construction of the universe in accordant ratios[60] by the same -distances. But the numbers set out by Archimedes and the ratios quoted -by the others concerning the distances, if they are not in accordant -ratios, that is in those called by [Sidenote: p. 72.] Plato twofold -and threefold, but are found to be outside the chords,[61] would not -keep alive the theory of the harmonious construction of the universe. -For it is neither probable nor possible that their distances should -have no ratio to one another, that is, should be outside the chords -and enharmonic scales. Except perhaps the Moon alone, from her waning -and the shadows of the Earth, as to which planet alone you may trust -Archimedes, that is to say for the distance of the Moon from the Earth. -And it will be easy for those who accept this calculation to ascertain -the number and the other distances according to the Platonic method -by doubling and tripling as Plato demands.[62] If then, according to -Archimedes, the Moon is distant from the Earth 5,544,130 stadia, it -will be easy by increasing these numbers in ratios of 2 and 3 to find -her distance from the rest by taking one fraction of the number of -stadia by which the Moon is distant from the Earth. - -But since the rest of the numbers stated by Archimedes about the -distance of the Wanderers are not in accordant ratios, it is easy to -know how they stand in regard to one [Sidenote: p. 73.] another and in -what ratios they have been observed to be. But that the same are not in -harmony and accord[63] when they are parts of the cosmos established -by harmony is impossible. So then, as the first number (of stadia) -by which the Moon is distant from the Earth is 5,544,130, the second -number by which the Sun is distant from the Moon being 50,262,065, it -is in ratio more than ninefold; and the number of the interval above -this being 20,272,065 is in ratio less than one-half. And the number of -the interval above this being 50,815,108 is in ratio more than twofold. -And the number of the interval above this being 40,541,108 is in ratio -more than one and a quarter.[64] And the number of the interval above -this being 20,275,065 is in ratio more than half. And the number of -the highest interval above this being 40,372,065 is in ratio less than -twofold.[65] - -11. These same ratios indeed--the more than ninefold, [Sidenote: p. -74.] less than half, more than twofold, less than one and a quarter, -more than half, less than half and less than twofold are outside all -harmonies and from them no enharmonic nor accordant system can come to -pass. But the whole cosmos and its parts throughout are put together in -an enharmonic and accordant manner. But the enharmonic and accordant -ratios are kept alive as we have said before by the twofold and -threefold intervals. If then we deem Archimedes worthy of faith on the -distance given above, _i. e._, that from the Moon to the Earth, it is -easy to find the rest by increasing it in the ratios of 2 and 3. Let -the distance from the Earth to the Moon be, according to Archimedes, -5,544,130 stadia. The double of this will be the number of stadia by -which the Sun is distant from the Moon, viz., 11,088,260. But from -the Earth the Sun is distant 16,632,390 stadia and Aphrodite indeed -from the Sun--16,632,390 stadia, but from the Earth 33,264,780. Ares -indeed is distant from Aphrodite 22,176,520 stadia but from the Earth -105,338,470. But Zeus is distant from Ares 44,353,040 stadia, but from -[Sidenote: p. 75] the Earth 149,691,510. Kronos is distant from Zeus -40,691,510 stadia, but from the Earth 293,383,020.[66] - -12. Who will not wonder at so much activity of mind produced by so -great labour? It seems that this Ptolemy[67] who busies himself with -these matters is not without his use to me. This only grieves me that -as one but lately born he was not serviceable to the sons of the -giants,[68] who, being ignorant of these measurements, thought they -were near high heaven and began to make a useless tower. Had he been at -hand to explain these measurements to them they would not have ventured -on the foolishness. But if any one thinks he can disbelieve this let -him take the measurements and be convinced; for one cannot have for -the unbelieving a more manifold proof than this. O puffing-up of -vainly-toiling soul and unbelieving belief, when Ptolemy is considered -wise in everything by those trained in the like wisdom![69] - -13. Certain men in part intent on these things as judging [Sidenote: -p. 76.] them mighty and worthy of argument have constructed -measureless[70] and boundless heresies. Among whom is one -Colarbasus,[71] who undertakes to set forth religion by measures and -numbers. And there are others whom we shall likewise point out when -we begin to speak of those who give heed to Pythagorean reckoning as -if it were powerful and neglect the true philosophy for numbers and -elements, thus making vain divinations. Collecting whose words, certain -men have led astray the uneducated, pretending to know the future and -when they chance to divine one thing aright are not ashamed of their -many failures, but make a boast of their one success. Nor shall I pass -over their unwise wisdom, but when I have set forth their attempts to -establish a religion from these sources, I shall refute them as being -disciples of a school inconsistent and full of trickery. - - - 2. _Of Mathematicians._[72] - -[Sidenote: p. 77.] Those then who fancy that they can divine by means -of ciphers[73] and numbers, elements[74] and names, make the foundation -of their attempted system to be this. They pretend that every number -has a root:--in the thousands as many units as there are thousands. -For example, the root of 6000 is 6 units, of 7000, 7 units, of 8000, -8 units, and with the rest in the same way. In the hundreds as many -hundreds as there are, so the same number of units is the root of them. -For example, in 700 there are 7 hundreds: 7 units is their root. In 600 -there are 6 hundreds: 6 units is their root. In the same way in the -decads: of 80 the root is 8 units, of 40, 4 units, of 10, 1 unit. In -the units, the units themselves are the root; for instance, the unit -of the 9 is 9, of the 8, 8, of the 7, 7. Thus then must we do with the -component parts [of names]. For each element is arranged according to -some number. For example, the Nu consists of 50 units; but of 50 units -the root is 5, and of the letter [Sidenote: p. 78.] Nu the root is 5. -Let it be granted that from the name we may take certain[75] of its -roots. For example, from the name Agamemnon there comes from the Alpha -one unit, from the Gamma 3 units, from the other Alpha 1 unit, from the -Mu 4 units, from the Epsilon 5 units, from the Mu 4 units, from the Nu -5 units, from the Omega 8 units, from the Nu 5 units, which together in -one row will be 1, 3, 1, 4, 5, 4, 5, 8, 5. These added together make 36 -units. Again they take the roots of these and they become 3 for the 30, -but 6 itself for the 6. Then the 3 and the 6 added together make 9, but -the root of 9 is 9. Therefore the name Agamemnon ends in the root 9. - -Let the same be done with another name, viz., Hector. The name Hector -contains five elements, Epsilon, Kappa, Tau, Omega and Rho.[76] The -roots of these are 5, 2, 3, 8, 1; these added together make 19 units. -Again, the root of the 10 is 1, of the 9, 9, which added together make -10. The root of the 10 is one unit. Therefore the name of Hector when -counted up[77] has made as its root one unit. - -[Sidenote: p. 79.] But it is easier to work this way. Divide by 9 the -roots ascertained from the elements, as we have just found 19 units -from the name Hector, and read the remaining root. For example, if I -divide the 19 by 9, there remains a unit, for twice 9 is 18, and the -remainder is a unit. For if I subtract 18 from the 19, the remainder -is a unit. Again, of the name Patroclus[78] these numbers 8, 1, 3, 1, -7, 2, 3, 7, 2 are the roots; added together they make 34 units. The -remainder of these units is 7, viz., 3 from the 30 and 4 from the 4. -Therefore 7 units are the root of the name Patroclus. Those then who -reckon by the rule of 9 take the 9th part of the number collected from -the roots and describe the remainder as the sum of the roots; but those -who reckon by the rule of 7 take the 7th part. For example, in the name -Patroclus the aggregate of the roots is 34 units. This divided into -sevens makes 4 sevens, which are 28; the [Sidenote: p. 80.] remainder -is 6 units. He says that by the rule of 7, 6 is the root of the name -Patroclus.[79] If, however, it be 43, the 7th part, he says, is 42, for -7 times 6 is 42, and the remainder is 1. Therefore the root from the -43 by the rule of 7 becomes a unit. But we must take notice of what -happens if the given number when divided has no remainder,[80] as for -example, if from one name, after adding together the roots, I find, _e. -g._, 36 units. But 36 divided by 9 is exactly 4 enneads (for 9 times -4 is 36 and nothing over). Thus, he says the 9 itself is plainly the -root. If again we divide the number 45 we find 9 and no remainder (for -9 times 5 is 45 and nothing over), in such cases we say the root is 9. -And in the same way with the rule of 7: if, _e. g._, we divide 28 by -7 we shall have nothing over (for 7 times 4 is 28 and nothing left), -[and] they say the root is 7. Yet when he reckons up the names and -finds the same letter twice, he counts it only once. For example, the -name [Sidenote: p. 81.] Patroclus has the Alpha twice and the Omicron -twice,[81] therefore he counts the Alpha only once and the Omicron only -once. According to this, then, the roots will be 8, 3, 1, 7, 2, 3, 2, -and added together make 27,[82] and the root of the name by the rule of -9 will be the 9 itself and by that of 7, 6. - -In the same way Sarpedon, when counted, makes by the rule of 9, 2 -units; but Patroclus makes 9: Patroclus conquers. For when one number -is odd and the other even, the odd conquers if it be the greater. But -again if there were an 8, which is even, and a 5, which is odd, the 8 -conquers, for it is greater. But if there are two numbers, for example, -both even or both odd, the lesser conquers. But how does Sarpedon by -the rule of 9 make 2 units? The element Omega is omitted; for when -there are in a name the elements Omega and Eta, they omit the Omega -[Sidenote: p. 82.] and use one element. For they say that they both -have the same power, but are not to be counted twice, as has been said -above. Again, Ajax (Αἴας)[83] makes 4 units, and Hector by the rule of -9 only one. But the 4 is even while the unit is odd. And since we have -said that in such cases the greater conquers, Ajax is the victor. Take -again Alexandros[84] and Menelaus. Alexandros has an individual[85] -name [Paris]. The name Paris makes by the rule of 9, 4; Menelaus by the -same rule 9, and the 9 conquers the 4. For it has been said that when -one is odd and the other even, the greater conquers, but when both are -even or both odd, the lesser. Take again Amycus and Polydeuces. Amycus -makes by the rule of 9, 2 units, and Polydeuces 7: Polydeuces conquers. -Ajax and Odysseus contended together in the funereal games. Ajax makes -by the rule of 9, 4 units, and Odysseus by the same rule 8.[86] Is -there not (here) then some epithet of Odysseus and not his individual -name, for he conquered? According to the numbers Ajax conquers, but -tradition says Odysseus. Or take again Achilles and Hector. Achilles by -the rule of 9 makes 4; [Sidenote: p. 83.] Hector 1; Achilles conquers. -Take again Achilles and Asteropæus. Achilles makes 4, Asteropæus 3;[87] -Achilles conquers. Take again Euphorbus and Menelaus. Menelaus has 9 -units, Euphorbus 8; Menelaus conquers. - -But some say that by the rule of 7, they use only the vowels, and -others that they put the vowels, semi-vowels and consonants by -themselves, and interpret each column separately. But yet others do not -use the usual numbers, but different ones. Thus, for example, they will -not have Pi to have as a root 8 units, but 5 and the element Xi as a -root 4 units; and turning about every way, they discover nothing sane. -When, however, certain competitors contend a second time,[88] they take -away the first element, and when a third, the two first elements of -each, and counting up the rest, they interpret them. - -[Sidenote: p. 84.] 2. I should think that the design of the -arithmeticians has been plainly set forth, who deem that by numbers -and names they can judge life. And I notice that, as they have time -to spare and have been trained in counting, they have wished by means -of the art handed down to them by children to proclaim themselves -well-approved diviners, and, measuring the letters topsy-turvy, have -strayed into nonsense. For when they fail to hit the mark, they say in -propounding the difficulty that the name in question is not a family -name but an epithet; as also they plead as a subterfuge in the case -of Ajax and Odysseus. Who that founds his tenets on this wonderful -philosophy and wishes to be called heresiarch, will not be glorified? - - - 3. _Of Divination by Metoposcopy._[89] - -1. But since there is another and more profound art among the all-wise -investigators of the Greeks, whose disciples the heretics profess -themselves because of the use they make of their opinions for their -own designs, as we shall show before long, we shall not keep silence -about this. This is the divination or rather madness by metoposcopy. -[Sidenote: p. 85.] There are those who refer to the stars the forms of -the types and patterns[90] and natures of men, summing them up by their -births under certain stars. This is what they say: Those born under -Aries will be like this, to wit, long-headed, red-haired, with eyebrows -joined together, narrow forehead, sea-green eyes, hanging cheeks, long -nose, expanded nostrils, thin lips, pointed chin, and wide mouth. They -will partake, he says, of such a disposition as this: forethinking, -versatile, cowardly, provident, easy-going, gentle, inquisitive, -concealing their desires, equipped for everything, ruling more by -judgment than by strength, laughing at the present, skilled writers, -faithful, lovers of strife, provoking to controversy, given to desire, -lovers of boys, understanding, turning from their own homes, displeased -[Sidenote: p. 86.] with everything, litigious, madmen in their cups, -contemptuous, casting away somewhat every year, useful in friendship by -their goodness. Most often they die in a foreign land.[91] - -2. Those born under Taurus will be of this type: round-headed, -coarse-haired, with broad forehead, oblong eyes and great eyebrows -if dark; if fair, thin veins, sanguine complexion, large and heavy -eyelids, great ears, round mouth, thick nose, widely-open nostrils, -thick lips. They are strong in their upper limbs, but are sluggish from -the hips downwards from their birth. The same are of a disposition -pleasing, understanding, naturally clever, religious, just, rustical, -agreeable, laborious[92] after twelve years old, easily irritated, -leisurely. Their appetite is small, they are quickly satisfied, wishing -for many things, provident, thrifty towards themselves, liberal towards -others; as a class they are sorrowful, useless in friendship, useful -because of their minds, enduring ills. - -[Sidenote: p. 87.] 3. The type of these under Gemini: red-faced, not -too tall in stature, even-limbed, eyes black and beady,[93] cheeks -drawn downwards, coarse mouth, eyebrows joined together. They rule -all that they have, are rich at the last, niggardly, thrifty of their -own, profuse in the affairs of Venus, reasonable, musical, cheats. The -same are said (by other writers) to be of this disposition: learned, -understanding, inquisitive, self-assertive, given to desire, thrifty -with their own, liberal, gentle, prudent, crafty, wishing for many -things, calculators, litigious, untimely, not lucky. They are beloved -by women, are traders, but not very useful in friendship. - -[Sidenote: p. 88.] 4. The type of those under Cancer: not great in -stature, blue-black hair, reddish complexion, small mouth, round -head, narrow forehead, greenish eyes, sufficiently beautiful, limbs -slightly irregular. Their disposition: evil, crafty, skilled in plots, -insatiable, thrifty, ungraced, servile, unhelpful, forgetful. They -neither give back what is another’s nor demand back their own; useful -in friendship. - -5. The type of those under Leo: round head, reddish hair, large -wrinkled forehead, thick ears, stiff-necked, partly bald, fiery -complexion, green-gray eyes, large jaws, coarse mouth, heavy upper -limbs, great breast, lower parts small. Their disposition is: -self-assertive, immoderate, self-pleasers, wrathful, courageous, -scornful, arrogant, never deliberating, no talkers, indolent, addicted -to custom, given up to the things of Venus, fornicators, shameless, -wanting in faith, importunate for favour, audacious, niggardly, -rapacious, celebrated, helpful to the community, useless in friendship. - -[Sidenote: p. 89.] 6. The type of those under Virgo: with fair -countenance, eyes not great but charming, with dark eyebrows close -together, vivacious and swimming.[94] But they are slight in body, -fair to see, with hair beautifully thick, large forehead, prominent -nose. Their disposition is: quick at learning, moderate, thoughtful, -playful, erudite, slow of speech, planning many things, importunate for -favour, observing all things and naturally good disciples. They master -what they learn, are moderate, contemptuous, lovers of boys, addicted -to custom, of great soul, scornful, careless of affairs giving heed -to teaching, better in others’ affairs than in their own; useful for -friendship. - -7. The type of those under Libra: with thin bristling hair, reddish -and not very long, narrow wrinkled forehead, beautiful eyebrows close -together, fair eyes with black pupils, broad but small ears, bent head, -wide mouth. Their disposition is: understanding, honouring the gods, -talkative to one another, traders, laborious, not keeping [Sidenote: p. -90.] what they get, cheats, not loving to take pains in business,[95] -truthful, free of tongue, doers of good, unlearned, cheats, addicted -to custom, careless, unsafe to treat unjustly.[96] They are scornful, -derisive, sharp, illustrious, eavesdroppers, and nothing succeeds with -them. Useful for friendship. - -8. The type of those under Scorpio: with maidenly countenance, well -shaped and pale,[97] dark hair, well-formed eyes, forehead not wide and -pointed nose, ears small and close (to the head), wrinkled forehead, -scanty eyebrows, drawn-in cheeks. Their disposition is: crafty, -sedulous, cheats, imparting their own plans to none, double-souled, -ill-doers, contemptuous, given to fornication, gentle, quick at -learning. Useless for friendship. - -9. The type of those under Sagittarius: great in stature, square -forehead, medium eyebrows joined together, hair [Sidenote: p. 91.] -abundant, bristling and reddish. Their disposition is: gracious as -those who have been well brought up, simple, doers of good, lovers -of boys, addicted to custom, laborious, loving and beloved, cheerful -in their cups, clean, passionate, careless, wicked, useless for -friendship, scornful, great-souled, insolent, somewhat servile,[98] -useful to the community. - -10. The type of those under Capricorn: with reddish body, bristling, -greyish hair,[99] round mouth, eyes like an eagle, eyebrows close -together, smooth forehead, inclined to baldness, the lower parts of the -body the stronger. Their disposition is: lovers of wisdom, scornful and -laughing at the present, passionate, forgiving, beautiful, doers of -good, lovers of musical practice, angry in their cups, jocose, addicted -to custom, talkers, lovers of boys, cheerful, friendly, beloved, -provokers of strife, useful to the community. - -11. The type of those under Aquarius: square in stature, small mouth, -narrow small, fierce eyes. (Their disposition) is: commanding, -ungracious, sharp, seeking the easy path, [Sidenote: p. 92.] useful for -friendship and to the community. Yet they live on chance affairs and -lose their means of gain. Their disposition is:[100] reserved, modest, -addicted to custom, fornicators, niggards, painstaking in business, -turbulent, clean, well-disposed, beautiful, with great eyebrows. Often -they are in small circumstances and work at (several) different trades. -If they do good to any, no one gives them thanks. - -12. The type of those under Pisces: medium stature, with narrow -foreheads like fishes, thick hair. They often become grey quickly. -Their disposition is: great-souled, simple, passionate, thrifty, -talkative. They will be sleepy at an early age, they want to do -business by themselves, illustrious, venturesome, envious, litigious, -changing their place of abode, beloved, fond of dancing.[101] Useful -for friendship. - -13. Since we have set forth their wonderful wisdom, and have not -concealed their much-laboured art of divination by intelligence,[102] -neither shall we be silent on the folly into [Sidenote: p. 93.] which -their mistakes in these matters lead them. For how feeble are they in -finding a parallel between the names of the stars and the forms and -dispositions of men? For we know that those who at the outset chanced -upon the stars, naming them according to their own fancy, called them -by names for the purpose of easily and clearly recognizing them. For -what likeness is there in these names to the appearance of the Zodiacal -signs, or what similar nature of working and activity, so that any one -born under Leo should be thought courageous,[103] or he who is born -under Virgo moderate, or under Cancer bad, and those under[104].... - - - 4. _The Magicians._[105] - -(The gap here caused by the mutilation of the MS. was probably filled -by a description of the mode of divination by enquiry of a spirit or -dæmon which was generally made in writing, as Lucian describes in -his account of the imposture of Alexander of Abonoteichos. The MS. -proceeds.) - -... And he (_i. e._, the magician) taking some paper, orders the -enquirer to write down what it is he wishes to enquire of the -dæmons.[106] Then he having folded up the paper and given it to the -boy,[107] sends it away to be burned so that the smoke carrying the -letters may go hence to the dæmons. But while the boy is doing what -he is commanded, he first tears off equal parts of the paper, and on -some other parts [Sidenote: p. 94.] of it, he pretends that the dæmons -write in Hebrew letters. Then having offered up the Egyptian magicians’ -incense called Cyphi,[108] he scatters these pieces of paper over the -offering. But what the enquirer may have chanced to write having been -put on the coals is burned. Then, seeming to be inspired by a god, the -magician rushes into the inner chamber[109] with a loud and discordant -cry unintelligible to all. But he bids all present to enter and cry -aloud, invoking Phrēn[110] or some other dæmon. When the spectators -have entered and are standing by, he flings the boy on a couch and -reads to him many things, sometimes in the Greek tongue, sometimes -in the Hebrew, which are the incantations usual among magicians. And -having made libation, he begins the sacrifice. And he having put -copperas[111] in the libation bowl[112] and when the drug is dissolved -sprinkling with it the paper which had forsooth been discharged of -writing, he compels the hidden and concealed letters again to come to -light, whereby he learns what the enquirer has written. - -[Sidenote: p. 95.] And if one writes with copperas and fumigates it -with a powdered gall-nut, the hidden letters will become clear. Also if -one writes (with milk) and the paper is burned and the ash sprinkled -on the letters written with the milk, they will be manifest.[113] And -urine and garum[114] also and juice of the spurge and of the fig will -have the same effect. - -But when he has thus learned the enquiry, he thinks beforehand in what -fashion he need reply. Then he bids the spectators come inside bearing -laurel-branches and shaking them[115] and crying aloud invocations to -the dæmon Phrēn. For truly it is fitting that he should be invoked -by them and worthy that they should demand from dæmons what they do not -wish to provide on their own account, seeing that they have lost their -brains.[116] But the confusion of the noise and the riot prevents them -following what the magician is thought to do in secret. What this is, -it is time to say. - -Now it is very dark at this point. For he says that it is impossible -for mortal nature to behold the things of the gods, for it is enough -to talk with them. But having made the boy lie down on his face, with -two of those little writing tablets on which are written in Hebrew -letters [Sidenote: p. 96.] forsooth[117] such things as names of -dæmons, on each side of him, he says (the god) will convey the rest -into the boy’s ears. But this is necessary to him, in order that he -may apply to the boy’s ears a certain implement whereby he can signify -to him all that he wishes. And first he rings[118] (a gong) so that -the boy may be frightened, and secondly he makes a humming noise, and -then thirdly he speaks through the implement what he wishes the boy to -say, and watches carefully the effect of the act. Thereafter he makes -the spectators keep silence, but bids the boy repeat what he has heard -from the dæmons. But the implement which is applied to the ears is a -natural one, to wit, the wind-pipe of the long-necked cranes or storks -or swans. If none of these is at hand, the art has other means at its -disposal. [Sidenote: p. 97.] For certain brass pipes, fitting one into -the other and ending in a point are well suited to the purpose through -which anything the magician wishes may be spoken into the ears. And -these things the boy hearing utters when bidden in a fearful way, as if -they were spoken by dæmons. And if one wraps a wet hide round a rod and -having dried it and bringing the edges together fastens them closely, -and then taking out the rod, makes the hide into the form of a pipe, it -has the same effect. And if none of these things is at hand, he takes a -book and, drawing out from the inside as much as he requires, pulls it -out lengthways and acts in the same way.[119] - -But if he knows beforehand that any one present will ask a question, -he is better prepared for everything. And if he has learned the -question beforehand he writes it out with the drug (aforesaid) and -as being prepared is thought more adept for having skilfully written -what was about to be asked. But if he does not know, he guesses at it, -and exhibits some roundabout phrase of double and various meaning, -so that the answer of the oracle being meaningless will do for many -things at the beginning, but at the end of the events will be thought -a prediction of what has happened. [Sidenote: p. 98.] Then having -filled a bowl with water, he puts at the bottom of it the paper with -apparently nothing written on it, but at the same time putting in -the copperas. For thus there floats to the surface the paper bearing -the answer which he has written. To the boy also there often come -fearful fancies; for truly the magician strikes blows in abundance to -terrify him. For, again casting incense into the fire, he acts in this -fashion. Having covered a lump of the so-called quarried salts[120] -with Tyrrhenian wax and cutting in halves the lump of incense, he puts -between them a lump of the salt and again sticking them together throws -them on the burning coals and so leaves them. But when the incense is -burnt, the salts leaping up produce an illusion as if some strange -and wonderful thing were happening. But indigo black[121] put in the -incense produces a blood-red flame as we have before said.[122] And -he makes a liquid like blood by mixing wax with rouge and as I have -said, putting the wax in the incense. And he makes the coals to move by -putting under them stypteria[123] cut in pieces, and when it melts and -swells up like bubbles, the coals are moved. - -[Sidenote: p. 99.] 2. And they exhibit eggs different (from natural -ones) in this way. Having bored a hole in the apex at each end and -having extracted the white, and again plunged the egg in boiling water, -put in either red earth from Sinope[124] or writing ink. But stop up -the holes with pounded eggshell made into a paste with the juice of a -fig. - -3. This is the way they make sheep cut off their own heads. Secretly -anointing the sheep’s throat with a caustic drug, he fixes near the -beast a sword and leaves it there. But the sheep, being anxious to -scratch himself, leans (heavily) on the knife, rubs himself along it, -kills himself and must needs almost cut off his head. And the drug is -bryony and marsh salt and squills in equal parts mixed together. So -that he may not be seen to have the drug with him, he carries a horn -box made double, the visible part of which holds frankincense and the -invisible the drug. And he also puts quicksilver into the ears of the -animal that is to die. But this is a death-dealing drug. - -4. But if one stops up the ears of goats with salve, they say they will -shortly die because prevented from breathing. [Sidenote: p. 100.] For -they say that this is with them the way in which the intaken air is -breathed forth. And they say that a ram dies if one should bend him -backwards against the sun.[125] But they make a house catch fire by -anointing it with the ichor of a certain animal called dactylus;[126] -and this is very useful because of sea-water. And there is a sea-foam -heated in an earthen jar with sweet substances, which if you apply to -it a lighted lamp catches fire and is inflamed, but does not burn at -all if poured on the head. But if you sprinkle it with melted gum, it -catches fire much better; and it does better still if you also add -sulphur to it. - -5. Thunder is produced in very many ways. For very many large stones -rolled from a height over wooden planks and falling upon sheets of -brass make a noise very like thunder. And they coil a slender cord -round the thin [Sidenote: p. 101.] board on which the wool-carders -press cloth, and then spin the board by whisking away the string when -the whirring of it makes the sound of thunder. These tricks they play -thus; but there are others which I shall set forth which those who -play them also consider great. Putting a cauldron full of pitch upon -burning coals, when it boils they plunge their hands in it and are not -burned; and further they tread with naked feet upon coals of fire and -are not burned. And also putting a pyramid of stone upon the altar, -they make it burn and from its mouth it pours forth much smoke and -fire. Then laying a linen cloth upon a pan of water and casting upon it -many burning coals, the linen remains unburnt. And having made darkness -in the house, the magician claims to make gods or dæmons enter in, -and if one somehow asks that Esculapius shall be displayed he makes -invocation, saying thus:-- - - “Apollo’s son, once dead and again undying! - I call on thee to come as a helper to my libations. - [Sidenote: p. 102.] Who erst the myriad tribes of fleeting dead - In the ever-mournful caves of wide Tartarus - Swimming the stream hard to cross and the rising tide, - Fatal to all mortal men alike, - Or wailing by the shore and bemoaning inexorable things - These thyself did rescue from gloomy Persephoneia. - Whether thou dost haunt the seat of holy Thrace - Or lovely Pergamum or beyond these Ionian Epidaurus - Hither, O blessed one, the prince of magicians calls thee to be - present here.”[127] - -6. But when he has made an end of this mockery a fiery Esculapius -appears on the floor. Then having put in the midst a bowl of -water,[128] he invokes all the gods and they are at hand. For if the -spectator lean over and gaze into the bowl, he will see all the gods -and Artemis leading on [Sidenote: p. 103.] her baying hounds. But we -shall not hesitate to tell the story of these things and how they -undertake them. For the magician plunges his hands in the cauldron -of pitch which appears to be boiling; but he throws into it vinegar -and soda[129] and moist pitch and heats the cauldron gently. And -the vinegar having mingled with the soda, on getting a little hot, -moves the pitch so as to bring bubbles to the surface and gives the -appearance of boiling only. But the magician has washed his hands -many times in sea-water, thanks to which it does not burn him much if -it be really boiling. And if he has after washing them anointed his -hands with myrtle-juice and soda and myrrh[130] mixed with vinegar -he is not burned (at all). But the feet are not burned if he anoints -them with icthyokolla and salamander.[131] And this is the true cause -of the pyramid flaming like a torch, although it is of stone. A paste -of Cretan earth[132] is moulded into the shape of a pyramid,--but the -colour is like a milk-white stone,--in this fashion. He has soaked -the piece of earth in much oil, has put it on the coals, and when -heated, has again soaked it and heated it a second and third time and -many a time afterwards, whereby he so prepares [Sidenote: p. 104.] -it that it will burn even if plunged in water; for it holds much -oil within itself. But the altar catches fire when the magician is -making libation, because it contains freshly-burned lime instead of -ashes and finely-powdered frankincense and much ... and of ... of -anointed torches and self-flowing and hollow nutshells having fire -within them.[133] But he also sends forth smoke from his mouth after -a brief delay by putting fire into a nutshell and wrapping it in tow -and blowing it in his mouth.[134] The linen cloth laid on the bowl of -water whereon he puts the coals is not burned, because of the sea-water -underneath, and its being itself steeped in sea-water and then anointed -with white of egg and a solution of alum. And if also one mixes with -this the juice of evergreens and vinegar and a long time beforehand -anoint it copiously with these, after being dipped in the drug it -remains altogether incombustible.[135] - -7. Since then we have briefly set forth what can be done with the -teachings which they suppose to be secret, we have [Sidenote: p. -105.] displayed their easy system according to Gnosis.[136] Nor do we -wish to keep silence as to this necessary point, that is, how they -unseal letters and again restore them with the same seals (apparently -intact). Melting pitch, resin, sulphur and also bitumen in equal parts, -and moulding it into the form of a seal impression, they keep it by -them. But when the opportunity for unsealing a letter[137] arrives, -they moisten the tongue with oil, lick the seal, and warming the drug -before a slow fire press the seal upon it and leave it there until -it is altogether set, when they use it after the manner of a signet. -But they say also that wax with pine resin has the same effect and -so also 2 parts of mastic with 1 of bitumen. And sulphur alone does -fairly well and powdered gypsum diluted with water and gum.[138] This -certainly does most beautifully for sealing molten lead. And the effect -of [Sidenote: p. 106.] Tyrrhenian wax and shavings of resin and pitch, -bitumen, mastic and powdered marble in equal parts all melted together, -is better than that of the other (compounds) of which I have spoken, -but that of the gypsum is no worse. Thus then they undertake to break -the seals when seeking to learn what is written within them. These -contrivances I shrank from setting out in the book,[139] seeing that -some ill-doer taking hints from them[140] might attempt (to practise) -them. But now the care of many young men capable of salvation has -persuaded me to teach and declare them for the sake of protection -(against them). For as one person will use them for the teaching of -evil, so another by learning them will be protected (against them) and -the very magicians, corruptors of life as they are, will be ashamed -to practise the art. But learning that the same (tricks) have been -taught beforehand, they will perhaps be hindered in their perverse -foolishness. In order, however, that the seal may not be broken in this -way, let any one seal with swine’s fat and mix hairs with the wax.[141] - -8. Nor shall I be silent about their lecanomancy[142] which is an -imposture. For having prepared some closed chamber [Sidenote: p. 107.] -and having painted its ceiling with cyanus, they put into it for the -purpose certain utensils of cyanus[143] and fix them upright. But in -the midst a bowl filled with water is set on the earth, which with the -reflection of the cyanus falling upon it shows like the sky. But there -is a certain hidden opening in the floor over which is set the bowl, -the bottom of which is glass, but is itself made of stone. But there is -underneath a secret chamber in which those in the farce[144] assembling -present the dressed-up forms of the gods and dæmons which the magician -wishes to display. Beholding whom from above the deceived person -is confounded by the magicians’ trickery and for the rest believes -everything which (the officiator) tells him. And (this last) makes -(the figure of) the dæmon burn by drawing on the wall the figure he -wishes, and then secretly anointing it with a drug compounded in this -way ...[145] with Laconian and Zacynthian bitumen. Then as if inspired -by Phœbus, he brings the lamp near the wall, and the drug having caught -light is on fire. - -But he manages that a fiery Hecate should appear to be flying through -the air thus: Having hidden an accomplice in what place he wills, and -taking the dupes on one side, he prevails on them by saying that he -will show them the [Sidenote: p. 108.] fiery dæmon riding through the -air. To whom he announces that when they see the flame in the air, -they must quickly save their eyes by falling down and hiding their -faces until he shall call them. And having thus instructed them, on a -moonless night, he declaims these verses:-- - - Infernal and earthly and heavenly Bombo,[146] come. - Goddess of waysides, of cross-roads, lightbearer, nightwalker, - Hater of the light, lover and companion of the night, - Who rejoicest in the baying of hounds and in purple blood; - Who dost stalk among corpses and the tombs of the dead - Thirsty for blood, who bringest fear to mortals - Gorgo and Mormo and Mene and many-formed one. - Come thou propitious to our libations![147] - -9. While he speaks thus, fire is seen borne through the air, and the -spectators terrified by the strangeness of the sight, cover their eyes -and cast themselves in silence on the earth. But the greatness of the -art contains this device. [Sidenote: p. 109.] The accomplice, hidden as -I have said, when he hears the incantation drawing to a close, holding -a hawk or kite wrapped about with tow, sets fire to it and lets it go. -And the bird scared by the flame is carried into the height and makes -very speedy flight. Seeing which, the fools hide themselves as if they -had beheld something divine. But the winged one whirled about by the -fire, is borne whither it may chance and burns down now houses and now -farm-buildings. Such is the prescience of the magicians. - -10. But they show the moon and stars appearing on the ceiling in this -way. Having previously arranged in the centre part of the ceiling a -mirror, and having placed a bowl filled with water in a corresponding -position in the middle of the earthen floor, but a lamp showing -dimly[148] has been placed between them and above the bowl, he thus -produces the appearance of the moon from the reflection by means of the -mirror. But often the magician hangs aloft[149] near the ceiling a drum -on end, the same being kept covered by the accomplice by some cloth so -that it may not show before its time; and a lamp having been put behind -it, when he makes the agreed signal to the accomplice, the last-named -takes away so much of the [Sidenote: p. 110.] covering as will give a -counterfeit of the moon in her form at that time.[150] But he anoints -the transparent parts of the drum with cinnabar and gum....[151] And -having cut off the neck and bottom of a glass flask, he puts a lamp -within and places around it somewhat of the things necessary for the -figures shining through, which one of the accomplices has concealed on -high. After receiving the signal, this last lets fall the contrivances -from the receptacle hung aloft, so that the moon appears to have been -sent down from heaven. And the like effect is produced by means of -jars in glass-like forms.[152] And it is by means of the jar that the -trick is played within doors. For an altar having been set up, the -jar containing a lighted lamp stands behind it; but there being many -more lamps (about), this nowise appears. When therefore the enchanter -invokes the moon, he orders all the lamps to be put out, but one is -left dim and then the light from the jar is reflected on to the ceiling -and gives the illusion of the moon to the spectators, the [Sidenote: -p. 111.] mouth of the jar being kept covered for the time which seems -to be required that the image of the crescent moon may be shown on the -ceiling. - -11. But the scales of fishes or of the “hippurus”[153] make stars seem -to be when they are moistened with water and gum and stuck upon the -ceiling here and there. - -12. And they create the illusion of an earthquake, so that everything -appears to be moving, ichneumon’s dung being burned upon coal with -magnetic iron ore[154].... - -13. But they display a liver appearing to bear an inscription. On his -left hand (the magician) writes what he wishes, adapting it to the -enquiry, and the letters are written with nut-galls and strong vinegar. -Then taking up the liver, which rests in his left hand, he makes some -delay, and it receives the impression and is thought to have been -inscribed. - -14. And having placed a skull on the earth, they make it speak in -this fashion. It is made out of the omentum of [Sidenote: p. 112.] an -ox,[155] moulded with Tyrrhenian wax and gypsum and when it is made -and covered with the membrane, it shows the semblance of a skull. The -which seems to speak by the use of the implement and in the way we have -before explained in the case of the boys. Having prepared the wind-pipe -of a crane or some such long-necked bird and putting it secretly into -the skull, the accomplice speaks what (the magician) wishes. And when -he wants it to vanish, he appears to offer incense and putting round it -a quantity of coals the wax receiving the heat of which melts, and thus -the skull is thought to have become invisible.[156] - -15. These and ten thousand such are the works of the magicians, which, -by the suitableness of the verses and of the belief-inspiring acts -performed, beguile the fancy of the thoughtless. The heresiarchs struck -with the arts of these (magicians) imitate them, handing down some of -their doctrines in secrecy and darkness, but paraphrasing others as if -they were their own. Thanks to this, as we wish to remind the public, -we have been the more anxious to leave behind us no place for those -who wish to go astray. But we have been led away not without reason -into certain secrets of the magicians which were not [Sidenote: p. -113.] altogether necessary for the subject,[157] but which were thought -useful as a safeguard against the rascally and inconsistent art of -the magicians. Since, now, as far as one can guess,[158] we have set -forth the opinions of all, having bestowed much care on making it clear -that the things which the heresiarchs have introduced into religion as -new are vain and spurious, and probably are not even among themselves -thought worthy of discussion, it seems proper to us to recall briefly -and summarily what has been before said. - - - 5. _Recapitulation._ - -1. Among all the philosophers and theologists[159] who are enquiring -into the matter throughout the inhabited world, there is no agreement -concerning God, as to what He is or whence (He came).[160] For some -say that He is fire, some spirit, some water, others earth. But every -one of these elements contains something inferior and some of them -are defeated by the others. But this has happened to the world’s -sages, which indeed is plain to those who think, [Sidenote: p. 114.] -that in view of the greatness of creation, they are puzzled as to the -substance of the things which are, deeming them too great for it to -be possible for them to have received birth from another. Nor yet do -they represent the universe itself taken collectively[161] to be God. -But in speculation about God every one thought of something which he -preferred among visible things as the Cause. And thus gazing upon the -things produced by God and on those which are least in comparison with -His exceeding greatness, but not being capable of extending their mind -to the real God, they declared these things to be divine. - -The Persians, however, deeming that they were further within the truth -(than the rest) said that God was a shining light comprised in air. But -the Babylonians said that darkness was God, which appears to be the -sequence of the other opinion; for day follows night and night day.[162] - -2. But the Egyptians, deeming themselves older than all, have subjected -the power of God to ciphers,[163] and calculating the intervals of the -fates by Divine inspiration[164] said that God [Sidenote: p. 115.] was -a monad both indivisible and itself begetting itself, and that from -this (monad) all things were made. For it, they say, being unbegotten, -begets the numbers after it; for example, the monad added to itself -begets the dyad, and added in the like way the triad and tetrad up -to the decad, which is the beginning and the end of the numbers. So -that the monad becomes the first and tenth through the decad being of -equal power and being reckoned as a monad, and the same being decupled -becomes a hecatontad and again is a monad, and the hecatontad when -decupled will make a chiliad, and it again will be a monad. And thus -also the chiliads if decupled will complete the myriad and likewise -will be a monad. But the numbers akin to the monad by indivisible -comparison are ascertained to be 3, 5, 7, 9.[165] There is, however, -also a more natural affinity of another number with the monad which -is that by the operation of the spiral of 6 circles[166] of the dyad -according to the [Sidenote: p. 116.] even placing and separation of -the numbers. But the kindred number is of the 4 and 8. And these -receiving added virtue from numbers of the monad, advanced up to the -four elements, I mean spirit and fire, water and earth. And having -created from these the masculo-feminine cosmos,[167] he prepared and -arranged two elements in the upper hemisphere, (to wit) spirit and -fire, and he called this the beneficent hemisphere of the monad and -the ascending and the masculine. For the monad, being subtle, flies to -the most subtle and purest part of the æther. The two other elements -being denser, he assigns to the dyad (to wit) earth and water, and he -calls this the descending hemisphere and feminine and maleficent. And -again the two upper elements when compounded with themselves have in -themselves the male and the female for the fruitfulness and increase of -the universals. And the fire is masculine, but the spirit feminine: and -again the water is masculine and the earth feminine.[168] And thus from -the beginning the fire lived with the spirit and the water with the -earth. For as the power of the spirit is the fire, so also (the power) -of the earth is the water.... - -[Sidenote: p. 117.] And the same elements counted and resolved by -subtraction of the enneads,[169] properly end some in the male number, -others in the female. But again the ennead is subtracted for this -cause, because the 360 degrees of the whole circle consist of enneads, -and hence the 4 quarters of the cosmos are (each) circumscribed by -90 complete degrees. But the light is associated with the monad and -the darkness with the dyad, and naturally life with the light and -death with the dyad, and justice with life and injustice with death. -Whence everything engendered among the male numbers is benefic, -and (everything engendered) among the female numbers is malefic. -For example, they reckon that the monad--so that we may begin from -this--becomes 361, which ends in a monad, the ennead(s) being -subtracted. Reckon in the same way: the dyad becomes 605; subtract -the enneads, it ends in a dyad and each is (thus) carried back to its -own.[170] - -3. With the monad, then, as it is benefic, there are [Sidenote: p. -118.] associated names which end in the uneven number,[171] and they -say that they are ascending and male and benefic when observed; but -that those which end in an even number are considered descending and -female and malefic. For they say that nature consists of opposites, -to wit, good and bad, as right and left, light and darkness, night -and day, life and death. And they say this besides: that they have -calculated the name of God and that it results in a pentad [or in an -ennead],[172] which is uneven and which written down and wrapped about -the sick works cures. And thus a certain plant (whose name) ends in -this number when tied on in the same way is effective by the like -reckoning of the number. But a doctor also cures the sick by a like -calculation. But if the calculation be contrary, he does not make cures -easily. Those who give heed to these numbers count all numbers like it -which have the same meaning, some [Sidenote: p. 119.] according to the -vowels alone, others according to the total of the numbers.[173] Such -is the wisdom of the Egyptians, whereby, while glorifying the Divine, -they think they understand it. - - - 6. _Of the Divination by Astronomy._[174] - -We seem then to have set forth these things also sufficiently. But -since I consider that not one tenet of this earthy and grovelling -wisdom has been passed over, I perceive that our care with regard to -the same things has not been useless. For we see that our discourse -has been of great use not only for the refutation of heresies, but -also against those who magnify these things.[175] Those who happen to -notice the manifold care taken by us will both wonder at our zeal and -will neither despise our painstaking nor denounce Christians as fools -when they see what themselves have foolishly believed. And besides -this, the discourse will timely instruct those lovers of learning who -give heed to the truth, making them more wise to easily overthrow those -who have dared to mislead them--for they will have learned not only -the principles of the heresies, but also the so-called opinions of the -[Sidenote: p. 120.] sages. Not being unacquainted with which, they -will not be confused by them as are the unlearned, nor misled by some -who exercise a certain power, but will keep a watch upon those who go -astray. - -2. Having therefore sufficiently set forth (our) opinions, it remains -for us to proceed to the subject aforesaid, when, after we have -proved what we arranged concerning the heresies, and have forced the -heresiarchs to restore to everyone his own, we shall exhibit (these -heresiarchs) stripped (of all originality) and by denouncing the -folly of their dupes we shall persuade them to return again to the -precious haven of the truth. But in order that what has been said may -appear more clearly to the readers,[176] it seems to us well to state -the conclusions of Aratus as to the disposition of the stars in the -heaven. For there are some who by likening them to the words of the -Scriptures turn them into allegories and seek to divert the minds of -those who listen to them by leading them with persuasive words whither -they wish, and pointing out to them strange marvels like those of the -transfers to the stars[177] alleged by them. They who while gazing upon -the outlandish wonder are caught by their admiration for trifles are -like the bird called the owl,[178] [Sidenote: p. 121.] whose example -it will be well to narrate in view of what follows. Now this animal -presents no very different appearance from that of the eagle whether in -size or shape; but it is caught in this way. The bird-catcher, when he -sees a flock alighting anywhere, claps his hands, pretends to dance, -and thus gradually draws near to the birds; but they, struck by the -unwonted sight, become blind to everything else. Others of the party, -however, who are ready on the ground coming behind the birds easily -capture them while they are staring at the dancer. Wherefore I ask that -no one who is struck by the wonders of whose who interpret the heaven -shall be taken in like the owl. For the dancing and nonsense of such -(interpreters) is trickery and not truth. Now Aratus speaks thus:-- - - “Many and like are they, going hither and thither, - Daily they wheel in heaven always and ever [that is, all the stars] - Yet none changes his abode[179] ever so little: but with perfect - exactness - Ever the Pole is fixed, and holds the earth in the midst of all - As equipoise of all, and around it leads Heaven itself.”-- - (Aratus, _Phæn._, vv. 45, 46.) - -[Sidenote: p. 122.] 3. He says that the stars in heaven are πολέας, -that is, turning,[180] because of their going about ceaselessly from -East to West and from West to East in a spherical figure. But he says -there is coiled round the Bears themselves, like the stream of some -river, a great marvel of a terrible dragon, and this it is, he says, -that the Devil in the (Book of) Job says to God: “I have been walking -to and fro under heaven and going round about,”[181] that is, turning -hither and thither and inspecting what is happening. For they consider -that the Dragon is set below the Arctic Pole, from this highest pole -gazing upon all things and beholding all things, so that none of those -that are done shall escape him. For though all the stars in the heaven -can set, this Pole alone never sets, but rising high above the horizon -inspects all things and beholds all things, and nothing of what is -done, he says, can escape him. - - “Where (most) - Settings and risings mingle with one another.”-- - (Aratus, _Phæn._, v. 61.) - -[Sidenote: p. 123.] he says, indeed, that his head is set. For over -against the rising and setting of the two hemispheres lies the head -of Draco, so that, he says, nothing escapes him immediately either -of things in the West or of things in the East, but the Beast knows -all things at once. And there over against the very head of Draco is -the form of a man made visible by reason of the stars, which Aratus -calls “a wearied image,” and like one in toil; but he names it the -“Kneeler.”[182] Now Aratus says that he does not know what this toil -is and this marvel which turns in heaven. But the heretics, wishing -to found their own tenets on the story of the stars, and giving their -minds very carefully to these things, say that the Kneeler is Adam, as -Moses said, according to the decree of God guarding the head of the -Dragon and the Dragon (guarding) his heel.[183] For thus says Aratus:-- - - “Holding the sole of the right foot of winding Draco.”-- - (_Phæn._, vv. 63-65.) - -4. But he says there are placed on either side of him (I mean the -Kneeler) Lyra and Corona; but that he bends the knee and stretches -forth both hands as if making confession [Sidenote: p. 124.] of -sin.[184] And that the lyre is a musical instrument fashioned by the -Logos in extreme infancy. But that Hermes is called among the Greeks -Logos. And Aratus says about the fashioning of the lyre:-- - - “which, while he was yet in his cradle - Hermes bored and said it was to be called lyre.”-- - (_Phæn._, v. 268.) - -It is seven-stringed, and indicates by its seven strings the entire -harmony and constitution with which the cosmos is suitably provided. -For in six days the earth came into being and there was rest on the -seventh. If, then, he says,[185] Adam making confession and guarding -the head of the Beast according to God’s decree, will imitate the lyre, -that is, will follow the word of God, which is to obey the Law, he will -attain the Crown lying beside it. But if he takes no heed, he will be -carried downwards along with the Beast below him, and will have his -lot, he says, with the Beast. But the Kneeler seems to stretch forth -his hands on either side and here to grasp the Lyre and there the Crown -[and this is to make confession],[186] [Sidenote: p. 125.] as is to be -seen from the very posture. But the Crown is plotted against and at -the same time drawn away by another Beast, Draco the Less, who is the -offspring of the one which is guarded by the foot of the Kneeler. But -(another) man stands firmly grasping with both hands the Serpent, and -draws him backwards from the Crown, and does not permit the Beast to -forcibly seize it. Him Aratus calls Serpent-holder,[187] because he -restrains the rage of the Serpent striving to come at the Crown. But -he, he says, who in the shape of man forbids the Beast to come at the -Crown is Logos, who has mercy upon him who is plotted against by Draco -and his offspring at once. - -And these Bears, he says, are two hebdomads, being made up of seven -stars each, and are images of the two creations. For the First -Creation, he says, is that according to Adam in his labours who is seen -as the Kneeler. But the Second Creation is that according to Christ -whereby we are born [Sidenote: p. 126.] again. He is the Serpent-holder -fighting the Beast and preventing him from coming at the Crown prepared -for man. But Helica[188] is the Great Bear, he says, the symbol of the -great creation, whereby Greeks sail, that is by which they are taught, -and borne onwards by the waves of life they follow it, such a creation -being a certain revolution[189] or schooling or wisdom, leading back -again those who follow such (to the point whence they started). For -the name Helica seems to be a certain turning and circling back to the -same position. But there is also another Lesser Bear, as it were an -image of the Second Creation created by God. For few, he says, are they -who travel by this narrow way. For they say that Cynosura is narrow, -by which, Aratus says, the Sidonians navigate.[190] But Aratus in turn -says the Sidonians are Phœnicians on account of the wisdom of the -Phœnicians being wonderful. But they say that the Greeks are Phœnicians -who removed from the Red Sea to the land [Sidenote: p. 127.] where -they now dwell. For thus it seemed to Herodotus.[191] But this Bear he -says is Cynosura, the Second Creation, the small, the narrow way and -not Helica. For she leads not backwards, but guides those who follow -her forwards to the straight way, being the (tail) of the dog. For the -Logos is the Dog (Cyon) who at the same time guards and protects the -sheep against the plans of the wolves, and also chases the wild beasts -from creation and slays them, and who begets all things. For Cyon, they -say, indeed means the begetter.[192] Hence, they say, Aratus, speaking -of the rising of Canis, says thus:-- - - “But when the Dog rises, no longer do the crops play false.”-- - (_Phæn._ v. 332.) - -This is what he means: Plants that have been planted in the earth up -to the rising of the Dog-star take no root, but yet grow leaves and -appear to beholders as if they will bear fruit and are alive, but have -no life from the root in them. But when the rising of the Dog-star -occurs, the living plants are distinguished by Canis from the dead, -for [Sidenote: p. 128.] he withers entirely those which have not taken -root. This Cyon, he says then, being a certain Divine Logos has been -established judge of quick and dead, and as Cyon is seen to be the star -of the plants, so the Logos, he says, is for the heavenly plants, that -is for men. For some such cause as this, then, the Second Creation -Cynosura stands in heaven as the image of the rational[193] creature. -But between the two creations Draco is extended below, hindering the -things of the great creation from coming to the lesser, and watching -those things which are fixed in the great creation like the Kneeler -lest they see how and in what way every one is fixed in the little -creation. But Draco is himself watched as to the head, he says, by -Ophiuchus. The same, he says, is fixed as an image in heaven, being a -certain philosophy for those who can see. - -But if this is not clear, through another image, he says, creation -teaches us to philosophize, about which Aratus speaks thus:-- - - “Nor of Ionian[194] Cepheus are we the miserable race.”-- - (_Phæn._ v. 353.) - -[Sidenote: p. 129.] But near Draco, he says, are Cepheus and Cassiopeia -and Andromeda and Perseus, great letters of[195] the creation to -those who can see. For he says that Cepheus is Adam, Cassiopeia Eve, -Andromeda the soul of both, Perseus the winged offspring of Zeus and -Cetus the plotting Beast. Not to any other of these comes Perseus the -slayer of the Beast, but to Andromeda alone. From which Beast, he -says, the Logos Perseus, taking her to himself, delivers Andromeda -who had been given in chains to the Beast. But Perseus is the winged -axis which extends to both poles through the middle of the earth and -makes the cosmos revolve. But the spirit which is in the Cosmos is -Cycnus,[196] the bird which is near the Bears, a musical animal, symbol -of the Divine Spirit, because only when it is near the limits of life, -its nature is to sing, and, as one escaping with good hope from this -evil creation it sends up songs of praise to God. But crabs and bulls -and lions and rams and goats and kids [Sidenote: p. 130.] and all the -other animals who are named in heaven on account of the stars are, he -says, images and paradigms whence the changeable nature receives the -patterns[197] and becomes full of such animals.[198] - -Making use of these discourses, they think to deceive as many as -give heed to the astrologers, seeking therefrom to set up a religion -which appears very different from their assumptions.[199] Wherefore, -O beloved,[200] let us shun the trifle-admiring way of the owl. For -these things and those like them are dancing and not truth. For the -stars do not reveal these things; but men on their own account and for -the better distinguishing of certain stars (from the rest) gave them -names so that they might be a mark to them. For what likeness have -the stars strewn about the heaven to a bear, or a lion, or kids, or -a water-carrier, or Cepheus, or Andromeda, or to the Shades named in -Hades--for many of these persons and the names of the stars alike came -into existence long after the stars themselves--so that the [Sidenote: -p. 131.] heretics being struck with the wonder should thus labour by -such discourses to establish their own doctrines?[201] - - - 7. _Of the Arithmetical Art._[202] - -Seeing, however, that nearly all heresy has discovered by the art of -arithmetic measures of hebdomads and certain projections of Æons, each -tearing the art to pieces in different ways and only changing the -names,--but of these (men) Pythagoras came to be teacher who first -transmitted to the Greeks such numbers from Egypt--it seems good not -to pass over this, but after briefly pointing it out to proceed to -the demonstration of the objects of our enquiries. These men were -arithmeticians and geometricians to whom especially it seems Pythagoras -first supplied the principles (of their arts). And they took the first -beginnings (of things), discovered apparently by reason alone, from -the numbers which can always proceed to infinity by multiplication and -the figures (produced by it). For the beginning of geometry, as may -be seen, is an indivisible point; but from that point the generation -of the infinite figures from [Sidenote: p. 132.] the point[203] is -discovered by the art. For the point when extended[204] in length -becomes after extension a line having a point as its limit:[205] and a -line when extended in breadth produces a superficies and the limits of -the superficies are lines: and a superficies extended in depth becomes -a (solid) body:[206] and when this solid is in existence, the nature -of the great body is thus wholly founded from the smallest point. And -this is what Simon says thus: “The little will be great, being as it -were a point; but the great will be boundless,”[207] in imitation of -that geometrical point. But the beginning of arithmetic, which includes -by combination philosophy, is[208] a number which is boundless and -incomprehensible, containing within itself all the numbers capable -of coming to infinity by multitude. But the beginning of the numbers -becomes by hypostasis the first monad, which is a male unit begetting -as does a father all the other numbers. Second comes the dyad, a female -number, and the same is called even by the arithmeticians. Third comes -the triad, a male number; this also has been ordained to be called odd -by the arithmeticians. After all these comes the tetrad, [Sidenote: p. -133.] a female number, and this same is also called even, because it is -female. Therefore all the numbers taken from the genus are four--but -the boundless genus is number--wherefrom is constructed their perfect -number, the decad. For 1, 2, 3, 4 become 10, as has before been shown, -if the name which is proper to each of the numbers be substantially -kept. This is the sacred Tetractys according to Pythagoras which -contains within itself the roots of eternal nature, that is, all the -other numbers. For the 11, 12 and the rest take the principle of birth -from the 10. Of this decad, the perfect number, the four parts are -called: number, monad, square and cube. The conjunctions and minglings -of which are for the birth of increase, they completing naturally the -fruitful number. For when this square is multiplied into itself, it -becomes a square squared; but when a square into a cube, it becomes a -square cubed; but when a cube into a cube, it becomes a cube cubed. So -that all the numbers are seven, in order that the birth of the existing -numbers [Sidenote: p. 134.] may come from a hebdomad, which is number, -monad, square, cube, square of a square, cube of a square, cube of a -cube. - -Of this hebdomad Simon and Valentinus, having altered the names, -recount prodigies, hastening to base upon it their own systems.[209] -For Simon calls (it) thus: Mind, Thought, Name, Voice, Reasoning, -Desire and He who has Stood, Stands and will Stand: and Valentinus: -Mind, Truth, Word, Life, Man, Church and the Father who is counted with -them. According to these (ideas) of those trained in the arithmetic -philosophy, which they admired as something unknowable by the crowd, -and in pursuance of them, they constructed the heresies excogitated by -them. - -Now there are some also who try to construct hebdomads from the healing -art, being struck by the dissection of the brain, saying that the -substance, power of paternity, and divinity of the universe can be -learned from its constitution. [Sidenote: p. 135.] For the brain, being -the ruling part of the whole body rests calm and unmoved, containing -within itself the breath.[210] Now such a story is not incredible, but -a long way from their attempted theory. For the brain when dissected -has within it what is called the chamber, on each side of which are the -membranes which they call wings, gently moved by the breath, and again -driving the breath into the cerebellum.[211] And the breath, passing -through a certain reed-like vein, travels to the pineal gland.[212] -Near this lies the mouth of the cerebellum which receives the breath -passing through and gives it up to the so-called spinal marrow.[213] -From this the whole body gets a share of pneumatic (force), all the -arteries being dependent like branches on this vein, the extremity of -which finishes in the genital veins. Whence also the seeds proceeding -from the brain through the loins are secreted. But the shape of the -cerebellum is like the head of a dragon; concerning which there is much -talk among those of the Gnosis falsely so called, as we have shown. But -there are other six pairs (of vessels) growing from the brain, which -making their way round the head and finishing within it, connect the -bodies together. But the [Sidenote: p. 136.] seventh (goes) from the -cerebellum to the lower parts of the rest of the body, as we have said. - -And about this there is much talk since Simon and Valentinus have found -in it hints which they have taken, although they do not admit it, -being first cheats and then heretics. Since then it seems that we have -sufficiently set out these things, and that all the apparent dogmas -of earthly philosophy have been included in (these) four books,[214] -it seems fitting to proceed to their disciples or rather to their -plagiarists. - - - THE FOURTH BOOK OF PHILOSOPHUMENA[215] - - - FOOTNOTES - -[Footnote 1: This is the beginning of the Mt. Athos MS., the first -pages having disappeared. With regard to the first chapter περὶ -ἀστρολόγων, Cruice, following therein Miller, points out that nearly -the whole of it has been taken from Book V with the same title of -Sextus Empiricus’ work, Πρὸς Μαθηματικούς, and also that the copying -is so faulty that to make sense it is necessary to restore the text -in many places from that of Sextus. Sextus’ book begins, as did -doubtless that of Hippolytus, with a description of the divisions of -the zodiac, the cardinal points (Ascendant, Mid-heaven, Descendant, -and Anti-Meridian), the cadent and succeedent houses, the use of -the clepsydra or water-clock, the planets and their “dignities,” -“exaltations” and “falls,” and finally, their “terms,” with a -description of which our text begins. It is, perhaps, a pity that -Miller did not restore the whole of the missing part from Sextus -Empiricus; but the last-named author is not very clear, and the reader -who wishes to go further into the matter and to acquire some knowledge -of astrological jargon is recommended to consult also James Wilson’s -_Complete Dictionary of Astrology_, reprinted at Boston, U.S.A., in -1885, or, if he prefers a more learned work, M. Bouché-Leclercq’s -_L’Astrologie Grecque_, Paris, 1899. But it may be said here that -the astrologers of the early centuries made their predictions from a -“theme,” or geniture, which was in effect a map of the heavens at the -moment of birth, and showed the ecliptic or sun’s path through the -zodiacal signs divided into twelve “houses,” to each of which a certain -significance was attached. The foundation of this was the horoscope or -sign rising above the horizon at the birth, from which they were able -to calculate the other three cardinal points given above, the cadent -houses being those four which go just before the cardinal points and -the four succeedents those which follow after them. The places of the -planets, including in that term the sun and moon, in the ecliptic were -then calculated and their symbols placed in the houses indicated. From -this figure the judgment or prediction was made, but a great mass of -absurd and contradictory tradition existed as to the influence of the -planets on the life, fortune, and disposition of the native, which -was supposed to depend largely on their places in the theme both in -relation to the earth and to each other.] - -[Footnote 2: Bouché-Leclercq, _op. cit._, p. 206, rightly defines -these terms as fractions of signs separated by internal boundaries -and distributed in each sign among the five planets. Cf. J. Firmicus -Maternus, _Matheseos_, II, 6, and Cicero, _De Divinatione_, 40. Wilson, -_op. cit_., s.h.v., says they are certain degrees in a sign, supposed -to possess the power of altering the nature of a planet to that of the -planet in the term of which it is posited. All the authors quoted say -that the astrologers could not agree upon the extent or position of -the various “terms,” and that in particular the “Chaldæans” and the -“Egyptians” were hopelessly at variance upon the point.] - -[Footnote 3: In the translation I have distinguished Miller’s additions -to the text from Sextus Empiricus’ by enclosing them in square -brackets, reserving the round brackets for my own additions from the -same source, which I have purposely made as few as possible. So with -other alterations.] - -[Footnote 4: δορυφορεῖσθαι, _lit._, “have spear-bearers.” “Stars” in -Sextus Empiricus nearly always means planets.] - -[Footnote 5: This is the famous “trine” figure or aspect of modern -astrologers. Its influence is supposed to be good; that of the square -next described, the reverse.] - -[Footnote 6: Hippolytus here omits a long disquisition by Sextus on the -position of the planets and the Chaldæan system. Where the text resumes -the quotation it is in such a way as to alter the sense completely; -wherefore I have restored the sentence preceding from Sextus.] - -[Footnote 7: συμπάσχει, “suffer with.”] - -[Footnote 8: τὸ περίεχον. The term used by astrologers to denote -the whole æther surrounding the stars or, in other words, the whole -disposition of the heavens. “Ambient” is its equivalent in modern -astrology.] - -[Footnote 9: This is an anticipation of the Peratic heresy to which a -chapter in Book V (pp. 146 ff. _infra_) is devoted. Ἀκεμβὴς is there -spelt Κελβὴς, but Ἀκεμβὴς is restored in Book X and is copied by -Theodoret. “Peratic” is thought by Salmon (_D.C.B._, s.h.v.) to mean -“Mede.”] - -[Footnote 10: “Toparch” means simply “ruler of a place.” Proastius -(προάστιος) generally the dweller in a suburb. Here it probably means -the powers in some part of the heavens which is near to a place or -constellation without actually forming part of it.] - -[Footnote 11: νενομισμένα. Cf. νενομισμένως, “in the established -manner,” Callistratus, _Ecphr._, 897.] - -[Footnote 12: τῶς πρακτικῶν λόγων, or, perhaps, “of the systems used.”] - -[Footnote 13: ἀσύστατον, _lit._, “not holding together,” punningly used -as epithet for both the art and the heresy.] - -[Footnote 14: What follows to the concluding paragraph of Chap. 7 is -taken nearly _verbatim_ from Sextus Empiricus.] - -[Footnote 15: For these terms see n. on p. 67 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 16: ὡροσκόπιον seems here put for ὡροσκοπεῖον = _horologium_, -or clock.] - -[Footnote 17: ἀπότεξις, “the bringing-forth” is the word used by Sextus -throughout. As Sextus was a medical man it is probably the technical -term corresponding to our “parturition.” Miller reads ἀποτάξις which -does not seem appropriate.] - -[Footnote 18: διάθεμα. See n. on p. 67 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 19: I have here followed Sextus’ division of the sentence. -Cruice translates στέαρ, _farina aqua subacta_, for which I can see no -justification. Macmahon here follows him.] - -[Footnote 20: Restoring from Sextus οἴχεται for ἦρται.] - -[Footnote 21: ὡροσκόπον, “the ascending sign.” So Sextus.] - -[Footnote 22: Restoring from Sextus ἐφ’ ἑκάστου for ἐν ἑκάστῳ; τὸν -ἀκριβῆ for τὸ ἀκριβὲς and omitting καταλαβέσθαι.] - -[Footnote 23: See n. on p. 74 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 24: Sextus has described earlier (p. 342, Fabricius) the -whole process of warning the astrologer of the moment of birth by -striking a metal disc, which I have called “gong.”] - -[Footnote 25: ἀορίστου τυγχανούσης.] - -[Footnote 26: ἐν πλείονι χρόνῳ καὶ ἐν συχνῷ πρὸς αἴσθησιν δυνάμενον -μερίζεσθαι, _majori et longiori temporis spatio ad aurium sensum -dividatur_, Cr.; “with proportionate delay,” Macmahon. I do not -understand how either his or Cruice’s construction is arrived at.] - -[Footnote 27: Sextus has “on the hills.”] - -[Footnote 28: ὡροσκοποῦντος might mean “which marks the hour.”] - -[Footnote 29: φαίνεται ... ἀλλοιότερον ... διάθεμα.] - -[Footnote 30: _quam diligenter observari possit in coelo nativitas_, -Cr., (before) “the nativity can be carefully observed in the sky.”] - -[Footnote 31: γένεσις. The word in Greek astrological works has the -same meaning as “geniture” or “nativity” in modern astrological jargon. -Identical with “theme.”] - -[Footnote 32: The whole of this sentence is corrupt, and the scribe -was probably taking down something from Sextus which was read to him -without his understanding it. I have given what seems to be the sense -of the passage.] - -[Footnote 33: ὑδρίαι, Sextus (p. 342, Fabr.), has described the -clepsydra or water-clock and its defects as a measurer of time.] - -[Footnote 34: ἐν πλάτει.] - -[Footnote 35: τὰ ἀποτελέσματα. A technical expression for the results -or influence on sublunary things of the position of the heavenly -bodies. Cf. Bouché-Leclercq, _op. cit._, p. 328, n. 1.] - -[Footnote 36: Sextus adds παγίως, “positively.”] - -[Footnote 37: οἱ μαθηματικοί. The only passage in our text where -Hippolytus uses the word in this sense. He seems to have taken it from -Sextus’ title κατὰ τὸν μαθηματικὸν λόγον.] - -[Footnote 38: A play of words upon Λέω and ἀνδρεῖος.] - -[Footnote 39: σπουδῆς. Hippolytus inserts an unnecessary οὐ before the -word. See Sextus, p. 355.] - -[Footnote 40: οἰκειώσεως χάριν, _gratia consuetudinis_, Cr.] - -[Footnote 41: Does this refer to Otho’s encouragement by the astrologer -Ptolemy to rebel against Galba? See Tacitus, _Hist._, I, 22. The -sentence does not appear in Sextus.] - -[Footnote 42: Sextus says 9977 years.] - -[Footnote 43: φθάσει συνδραμεῖν, “arrive at concurrence with.” Sextus -answers the question in the negative.] - -[Footnote 44: Here the quotations from Sextus end.] - -[Footnote 45: παρ’ ἔθνεσι “among the nations.” A curious expression in -the mouth of a Greek, although natural to a Jew.] - -[Footnote 46: Is this an allusion to trigonometry? The rest of the -sentence, as will presently be seen, refers to Plato’s _Timæus_. Cf. -also _Timæus the Locrian_, c. 5.] - -[Footnote 47: Διὸ τοῖς ἐπιτόμοις χρησάμενος. An indication that -Hippolytus’ knowledge of Plato was not first-hand.] - -[Footnote 48: The passage which follows is from the _Timæus_, XII, -where Plato describes how the World-maker set in motion two concentric -circles revolving different ways, the external called the Same and -Like, and the internal the Other, or Different.] - -[Footnote 49: This seems to be generally accepted as Plato’s meaning. -Jowett says the three are the orbits of the Sun, Venus and Mercury, the -four those of the Moon, Saturn, Mars and Jupiter. The Wanderers are of -course the planets.] - -[Footnote 50: _i. e._, swifter and slower.] - -[Footnote 51: ἐπιφανεία.] - -[Footnote 52: Perhaps the following extract from the pseudo-Timæus the -Locrian, now generally accepted as a summary of the second century, may -make this clearer. After explaining that the cosmos and its parts are -divided into “the Same” and “the Different,” he says: “The first of -these leads from without all that are within them, along the general -movement from East to West. But the latter, belonging to the Different, -lead from within the parts that are carried along from West to East, -and are self-moved, and they are whirled round and along, as it may -happen, by the movement of the Same which possesses in the Cosmos -a superior power. Now the movement of the Different, being divided -according to a harmonical proportion, takes the form of 7 circles,” and -he then goes on to describe the orbits of the planets.] - -[Footnote 53: Lit., “if one section be severed.”] - -[Footnote 54: Cf. Plato, _Timæus_, c. 12.] - -[Footnote 55: A palpable mistake. As Cruice points out, if the Earth’s -diameter is as said in the text, its perimeter must be 251,768 -stadia, which is not far from the 252,000 stadia assigned to it by -Eratosthenes.] - -[Footnote 56: Lacunæ in both these sentences.] - -[Footnote 57: The common Greek name for the planet Ares or Mars (♂).] - -[Footnote 58: All these numbers are hopelessly corrupt in the text and -the scribe varies the notation repeatedly. I have given the figures as -finally settled by Cruice and his predecessors. The Shining One is the -planet Hermes or Mercury (☿).] - -[Footnote 59: βάθη, “depths”; rather height if we consider the orbits -of the planets as concentric and fitting into one another like -jugglers’ caps or the skins of an onion.] - -[Footnote 60: ἐν λόγοις συμφώνοις. Cruice would read τόνοις for λόγοις -on the strength of what Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, II, 20, says about -Pythagoras having taught that the intervals between the planets’ orbits -were musical tones. He seems to mean the gamut or chromatic scale as -contrasted with the enharmonic.] - -[Footnote 61: See last note.] - -[Footnote 62: See note on p. 81 _infra_ as to what this doubling and -tripling means.] - -[Footnote 63: συμφωνίᾳ.] - -[Footnote 64: ἐπιτετάρτῳ, _superquarta_, Cr., 1 + ¼; see Liddell and -Scott, quoting Nicomachus Gerasenus Arithmeticus.] - -[Footnote 65: It is not easy to see from this confused statement -whether it is the system of Plato or Archimedes at which Hippolytus -is aiming. The one, however, that it most resembles is that of -the neo-Pythagoreans, of which the following table is given in M. -Bigourdan’s excellent work on _L’Astronomie: Evolution des Idées et des -Méthodes_, Paris 1911, p. 49:-- - - Planets ♁ ☽ ☿ ♀ ☉ ♂ ♃ ♄ Fixed - stars - Interval { in tones 1 ½ ½ 1½ 1 ½ ½ ½ - { in thousands of } 126 63 63 189 126 63 63 63 - { stadia } - Absolute distances } - in thousands } 0 126 189 252 441 567 630 693 756 - of stadia } -] - -[Footnote 66: The object of all these figures is apparently to prove -that those of Archimedes are wrong and that the Platonic theory--said, -one does not know with what truth, to have been inherited from -Pythagoras, viz., that the intervals between the orbits of the -different bodies of the cosmos are arranged like the notes on a -musical scale--is to be preferred. This was perhaps to be expected -from a Churchman as favouring the doctrine of creation by design. It -is difficult at first sight to see how the figures in the text bear -out Hippolytus’ contention, inasmuch as the distances here given of -the seven planets (including therein the Sun and Moon) from the Earth -proceed in an irregular kind of arithmetical progression ranging from -one to fifty-four, the distance from the Earth to the Moon which -Hippolytus accepts from Archimedes as correct being taken as unity. -Thus, let us call this unit of distance _x_, and we have the table -which follows:-- - - - TABLE I (_of distances_) - - Distance of Earth (♁) from ☽ = 5,544,130 stadia or _x_ - “ ” “ ☉ = 16,632,390 ” 3_x_ - “ ” “ ♀ = 33,264,780 ” 6_x_ - “ ” “ ☿ = 55,441,300 ” 10_x_ - “ ” “ ♂ = 105,338,470 ” 19_x_ - “ ” “ ♃ = 149,691,510 ” 27_x_ - “ ” “ ♄ = 299,383,020 ” 54_x_ - -But let us take the figures given in the text for the intervals between -the Earth and the seven “planets” arranged in the same order, and again -taking the Earth to Moon distance as unity, we have:-- - - - TABLE II (_of intervals_) - - Interval between ♁ and ☽ = 5,554,130 stadia or _x_ - “ ” ☽ “ ☉ = 11,088,260 ” 2_x_ - “ ” ☉ “ ♀ = 16,632,390 ” 3_x_ - “ ” ♀ “ ☿ = 22,176,520 ” 4_x_(2²) - “ ” ☿ “ ♂ = 49,897,170 ” 9_x_(3²) - “ ” ♂ “ ♃ = 44,353,040 ” 8_x_(2³) - “ ” ♃ “ ♄ = 149,691,510 ” 27_x_(3³) - -This agrees almost entirely with the theory which M. Bigourdan in the -work mentioned in the last note has worked out as the Platonic theory -of the distances of the different planets from the Earth, “the supposed -centre of their movements” (p. 228). Thus:-- - - Planets ☽ ☉ ♀ ☿ ♂ ♃ ♄ - Distances 1 2 3 4 8 9 27 - -which distances are, in his own words, “les termes enchevêtrés de deux -progressions géométriques ayant respectivement pour raison 2 et 3, -savoir 1, 2, 4, 8--1, 3, 9, 27; on voit que l’unité est, comme chez -Pythagore, la distance de la Terre à la Lune.” This conclusion is -amply borne out by Hippolytus’ figures, which, as given in Table II -above, show a regular progression from 2 and 3 to 2² and 3², then -to 2³ and 3³, which explains what our author means by increasing -the Earth to the Moon distance, κατὰ τὰ διπλάσιον καὶ τριπλάσιον. The -only discrepancy between this and M. Bigourdan’s table is that he has -transposed the distances between ☿--♂ and ♂--♄ respectively; but as -I do not know the details of the calculation on which he bases his -figures, I am unable to say whether the mistake is his or Hippolytus’.] - -[Footnote 67: Are we to conclude from this that these last calculations -are those of Claudius Ptolemy, the author of the _Almagest_? He has -certainly not been mentioned before, but his fame was so great that -Hippolytus may have been certain that the allusion would be understood -by his audience. Ptolemy lived, perhaps, into the last quarter of the -second century.] - -[Footnote 68: Genesis vi. 4. The subject seems to have had irresistible -fascination for Christian converts of Asiatic blood, whether orthodox -or heretic. Manes also wrote a book upon the Giants, cf. Kessler, -_Mani_, Berlin, 1899, pp. 191 ff.] - -[Footnote 69: Hippolytus seems to have been entirely ignorant that -the calculations he derides were anything but mere guesswork. They -were not only singularly accurate considering the imperfection of the -observations at the disposal of their author, but have also been of -the greatest use to science as laying the foundation of all future -astronomy.] - -[Footnote 70: ἀμέτρους. Another pun on their _measurements_.] - -[Footnote 71: Nothing definite is known of this Colarbasus or his -supposed astrological heresy. The accounts given of him by Irenæus -and Epiphanius describe him as holding tenets identical with those of -Marcus. Hort, following Baur, believes that he never existed, and that -his name is simply a Greek corruption of _Qol arba_, “the Voice of the -Four.” See _D.C.B._, s.h.v.] - -[Footnote 72: περὶ μαθηματικῶν. The article is omitted; but he -must mean the students and not the study. This is curious, because -Mathematicus in the Rome of Hippolytus must have meant astrologer and -nothing else, and what follows has nothing to do with astrology. Rather -is it what was called in the Renaissance Arithmomancy. Cruice refers -us to Athanasius Kircher’s _Arithmologia_ on the subject. Cornelius -Agrippa, _De vanitate et incertitudine Scientiarum_, writes of it as “The -Pythagorean lot,” and it is described in Gaspar Peucer’s _De præcipuis -Divinationum generibus_, 1604.] - -[Footnote 73: ψῆφοι, lit., pebbles, _i. e._ counters.] - -[Footnote 74: στοιχεῖα: letters as the component parts or elements of -words.] - -[Footnote 75: Reading with the text τινὰς for Cruice’s τινὰ.] - -[Footnote 76: In the text the Kappa and Tau are written at full length, -the other numbers in the usual Greek notation, a proof that the scribe -was here writing from dictation and not copying MS.] - -[Footnote 77: ψηφισθὲν.] - -[Footnote 78: The name is spelt Πάτροκλος.] - -[Footnote 79: So that the “root” may be either 7 or 6 according as you -use the “rule of 9” or of 7. A _reductio ad absurdum_.] - -[Footnote 80: ἐὰν ἀπαρτίσῃ, “is even or complete.”] - -[Footnote 81: I omit the Rho, which in the Codex precedes the Alpha. -Cruice suggests it is put for Π.] - -[Footnote 82: They do not, but make 26. Cruice adds an Alpha between -the 8 and the 3: but in any case the rule just enunciated is broken by -the reckoning in of two 2’s.] - -[Footnote 83: Αἴας. Α = 1, ι = 10 = 1, α = 1 (omitted), ς = 200 = 2. 1 -+ 1 + 2 = 4.] - -[Footnote 84: The Homeric name for Paris.] - -[Footnote 85: κύριον ὄνομα as opposed to μεταφορὸν ὄνομα, a name -transferred from one to another, or family name.] - -[Footnote 86: Not 8 but 4. ο = 70 = 7, δ = 4, υ = 400 = 4, σ = 200 = 2, -ε = 5 (with duplicate omitted) = 22, which divided by 9 leaves 4, or by -7, only 1. The next sentence and a similar remark at the last sentence -but one of the chapter are probably by a commentator or scribe and have -slipped into the text by accident. Oddly enough, nothing is said as to -what happens if the “roots” are equal, as they seem to be in this case.] - -[Footnote 87: Another mistake. Α = 1, σ = 200 = 2, τ = 300 = 3, ε = -5, ρ = 100 = 1, ο = 70 = 7, π = 80 = 8, ι = 10 = 1 (with duplicates -omitted) = 28, which divided by 9 leaves 1, or by 7, 0 = 7.] - -[Footnote 88: ὅταν μέντοι δευτερόν τινες ἀγωνίζωνται. _Quum vero quidam -iterum decertant de numeris_, Cr. But the allusion is almost certainly -to two charioteers or combatants meeting in successive contests. Half -the divination and magic of the early centuries refers to the affairs -of the circus, and the text has nothing about _de numeris_.] - -[Footnote 89: Lit., inspection of the forehead (or face), or what -Lavater called physiognomy. The word was known to Ben Jonson, who uses -it in his _Alchymist_. “By a rule, Captain. In metoposcopy, which I do -work by. A certain star in the forehead which you see not,” etc.] - -[Footnote 90: ἰδέας.] - -[Footnote 91: I have not thought it worth while to set down the -various readings suggested by the different editors and translators -for these “forms and qualities.” The whole of this chapter is taken -from Ptolemy’s _Tetrabiblos_, and was corrupted by every copyist. The -common type suggested with eyebrows meeting over the nose is plainly -Alexandrian, as we know from the portraits on mummy-cases in Ptolemaic -times.] - -[Footnote 92: κοπιαταὶ. The dictionaries give “grave-digger,” which -makes no sense.] - -[Footnote 93: ὀφθαλμοῖς μέλασιν ὡς ἠλειμμένοις, “eyes black as if -oiled.” Not a bad description of the eyes of a certain type of -Levantine.] - -[Footnote 94: The text has κολυμβῶσιν, which must refer to the eyes.] - -[Footnote 95: Yet he twice calls them ψεῦσται, or “cheats.”] - -[Footnote 96: Miller thinks this last characteristic interpolated.] - -[Footnote 97: Reading λευκῷ for ἀλυκῷ, “salt,” which seems impossible.] - -[Footnote 98: Reading ὑποδούλιοι for ὑπόδουλοι.] - -[Footnote 99: Is any one born with grey hair?] - -[Footnote 100: οἱ αὐτοὶ φύσεως. A similar phrase has just occurred -under the same sign: a proof of the utter corruption of the text.] - -[Footnote 101: ὀρχησταί in codex. Probably a mistake for εἰς κοινωνίαν -εὔχρηστοι, “useful to the community.”] - -[Footnote 102: δι’ ἐπινοίας; probably a sarcasm.] - -[Footnote 103: It is hardly necessary to point out the futility of this -astrology, its base being the theory that the earth is the centre of -the universe. Nearly all the characteristics given above have, however, -less to do with the stars than with those supposed to distinguish the -different animals named. This is really sympathetic magic, or what was -later called “the signatures of things.”] - -[Footnote 104: A lacuna in the text here extending to the opening words -of the next chapter.] - -[Footnote 105: Richard Ganschinietz, in a study on _Hippolytus’ Capitel -gegen die Magier_ appearing in Gebhardt’s and Harnack’s _Texte und -Untersuchungen_, dritte Reihe Bd. 9, Leipzig, 1913, says it is not -doubtful that Hippolytus took this chapter from Celsus’ book κατὰ -μάγων, which he discovers in Origen’s work against the last-named -author. He assumes that Lucian of Samosata in his Ἀλέξανδρος ἢ -Ψευδόμαντις borrowed from the same source.] - -[Footnote 106: τῶν δαιμόνων, _a demonibus_, Cr. But the word δαίμων is -hardly ever used in classic or N.T. Greek for a devil or evil spirit, -generally called δαιμόνιον. Δαίμων here and elsewhere in this chapter -plainly means a god of lesser rank or spirit. Cf. Plutarch _de Is. et -Os._, cc. 25-30.] - -[Footnote 107: τῷ παιδὶ, the magician’s assistant necessary in all -operations requiring confederacy or hypnotism.] - -[Footnote 108: For the composition of this see Plutarch, _op. cit._, c. -81.] - -[Footnote 109: ὁ μυχός. Often used for the women’s chamber or -gynaeceum.] - -[Footnote 110: Clearly the Egyptian sun-god Ra or Rê, the Phi in front -being the Coptic definite article. It is a curious instance of the -undying nature of any superstition that in the magical ceremonies of -the extant Parisian sect of Vintrasists, Ammon-Ra, the Theban form of -this god, is invoked apparently with some idea that he is a devil. See -Jules Bois’ _Le Satanisme et la Magie_, Paris, 1895.] - -[Footnote 111: χαλκάνθον, sulphate of iron, which, mixed with tincture -or decoction of nut-galls, makes writing ink. Our own word copperas is -an exact translation.] - -[Footnote 112: φιάλη. A broad flat pan used for sacrificial purposes.] - -[Footnote 113: There is some muddle here, probably due to Hippolytus -not having any practical acquaintance with the tricks described. The -smoke of nut-galls would hardly make the writing visible. On the other -hand, letters written in milk will turn brown if exposed to the fire -without the application of any ash.] - -[Footnote 114: A sauce made of brine and small fish.] - -[Footnote 115: See the roughly-drawn vignettes usual in magic papyri, -_e. g._ Parthey, _Zwei griechische Zauberpapyri_, Berlin, 1866, p. 155; -Karl Wessely, _Griechische Zauberpapyri von Paris und London_, Vienna, -1888, p. 118.] - -[Footnote 116: τὰς φρένας. One of Hippolytus’ puns.] - -[Footnote 117: Hebrew was used in these ceremonies, because they were -largely in the hands of the Jews. See _Forerunners and Rivals of -Christianity_, II, pp. 33, 34, for references.] - -[Footnote 118: ἠχεῖ. Particularly appropriate to the striking of a -metal disc.] - -[Footnote 119: The book of course was a long roll of parchment, the -inner coils of which could be drawn out as described.] - -[Footnote 120: ὀρυκτῶν ἁλῶν. Cruice translates fossil salts. Does he -mean rock-salt?] - -[Footnote 121: τὸ ἰνδικὸν μέλαν. Either indigo dye or pepper. Cayenne -pepper put in the flame might have a startling effect on the audience.] - -[Footnote 122: Where?] - -[Footnote 123: Said to be an astringent earth made from rock-alum, and -containing both alum and vitriol. Known to Hippocrates.] - -[Footnote 124: Red lead or vermilion? The idea seems to be to frighten -the dupe by the supposed prodigy of a hen laying eggs which have red or -black inside them instead of white.] - -[Footnote 125: Pliny, _Nat. Hist._, VIII, c. 75, says the sheep is -compelled when it feeds to turn away from the sun by reason of the -weakness of its head. This is probably the story which Hippolytus or -the author has exaggerated. Something is omitted from the text.] - -[Footnote 126: Seal or porpoise oil?] - -[Footnote 127: Hymns like these are to be found in the two collections -of magic papyri quoted in n. on p. 93 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 128: He tells us how this trick is performed on p. 100 -_infra_. Lecanomancy or divination by the bowl was generally performed -by means of a hypnotized boy, as described in Lane’s _Modern -Egyptians_. This, however, is a more elaborate process dependent on -fraud.] - -[Footnote 129: Reading νάτρον for νίτρον. It was common in Egypt, and -saltpetre would not have the same effect, which seems to depend on the -expulsion of carbonic acid.] - -[Footnote 130: μυρσίνη. Cruice suggests μάλφη, a mixture of wax and -pitch, which hardly seems indicated. Storax is the ointment recommended -by eighteenth-century conjurers. Water is all that is needful.] - -[Footnote 131: ἰχθυοκόλλα. Presumably fish-glue. Macmahon suggests -isinglass. The salamander, the use of which is to be sought in -sympathetic magic, was no doubt calcined and used in powder. -σκολοπένδριον, “millipede” and σκολόπενδρον, “hart’s tongue fern” are -the alternative readings suggested. Fern-oil is said to be good for -burns.] - -[Footnote 132: Probably chalk or gypsum.] - -[Footnote 133: αὐτορρύτων κηκίδων τε κενῶν. Κήκις here evidently means -any sort of nut-shell. But how can it be “self-flowing”? Miller’s -suggested φορυτὸν makes no better sense.] - -[Footnote 134: The lion-headed figure of the Mithraic worship is shown -thus setting light to an altar in Cumont’s _Textes et Monuments de -Mithra_, II, p. 196, fig. 22. A similar figure with an opening at the -back of the head to admit the “wind-pipe” described in the text shows -how this was effected. See the same author’s _Les Mystères de Mithra_, -Brussels, 1913, p. 235, figs. 26, 27.] - -[Footnote 135: The solution of alum would be effective without any -other ingredients.] - -[Footnote 136: That is, not by guesswork. Another pun.] - -[Footnote 137: The letter was of course in the form of a writing-tablet -bound about with silk or cord, to which the seal was attached.] - -[Footnote 138: This would make something like plaster of Paris.] - -[Footnote 139: This book or the former one. Lucian describes the same -process in his _Alexander_, which he dedicates to Celsus; _v._ n. on p. -92 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 140: ἀφορμὰς λαβών, “taking them as starting-points.”] - -[Footnote 141: Cruice suggests that this sentence has either got out of -place or is an addition by an annotator. Probably an afterthought of -Hippolytus’.] - -[Footnote 142: See n. on p. 97 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 143: κύανος. A dark-blue substance which some think steel, -others lapis lazuli.] - -[Footnote 144: συμπαῖκται, “playfellows.” Here, as elsewhere in the -text, accomplices or confederates.] - -[Footnote 145: Several words missing here, perhaps by intention. It -would be interesting to know if the “drug” was any preparation of -phosphorus.] - -[Footnote 146: Should be Baubo, a synonym of Hecate in the hymn to that -goddess published by Miller, _Mélanges de Litt. Grecque_, Paris, 1868, -pp. 442 ff.] - -[Footnote 147: Most of the epithets and names here used are to be -found in the hymn quoted in the last note. The goddess is there -identified not only with Artemis and Persephone, but with the Sumerian -Eris-ki-gal, lady of hell.] - -[Footnote 148: A sort of magic lantern? κάτοπτρον, which I have -translated mirror, _might_ be a lens. One is said to have been found in -Assyria.] - -[Footnote 149: πόρρωθεν. Better, perhaps, πόρροτεθεν.] - -[Footnote 150: Full moon, or half, or quarter, as the case may be.] - -[Footnote 151: Schneidewin seems to be right in suggesting a lacuna -here.] - -[Footnote 152: ἐν ὑαλώδεσι τύποις. Schneidewin suggests τόποις -unreasonably. Many alabaster jars are nearly transparent.] - -[Footnote 153: Cf. Aristotle, _De Hist. Animal._, V, 10, 2. Said to be -_Coryphæna hippurus_.] - -[Footnote 154: The hiatus leaves us in doubt how this operated. Perhaps -it liberated free ammonia.] - -[Footnote 155: Reading ἐπίπλοον βοείου instead of, with Cruice, -ἐπίπλεον βώλου, “filled with clay.”] - -[Footnote 156: ἀφανὲς, “unapparent.”] - -[Footnote 157: ἀπηνέχθημεν. An admission that this chapter was an -afterthought.] - -[Footnote 158: ὡς εἰκάσαι, ἐστι, _ut patet_, Cr.] - -[Footnote 159: θεολόγοι. It does not mean “theologians” in our sense, -but narrator of stories about the gods. Orpheus is always considered a -θεολόγος.] - -[Footnote 160: ποδαπός. Not, as Cruice translates, _quale_, which would -be better expressed by the ποίον of Aristotle.] - -[Footnote 161: τὸ σύμπαν αὐτὸ.] - -[Footnote 162: It is fairly certain that Hippolytus in this -“Recapitulation” must here be summarizing the missing Books II and III. -He has said nothing in any part of the work that has come down to us -about the Persian theology, and in Book I he calls Zaratas or Zoroaster -a Chaldæan and not a Persian.] - -[Footnote 163: ψήφοις ὑπέβαλον καὶ are supplied by Schneidewin in the -place of three words rubbed out.] - -[Footnote 164: Reading with Schneidewin μοιρῶν for μυρῶν and ἐπιπνοίας -for ἐπίνοιας.] - -[Footnote 165: By indivisible comparison (σύγκρισις) he seems to imply -that these numbers cannot be divided except by 1. Hence Cruice would -omit 9 as being divisible by 3. Perhaps he means “like indivisibility.”] - -[Footnote 166: Cruice suggests that this was an astronomical instrument -and quotes Cl. Ptolemy, _Harmon._, I, 2, in support.] - -[Footnote 167: Why should the cosmos be masculo-feminine? The -Valentinians said the same thing about their Sophia, who was, as I have -said elsewhere (_Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_, Oct. 1917), a -personification of the Earth. The idea seems to go back to Sumerian -times. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, 45, n. 1, and Mr. S. Langdon, _Tammuz and -Ishtar_, Oxford, 1914, pp. 7, 43 and 115.] - -[Footnote 168: The worshippers of the Greek Isis declared Isis to be -the earth and Osiris water. See _Forerunners_, I, 73, for references. -If Hippolytus is here recapitulating Books II and III, it is probable -that the lacuna was occupied with some reference to the Alexandrian -deities and their connection with the arithmetical speculations of the -Neo-Pythagoreans. Could this be substantiated, we should not need to -look further for the origin of the Simonian and Valentinian heresies.] - -[Footnote 169: ψηφιζόμενα κὰι ἀναλυόμενα, _supputata et diversa_, Cr. -The process seems to be that called earlier (p. 85 _supra_) the rule of -9.] - -[Footnote 170: 361 ÷ 9 = 40 + 1; 605 ÷ 9 = 67 + 2.] - -[Footnote 171: ἀπερίζυγον, lit., “unyoked.”] - -[Footnote 172: εἰς ἐννάδα here appears in the text apparently as an -alternative reading. Cruice suggests “with an ennead deducted.”] - -[Footnote 173: Meaning that some reckon the numerical value of all the -letters in a name, others that of the vowels only.] - -[Footnote 174: What follows has nothing to do with divination, but -treats of the celestial map as a symbolical representation of the -Christian scheme of salvation. Hippolytus condemns the notion as a -“heresy,” but if so, its place ought to be in Book V. It is doubtful -from what author or teacher he derived his account of it; but all the -quotations from Aratus’ _Phænomena_ which he gives are to be found in -Cicero, _De Natura Deorum_, 41, where they make, as they do not here, a -connected story.] - -[Footnote 175: One of the passages favouring the conjecture that the -book was originally in the form of lectures.] - -[Footnote 176: οἱ ἐντυγχάνοντες, _legentibus_, Cr. It may just as -easily mean “those who come across this.”] - -[Footnote 177: “Catasterisms” was the technical term for these -transfers, of which the _Coma Berenices_ is the best-known example. Cf. -Bouché-Leclercq, _op. cit._, p. 23.] - -[Footnote 178: The long-eared owl (_strix otus_). According to Ælian it -had a reputation for stupidity, and was therefore a type of the easy -dupe, Athenæus, _Deipnosophistæ_, IX, 44, 45, tells a similar story to -that in the text about the bustard.] - -[Footnote 179: Reading μετανάσσεται for μετανίσσεται or μετανείσεται.] - -[Footnote 180: στρεπτούς, _volventes_, Cr. An attempt to pun on πόλος, -the Pole.] - -[Footnote 181: Job i. 7. The Book of Job according to some writers -comes from an Essene school, which may give us some clue to the origin -of these ideas. The Enochian literature to which the same tendency -is assigned is full of speculations about the heavenly bodies. See -_Forerunners_, I, p. 159, for references.] - -[Footnote 182: ὁ ἐν γόνασιν. Aratus calls this constellation ὁ ἐν -γόνασι καθήμενος, Cicero _Engonasis_, Ovid _Genunixus_, Vitruvius, -Manilius and J. Firmicus Maternus, _Ingeniculus_.] - -[Footnote 183: A perversion of the “it shall bruise thy head and thou -shall bruise his heel,” of Genesis iii. 15.] - -[Footnote 184: From his attitude the Kneeler resembles the figure -of Atlas supporting the world, who as Omophorus plays a great part -in Manichæan mythology. Cumont derives this from a Babylonian -original, for which and his connection with Mithraic cosmogony see his -_Recherches sur le Manichéisme_, Brussels, 1908, I, p. 70, figs. 1 and -2. The constellation is now known as Hercules.] - -[Footnote 185: Hippolytus here evidently quotes not from Aratus, but -from some unnamed Gnostic or heretic writer, whom Cruice thinks must -have been a Jew. Yet he was plainly a Christian, as appears from his -remarks about the “Second Creation.” An Ebionite writer might have -preserved many Essene superstitions.] - -[Footnote 186: Cruice, following Roeper, says these words have slipped -in from an earlier page.] - -[Footnote 187: ὀφιοῦχος. The “Ophiuchus huge” of Milton or Anguitenens.] - -[Footnote 188: Ἑλίκη. So Aratus and Apollonius Rhodius. Said to be so -called from its perpetually revolving. Cruice remarks on this sentence -that it does not seem to have been written by a Greek, and quotes -Epiphanius as to the addiction of the Pharisees to astrology. But see -last note but one.] - -[Footnote 189: ἑλίκη. A pun quite in Hippolytus’ manner.] - -[Footnote 190: πρὸς ἣν ... ναυτίλλονται. Cruice and Macmahon alike -translate this “towards which,” but Aratus clearly means “steer by” -both here and earlier.] - -[Footnote 191: Herodotus I, 1. He does not say, however, that the -Greeks were Phœnicians.] - -[Footnote 192: Rather the conceiver, from κύω, to conceive. γεννάω is -used of the mother by Aristotle, _De Gen. Animal._, 3, 5, 6.] - -[Footnote 193: λογικῆς.] - -[Footnote 194: Reading Ιάσαδος for Cruice’s Ἰασίδαο. The text is said -to have εἰς ἀΐδαο.] - -[Footnote 195: γράμματα, elementa, Cr. But I think the allusion is to -the story they contain for those who can read them.] - -[Footnote 196: The Swan.] - -[Footnote 197: τὰς ἰδέας.] - -[Footnote 198: If Hippolytus’ words are here correctly transcribed, the -“heretic” quoted seems to have two inconsistent ideas about the stars. -One is that the constellations are types or allegories of what takes -place in man’s soul; the other, that they are the patterns after which -the creatures of this world were made. This last is Mithraic rather -than Christian.] - -[Footnote 199: τῆς τούτων ὑπολήψεως, _ab horum cogitationibus_, Cr.] - -[Footnote 200: ἀγαπητοί. The word generally used in a _sermon_.] - -[Footnote 201: This also reads like a peroration.] - -[Footnote 202: In this chapter Hippolytus for the first time sets -himself seriously to prove the thesis which he has before asserted, _i. -e._, that all the Gnostic systems are derived from the teachings of the -Greek philosophers. His mode of doing so is to compare the elaborate -systems of Aeons or emanations of deity imagined by heresiarchs -like Simon Magus and Valentinus to the views attributed by him to -Pythagoras which make all nature to spring from one indivisible point. -Whether Pythagoras ever held such views may be doubted and we have no -means of checking Hippolytus’ always loose statements on this point; -but something like them appears in the _Theaetetus_ of Plato where -arithmetic and geometry seem to be connected by talk about oblong as -well as square numbers and the construction of solids from them. If -we imagine with the Greeks (see n. on p. 37 _supra_) that numbers are -not abstract things, but actual portions of space, there is indeed a -strong likeness between the ideas of the later Platonists as to the -construction of the world by means of numbers and those attributed to -the Gnostic teachers as to its emanation from God. Whether these last -really held the views thus attributed to them is another matter. Cf. -_Forerunners_, II, pp. 99, 100.] - -[Footnote 203: ἀπὸ τοῦ σημείου seems to be repeated needlessly.] - -[Footnote 204: ῥυὲν, “flowing out.”] - -[Footnote 205: πέρος ἔχουσα σημεῖον. Surely it has two limits--a point -at each end.] - -[Footnote 206: σῶμα. In the next sentence he uses the proper word -στερεόν.] - -[Footnote 207: This is, I suppose, quoted from the Ἀποφάσις μεγαλή -attributed to Simon, as he speaks afterwards (II, p. 9 _infra_) of the -small becoming great, “as it is written in the _Apophasis_, if it ... -come into being from the indivisible point. But the great will be in -the boundless æon,” etc.] - -[Footnote 208: What follows from this point down to the end of the -paragraph is an almost verbatim transcript of the passage in Book I -(pp. 37 ff. _supra_), where it is given as the teaching of Pythagoras. -The only substantial differences are: that hypostasis is written for -hypothesis in the second sentence of the passage; the Tetractys is no -longer said to be the “source” of eternal nature; and the 11, 12, etc., -are now said to take, and not “share” their beginning from the 10.] - -[Footnote 209: ὑπόθεσιν ἑαυτοῖς ἐντεῦθεν σχεδιάσαντες, _suis dogmatibus -fundamentum posuerunt_, Cr.] - -[Footnote 210: τὸ πνεῦμα. Cruice translates this by _spiritum_, and is -followed by Macmahon. I think, however, he means the breath, it being -the idea of the ancients that the arteries were air-vessels.] - -[Footnote 211: παρεγκεφαλίς.] - -[Footnote 212: κωνάριον.] - -[Footnote 213: νωτιαῖον μοελόν.] - -[Footnote 214: It is at any rate plain from this that the missing Books -II and III at one time existed.] - -[Footnote 215: These words appear in the MS. at the foot of this Book.] - - - - - BOOK V - - THE OPHITE HERESIES - - -[Sidenote: p. 137.] 1. These are the contents of the 5th (book) of the -Refutation of all Heresies. - -2. What the Naassenes say who call themselves Gnostics, and that they -profess those opinions which the philosophers of the Greeks and the -transmitters of the Mysteries first laid down, starting wherefrom they -have constructed heresies. - -3. And what things the Peratæ imagine, and that their doctrine is not -framed from the Holy Scriptures but from the astrological (art). - -4. What is the system according to the Sithians, and that they have -patched together their doctrine by plagiarizing from those wise men -according to the Greeks, (to wit) Musæus and Linus and Orpheus. - -5. What Justinus imagined and that his doctrine is not framed from -the Holy Scriptures, but from the marvellous tales of Herodotus the -historiographer. - - - 1. _Naassenes._[1] - -[Sidenote: p. 138.] 6. I consider that the tenets concerning the Divine -and the fashioning of the cosmos (held by) all those who are deemed -philosophers by Greeks and Barbarians have been very painfully set -forth in the four books before this. Whose curious arts I have not -neglected, so that I have undertaken for the readers no chance labour, -exhorting many to love of learning and certainty of knowledge about the -truth. Now therefore there remains to hasten on to the refutation of -the heresies, with which intent[2] also we have set forth the things -aforesaid. From which philosophers the heresiarchs have taken hints in -common[3] and patching like cobblers the mistakes of the ancients on to -their own thoughts, have offered them as new to those they can deceive, -as we shall prove in (the books) which follow. For the rest, it is time -to approach the subjects laid down before, but to begin with those who -have dared to sing the praises of the Serpent, who is in fact the cause -of the error, through certain systems invented by his action. Therefore -[Sidenote: p. 139.] the priests and chiefs of the doctrine were the -first who were called Naassenes, being thus named in the Hebrew tongue: -for the Serpent is called Naas.[4] Afterwards they called themselves -Gnostics alleging that they alone knew the depths.[5] Separating -themselves from which persons, many men have made the heresy, which is -really one, a much divided affair, describing the same things according -to varying opinions, as this discourse will argue as it proceeds. - -These men worship as the beginning of all things, according to -their own statement, a Man and a Son of Man. But this Man is -masculo-feminine[6] and is called by them Adamas;[7] and hymns to him -are many and various. And [Sidenote: p. 140.] the hymns, to cut it -short, are repeated by them somehow like this:-- - -“From thee a father, and through thee a mother, the two deathless -names, parents of Aeons, O thou citizen of heaven, Man of great -name!”[8] - -But they divide him like Geryon into three parts. For there is of -him, they say, the intellectual (part), the psychic and the earthly; -and they consider that the knowledge of him is the beginning of the -capacity to know God, speaking thus: “The beginning of perfection -is the knowledge of man, but the knowledge of God is completed -perfection.” But all these things, he says, the intellectual, and the -psychic and the earthly, proceeded and came down together into one -man, Jesus who was born of Mary;[9] and there spoke together, he says, -in the same way, these three men each of them from his own substance -to his own. For there are three kinds of universals[10] according to -them (to wit) the angelic,[11] the psychic and the earthly; and three -churches, the angelic, the psychic and the earthly; but their names -are: Chosen, Called, Captive.[12] - -[Sidenote: p. 141.] 7. These are the heads of the very many discourses -which they say James the brother of the Lord handed down to -Mariamne.[13] So then, that the impious may no longer speak falsely -either of Mariamne, or of James, or of his Saviour, we will come to -the Mysteries, whence comes their fable, both the Barbarian and the -Greek, and we shall see how these men collecting together the hidden -and ineffable mysteries of the nations[14] and speaking falsely of -Christ, lead astray those who have not seen the Gentiles’ secret rites. -For since the Man Adamas is their foundation, and they say there -has been written of him “Who shall declare his [Sidenote: p. 142.] -generation?”[15] learn ye how, taking from the nations in turn the -undiscoverable and distinguished[16] generation of the Man, they apply -this to Christ. - - “For earth, say the Greeks, was the first to give forth man, thus - bearing a goodly gift. For she wished to be the mother not of plants - without feeling and wild beasts without sense, but of a gentle and - God-loving animal. But hard it is, he says, to discover whether - Alalcomeneus of the Boeotians came forth upon the [Sidenote: p. 143.] - Cephisian shore as the first of men, or whether (the first men) were - the Idæan Curetes, a divine race, or the Phrygian Corybantes whom the - Sun saw first shooting up like trees, or whether Arcadia brought forth - Pelasgus earlier than the Moon, or Eleusis Diaulus dweller in the - Rarian field, or Lemnos gave birth to Cabirus, fair child of ineffable - orgies, or Pallene to Alcyon, eldest of the Giants. But the Libyans - say Iarbas the first-born crept forth from the parched field to pluck - Zeus’ sweet acorn. So also, he says that the Nile of the Egyptians, - making fat the mud which unto this day begets life, gave forth living - bodies made flesh with moist heat.”[17] - -But the Assyrians say that fish-eating[18] Oannes (the first man) was -born among them and the Chaldæans (say the same thing about) Adam; and -they assert that he was the man whom the earth brought forth alone, and -that he lay breathless, motionless (and) unmoved like unto a statue -being the image of him on high who is praised in song as the man -Adamas; but that he was produced by many [Sidenote: p. 144.] powers -about whom in turn there is much talk.[19] - -In order then that the Great Man[20] on high, from whom, as they say, -“every fatherhood[21] named on earth and in the heavens” is framed, -might be completely held fast, there was given to him also a soul, so -that through the soul he might suffer, and that the enslaved “image -of the great and most beautiful and Perfect Man”--for thus they call -him--might be punished.[22] Wherefore again they ask what is the soul -and of what kind is its nature that coming to the man and moving[23] -him it should enslave and punish the image of the Perfect Man. But they -ask this, not from the Scriptures, but from the mystic rites. And they -say that the soul is very hard to find and to comprehend, since it does -not stay in the same shape or form, nor is it always in one and the -same state, so that one might describe it by a type or comprehend it in -substance.[24] But these various changes of the soul they hold to be -set down in the Gospel inscribed to the Egyptians. - -They doubt then, as do all other men of the nations, whether the -soul is from the pre-existent, or from the self-begotten, [Sidenote: -p. 145.] or from the poured-forth Chaos.[25] And first they betake -themselves to the mysteries of the Assyrians[26] to understand the -triple division of the Man; for the Assyrians were the first to think -the soul tripartite and yet one. For every nature, they say, longs -for the soul, but each in a different way. For soul is the cause of -all things that are, and all things which are nourished and increase, -he says, require soul. For nothing like nurture or increase, he says, -can occur unless soul be present. And even the stones, he says, are -animated,[27] for they have the power of increase, and no increase -can come without nourishment. For by addition increase the things -which increase and the addition is the nourishment of that which is -nourished.[28] Therefore every nature he says, of things in heaven, and -on earth, and below the earth, longs for a soul. But the Assyrians call -such a thing[29] Adonis or Endymion or (Attis); and when it is invoked -as Adonis Aphrodite loves and longs after the soul of such name. And -Aphrodite is generation[30] according to them. But when Persephone -or Core loves Adonis[31] there is a certain mortal soul separated -from Aphrodite [Sidenote: p. 146.] (that is from generation).[32] -And if Selene should come to desire of Endymion[33] and to love of -his beauty, the nature of the sublime ones, he says, also requires -soul. But if, he says, the Mother of the Gods castrate Attis,[34] and -she holds this loved one, the blessed nature of the hypercosmic and -eternal ones on high recalls to her, he says, the masculine power of -the soul.[35] For, says he, the Man is masculo-feminine. According to -this argument of theirs, then, the so-called[36] intercourse of woman -with man is by (the teaching of) their school shown to be an utterly -wicked and defiling thing. For Attis is castrated, he says, that is, he -has changed over from the earthly parts of the lower creation to the -eternal substance on high, where, he says, there is neither male nor -female,[37] but a new creature,[38] a new Man, who is masculo-feminine. -What they mean by “on high” I will show in its appropriate place when -I come to it. But they say it bears witness to what they say that -Rhea is not simply one (goddess) but, so to speak, the [Sidenote: p. -147.] whole creature.[39] And this they say is made quite clear by the -saying:--“For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the -world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made by -Him, in truth, His eternal power and godhead, so that they are without -excuse. Since when they knew Him as God, they glorified Him not as -God, neither were thankful, but foolishness deceived their hearts. For -thinking themselves wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of -the incorruptible God into the likenesses of an image of corruptible -man and of birds and of fourfooted and creeping things. Wherefore God -gave them up to passions of dishonour. For even their women changed -their natural use to that which is against nature.”[40] And what the -natural use is according to them, we shall see later. “Likewise, also -the males leaving the natural use of the female burned in their lust -one toward another males among males working unseemliness.”[41] But -unseemliness is according to them the first and blessed and unformed -substance which is the cause of all the forms of [Sidenote: p. 148.] -things which are formed. “And receiving in themselves the recompense -of their error which is meet.”[42] For in these words, which Paul has -spoken, they say is comprised their whole secret and the ineffable -mystery of the blessed pleasure. For the promise of baptism[43] is not -anything else according to them than the leading to unfading pleasure -him who is baptized according to them in living water and anointed with -silent[44] ointment. - -And they say that not only do the mysteries of the Assyrians bear -witness to their saying, but also those of the Phrygians concerning the -blessed nature, hitherto hidden and yet at the same time displayed, of -those who were and are and shall be, which, he says, is the kingdom of -the heavens sought for within man.[45] Concerning which nature they -have explicitly made tradition in the Gospel inscribed according to -Thomas,[46] saying thus: “Whoso seeks me shall find me in children from -seven years (upwards). For there in the fourteenth year I who am hidden -[Sidenote: p. 149.] am made manifest.” This, however, is the saying -not of Christ but of Hippocrates, who says: “At seven years old, a boy -is half a father.” Whence they who place the primordial nature of the -universals in the primordial seed having heard the Hippocratian (adage) -that a boy of seven years old is half a father, say that in fourteen -years according to Thomas it will be manifest. This is their ineffable -and mystical saying.[47] - -They say then that the Egyptians, who are admitted to be the most -ancient of all men after the Phrygians and the first at once to impart -to all men the initiations and secret rites[48] of the gods, and to -have proclaimed forms and activities, have the holy and august and for -those who are not initiated unutterable mysteries of Isis. And these -are nothing else than the _pudendum_ of Osiris which was snatched away -and sought for by her of the seven stoles and black [Sidenote: p. 150.] -garments.[49] But they say Osiris is water. And the seven-stoled nature -which has about it and is equipped with seven ethereal stoles--for -thus they allegorically call the wandering stars--is like mutable -generation[50] and shows that the creation is transformed by the -Ineffable and Unportrayable[51] and Incomprehensible and Formless One. -And this is what is said in the Scripture: “The just shall fall seven -times and rise again.”[52] For these falls, he says, are the turnings -about of the stars when moved by him who moves all things. They say, -then, about the substance of the seed which is the cause of all things -that are, that it belongs to none of these but begets and creates all -things that are, speaking thus: “I become what I wish, and I am what I -am; wherefore I say that it is the immoveable that moves all things. -For it remains what it is, creating all things and nothing comes into -being from begotten things.”[53] He says that this alone is good and -that it is of this that the Saviour spoke when he said: “Why callest -thou me good? There is one good, my Father who is in the heavens, Who -makes the sun to rise upon the just and the unjust, and [Sidenote: p. -151.] rains upon the holy and the sinners.”[54] And who are the holy -upon whom He rains and who the sinful we shall see with other things -later on. And this is the great secret and the unknowable mystery -concealed and revealed by the Egyptians. For Osiris, he says, is in -the temple in front of Isis, whose _pudendum_ stands exposed looking -upwards from below, and wearing as a crown all its fruits of begotten -things.[55] And they say not only does such a thing stand in the most -holy temples, but is made known to all like a light not set under a -bushel but placed on a candlestick making [Sidenote: p. 152.] its -announcement on the housetops in all the streets and highways and near -all dwellings being set before them as some limit and term.[56] For -they call this the bringer of luck, not knowing what they say. - -And this mystery the Greeks who have taken it over from the Egyptians -keep unto this day. For we see, he says, the (images) of Hermes in -such a form honoured among them. And they say that they especially -honour Cyllenius the Eloquent. For Hermes is the Word who, being the -interpreter and fashioner[57] of what has been, is, and will be, stands -honoured among them carved into some such form which is the _pudendum_ -of a man straining from the things below to those on high. And that -this--that is, such a Hermes--is, he says, a leader of souls and a -sender forth of them, and a cause of souls, did not escape the poets of -the nations who speak thus:-- - - “Cyllenian Hermes called forth the souls - Of the suitors.”-- - (Homer, _Odyssey_, XXIV, 1.) - -[Sidenote: p. 153.] Not of the suitors of Penelope, he says, O unhappy -ones, but of those awakened from sleep and recalled to consciousness - - “From such honour and from such enduring bliss.”-- - (Empedocles, 355, Stürz.) - -that is, from the blessed Man on high or from the arch-man Adamas, as -they think, they have been brought down here into the form of clay that -they may be made slaves to the fashioner of this creation, Jaldabaoth, -a fiery god, a fourth number.[58] For thus they call the demiurge and -father of the world of form. - - “But he holds in his hands the rod - Fair and golden, wherewith he lulls to sleep the eyes of men, - Whomso he will, while others he awakens from sleep.”-- - (_Odyssey_, XXIV, 3 ff.) - -This, he says, is he who has authority over life and death of whom he -says it is written: “Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron.”[59] -But the poet wishing to adorn the incomprehensible [Sidenote: p. -154.] (part)[60] of the blessed nature of the Word, makes his rod -not iron but golden. And he charms to sleep the eyes of the dead, he -says, and again awakens those sleepers who are stirred out of sleep -and become suitors. Of these, he says, the Scripture spoke: “Awake -thou that sleepest, and arise and Christ shall shine upon thee.”[61] -This is the Christ, he says, who in all begotten things is the Son -of Man, impressed (with the image) by the Logos of whom no image can -be made.[62] This, he says, is the great and unspeakable mystery of -the Eleusinians “_Hye Cye_”[63] seeing that all things are set under -him, and this is the saying: “Their sound went forth into all the -earth,”[64] just as - - “Hermes waved the rod and they followed gibbering.”-- - (Homer, _Odyssey_, XXIV, 5-7.) - -still meaning the souls as the poet shows, saying figuratively:-- - - “And even as bats flit gibbering in the secret recesses - Of a wondrous cave when one has fallen down out of the rock - From the cluster....”-- - (_Ibid._, XXIV, 9 _seq._) - -[Sidenote: p. 155.] Out of the rock, he says, is said of Adamas. This, -he says, is Adamas, “the corner-stone which has become the head of the -corner.”[65] For in the head is the impressed brain of the substance -from which every fatherhood is impressed.[66] “Which Adamas,” he says, -“I place at the foundation of Zion.”[67] Allegorically, he says, he -means the image of the Man. But that Adamas is placed within the -teeth, as Homer says, “the hedge of teeth,”[68] that is, the wall and -stockade within which is the inner man, who has fallen from Adamas the -arch-man[69] on high who is (the rock) “cut without cutting hands”[70] -and brought down into the image of oblivion,[71] the earthly and -clayey. And he says that the souls follow him, the Word, gibbering. - - Even so the souls gibbered as they fared together, - But he went before, - -that is, he led them, - - “Gracious Hermes led them adown the dark ways.”-- - (_Odyssey_, XXIV, 9 ff.) - -[Sidenote: p. 156.] that is, he says, into eternal countries remote -from all evil. For whence, says he, did they come? - - “By Ocean’s flood they came and the Leucadian cliff - And by the Sun’s gates and the land of dreams.”-- - (_Odyssey_, _ubi cit._) - -This he says is Ocean, “source of gods and source of men”[72] ever -ebbing and flowing now forth and now back. But when he says Ocean flows -forth there is birth of men, but when back to the wall and stockade -and the Leucadian rock there is birth of gods. This he says is that -which is written: “I have said ye are all gods and sons of the Highest; -if you hasten to flee from Egypt and win across the Red Sea into the -desert,” that is from the mixture below to the Jerusalem above who is -the Mother of (all) living. “But if ye return again to Egypt,” that is -to the mixture below, [Sidenote: p. 157.] “ye shall die as men.”[73] -For deathly, says he, is all birth below, but deathless that which is -born above; for it is born of water alone and the spirit, spiritual -not fleshly. This, he says, is that which is written: “That which -is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit -is spirit.”[74] This is, according to them, the spiritual birth. -This, he says, is the great Jordan which flowing forth prevented the -sons of Israel from coming out of the land of Egypt--or rather, from -the mixture below; for Egypt is the body according to them--until -Joshua[75] turned it and made it flow back towards its source. - -8. Following up these and such-like (words) the most wonderful Gnostics -having invented a new art of grammar[76] imagine that their own prophet -Homer unspeakably[77] foreshowed[78] these things and they mock at -those who not being initiated in the Holy Scriptures are led together -into such designs. But they say: whoso says all things were framed from -one, errs; but whoso says from three speaks the truth and gives an -exposition of (the things of) the universe. For one, he says, is the -blessed nature of the Blessed Man above, Adamas, and one is the mortal -(nature), [Sidenote: p. 158.] below, and one is the kingless race -begotten on high, where, he says, is Mariam the sought-for one, and -Jothor the great wise one, and Sephora the seer,[79] and Moses whose -generation was not in Egypt--for there were children born to him in -Midian--and this, he says, was not forgotten by the poets:-- - - “In three lots were all things divided and each drew a domain of - his own.”--(_Iliad_, XV, 169.) - -For sublime things, he says, must needs be spoken, but they are spoken -everywhere, lest “hearing they should not hear and seeing they should -see not.”[80] For if, he says, the sublime things were not spoken, the -cosmos could not have been framed. These are the three ponderous words: -Caulacau, Saulasau, Zeesar.[81] Caulacau the one on high, [Sidenote: -p. 159.] Adamas, Saulasau, the mortal nature below, Zeesar the Jordan -which flows back on its source. This is, he says, the masculo-feminine -Man who is in all things, whom the ignorant call the triple-bodied -Geryon--as if Geryon were “flowing from Earth”[82]--and the Greeks -usually “the heavenly horn of Mên”[83] because he has mingled and -compounded all things with all. “For all things, he says, were made -through him and apart from him not one thing was made. That which was -in him is life.”[84] This, he says is the life, the unspeakable family -of perfect men which was not known to the former generation. But the -“nothing” which came into being apart from him is the world of form; -for it came without him by the 3rd and 4th.[85] This, he says, is the -cup Condy in which the king drinking, divineth. This, he says, is that -which was hidden among the fair grains of Benjamin. And the Greeks also -say the same with raving lips:-- - - “Bring water, bring wine, O boy - Intoxicate me, plunge me into sleep. - The cup tells me - [Sidenote: p. 160.] What I must become.”[86]-- - (_Anacreon_, XXVI, 25, 26.) - -It was enough, he says, that only this should be known to men that -Anacreon’s cup spoke mutely an unspeakable mystery. For mute, he says, -was Anacreon’s cup which says Anacreon, tells him with mute speech what -he must become, that is spiritual not fleshly, if he hears the hidden -mystery in silence. And this is the water in those fair nuptials which -Jesus changed by making wine. This, he says, is the mighty and true -beginning of the signs which Jesus did in Cana in Galilee and made -known the kingdom of the heavens. This, he says, is the kingdom of the -heavens within us, as a treasure as the leaven hidden within three -measures of meal.[87] - -[Sidenote: p. 161.] This is, he says, the great and unspeakable mystery -of the Samothracians which is allowed to be known to us alone who are -perfect. For the Samothracians explicitly hand down in the mysteries -celebrated by them that Adam is the Arch-man. And in the temple of -the Samothracians stand two statues of naked men having both hands -stretched forth to heaven and their _pudenda_ turned upwards like that -of Hermes on (Mt.) Cyllene. But the aforesaid statues are the images -of the Arch-man and of the re-born spiritual one in all things of one -substance[88] with that man. This, he says, is what was spoken by the -Saviour: “Unless ye drink my blood and eat my flesh, ye shall not -enter into the kingdom of the heavens; but even though, He says, ye -drink the cup which I drink when I go forth you will not be able to -enter there.”[89] For He knew, he says, from which nature each of His -disciples was, and that each of them was compelled to come to his own -special nature. For from the twelve tribes, he says, He chose twelve -[Sidenote: p. 162.] disciples,[90] and by them He spake to every tribe. -Whence, he says, all could not have heard the preachings of the twelve -disciples, nor, had they heard them could they have been received. For -the things which are not according to[91] nature are with them natural. - -This, he says, the Thracians who dwell about Mt. Hæmus and like them -the Phrygians call Corybas,[92] because although he takes the beginning -of his descent from the head on high and from the Unportrayable one and -passes through all the sources of underlying things, we know not how -and in what fashion he comes. This, he says, is the saying: “We have -heard his voice, but we have not seen his shape.”[93] For, he says, the -voice of him who is set apart and has been impressed with the image[94] -is heard, but no one has seen what is the shape which has come down -from on high from the Unportrayable One. But it is in the earthly form -and no one is aware of it. This, he says, is the God who dwells in the -flood according to the Psalter and “who speaks aloud and cries from -many waters.”[95] “Many waters,” he says, is the manifold generation of -mortal men, wherefrom he shouts and cries [Sidenote: p. 163.] aloud to -the Unportrayable Man: “Deliver my only begotten from the lions!”[96] -In answer to this, he says, is the saying: “Thou art my son, O Israel. -Fear not. If thou passest through the rivers they shall not overwhelm -thee; if through the fire, it shall not burn thee.”[97] By rivers is -meant, he says, the moist essence of generation, and by fire the rage -and desire for generation. “Thou art mine. Be not afraid.” And again -he speaks: “If a mother forget her children and pities them not nor -gives them suck, yet will I not forget thee.”[98] Adamas, he says, -speaks to his own men: “But although a woman shall forget these things, -yet will I not forget you. I have graven you on my hands.”[99] But -concerning his ascension, that is, the being born again, that he may -be born spiritual, not fleshly, he says, the Scripture speaks: “Lift -up the gates, ye rulers, and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors, and -the [Sidenote: p. 164.] King of Glory shall enter in.”[100] That is -the wonder of wonders. “For who,” he says, “is this King of Glory? A -worm and not a man, a reproach of man and an object of contempt for the -people. This is the King of Glory, he who is mighty in battle.”[101] -But he means the war which is in the body, because the (outward) form -is made from warring elements, he says, as it is written: “Remember the -war which is in the body.”[102] The same entrance and the same gate, -he says, Jacob saw when journeying to Mesopotamia--for Mesopotamia, -he says, is the flow of the great Ocean flowing forth from the middle -part[103] of the Perfect Man--and he wondered at the heavenly gate, -saying: “How terrible is this place! It is none other than the house -of God, and this is the gate of Heaven.”[104] Wherefore, he says, the -saying of Jesus: “I am the true gate.”[105] Now He who says this is, -he says, the Perfect [Sidenote: p. 165.] Man who has been impressed -above (with the image) of the Unportrayable one. Therefore he says, the -perfect man will not be saved unless born again by entering in through -this gate. - -But this same one, he says, the Phrygians[106] call also Papas, because -he set at rest that which had been moved irregularly and discordantly -before his coming. For the name of Papa, he says, is (taken from) all -things in heaven, on earth, and below the earth, saying: “Make to -cease! make to cease![107] the discord of the cosmos and make peace for -those that are afar off,”[108] that is, for the material and earthly, -and also “for those that are anigh,” that is, for the spiritual and -understanding perfect men. But the Phrygians say that the same one is -also a “corpse,” having been buried in the body as in a monument or -tomb.[109] This, he says, is the saying: “Ye are whited sepulchres -filled within with dead men’s bones,”[110] that is, there is not within -you the living Man. And again, he says, “the dead shall leap forth -from their graves,”[111] that is, the spiritual man, not the fleshly, -shall be born again from the bodies of the earthly. This, he says, is -the resurrection which comes through the [Sidenote: p. 166.] gate of -the heavens, through which if they do not enter, all remain dead. And -the same Phrygians, he says again, say that this same one is by reason -of the change a god. For he becomes God when he arises from the dead -and enters into heaven through the same gate. This gate, he says, Paul -the Apostle knew, having set it ajar in mystery and declaring that he -“was caught up by an angel and came unto a second and third heaven into -Paradise itself and beheld what he beheld, and heard ineffable words -which it is not lawful for man to utter.”[112] These are, he says, -the mysteries called ineffable by all “which (we also speak) not in -the words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, -comparing spiritual things with spiritual; but the natural[113] man -receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness -unto him”;[114] and these, he says, are the ineffable mysteries of the -Spirit which we alone behold. Concerning them, he says, the Saviour -spake: “No man shall come unto me unless my heavenly Father draw some -one (unto me).”[115] For very hard it is, he says, to receive and take -this great and ineffable mystery. And [Sidenote: p. 167.] again, he -says, the Saviour spake: “Not every one who sayeth unto me, Lord! Lord! -shall enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but he who doeth the will -of my Father who is in the heavens.”[116] Of which (will) he says, they -must be doers and not hearers only to enter into the kingdom of the -heavens. And again, says he, He spake: “The publicans and the harlots -go before you into the kingdom of the heavens.”[117] For the publicans, -he says, are those who receive the taxes of market-wares, and we are -the tax-gatherers “upon whom the ends of the æons have come down.”[118] -For the “ends,” he says, are the seeds sown in the cosmos by the -Unportrayable One,[119] whereby the whole cosmos is completed;[120] -for by them also it began to be. And this, he says, is the saying: -“The sower went forth to sow, and some (seed) fell on the wayside and -was trodden under foot, and some upon stony (parts) and sprang up; -and because it had no root, he says, it withered and died. But some -fell, he says, upon the fair and goodly earth and brought forth some -a hundredfold, and some sixty and some thirty. [Sidenote: p. 168.] He -that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”[121] This is, he says, that no -one becomes a hearer of these mysteries save only the perfect Gnostics. -This, he says, is the fair and goodly earth of which Moses spake: “I -will bring you to a fair and goodly land, to a land flowing with milk -and honey.”[122] This, he says, is the honey and the milk, tasting -which the perfect become kingless and partakers of the fulness.[123] -The same, he says, is the Pleroma, whereby all things that are begotten -by the unbegotten have come into being and are filled. - -But the same one is called by the Phrygians “unfruitful.” For he is -unfruitful when he is fleshly and performs the desire of the flesh. -This, he says, is the saying: “Every tree which bringeth not forth -good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire.”[124] For these fruits, -he says, are only the rational, the living man who enter by the third -gate.[125] They say, indeed: “Ye who eat dead things and make living -ones, what will ye make if ye eat living things?”[126] For they say -that words[127] and thoughts and men are living things cast down by -that Unportrayable One into the form [Sidenote: p. 169.] below. This, -he says, is what he means: “Throw not your holy things to the dogs nor -pearls to the swine,”[128] saying that the intercourse of woman with -man is the work of dogs and swine. - -But this same one, he says, the Phrygians call goatherd, not because, -he says, he feeds goats and he-goats, as the psychic man calls -them, but because, he says, he is Aipolos, that is, he who is ever -revolving[129] and turning about and driving the whole cosmos in its -circumvolution. For to revolve is to turn about and to change the -position of things, whence, he says, the two centres of the heaven men -call Poles. And the poet says:-- - - “What unerring ancient of the sea turns hither - The Immortal Egyptian Proteus.”-- - (_Odyssey_, IV, 384.) - -He[130] is not betrayed (by Eidothea), he says, but turns himself -about, as it were, and goes to and fro. He says, too, that cities -wherein we dwell are called πόλεις, because [Sidenote: p. 170.] we turn -and go about in them. Thus, he says, the Phrygians call him Aipolos, -who turns everything always in every direction and changes it into -what it should be. But the Phrygians also call the same one “of many -fruits,” because (the Naassene writer) says, “the children of the -desolate are more in number than those of her who has a husband”;[131] -that is, the deathless things which are born again and ever remain are -many, if few are those which are born (once); but all the things of -the flesh, he says, are corruptible, even if those which are born are -many. Wherefore, he says, Rachel mourned for her children and would -not be comforted when mourning over them, for she knew, he says, that -they were not.[132] And Jeremiah wails for the Jerusalem below, not the -city in Phœnicia,[133] but the mortal generation below. For Jeremiah, -he says, also knew the Perfect Man who has been born again of water and -the spirit and is not fleshly. The same Jeremiah indeed said: “He is a -man, and who shall know him?”[134] Thus, he says, the knowledge of the -Perfect Man is very deep and hard to comprehend. For the beginning of -perfection, he says, is the knowledge of man; but the knowledge of God -is completed perfection. - -[Sidenote: p. 171.] The Phrygians also say, however, that he is a -“green ear of corn reaped”; and following the Phrygians, the Athenians -when initiating (any one) into the Eleusinian (Mysteries) also show -to those who have been made epopts the mighty and wonderful and most -perfect mystery for an epopt[135] there--a green ear of corn reaped -in silence.[136] And this ear of corn is also for the Athenians the -great and perfect spark of light from the Unportrayable One; just as -the hierophant himself, not indeed castrated like Attis, but rendered a -eunuch by hemlock, and cut off from all fleshly generation, celebrating -by night at Eleusis the great and ineffable mysteries beside a huge -fire, cries aloud and makes proclamation, saying: “August Brimo has -brought forth a holy son, Brimos,” that is, the strong (has given -birth) to the strong.[137] For august is, he says, the generation which -is spiritual or heavenly or sublime, and strong is that which is thus -generated. For the mystery is called Eleusis or Anacterion: “Eleusis,” -he says, because we spiritual ones [Sidenote: p. 172.] came on high -rushing from the Adamas below.[138] For _eleusesthai_, he says is to -come, but _anactoreion_ the return on high. This, he says, is what they -who have been initiated into the mysteries of the Eleusinians say. But -it is a regulation that those who have been initiated into the Lesser -Mysteries should moreover be initiated into the Great. For greater -destinies obtain greater portions.[139] But the Lesser Mysteries, he -says, are those of Persephone below and of the way leading thither, -which is wide and broad and bears the dead to Persephone, and the poet -says:-- - - “But under her is a straight and rugged road - Hollow and muddy, but the best to lead - To the delightful grove of much-reverenced Aphrodite.”[140] - -These, he says, are the Lesser Mysteries, those of fleshly generation, -after being initiated into which men ought to [Sidenote: p. 173.] -cease (from the small) and be initiated into the great and heavenly -ones. For those who have obtained greater destinies, he says, receive -greater portions. For this, he says, is the gate of heaven and this the -house of God where the good God dwells alone,[141] into which will not -enter, he says, any unpurified, any psychic or fleshly one; but it is -kept for the spiritual only, where those who are must cast aside[142] -their garments and all become bridegrooms, having come to maturity -through the virgin spirit.[143] For this is the virgin who bears in her -womb and conceives and gives birth to a son not psychic or corporeal, -but the blessed Aeon of Aeons. Concerning these things, he says, the -Saviour expressly spake: “Narrow and straitened is the way that leads -to life and few are those who enter into it; but wide and broad is the -way leading to destruction and many are they who pass along it.”[144] - -9. But the Phrygians further say that the Father of the [Sidenote: -p. 174.] universals is Amygdalus, not a tree, he says, but that -pre-existent almond[145] which containing within itself the perfect -fruit (and) as if pulsating and stirring in the depth, tore asunder -its breasts and gave birth to its own invisible and unnameable and -ineffable boy of whom we are speaking.[146] For “Amyxai” is as if to -burst and cut asunder,[147] as he says, in the case of inflamed bodies -having within them any gathering, the surgeons who cut them open call -them “amychas.” Thus, he says, the Phrygians call the almond from whom -the invisible one proceeded and was born, and through whom all things -came into being and apart from whom nothing came into being. - -But the Phrygians say that he who was thence born is a piper, because -that which was born is a melodious spirit. For God, he says, is a -Spirit, wherefore neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall -the true worshippers prostrate themselves, but in spirit.[148] For -spiritual, he says, is the prostration of the perfect, not fleshly. But -the Spirit, he says, (is) there where both the Father and the Son are -named, being [Sidenote: p. 175.] there born from this (Son and from) -the Father.[149] This, he says, is the many-named, myriad-eyed[150] -incomprehensible One for whom every nature yearns, but each in a -different way. This, he says, is the Word[151] of God, which is, he -says, the word of announcement of the great Power. Wherefore it will be -sealed and hidden and concealed, lying in the habitation wherein the -root of the universals[152] is established, that is[153] (the root) of -Aeons, Powers, Thoughts, Gods, Angels, Emissary Spirits, things which -are, things which are not, things begotten, things unbegotten, things -incomprehensible, things comprehensible, years, months, days, hours -(and) of an Indivisible Point,[154] from which what is least begins to -increase successively. The Point, he says, being nothing and consisting -of nothing (and) being indivisible will become of itself a certain -magnitude incomprehensible by thought.[155] It, he says, is the kingdom -of the heavens, the grain of mustard seed, the Indivisible Point -inherent to the body which none knoweth, he says, save the spiritual -alone. This, he says, is the saying: “There are no tongues nor speech -where their voice is not [Sidenote: p. 176.] heard.”[156] - -Thus they hastily declare that the things which are said and are -done by all men are to be understood in their way, imagining that -all things become spiritual. Whence they also say that not even they -who exhibit (in the) theatres say or do anything not comprehended in -advance.[157] So for example, he says, when the populace have assembled -in the theatres[158] some one makes entrance clad in a notable robe -bearing a cithara and singing to it. Thus he speaks chanting the Great -Mysteries[159] (but) not knowing what he is saying:-- - - “Whether thou art the offspring of Kronos, or of blessed Zeus, - Or of mighty Rhea, Hail Attis, the sad mutilation of Rhea.[160] - The Assyrians call thee the much-longed-for Adonis, - [Sidenote: p. 177.] Egypt names thee Osiris, heavenly horn of - the Moon.[161] - The Greeks Sophia,[162] the Samothracians, the revered Adamna, - The Thessalians, Corybas, and the Phrygians - Sometimes Papas, now the dead, or a god, - Or the unfruitful one, or goatherd, - Or the green ear of corn reaped, - Or he to whom the flowering almond-tree gave birth - As a pipe-playing man.”[163] - -This, he says, is the many-formed Attis to whom they sing praises, -saying:-- - - “I will hymn Attis, son of Rhea, not making quiver with a buzzing - sound, nor with the cadence of the Idæan Curetes’ flutes, but I will - mingle (with the hymn) the Phœbun music of the lyre. Evohe, Evan, for - (thou art) Bacchus, (thou art) Pan, (thou art the) shepherd of white - stars.” - -For such and such-like words they frequent the so-called Mysteries of -the great Mother, thinking especially that by means of what is enacted -there, they perceive the whole mystery. For they get no advantage from -what is acted there except that they are not castrated. They merely -perfect the work of the castrated;[164] for they give most pointed and -careful instructions to abstain as if castrated from intercourse with -women. But the rest of the work as [Sidenote: p. 178.] we have said -many times, they perform like the castrated. - -But they worship none other than the Naas, calling themselves -Naassenes. But Naas is the serpent, from whom he says, all temples -under heaven are called _naos_ from the Naas; and that to that Naas -alone is dedicated every holy place and every initiation and every -mystery, and generally that no initiation can be found under heaven -in which there is not a _naos_ and the Naas within it, whence it has -come to be called a _naos_. But they say that the serpent is the watery -substance, as did Thales of Miletos[165] and that no being, in short, -of immortals or mortals, of those with souls or of those without souls, -can be made without him. And that all things are set under him, and -that he is good and contains all things within him as in the horn of -the one-horned bull[166] (so as) to contribute beauty and bloom to all -things according to their own nature and kind, as if he had passed -through all “as if he went forth from Edem and cut himself into four -heads.”[167] - -But this Edem, they say, is the brain, as it were bound [Sidenote: p. -179.] and enlaced in the surrounding coverings as in the heavens; and -they consider man as far as the head alone to be Paradise. Therefore -“the river that came forth from Eden”--that is from the brain--they -think “is separated into four heads and the name of the first river is -called Phison; this it is which encompasses all the land of Havilat. -There is gold and the gold of that land is good, and there is bdellium -and the onyx stone.”[168] This, he says, (is the) eye, bearing witness -by its honour (among the other features) and its colours to the -saying: “But the name of the second river is Gihon; this it is which -encompasses all the land of Ethiopia.” This, he says, is the hearing, -being somewhat like a labyrinth. “And the name of the third is Tigris; -this it is which goes about over against the Assyrians.” This, he says, -is the smell which makes use of the swiftest current of the flood. -And it goes about over against the Assyrians because in inspiration -the breath drawn in from the outer air is sharper and stronger than -the respired breath. For this is the nature of respiration. “The -fourth river is Euphrates.” This they say, is the mouth, which is the -seat of prayer and the entrance of food, [Sidenote: p. 180.] which -gladdens[169] and nourishes and characterizes[170] the spiritual -perfect man. This, he says, is the water above the firmament concerning -which, he says, the Saviour spake: “If thou knewest who it is that asks -thou would have asked of him, and he would have given thee to drink -living rushing water.”[171] To this water, he says, comes every nature -to choose its own substances,[172] and from this water goes forth to -every nature that which is proper to it, he says, more (certainly) than -iron to the magnet, gold to the spine of the sea-falcon and husks to -amber.[173] But if anyone, he says, is blind from birth, and has not -beheld the true light which lightens every man who cometh into the -world,[174] let him recover his sight again through us, and behold how -as it were through some Paradise full of all plants and seeds, the -water flows among them. Let him see, too, that from one and the same -water the olive-tree chooses and draws to itself oil, and the vine -wine, and each of the other plants (that which is) according to its -kind. - -[Sidenote: p. 181.] But that Man, he says, is without honour in the -world, and much honoured [in heaven, being betrayed] by those who know -not to those who know him not, and accounted like a drop which falleth -from a vessel.[175] But we are, he says, the spiritual who have chosen -out of the living water, the Euphrates flowing through the midst of -Babylon, that which is ours, entering in through the true gate which -is Jesus the blessed. And we alone of all men are Christians, whom the -mystery in the third gate has made perfect, and have been anointed[176] -there with silent ointment from the horn like David and not from the -earthen vessel, he says, like Saul,[177] who abode with the evil spirit -of fleshly desire. - -10. These things, then, we have set forth as a few out of many: for -the undertakings of folly which are nonsensical and madlike are -innumerable. But since we have expounded to the best of our ability -their unknowable gnosis, we have thought it right to add this also. -This psalm has been concocted by them, whereby they seem to hymn all -the [Sidenote: p. 182.] mysteries of their error thus:--[178] - - The generic law of the universe was the primordial mind; - But the second was the poured-forth light[179] of the First-born: - And the third toiling soul received the Law as its portion. - Whence clothed in watery shape, - The loved one subject to toil (and) death, - [Sidenote: p. 183.] Now having lordship, she beholds the light, - Now cast forth to piteous state, she weeps. - Now she weeps (and now) rejoices; - Now laments (and now) is judged; - Now is judged (and now) is dying. - Now no outlet is left or she wandering - The labyrinth of woes has entered.[180] - But Jesus said: Father, behold! - A strife of woes upon Earth - From thy breath has fallen, - But she seeks to flee malignant chaos. - And knows not how to win through it, - For this cause send me, O Father, - [Sidenote: p. 184.] Holding seals I will go down, - Through entire æons I will pass, - All mysteries I will disclose; - The forms of the gods I will display; - The secrets of the holy way - Called Gnosis, I will hand down. - -These things the Naassenes attempt, calling themselves Gnostics.[181] -But since the error is many-headed and truly of diverse shape like -the fabled Hydra, we, having struck off its heads at one blow by -refutation, (and) using the rod of Truth, will utterly destroy the -beast. For the remaining heresies differ little from this, they all -being linked together by one spirit of error. But since they by -changing the words and the names wish the heads of the serpent to be -many, we shall not thus fail to refute them thoroughly as they will. - - - [Sidenote: p. 185.] 2. _Peratæ._[182] - -12. There is also indeed a certain other (heresy), the Peratic, the -blasphemy of whose (followers) against Christ has for many years evaded -(us). Whose secret mysteries it now seems fitting for us to bring into -the open. They suppose the cosmos to be one, divided into three parts. -But of this triple division, one part according to them is, as it were, -a single principle like a great source[183] which may be [Sidenote: -p. 186.] cut by the mind into boundless sections. And the first and -chiefest section according to them is the triad and (the one part of -it)[184] is called Perfect Good and Fatherly Greatness.[185] But the -second part of this triad of theirs is, as it were, a certain boundless -multitude of powers which have come into being from themselves, while -the third is (the world of) form. And the first is unbegotten and is -good; and the second is good (and) self-begotten, while the third is -begotten.[186] Whence they say expressly that there are three Gods, -three _logoi_, three minds, and three men. For they assign to each -part of the world of the divided divisibility, gods and _logoi_ and -minds and men and the rest. But they say that from on high, from the -unbegottenness and the first section of the cosmos, when the cosmos -had already been brought to completion, there came down through causes -which we shall declare later[187] in the days of Herod a certain -triple-bodied and triple-powered[188] man called Christ, containing -within Himself all the compounds[189] and powers from [Sidenote: p. -187.] the three parts of the cosmos. And this, he says is the saying: -“The whole Pleroma was pleased to dwell within Him bodily and the whole -godhead” of the Triad thus divided “is in Him.”[190] For, he says that -there were brought down from the two overlying worlds, (to wit) the -unbegotten and the self-begotten, unto this world in which we are, -seeds of all powers. But what is the manner of their descent we shall -see later.[191] Then he says that Christ was brought down from on high -from the unbegottenness so that through His descent all the threefold -divisions should be saved. For the things, he says, brought down below -shall ascend through Him; but those which take counsel together against -those brought down from above shall be banished and after they have -been punished shall be rooted out. This, he says, is the saying: “The -Son of Man came not into the world to destroy the world, but that -the world through Him might be saved.”[192] He calls “the world,” he -says, the two overlying portions, (to wit) the unbegotten and the -self-begotten. When the Scripture says: “Lest ye be judged with the -world,”[193] he says, it means the third part of the cosmos (to wit) -that of form. For the third part [Sidenote: p. 188.] which he calls -the world must be destroyed, but the two overlying ones preserved from -destruction.[194] - -13. Let us first learn, then, how they who have taken this teaching -from the astrologers insult Christ, working destruction for those -who follow them in such error. For the astrologers, having declared -the cosmos to be one, divided it[195] into the twelve fixed parts of -the Zodiacal signs, and call the cosmos of the fixed Zodiacal signs -one unwandering world. But the other, they say, is the world of the -planets alike in power and in position and in number which exists as -far as the Moon.[196] And that one world receives from the other a -certain power and communion, and that things below partake of things -above. But so that what is said shall be made plain, I will use in -part the very words of the astrologers,[197] recalling to the readers -what was said before in the place where we set forth the whole art of -astrology. Their doctrines then are these: From the emanation of the -stars the genitures of things below are influenced. For the Chaldæans, -scrutinizing [Sidenote: p. 189.] the heavens with great care, said -that (the seven stars) account for the active causes of everything -which happens to us; but that the degrees of the Zodiacal circle work -with them. (Then they divide the Zodiacal circle into) 12 parts, and -each Zodiacal sign into 30 degrees and each degree into 60 minutes; -for these they call the least and the undivided. And they call some of -the Zodiacal signs male and others female, some bicorporal and others -not, some tropical and others firm. Then there are male or female -according as they have a nature co-operating in the begetting of males -(or females). Moved by which, I think[198] the Pythagoricians[199] call -the monad male, the dyad female, and the triad again male and in like -manner the rest of the odd and even numbers. And some dividing each -sign into dodecatemories employ [Sidenote: p. 190.] nearly the same -plan. For example, in Aries they call the first dodecatemory Aries and -masculine, its second Taurus and feminine, and its third Gemini and -masculine, and so on with the other parts. And they say that Gemini -and Sagittarius which stands opposite to it and Virgo and Pisces are -bicorporal signs, but the others not. And in like manner, those signs -are tropical in which the Sun turns about and makes the turnings of -the ambient, as, for example, the sign Aries and its opposite Libra, -Capricorn and Cancer. For in Aries, the spring turning occurs, in -Capricorn the winter, in Cancer the summer and in Libra the autumn. -These things also and the system concerning them we have briefly set -forth in the book before this, whence the lover of learning can learn -how Euphrates the Peratic and Celbes the Carystian, the founders of -the heresy, altering only the names, have really set down like things, -having also paid immoderate attention to the art. [Sidenote: p. 191.] -For the astrologers also say that there are “terms” of the stars in -which they deem the ruling stars to have greater power. For example -in some (they do evil), but in others good, of which they call these -malefic and those benefic. And they say that (the Planets) behold one -another and are in harmony with one another as they appear in trine -(or square). Now the stars beholding one another are figured in trine -when they have a space of three signs between them, but in square if -they have two. And as in the man the lower parts suffer with the head -and the head suffers with the lower parts, thus do the things on earth -[Sidenote: p. 192.] with those above the Moon. But (yet) there is a -certain difference and want of sympathy between them since they have -not one and the same unity. - -This alliance and difference of the stars, although a Chaldæan -(doctrine), those of whom we have spoken before have taken as their -own and have falsified the name of truth. (For they) announce as the -utterance of Christ a strife of aeons and a falling-away of good powers -to the bad, and proclaim reconciliations of good and wicked.[200] -Then they invoke Toparchs and Proastii,[201] making for themselves -also very many other names which are not obvious but systematize -unsystematically the whole idea of the astrologers about the stars. As -they have thus laid the foundation of an enormous error they shall be -completely refuted by our appropriate arrangement. For I shall set side -by side with the aforesaid Chaldaic art of the astrologers some of the -doctrines of the Peratics, from which comparison it will be [Sidenote: -p. 193.] understood how the words of the Peratics are avowedly those of -the astrologers, but not of Christ. - -14. It seems well then to use for comparison a certain one of the -books[202] magnified by them wherein it is said: “I am a voice of -awaking from sleep in the aeon of the night, (and) now I begin to -lay bare the power from Chaos. The power is the mud of the abyss, -which raises the mire of the imperishable watery void, the whole -power of the convulsion, pale as water, ever-moving, bearing with -it the stationary, holding back those that tremble, setting free -those that approach, relieving those that sigh, bringing down those -that increase, a faithful steward of the traces of the winds, taking -advantage of the things thrown up by the [Sidenote: p. 194.] twelve -eyes of the Law,[203] showing a seal to the power which arranges by -itself the onrushing unseen water which is called Thalassa.[204] -Ignorance has called this power Kronos guarded with chains since he -bound together the maze of the dense and cloudy and unknown and dark -Tartarus. There are born after the image of this (power) Cepheus, -Prometheus, Iapetus.[205] (The) power to whom Thalassa is entrusted is -masculo-feminine, who traces back the hissing (water) from the twelve -mouths of the twelve pipes and after preparing distributes it. (This -power) is small and reduces the boisterous restraining rising (of the -sea) and seals up the ways of her paths, so that nothing should declare -war or suffer change. The Typhonic daughter of this (power) is the -faithful guard of all sorts of waters. Her name is Chorzar. Ignorance -calls her Poseidôn, after whose likeness came Glaucus, Melicertes, -Iö,[206] Nebroë. He that is encircled with the 12-angled pyramid[207] -and darkens the gate into the pyramid [Sidenote: p. 195.] with divers -colours and perfects the whole blackness[208]--this one is called -Core[209] whose 5 ministers are: first Ou, 2nd Aoai, 3rd Ouô, 4th -Ouöab, 5th ... Other faithful stewards there are of his toparchy of -day and night who rest in their authority. Ignorance has called them -the wandering stars on which hangs perishable birth. Steward of the -rising of the wind[210] is Carphasemocheir (and second) Eccabaccara, -but ignorance calls these Curetes. (The) third ruler of the winds is -Ariel[211] after whose image came Æolus (and) Briares. And ruler of -the 12-houred night (is) Soclas[212] whom ignorance has called Osiris. -After his likeness there were born Admetus, Medea, Hellen, Aethusa. -Ruler of the 12-houred day-time is Euno. He is steward of the rising -of the first-blessed[213] and ætherial (goddess) whom ignorance calls -Isis. The sign of this (ruler) is the Dog-star[214] after whose image -were born Ptolemy son of Arsinoë, Didyme, Cleopatra, Olympias. (The) -right hand power of God is she whom [Sidenote: p. 196.] ignorance -calls Rhea, after whose image were born Attis, Mygdon,[215] Oenone. -The left-hand power has authority over nurture whom ignorance calls -Demeter. Her name is Bena. After the likeness of this (god) were born -Celeus, Triptolemus, Misyr,[216] Praxidice. (The) right-hand power -has authority over seasons. Ignorance calls this (god) Mena after -whose image were born, Bumegas,[217] Ostanes, Hermes Trismegistus, -Curites, Zodarion, Petosiris, Berosos, Astrampsychos, Zoroaster. (The) -left-hand power of fire. Ignorance calls him Hephæstus after whose -image were born Erichthonius, Achilleus, Capaneus, Phæthon, Meleager, -Tydeus, Enceladus, Raphael, Suriel,[218] Omphale. Three middle powers -suspended in air (are) causes of birth. Ignorance calls them Fates, -after whose image were born (the) house of Priam, (the) house of Laius, -Ino, Autonoë, Agave, Athamas, Procne (the) Danaids, the Peliades. A -masculo-feminine power there is ever childlike, who grows not old, -(the) cause of beauty, of pleasure, of prime, of yearning, of desire, -whom ignorance calls Eros, after whose [Sidenote: p. 197.] image were -born Paris, Narcissus, Ganymede, Endymion, Tithonus, Icarius, Leda, -Amymonê, Thetis, (the) Hesperides, Jason, Leander, Hero.” These are the -Proastii up to Aether. For thus he inscribes the book. - -15. The heresy of the Peratæ, it has been made easily apparent to -all, has been adapted from the (art) of the astrologers with a change -of names alone. And their other books include the same method, if -any one cared to go through them. For, as I have said, they think -the unbegotten and overlying things to be the causes of birth of the -begotten, and that our world, which they call that of form, came into -being by emanation, and that all those stars together which are beheld -in the heaven become the causes of birth in this world, they changing -their names as is to be seen from a comparison of the Proastii. And -secondly after the same fashion indeed, as they say that the world came -into being from the emanation of her[219] on high, thus they say that -things here have their birth and death and are governed [Sidenote: p. -198.] by the emanation from the stars. Since then the astrologers know -the Ascendant and Mid-heaven and the Descendant and the Anti-meridian, -and as the stars sometimes move differently from the perpetual turning -of the universe, and at other times there are other succeedents to -the cardinal point and (other) cadents from the cardinal points, (the -Peratæ) treating the ordinance of the astrologers as an allegory, -picture the cardinal points as it were God and monad and lord of all -generation, and the succeedent as the left hand and the cadent the -right. When therefore any one reading their writings finds a power -spoken of by them as right or left, let him refer to the centre, the -succeedent and the cadent, and he will clearly perceive that their -whole system of practice has been established on astrological teaching. - -16. But they call themselves Peratæ, thinking that nothing which has -its foundations in generation can escape the fate determined from -birth for the begotten. For if anything, he says, is begotten it -also perishes wholly, as it seemed also [Sidenote: p. 199.] to the -Sibyl.[220] But, he says, we alone who know the compulsion of birth and -the paths whereby man enters into the world and have been carefully -instructed--we alone can pass through[221] and escape destruction. -But water, he says, is destruction, and never, he says, did the world -perish quicker than by water. But the water which rolls around the -Proastii is, they say, Kronos. For such a power, he says, is of the -colour of water and this power, that is Kronos, none of those who have -been founded in generation can escape. For Kronos is set as a cause -over every birth so that it shall be subject to destruction[222] and no -birth could occur in which Kronos is not an impediment. This, he says -is what the poets say and the gods (themselves) also fear:-- - - Let earth be witness thereto and wide heaven above - And the water of Styx that flows below. - The greatest of oaths and most terrible to the blessed gods.-- - (Homer, _Odyssey_, vv. 184 ff.) - -But not only do the poets say this, he says, but also the wisest of the -Greeks, whereof Heraclitus is one, who says, [Sidenote: p. 200.] “For -water becomes death to souls.”[223] - -This death (the Peratic) says seizes the Egyptians in the Red Sea -with their chariots. And all the ignorant, he says, are Egyptians and -this he says is the going out from Egypt (that is) from the body. For -they think the body little Egypt (and) that it crosses over the Red -Sea, that is, the water of destruction which is Kronos, and that it -is beyond the Red Sea, that is birth, and comes into the desert, that -is, outside generation where are together the gods of destruction and -the god of salvation. But the gods of destruction, he says, are the -stars which bring upon those coming into being the necessity of mutable -generation. These, he said, Moses called the serpents of the desert -which bite and cause to perish those who think they have crossed the -Red Sea. Therefore, he says, to those sons of Israel who were bitten -in the desert, Moses displayed the true and perfect serpent, those who -believed on which were not bitten in the desert, [Sidenote: p. 201.] -that is, by the Powers. None then, he says, can save and set free those -brought forth from the land of Egypt, that is, from the body and from -this world, save only the perfect serpent, the full of the full.[224] -He who hopes on this, he says, is not destroyed by the serpents of -the desert, that is, by the gods of generation. It is written, he -says, in a book of Moses.[225] This serpent, he says, is the Power -which followed Moses, the rod which was turned into a serpent. And the -serpents of the magicians who withstood the power of Moses in Egypt -were the gods of destruction; but the rod of Moses overthrew them all -and caused them to perish. - -This universal serpent, he says, is the wise word of Eve. This, he -says, is the mystery of Edem, this the river flowing out of Edem, -this the mark which was set on Cain so that all that found him should -not kill him. This, he says, is (that) Cain whose sacrifice was not -accepted by the god of this world; but he accepted the bloody sacrifice -of Abel, for the lord of this world delights in blood.[226] He it is, -he says, who in the last days appeared in man’s shape in the [Sidenote: -p. 202.] time of Herod, born after the image of Joseph who was sold -from the hand of his brethren and to whom alone belonged the coat -of many colours. This, he says, is he after the image of Esau whose -garment was blessed when he was not present, who did not receive, -he says, the blind man’s blessing, but became rich elsewhere taking -nothing from the blind one, whose face Jacob saw as a man might see -the face of God. Concerning whom he says, it is written that: “Nebrod -was a giant hunting before the Lord.”[227] There are, he says, as -many counterparts of him as there were serpents seen in the desert -biting the sons of Israel, from which that perfect one that Moses set -up delivered those that were bitten. This, he says, is the saying: -“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of -Man be lifted up.”[228] After his likeness was the brazen serpent in -the desert which Moses set up. The similitude of this alone is always -seen in the heaven in light. This he says is the mighty beginning -about which it is written. About this he says is the saying: “In the -beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and [Sidenote: p. -203.] the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things -were made by Him and without Him nothing was. That which was in Him was -life.”[229] And in Him, he says, Eve came into being (and) Eve is life. -She, he says is Eve, mother of all living[230] (the) nature common (to -all), that is, to gods, angels, immortals, mortals, irrational beings, -and rational ones; for, he says, “to all” speaking collectively. And if -the eyes of any are blessed, he says, he will see when he looks upward -to heaven the fair image of the serpent in the great summit[231] of -heaven turning about and becoming the source of all movement of all -present things. And (the beholder) will know that without Him there is -nothing framed of heavenly or of earthly things or of things below the -earth--neither night, nor moon, nor fruits, nor generation, nor wealth, -nor wayfaring, nor generally is there anything of things which are that -He does not point out. In this, he says, is the great wonder beheld in -the heavens by those who can see. - -For against this summit (that is) the head which is the most difficult -of all things to be believed by those who know it not, - - [Sidenote: p. 204.] “The setting and rising mingle with one - another.”-- - (Aratus, _Phain._, v. 62.) - -This it is concerning which ignorance speaks:-- - - “The Dragon winds, great wonder of dread portent.”-- - (_Ibid._, v. 46.) - -and on either side of him Corona and Lyra are ranged and above, by the -very top of his head, a piteous man, the Kneeler, is seen - - “Holding the sole of the right foot of winding Draco.”-- - (_Ibid._, v. 70.) - -And in the rear of the Kneeler is the imperfect serpent grasped with -both hands by Ophiuchus and prevented from touching the Crown lying by -the Perfect Serpent.[232] - -17. This is the variegated wisdom of the Peratic heresy, which is -difficult to describe completely, it being so tangled through having -been framed from the art of astrology. So far as it was possible, -therefore, we have set forth all its force in few words. But in order -to expound their whole mind in epitome we think it right to add -this: According to them the universe is Father, Son and Matter.[233] -[Sidenote: p. 205.] Of these three every one contains within himself -boundless powers. Now midway between Matter and the Father sits the -Son, the Word, the Serpent, ever moving himself towards the immoveable -Father and towards Matter (which itself) is moved. And sometimes he -turns himself towards the Father and receives the powers in his own -person,[234] and when he has thus received them he turns towards -Matter; and Matter being without quality and formless takes pattern -from the forms[235] which the Son has taken as patterns from the -Father. But the Son takes pattern from the Father unspeakably and -silently and unchangeably, that is, as Moses says the colours of -the (sheep) that longed,[236] flowed from the rods set up in the -drinking-places. In such a way also did the powers flow from the Son -to Matter according to the yearning of the power which (flowed) from -the rods upon the things conceived. But the difference and unlikeness -of the colours which flowed from the rods through the waters into the -sheep is, he says, the difference of corruptible and incorruptible -birth. Or rather, as a painter while taking nothing from the animals -(he paints), yet transfers with his pencil to the drawing-tablet all -their forms, thus the Son by his own power transfers to Matter the -[Sidenote: p. 206.] types[237] of the Father. All things that are here -are therefore the Father’s types and nothing else. For if any one, he -says has strength enough to comprehend from the things here that he -is a type from the Father on high transferred hither and made into a -body, as in the conception from the rod, he becomes white,[238] (and) -wholly of one substance[239] with the Father who is in the heavens, -and returns thither. But if he does not light upon this doctrine, nor -discover the necessity of birth, like an abortion brought forth in a -night he perishes in a night. Therefore, says he, when the Saviour -speaks of “Your Father who is in heaven”[240] He means him from whom -the Son takes the types and transfers them hither. And when He says -“Your father is a manslayer from the beginning”[241] he means the Ruler -and Fashioner of Matter who receiving the types distributed by the -Son has produced children here. Who is a manslayer from the beginning -because his work makes for corruption and death.[242] None therefore, -he says, can be saved nor [Sidenote: p. 207.] return (on high) save by -the Son who is the Serpent. For as he brought from on high the Father’s -types, so he again carries up from here those of them who have been -awakened and have become types of the Father, transferring them thither -from here as hypostatized from the Unhypostatized[243] One. This, he -says, is the saying “I am the Door.” But he transfers them, he says (as -the light of vision)[244] to those whose eyelids are closed, as the -naphtha draws everywhere the fire to itself--or rather as the magnet -the iron but nothing else, or as the sea-hawk’s spine the gold but -nothing else, or as again (as) the chaff is drawn by the amber.[245] -Thus, he says, the perfect and consubstantial race which has been made -the image[246] (of the Father) but nought else is again led from the -world by the Serpent, just as it was sent down here by him. - -For the proof of this they bring forward the anatomy of the brain, -likening the cerebrum to the Father from its immobility, and the -cerebellum to the Son from its being moved and existing in serpent -form. Which (last) they imagine ineffably and without giving any sign -to attract [Sidenote: p. 208.] through the pineal gland the spiritual -and life-giving substance emanating from the Blessed One.[247] -Receiving which the cerebellum, as the Son silently transfers the forms -to Matter, spreads abroad the seeds and genera of things born after -the flesh, to the spinal marrow. By the use of this simile, they seem -to introduce cleverly their ineffable mysteries handed down in silence -which it is not lawful for us to utter. Nevertheless they will easily -be comprehended from what I have said. - -18. But since I think I have set forth clearly the Peratic heresy -and by many words have made plain what had escaped (notice), and -since it has mixed up everything with everything concealing its own -peculiar poison, it seems right to proceed no further with the charge, -the opinions laid down by them being sufficient accusation against -them.[248] - - - 3. _The Sethiani._ - -[Sidenote: p. 209.] 19. Let us see then what the Sethians say.[249] -They are of opinion[250] that there are three definite principles of -the universals, and that each of the principles contains boundless -powers. But what they mean by powers let him judge who hears them speak -thus: Everything which you understand by your mind or which you pass by -unthought of, is formed by nature to become each of these principles, -as in the soul of man every art which is taught. For example, he says, -that a boy will become a piper if he spend some time with a piper, -or a geometrician if he does so with a geometrician, or a grammarian -with a grammarian, or a carpenter with a carpenter, and to one in -close contact with other trades it will happen in the same way. But -the substance of the principles, he says, are light and darkness; and -between them there is uncontaminated spirit. But the spirit which is -set between the darkness below and the light on high, is not breath -like a gust of wind or some little [Sidenote: p. 210.] breeze which can -be perceived, but resembles some faint perfume of balsam or of incense -artificially compounded, as a power penetrating by force of a fragrance -inconceivable and better than can be said in speech. But since the -light is above and the darkness below and the spirit as has been said -between them, the light naturally shines like a ray of the sun on high -on the underlying darkness, and again the fragrance of the spirit -having the middle place spreads abroad and is borne in all directions, -as we observe the fragrance of the incense burnt in the fire carried -everywhere. And such being the power of the triply divided, the power -of the spirit and of the light together is in the darkness which is -ranged below them. But the darkness is a fearful water, into which the -light with the spirit is drawn down and transformed into such a nature -(as the water).[251] And the darkness is not witless, but prudent -completely, and knows that if the light be taken from the darkness, the -darkness remains desolate, viewless, without light, [Sidenote: p. 211.] -powerless, idle, and strengthless. Wherefore with all its sense and wit -it is forced to detain within itself the brilliance and spark of the -light with the fragrance of the spirit. And an image of their nature -is to be seen in the face of man, (to wit) the pupil of the eye dark -from the underlying fluids, (and) lighted up by (the) spirit. As then -the darkness seeks after the brilliance, that it may hold the spark as -a slave and may see, so do the light and the spirit seek after their -own power, and make haste to raise up and take back to themselves their -powers which have been mingled with the underlying dark and fearful -water.[252] But all the powers of the three principles being everywhere -boundless in number are each of them wise and understanding as regards -its own substance, and the countless multitude of them being wise and -understanding, whenever they remain by themselves are all at rest. -But if one power draws near to another, the unlikeness of (the things -in) juxtaposition effects a certain movement and activity formed from -the movement, by the coming together and juxtaposition of the meeting -[Sidenote: p. 212.] powers. For the coming together of the powers comes -to pass like some impression of a seal struck by close conjunction -for the sealing of the substances brought up (to it).[253] Since then -the powers of the three principles are boundless in number and the -conjunctions of the boundless powers (also) boundless, there must -needs be produced images of boundless seals. Now these images are the -forms[254] of the different animals. - -From the first great conjunction then of the three principles came into -being a certain great form of a seal, (to wit) heaven and earth. And -heaven and earth are planned very like a matrix having the navel[255] -in the midst. And if, he says, one wishes to have this design under his -eyes, let him examine with skill the pregnant womb of any animal he -pleases, and he will discover the type of heaven and earth and of all -those things between which lie unchangeably below. And the appearance -of heaven and earth became by the first conjunction such as to be like -a womb. But again between heaven and earth boundless conjunctions of -powers have occurred. And each conjunction wrought and stamped[256] -nothing else than a seal of [Sidenote: p. 213.] heaven and earth like a -womb. But within this (the earth) there grew from the boundless seals -boundless multitudes of different animals. And into all this infinity -which is under heaven there was scattered and distributed among the -different animals, together with the light, the fragrance of the spirit -from on high. - -Then there came into being from the water the first-born[257] principle -(to wit) a wind violent and turbulent and the cause of all generation. -For making some agitation in the waters it raises waves in them. But -the motion of the waves as if it were some impregnating impulse is -a beginning of generation of man or beast when it is driven onward -swollen by the impulse of the spirit. But when this wave has been -raised from the water and made pregnant in the natural way, and has -received within itself the feminine power of reproduction, it retains -the light scattered from on high together with the fragrance of the -spirit--that [Sidenote: p. 214.] is mind given shape in the different -species.[258] Which (mind) is a perfect God, who is brought down from -the unbegotten light on high and from the spirit into man’s nature as -into a temple, by the force of nature and the movement of the wind. It -has been engendered from the water (and) commingled and mixed with the -bodies as if it were (the) salt of the things which are and a light -of the darkness struggling to be freed from the bodies and not able -to find deliverance and its way out. For some smallest spark from the -light (has been mingled) with the fragrance from above (_i. e._ from -the spirit), like a ray (making composition of things dissolved and) -solution of things compounded as, he says, is said in a psalm.[259] -Therefore every thought and care of the light on high is how and in -what way the mind may be set free from the death of the wicked and dark -body (and) from the Father of that which is below, who is the wind -which raised the waves in agitation and disorder [Sidenote: p. 215.] -and has begotten Nous his own perfect son, not being his own (son) as -to substance.[260] For he was a ray from on high from that perfect -light overpowered in the dark and fearful bitter and polluted water, -which (ray) is the shining spirit borne above the water. When then the -waves (raised from the) waters [have received within themselves the -feminine power of reproduction, they detain in[261]] the different -species, like some womb, (the light) scattered (from on high), (with -the fragrance of the spirit) as is seen in all animals. - -But the wind at once violent and turbulent is borne along like the -hissing of a serpent. First then from the wind, that is from the -serpent, came the principle of generation in the way aforesaid,[262] -all things having received the principle of generation at the same -time. When then the light and the spirit were received into the -unpurified [Sidenote: p. 216.] and much suffering disordered womb, -the serpent, the wind of the darkness, the first-born of the waters -entering in, begets man, and the unpurified womb neither loves nor -recognizes any other form (but the serpent’s).[263] Then the perfect -Word of the light on high, having been made like the beast, the -serpent, entered into the unpurified womb, beguiling it by its likeness -to the beast, so that it might loose the bands which encircle the -Perfect Mind which was begotten in the impurity of the womb by the -first-born of the water, (to wit) the serpent, the beast. This, he -says, is the form of the slave[264] and this the need for the descent -of the Word of God into the womb of a Virgin. But it is not enough, -he says, that the Perfect Man, the Word, has entered into the womb of -a virgin and has loosed the pangs which were in that darkness. But -in truth after entering into the foul mysteries of the womb, He was -washed[265] and drank of the cup of living bubbling water, which he -must needs drink who was about to do off the slave-like form and do on -a heavenly garment. - -[Sidenote: p. 217.] 20. This is what the champions of the Sethianian -doctrines say, to put it shortly. But their system is made up of -sayings by physicists and of words spoken in respect of other matters, -which they transfer to their own system and explain as we have said. -And they say that Moses also supported their theory when he said -“Darkness, gloom and whirlwind.” These, he says, are the three words. -Or when he says that there were three born in Paradise, Adam, Eve (and -the) Serpent; or when he says three (others), Cain, Abel (and) Seth; -and yet again three, Shem, Ham (and) Japhet; or when he speaks of three -patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, (and) Jacob; or when he says that there -existed three days before the Sun and Moon; or when he says that there -are three laws (the) prohibitive, (the) permissive and the punitive. -And a prohibitive law is: “From every tree in Paradise thou mayest eat -the fruit, but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, eat not.” But -in this saying: “Go forth from thine own land, and from thy kindred and -(thou shalt come) hither into a land which I shall show thee.” This -law he says is permissive for he who chooses may go forth and he who -chooses may remain. But the law is punitive which says “Thou shalt not -commit adultery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not murder”--for to -each of these sins there is a penalty.[266] - -[Sidenote: p. 218.] But the whole teaching of their system is taken -from the ancient theologists Musæus, Linus and he who most especially -makes known the initiations and mysteries (to wit), Orpheus. For their -discourse about the womb is also that of Orpheus; and the phallus, -which is virility, is thus explicitly mentioned in the _Bacchica_ of -Orpheus.[267] And these things were made the subject of initiation -and were handed down to men, before the initiatory rite of Celeus, -Triptolemus, Demeter, Core and Dionysos in Eleusis, at Phlium in -Attica. For earlier than the Eleusinian Mysteries are the secret rites -of the so-called Great (Mother) in Phlium. For there is in that (town) -a porch, and on the porch to this day is engraved the representation -of all the words spoken (in them). [Sidenote: p. 219.] Many things are -engraved on that porch concerning which Plutarch also makes discourse -in his ten books against Empedocles. And on the doors is engraved a -certain old man grey-haired, winged, having his _pudendum_ stretched -forth, pursuing a fleeing woman of a blue colour. And there is written -over the old man “Phaos ruentes” and over the woman “Pereēphicola.” -But “phaos ruentes” seems to be the light according to the theory of -the Sethians and the “phicola” the dark water, while between them is at -an interval the harmony of the spirit. And the name of “Phaos ruentes” -denotes the rushing below of the light as they say from on high. So -that we may reasonably say that the Sethians celebrate among themselves -(rites) in some degree akin to the Phliasian Mysteries of the Great -(Mother).[268] And to the triple division of things the poet seems to -bear witness when he says:-- - - “And in three lots were all things divided - And each drew his own domain.”-- - (Homer, _Il._, XV, 189.[269]) - -that is each of the threefold divisions has taken power. [Sidenote: p. -220.] And, as for the underlying dark water below, that the light has -plunged into it and that the spark borne down (into it) ought to be -restored and taken on high from it, the all-wise Sethians seem to have -here borrowed from Homer when he says:-- - - “Let earth be witness and wide heaven above - And the water of Styx that flows below - The greatest oath and most terrible to the blessed gods.”[270]-- - (_Il._ XV, 36-38.) - -That is, the gods, according to Homer, think water something ill-omened -and frightful, wherefore the theory of the Sethians says it is -frightful to the Nous. - -21. This is what they say and other things like it in endless writings. -And they persuade those who are their disciples to read the theory of -Composition and Mixture[271] which is studied by many others and by -Andronicus the Peripatetic. The Sethians then say that the theory about -Composition and Mixture is to be framed after this fashion: The light -ray from on high has been compounded and the [Sidenote: p. 221.] very -small spark has been lightly mingled[272] in the dark waters below, and -(these two) have united and exist in one mass as one odour (results) -from the many kinds of incense on the fire. And the expert who has -as his test an acute sense of smell ought to delicately distinguish -from the sole smell of the incense the different kinds of it set on -the fire; as (for example) if it be storax and myrrh and frankincense -or if anything else be mixed with it. And they make use of other -comparisons, as when they say that if brass has been mixed with gold, a -certain process[273] has been discovered which separates the gold from -the brass. And in like manner if tin or brass or anything of the same -kind be found mixed with silver, these by some better process of alloy -are also separated. But even now any one distinguishes water mixed -with wine. Thus, he says, if all things are mingled together they are -distinguished. And truly, he says, learn from the animals. For when the -animal is dead each (of its parts) is separated (from the rest) and -thus when dissolved, the animal disappears. This he says is the saying: -“I come not to bring peace upon the earth but a sword”[274]--that is -to cut in twain and separate the things [Sidenote: p. 222.] which have -been compounded together. For each of the compounds is cut in twain and -separated when it lights on its proper place. For as there is one place -of composition for all the animals, so there has been set up one place -of dissolution, which no man knoweth, he says, save only we who are -born again, spiritual not fleshly, whose citizenship is in the heavens -above. - -With these insinuations they corrupt their hearers, both when they -misuse words, turning good sayings into bad as they wish, and when they -conceal their own iniquity by what comparisons they choose. All things -then, he says, which are compounds have their own peculiar place and -run towards their own kindred things as the iron to the magnet, the -straw to the amber, and the gold to the sea-hawk’s spine.[275] And thus -the (ray) of light which was mingled with the water having received -from teaching and learning (the knowledge of) its own proper place -hastens to the Word come from on high in slave-like form and becomes -with the Word a Word where the Word is, more (quickly) than the iron -(flies) to the magnet. - -[Sidenote: p. 223.] And that these things are so, he says, and that -all compounded things are separated at their proper places, learn -(thus):--There is among the Persians in the city Ampa near the Tigris -a well, and near this well and above it has been built a cistern -having three outlets. From which well if one draws, and takes up in a -jar what is drawn from the well whatever it is and pours it into the -cistern hard by; when it comes to the outlets and is received from each -outlet in one vessel, it separates itself. And in the first outlet is -exhibited an incrustation[276] of salt, and in the second bitumen, -and in the third oil. But the oil is black, as he says Herodotus also -recounts,[277] has a heavy odour and the Persians call it _rhadinace_. -This simile of the well, say the Sethians, suffices for the truth of -their proposition better than all that has been said above. - -22. The opinion of the Sethians seems to us to have been made tolerably -plain. But if any one wishes to learn the whole of their system let him -read the book inscribed _Paraphrase (of) Seth_; for all their secrets -he will find there enshrined.[278] But since we have set forth the -things of the [Sidenote: p. 224.] Sethians[279] let us see also what -Justinus thinks. - - - 4. _Justinus._[280] - -23. Justinus, being utterly opposed to every teaching of the Holy -Scriptures, and also to the writing or speech[281] of the blessed -Evangelists, since the Word taught his disciples saying: “Go not into -the way of the Gentiles”[282]--which is plainly: Give no heed to the -vain teaching of the Gentiles--seeks to bring back his hearers to -the marvel-mongering of the Greeks and what is taught by it. He sets -out word for word and in detail the fabulous tales of the Greeks, -but neither teaches first hand[283] nor hands down his own complete -mystery unless he has bound the dupe by an oath. Thereafter he explains -the myth for the purpose of winning souls,[284] so that those who -read the numberless follies of the books shall have the fables as -consolation[285]--as if one tramping along a road and coming across an -inn should see fit to rest--and so that when they have again turned to -the [Sidenote: p. 225.] full study of the things read, they may not -detest them until, being led on by the rush of the crowd, they have -plunged into the offence artfully contrived by him, having first bound -them by fearful oaths neither to utter nor to abandon his teaching and -compelling them to accept it. Thus he delivers to them the mysteries -impiously sought out by him, using as aforesaid the Greek myths and -partly corrupted books according to what they indicate of the aforesaid -heresies. For they all, drawn by one spirit, are led into a deep -pit (of error) but each narrates and mythologizes the same things -differently. But they all call themselves especially Gnostics, as if -they alone had drunk in the knowledge of the perfect and good. - -24. But swear, says Justinus, if you wish to know the things “which -eye hath not seen nor ear heard, nor have they entered into the heart -of man,”[286] (that is) Him who is good above all things, the Highest, -to keep the ineffable secrets of the teaching. For our Father also, -when he saw the Good One and was perfected by him, kept silence as -to [Sidenote: p. 226.] the secrets[287] and swore as it is written: -“The Lord sware and will not repent.”[288] Having then thus sealed up -these (secrets), he turns their minds to many myths through a quantity -(of books), and thus leads to the Good One, perfecting the mystæ by -unspoken mysteries. But we shall not travel through more (of his -works). We shall give as a sample the ineffable things from one book -of his, it being one which he clearly thinks of high repute. It is -inscribed _Baruch_.[289] We shall disclose one myth set forth in it by -him out of many, it being also in Herodotus. Having transformed[290] -this, he tells it to his hearers as new, the whole system of his -teaching being made up out of it. - -25. Now Herodotus[291] says that Heracles when driving Geryon’s oxen -from Erytheia[292] came to Scythia and being wearied by the way lay -down to sleep in some desert place for a short time. While he was -asleep his horse disappeared, mounted on which he had made his long -journey.[293] On waking he made search over most of the desert in the -attempt to find his horse. He entirely misses the horse, [Sidenote: p. -227.] but finding a certain semi-virgin girl[294] in the desert, he -asks her if she had seen the horse anywhere. The girl said that she had -seen it, but would not at first show it to him unless Heracles would go -with her to have connection with her. But Herodotus says that the upper -part of the girl as far as the groin was that of a virgin, but that the -whole body below the groin had in some sort the frightful appearance of -a viper. But Heracles, being in a hurry to find his horse yielded to -the beast. For he knew her and made her pregnant, and foretold to her -after connection that she had in her womb three sons by him who would -be famous.[295] And he bade her when they were born to give them the -names Agathyrsus, Gelonus, and Scytha. And taking the horse from the -beast-like girl as his reward, he went away with his oxen. But after -this, there is a long story in Herodotus.[296] Let us dismiss it at -present. But we will explain something of what Justinus teaches when -he turns this myth into (one of) the generation of the things of the -universe. - -26. This he says: There were three unbegotten principles of the -universals,[297] two male and one female. And [Sidenote: p. 228.] of -the male, one is called the Good One, he alone being thus called, and -he has foreknowledge of the universals. And the second is the Father -of all begotten things, not having foreknowledge and being (unknowable -and)[298] invisible. But the female is without foreknowledge, -passionate, two-minded, two-bodied, in all things resembling Herodotus’ -myth, a virgin to the groin and a viper below, as says Justinus. -And this maiden is called Edem and Israel. These, he says, are the -principles of the universals, their roots and sources, by which all -things came into being, beside which nothing was. Then the Father -without foreknowledge, beholding the semi-virgin, who was Edem, came -to desire of her. This Father, he says, is called Elohim.[299] Not -less did Edem desire Elohim, and desire brought them together into -one favour of love. And the Father from such congress begot on Edem -twelve angels of his own. And the names of these angels of the Father -are: Michael, Amen, Baruch, Gabriel, Esaddæus.[300]... And the names -of the angels of the Mother which Edem created are likewise set down. -These are: Babel, Achamoth, Naas, Bel, Belias, [Sidenote: p. 229.] -Satan, Saêl, Adonaios, Kavithan, Pharaoh, Karkamenos, Lathen.[301] Of -these twenty-four angels the paternal ones join with the Father and do -everything in accordance with his will, but the maternal angels (side) -with the Mother, Edem. And he says that Paradise is the multitude of -these angels taken together; concerning which Moses says: “God planted -a Paradise in Edem towards the East,”[302] that is, towards the face -of Edem that Edem might ever behold Paradise, that is, the angels. -And the angels of this Paradise are allegorically called trees,[303] -and Baruch, the third angel of the Father, is the Tree of Life, and -Naas, the third angel of the Mother is the Tree of Knowledge of Good -and Evil.[304] For thus, he says, the (words) of Moses ought to be -interpreted, saying: Moses declared them covertly, because all do not -come to the truth. - -But he says also when Paradise was produced from the mutual pleasure of -Elohim and Edem, the angels of Elohim taking (dust) from the fairest -earth, that is, not from the beast-like parts of Edem, but from the -man-like and cultivated regions of the earth above the groin, create -man. But from the beast-like parts, he says, the wild beasts and -[Sidenote: p. 230.] other animals are produced. Now they made man -as a symbol of their[305] unity and good-will and placed in him the -powers of each, Edem (supplying) the soul and Elohim the spirit.[306] -And there thus came into being a certain seal, as it were and actual -memorial of love and an everlasting sign of the marriage of Elohim and -Edem, (to wit) a man who is Adam. And in like manner also, Eve came -into being as Moses has written, an image and a sign and a seal to be -for ever preserved of Edem. And there was likewise placed in Eve the -image, a soul from Edem but a spirit from Elohim. And commands were -given to them, “Increase and multiply and replenish the earth,”[307] -that is Edem, for so he would have it written. For the whole of her own -power Edem brought to Elohim as it were some dowry in marriage. Whence, -he says, in imitation of that first marriage, women unto this day bring -freely to their husbands in obedience to a certain divine and ancestral -law (a dowry) which is that of Edem to Elohim. - -But when heaven and earth and the things which were therein had been -created as it is written by Moses, the twelve angels of the Mother were -divided into four authorities and each quarter, he says, is called -a river, (to wit) Phison and Gihon, Tigris and Euphrates, as Moses -says: [Sidenote: p. 231.] These twelve angels visiting the four parts -encompass and arrange the world, having a certain satrapial[308] power -over the world by the authority of Edem. But they abide not always in -their own places, but as it were in a circular dance, they go about -exchanging place for place, and at certain times and intervals giving -up the places assigned to them. When Phison has rule over the places, -famine, distress and affliction come to pass in that part of the world, -for miserly is the array of these angels. And in like manner in each of -the quarters according to the nature and power of each, come evil times -and troops of diseases. And evermore the flow of evil according to the -rule of the quarters, as if they were rivers, by the will of Edem goes -unceasingly about the world. - -But from some such cause as this did the necessity of evil come -about.[309] When Elohim had built and fashioned [Sidenote: p. 232.] the -world from mutual pleasure, he wished to go up to the highest parts -of heaven and to see whether any of the things of creation lacked -aught. And he took his own angels with him, for he was (by nature) one -who bears upward, and left below Edem, for she being earth did not -wish to follow her spouse on high. Then Elohim coming to the upper -limit of heaven and beholding a light better than that which himself -had fashioned, said: “Open unto me the gates that I may enter in and -acknowledge the Lord: For I thought that I was the Lord.”[310] And a -voice from the light answered him, saying: “This is the gate of the -Lord (and) the just enter through it.” And straightway the gate was -opened, and the Father entered without his angels into the presence of -the Good One and saw “what eye has not seen nor ear heard, nor has it -entered into the heart of man.” Then the Good One says to him, “Sit -thou on my right hand.”[311] But the Father says to the Good One: -“Suffer me, O Lord, to overturn the world which I have made; for my -spirit is bound in men and I wish to recover it.” Then says the Good -One to him: “While with me thou canst do no evil; for thou and Edem -made the world from mutual pleasure. Let therefore Edem hold creation -[Sidenote: p. 233.] while she will;[312] but do thou abide with me.” -Then Edem knowing that she had been abandoned by Elohim was grieved, -and sat beside her own angels and adorned herself gloriously lest haply -Elohim coming to desire of her should descend to her. - -But since Elohim being ruled by the Good One did not come down to Edem, -she gave command to Babel, who is Aphrodite, to bring about fornication -and dissolutions of marriage among men, in order that as she was -separated from Elohim, so also might the (spirit) of Elohim which is in -men be tortured, (and) grieved by such separations and might suffer the -same things as she did on being abandoned. And Edem gave great power to -her third angel Naas,[313] that he might punish with all punishments -the spirit of Elohim which is in men, so that through the spirit Elohim -might be punished for having left his spouse contrary to their vows. -The Father Elohim seeing this sent forth his third angel Baruch to the -help of the spirit which is in men. [Sidenote: p. 234.] Then Baruch -came again and stood in the midst of the angels--for the angels are -Paradise in the midst of which he stood--and gave commandment to the -man: “From every tree which is in Paradise freely eat, but from (the -tree) of Knowledge of Good and Evil eat not,”[314] which tree is Naas. -That is to say: Obey the eleven other angels of Edem for the eleven -have passions, but have no transgression. But Naas had transgression, -for he went in unto Eve and beguiled her and committed adultery with -her, which is a breach of the Law. And he went in also unto Adam and -used him as a boy which is also a breach of the Law.[315] Thence came -adultery and sodomy. - -From that time vices bore sway over men, and the good things came from -a single source, the Father. For he, having gone up to the presence -of the Good One showed the way to those who wished to go on high; but -his having withdrawn from Edem made a source of ills to the spirit of -[Sidenote: p. 235.] the Father which is in men. Therefore Baruch was -sent to Moses, and through him spoke to the sons of Israel that he -might turn them towards the Good One. But the third[316] (angel Naas) -by means of the soul which came from Edem to Moses as also to all men, -darkened the commandments of Baruch and made them listen to his own. -Therefore the soul is arrayed against the spirit and the spirit against -the soul.[317] For the soul is Edem and the spirit Elohim, each of -them being in all mankind, both females and males. Again after this, -Baruch was sent to the Prophets, so that by their means the spirit -which dwells in man might hearken and flee from Edem and the device -of wickedness[318] as the Father Elohim had fled. And in like manner -and by the same contrivance, Naas by the soul which inhabits man along -with the spirit of the Father seduced the Prophets, and they were all -led astray and did not follow the words of Baruch which Elohim had -commanded. - -[Sidenote: p. 236.] In the sequel, Elohim chose Heracles as a prophet -out of the uncircumcision and sent him that he might fight against the -twelve angels of the creation of the wicked ones. These are the twelve -contests of Heracles which he fought in their order from the first to -the last against the lion, the bear, the wild boar,[319] and the rest. -For these are the names of the nations which have been changed, they -say, by the action of the angels of the Mother. But when he seemed -to have prevailed, Omphale, who is Babel or Aphrodite[320] becomes -connected with him and leads astray Heracles, strips him of his power -(which is) the commands of Baruch which Elohim commanded, and puts -other clothes on him, her own robe, which is the power of Edem who is -below. And thus the power of prophecy[321] of Heracles and his works -become imperfect. - -Last of all in the days of Herod the king, Baruch is again sent below -by Elohim and coming to Nazareth finds Jesus, the son of Joseph and -Mary,[322] a boy of twelve years old, feeding sheep, and teaches Him -all things from the beginning which came about from Edem and Elohim and -the things [Sidenote: p. 237.] which shall be hereafter, and he said: -“All the prophets before thee were led astray. Strive, therefore, O -Jesus, Son of Man, that thou be not led astray, but preach this word -unto men. And proclaim to them the things touching the Father and the -Good One, and go on high to the Good One and sit there with Elohim the -Father of us all.” And Jesus hearkened to the angel, saying: “Lord, I -will do all (these) things,” and He preached. Then Naas wished to lead -astray this one also (but Jesus did not wish to hearken to him)[323] -for He remained faithful to Baruch. Then Naas, angered because he could -not lead Him astray, made Him to be crucified. But He, leaving the body -of Edem on the Cross, went on high to the Good One. But He said to -Edem: “Woman, receive thy Son,”[324] that is the natural and earthly -man, and commending[325] the spirit into the hands of the Father went -on high to the presence of the Good One. - -But the Good One is Priapus, who before anything was, was created. -Whence he is called Priapus because he previously made[326] all -things. Wherefore he says he is set up before every temple[327] being -honoured by the whole creation and in the streets bears the blossoms -of creation on his head, that is the fruits of creation of which he -is the [Sidenote: p. 238.] cause having first made the creation which -before did not exist. When therefore you hear men say that a swan came -upon Leda and begot children from her, the swan is Elohim and Leda is -Edem. And when men say that an eagle came upon Ganymede, the eagle is -Naas and Ganymede is Adam. And when they say that the gold came upon -Danae and begot children from her, the gold is Elohim and Danae is -Edem. And likewise they making parallels in the same way teach all such -words as bring in myths. When then the Prophets say: “Hear O Heaven and -give ear O Earth, the Lord has spoken,”[328] Heaven means, he says, -the spirit which is in man from Elohim and Earth the soul which is in -man (together) with the spirit, and the Lord means Baruch, and Israel, -Edem. For Edem is also called Israel the spouse of Elohim. “Israel,” -he says, “knew me not; for if she had known that I was with the Good -One, she would not have punished the spirit which is in man through the -Father’s ignorance.” - -27. Afterwards ... is written also the oath in the first [Sidenote: p. -239.] book which is inscribed Baruch which those swear who are about to -hear these mysteries and to be perfected[329] by the Good One. Which -oath, he says, our Father Elohim swore when in the presence of the -Good One and having sworn did not repent, touching which, he says, it -is written: “The Lord sware and did not repent.” This is that oath: -“I swear by Him who is above all, the Good One, to preserve these -mysteries and to utter them to none, nor to turn away from the Good -One to creation.” And when he has sworn that oath he enters into the -presence of the Good One and sees “what eye hath not seen nor ear heard -and it has not entered into the heart of man,” and he drinks from the -living water, which is their font, as they think, the well of living, -sparkling water. For there is a distinction, he says, between water and -water; and there is the water below the firmament of the bad creation, -wherein are baptized[330] the earthly and natural men, and there is the -living water [Sidenote: p. 240.] above the firmament of the Good One -in which Elohim was baptized and having been baptized did not repent. -And when the prophet declares, he says, to take unto himself a wife of -whoredom because the earth whoring has committed whoredom from behind -the Lord,[331] that is Edem from Elohim. In these words, he says, the -prophet speaks clearly the whole mystery, but he was not hearkened to -by the wickedness of Naas. In that same fashion also they hand down -other prophetic sayings in many books. But pre-eminent among them is -the book inscribed Baruch in which he who reads will know the whole -management of their myth. - -Now, though I have met with many heresies, beloved, I have met with -none worse than this. But truly, as the saying is, we ought, imitating -his Heracles, to cleanse the Augean dunghill or rather trench, having -fallen into which his followers will never be washed clean nor indeed -be able to come up out of it. - -28. Since then we have set forth the designs of Justinus the Gnostic -falsely so called, it seems fitting to set forth also [Sidenote: p. -241.] in the succeeding books the tenets of the heresies which follow -him[332] and to leave none of them unrefuted; the things said by them -being quite sufficient when exposed to make an example of them, if and -only their hidden and unspeakable (mysteries) would leap to light into -which the senseless are hardly and with much toil initiated.[333] Let -us see now what Simon says. - - - END OF VOL. I. - - - FOOTNOTES - -[Footnote 1: In this chapter, Hippolytus treats of what is probably a -late form of the Ophite heresy, certainly one of the first to enter -into rivalry with the Catholic Church. For its doctrines and practices, -the reader must be referred to the chapter on the Ophites in the -translator’s _Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity_, vol. II; but -it may be said here that it seems to have sprung from a combination -of the corrupt Judaism then practised in Asia Minor with the Pagan -myths or legends prevalent all over Western Asia, which may some day -be traced back to the Sumerians and the earliest civilization of which -we have any record. Yet the Ophites admitted the truth of the Gospel -narrative, and asserted the existence of a Supreme Being endowed with -the attributes of both sexes and manifesting Himself to man by means -of a Deity called His son, who was nevertheless identified with both -the masculine and feminine aspects of his Father. This triad, which the -Ophites called the First Man, the Second Man, and the First Woman or -Holy Spirit, they represented as creating the planetary worlds as well -as the “world of form,” by the intermediary of an inferior power called -Sophia or Wisdom and her son Jaldabaoth, who is expressly stated to be -the God of the Jews. - -All this we knew before the discovery of our text from the statements -of heresiologists like St. Irenæus and Epiphanius; but Hippolytus goes -further than any other author by connecting these Ophite theories with -the worship of the Mother of the Gods or Cybele, the form under which -the triune deity of Western Asia was best known in Europe. The unnamed -Naassene or Ophite author from whom he quotes without intermission -throughout the chapter, seems to have got hold of a hymn to Attis used -in the festivals of Cybele, in which Attis is, after the syncretistic -fashion of post-Alexandrian paganism, identified with the Syrian -Adonis, the Egyptian Osiris, the Greek Dionysos and Hermes, and the -Samothracian or Cabiric gods Adamna and Corybas; and the chapter is in -substance a commentary on this hymn, the order of the lines of which -it follows closely. This commentary tries to explain or “interpret” -the different myths there referred to by passages from the Old and New -Testaments and from the Greek poets dragged in against their manifest -sense and in the wildest fashion. Most of these supposed allusions, -indeed, can only be justified by the most outrageous play upon words, -and it may be truly said that not a single one of them when naturally -construed bears the slightest reference to the matter in hand. Yet -they serve not only to elucidate the Ophite beliefs, but give, as it -were accidentally, much information as to the scenes enacted in the -Eleusinian and other heathen mysteries which was before lacking. The -author also quotes two hymns used apparently in the Ophite worship -which are not only the sole relics of a once extensive literature, but -are a great deal better evidence as to Gnostic tenets than his own -loose and equivocal statements. - -As the legend of Attis and Cybele may not be familiar to all, it may -be well to give a brief abstract of it as found in Pausanias, Diodorus -Siculus, Ovid, and the Christian writer Arnobius. Cybele, called also -Agdistis, Rhea, Gê, or the Great Mother, was said to have been born -from a rock accidentally fecundated by Zeus. On her first appearance -she was hermaphrodite, but on the gods depriving her of her virility -it passed into an almond-tree. The fruit of this was plucked by the -virgin daughter of the river Sangarios, who, placing it in her bosom, -became by it the mother of Attis, fairest of mankind. Attis at his -birth was exposed on the river-bank, but was rescued, brought up as a -goatherd, and was later chosen as a husband by the king’s daughter. At -the marriage feast, Cybele, fired by jealousy, broke into the palace -and, according to one version of the story, emasculated Attis who died -of the hurt. Then Cybele repented and prayed to Zeus to restore him to -life, which prayer was granted by making him a god. The ceremonies of -the Megalesia celebrating the Death and Resurrection of Attis as held -in Rome during the late Republic and early Empire, and their likeness -to the Easter rites of the Christian Church are described in the -_Journal_ of the Royal Asiatic Society for October 1917.] - -[Footnote 2: (οὗ) χάριν, “thanks to which.”] - -[Footnote 3: μετέχιο τὰς ἀφορμὰς, a phrase frequent in Plato.] - -[Footnote 4: נָחָשׁ] - -[Footnote 5: Cf. Rev. ii. 24.] - -[Footnote 6: ἀρσενόθηλυς.] - -[Footnote 7: Cruice thinks the name derived from the Adam Cadmon of the -Jewish Cabala. But Adamas “the unsubdued” is an epithet of Hades who -was equated with Dionysos, the analogue of Attis. Cf. Irenæus, I, 1.] - -[Footnote 8: Salmon and Stähelin in maintaining their theory that -Hippolytus’ documents were contemporary forgeries make the point that -something like this hymn is repeated later in the account of Monoimus -the Arabian’s heresy. The likeness is not very close. Cf. II, p. 107 -_infra_.] - -[Footnote 9: Origen (_cont. Celsum_, VI, 30) says the Ophites used to -curse the name of Christ. Hence Origen cannot be the author of the -_Philosophumena_.] - -[Footnote 10: τὰ ὅλα. I am doubtful whether he is here using the word -in its philosophic or Aristotelian sense as “entities necessarily -differing from one another in kind,” or as “things of the universe.” On -the whole the former construction seems here to be right.] - -[Footnote 11: “That which has been sent”?] - -[Footnote 12: Doubtless as being still confined in matter.] - -[Footnote 13: Both Origen and Celsus knew of this Mariamne, after whom -a sect is said to have been named. See Orig. _cont. Cels._, VI, 30.] - -[Footnote 14: τῶν ἐθνῶν. The usual expression for Gentiles or Goyim.] - -[Footnote 15: Isa. liii. 8.] - -[Footnote 16: διάφορον. Miller reads ἀδιάφορον: “undistinguished.”] - -[Footnote 17: This hymn is in metre and is said to be from a lost -Pindaric ode. It has been restored by Bergk, the restoration being -given in the notes to Cruice’s text, p. 142, and it was translated into -English verse by the late Professor Conington. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, -p. 54, n. 6.] - -[Footnote 18: ἰχθυοφάγον. Doubtless a mistake for ἰχθυοφόρον. The -Oannes of Berossus’ story wore a fish on his back.] - -[Footnote 19: Adam the protoplast according to the Ophites (_Irenæus_, -I, xviii, p. 197, Harvey) and Epiphanius (_Hær._ xxxvii, c. 4, p. 501, -Oehler) was made by Jaldabaoth and his six sons. The same story was -current among the followers of Saturninus (_Irenæus_, I, xviii, p. 197, -Harvey) and other Gnostic sects, who agree with the text as to his -helplessness when first created, and its cause.] - -[Footnote 20: So in the Bruce Papyrus, “Jeû,” which name I have -suggested is an abbreviation of Jehovah, is called “the great Man, King -of the great Aeon of light.” See _Forerunners_, II, 193.] - -[Footnote 21: Eph. iii. 15. Cf. the address of Jesus to His Father in -the last document of the _Pistis Sophia_, _Forerunners_, II, p. 180, n. -4.] - -[Footnote 22: Why is he to be punished? In the Manichæan story (for -which see _Forerunners_, II, pp. 292 ff.) the First Man is taken -prisoner by the powers of darkness. Both this and that in the text are -doubtless survivals of some legend current throughout Western Asia at -a very early date. Cf. Bousset’s _Hauptprobleme der Gnosis_, Leipzig, -1907, c. 4, _Der Urmensch_.] - -[Footnote 23: So the cryptogram in the _Pistis Sophia_ professes to -give “the word by which the Perfect Man is moved.” _Forerunners_, II, -188, n. 2.] - -[Footnote 24: οὐσία: perhaps “essence” or “being.” It is the word for -which _hypostasis_ was later substituted according to Hatch. See his -_Hibbert Lectures_, pp. 269 ff.] - -[Footnote 25: So Miller, Cruice, and Schneidewin. I should be inclined -to read φάος, “light,” as in the Naassene hymn at the end of this -chapter. No Gnostic sect can have taught that the soul came from Chaos.] - -[Footnote 26: This, as always at this period, means “Syrians.” See -Maury, _Rev. Archéol._, lviii, p. 242.] - -[Footnote 27: ἔμψυχοι. He is punning on the likeness between this and -ψυχή, “soul.”] - -[Footnote 28: And between “nourished” and “reared.”] - -[Footnote 29: τὸ τοιοῦτον. Not φύσις or ψυχή. At this point the author -begins his commentary on the Hymn of the Mysteries of Cybele, for which -see p. 141 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 30: γένεσις, perhaps “birth.”] - -[Footnote 31: An allusion to the myth which makes Aphrodite and -Persephone share the company of Adonis between them.] - -[Footnote 32: These words are added in the margin.] - -[Footnote 33: A prominent feature in the imposture of Alexander of -Abonoteichus. See Lucian’s _Pseudomantis_, _passim_.] - -[Footnote 34: In the better-known story Attis castrates himself; but -this version explains the allusion in the hymn on p. 141 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 35: _i. e._ restores to her the virility of which they had -deprived her when she was hermaphrodite. See n. on p. 119 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 36: λελεγμένη. Miller and Schneidewin read δεδαιγμένη, -“open,” or “displayed.”] - -[Footnote 37: Gal. iii. 28. So Clemens Romanus, _Ep._ ii. 12; Clem. -Alex. _Strom._, III, 13. Cf. _Pistis Sophia_, p. 378 (Copt).] - -[Footnote 38: 2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi. 15.] - -[Footnote 39: _i. e._ masculo-feminine. That Rhea, Cybele and Gê are -but different names of the earth-goddess, see Maury, _Rèl. de la Grèce -Antique_, I, 78 ff. For their androgyne character, see _J.R.A.S._ for -Oct. 1917.] - -[Footnote 40: Rom. i. 20 ff. The text omits several sentences to be -found in the A.V.] - -[Footnote 41: _Ibid._, v. 27.] - -[Footnote 42: _Ibid._, v. 28.] - -[Footnote 43: ἐπαγγελία τοῦ λουτροῦ, _pollicetur iis qui lavantur_, Cr. -But “the font” is the regular patristic expression for the rite.] - -[Footnote 44: The text has ἄλλῳ, “other,” which makes no sense. Cruice, -following Schneidewin, alters it to ἀλάλῳ on the strength of p. 144 -_infra_, and renders it _ineffabilis_; but ἀλάλος cannot mean anything -but “dumb” or “silent.” That baptism in the early heretical sects was -followed by a “chrism” or anointing, see _Forerunners_, II, 129, n. 2; -_ibid._, 192.] - -[Footnote 45: Luke xvii. 21.] - -[Footnote 46: This does not appear in the severely expurgated fragments -of the Gospel of Thomas which have come down to us. Epiphanius (_Hær._ -xxxvii.) includes this gospel in a list of works especially favoured by -the Ophites.] - -[Footnote 47: λόγος, Cr. _disciplina_, Macmahon, “Logos.” But see -Arnold, _Roman Stoicism_, p. 161.] - -[Footnote 48: ὄργια. In Hippolytus it always has this meaning.] - -[Footnote 49: Isis. See _Forerunners_, I, p. 34.] - -[Footnote 50: ἡ μεταβλητὴ γένεσις. The expression is repeated in the -account of Simon Magus’ heresy (II, p. 13 _infra_) and refers to the -transmigration of souls.] - -[Footnote 51: ἀνεξεικονίστος, “He of whom no image can be made.”] - -[Footnote 52: Prov. xxiv. 16.] - -[Footnote 53: Some qualification like “originally” or “at the -beginning” seems wanting. Cf. Arnold, _op. cit._, n. on p. 58 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 54: Matt. v. 45.] - -[Footnote 55: He has apparently mistaken Min of Coptos or Nesi-Amsu -for Osiris who is, I think, never represented thus. At Denderah, he is -supine.] - -[Footnote 56: The “terms” of Hermes which Alcibiades and his friends -mutilated.] - -[Footnote 57: δημιουργός. Here as always the “architect,” or he who -creates not _ex nihilo_, but from existing material.] - -[Footnote 58: For this name which is said by all the early -heresiologists to mean “the God of the Jews,” see _Forerunners_, II, -46, n. 3. He is called a “fiery God” apparently from Deut. iv. 24, and -a fourth number, either because in the Ophite theogony he comes next -after the Supreme Triad of Father, Son, and Mother or, more probably, -from his name covering the Tetragrammaton, or name of God in four -letters.] - -[Footnote 59: Ps. ii. 9.] - -[Footnote 60: Cr. supplies “virtutem”; but the adjective is in the -neuter.] - -[Footnote 61: Eph. v. 14.] - -[Footnote 62: κεχαρακτηρισμένος ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀχαρακτηρίστου Λόγου. These -expressions repeated up to the end of the chapter are most difficult -to render in English. The allusion is clearly to a coin stamped -with the image of a king. Afterwards I translate ἀχαρακτηρίστος by -“unportrayable,” for brevity’s sake.] - -[Footnote 63: The famous words which tradition assigns to the -Eleusinian Mysteries. One version is “Rain! conceive!” and probably -refers to the fecundation or tillage of the earth. Cf. Plutarch, _de -Is. et Os._, c. xxxiv.] - -[Footnote 64: Rom. x. 18.] - -[Footnote 65: Ps. cxviii. 22. Cf. Isa. xxviii. 16.] - -[Footnote 66: See n. on p. 123 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 67: Isa. xxviii. 16.] - -[Footnote 68: Something is here omitted before ὀδόντες. Cf. _Iliad_, -IV, 350.] - -[Footnote 69: ἀρχανθρώπος, a curious expression meaning evidently First -Man. It appears nowhere but in this chapter of the _Philosophumena_.] - -[Footnote 70: Dan. ii. 45, “cut from the mountain without hands.”] - -[Footnote 71: The Power called Adonæus or Adon-ai by the Ophites is -also addressed as λήθη, “oblivion,” in the “defence” made to him -by the ascending soul. See Origen, _cont Cels._ VI, c. 30 ff. or -_Forerunners_, II, 72.] - -[Footnote 72: A compound of _Iliad_, XIV, 201 and 246.] - -[Footnote 73: Ps. lxxxii. 6; Luke vi. 35; John x. 34; Gal. iv. 26.] - -[Footnote 74: John iii, 6.] - -[Footnote 75: Joshua iii, 16.] - -[Footnote 76: So the Cabbalists call one of their word-juggling -processes _gematria_, which is said to be a corruption of γραμματεία.] - -[Footnote 77: ἀρρήτως, _i. e._, “by implication,” or “not in words.”] - -[Footnote 78: Play upon προφαίνω and προφήτης.] - -[Footnote 79: Mariam was Moses’ aunt, Sephora his wife, and Jothor -Sephora’s father, according to some fragments of Ezekiel quoted by -Eusebius. So Cruice.] - -[Footnote 80: Matt. xiii. 13.] - -[Footnote 81: Isa. xxviii, 10. In A. V., “Precept upon precept; line -upon line; here a little, there a little.” Irenæus (I, xix, 3, I, p. -201, Harvey) says, Caulacau is the name in which the Saviour descended -according to Basilides, and the word seems to have been used in this -sense by other Gnostic sects, See _Forerunners_, II, 94, n. 3.] - -[Footnote 82: ἐκ γῆς ῥέοντα!] - -[Footnote 83: A direct quotation from the Hymn of the Great Mysteries -given later, p. 141 _infra_. Also a pun between κεράννυμι and κέρας.] - -[Footnote 84: John 1. 34.] - -[Footnote 85: Sophia, the third person of the Ophite Triad and -Jaldabaoth her son.] - -[Footnote 86: Something omitted after “cup.”] - -[Footnote 87: τρία σάτα. A Jewish measure equivalent to 1½ _modius_. -Cf. Matt. xiii. 33.] - -[Footnote 88: The famous ὁμοούσιος.] - -[Footnote 89: A compound of John vi. 53 and Mk. x. 38.] - -[Footnote 90: Μαθητὰς, “disciples,” not apostles.] - -[Footnote 91: The κατὰ may mean either “against” or “according to” -nature.] - -[Footnote 92: For this Corybas and his murder by his two brothers see -Clem. Alex. _Protrept._, II. A pun here follows between Corybas and -κορυφή, “head.”] - -[Footnote 93: John v. 3.] - -[Footnote 94: κεχαρακτηρισμένος.] - -[Footnote 95: Ps. xxix. 3, 10.] - -[Footnote 96: Ps. xxii. 20, A. V., “My darling from the power of the -dog.”] - -[Footnote 97: Isa. xci. 8; xliii. 1, 2.] - -[Footnote 98: _Ibid._, xlix. 15; slightly altered.] - -[Footnote 99: _Ibid._, xlix. 16.] - -[Footnote 100: Ps. xxiv. 7. A. V. omits “rulers” or archons.] - -[Footnote 101: Ps. xxiv. 8; xxii. 6.] - -[Footnote 102: Job xl. 2.] - -[Footnote 103: A pun like that on Geryon or Corybas.] - -[Footnote 104: Gen. xxviii. 17.] - -[Footnote 105: John x. 7, 9, “I am the door.”] - -[Footnote 106: _i. e._ the worshippers of Cybele. For Attis’ name of -Pappas, see Graillot, _Le Culte de Cybèle_, p. 15. It seems to mean -“Father.”] - -[Footnote 107: παῦε, παῦε!!!] - -[Footnote 108: Eph. ii. 17.] - -[Footnote 109: This was an Orphic doctrine. See _Forerunners_, I, 127, -n. 1 for authorities.] - -[Footnote 110: Matt. xxiii. 27.] - -[Footnote 111: 1 Cor. xv. 52.] - -[Footnote 112: 2 Cor. xii. 3, 4. A. V. omits “second heaven” and the -sights seen.] - -[Footnote 113: ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος. The “natural man” of the A. V.] - -[Footnote 114: 1 Cor. ii. 13, 14.] - -[Footnote 115: John vi. 44, “draw _him_ unto me.”] - -[Footnote 116: Matt. vii. 21.] - -[Footnote 117: Matt. xxi. 31, “Kingdom of God.”] - -[Footnote 118: 1 Cor. x. 11. A pun on τέλη, “taxes,” and τέλη, “ends.”] - -[Footnote 119: Cf. the Stoic doctrine of λόγοι σπερματικοί, Arnold, -_Roman Stoicism_, p. 161.] - -[Footnote 120: Lit., “brought to an end.”] - -[Footnote 121: A condensation of Matt. xiii. 3-9.] - -[Footnote 122: Deut. xxxi. 20.] - -[Footnote 123: _i. e._ become united with the Godhead. The -newly-baptized were given milk and honey. Cf. Hatch, _Hibbert -Lectures_, above quoted, p. 300.] - -[Footnote 124: Matt. iii. 10.] - -[Footnote 125: This “third gate” is evidently baptism. For the reason -see _Forerunners_, II, p. 73, n. 2.] - -[Footnote 126: This seems to be a quotation from the Naassene author.] - -[Footnote 127: Perhaps an allusion to the λόγοι σπερματικοί.] - -[Footnote 128: Matt. vii. 6.] - -[Footnote 129: The derivation to be tolerable should be *ἀειπόλος!] - -[Footnote 130: _i. e._ Proteus.] - -[Footnote 131: Gal. iv. 27.] - -[Footnote 132: Jerem. xxxi. 15.] - -[Footnote 133: The mistake in geography shows that Hippolytus was not a -Jew.] - -[Footnote 134: Jerem. xviii. 9.] - -[Footnote 135: ἐποπτικὸν ... μυστήριον.] - -[Footnote 136: This is in effect the first real information we have as -to the final secret of the Eleusinian Mysteries.] - -[Footnote 137: Hesychius also translates Brimos by ἰσχυρός.] - -[Footnote 138: Hades or Pluto.] - -[Footnote 139: Schleiermacher attributes this saying to Heraclitus.] - -[Footnote 140: Meineke (_ap._ Cr.) attributes these lines to -Parmenides.] - -[Footnote 141: Cf. Justinus later, p. 175 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 142: Schneidewin and Cruice both read λαβεῖν, “receive” -(their vestures) for βαλεῖν.] - -[Footnote 143: Cr. translates ἀπηρσενωμένους, _exuta virilitate_; but -it seems to be a participle of ἀπαρρενόω = ἀπανδρόω. The idea that the -Gnostic _pneumatics_ or spirituals would finally be united in marriage -with the angels or λόγοι σπερματικοί was current in Gnosticism. See -_Forerunners_, II, 110. The “virgin spirit” was probably that Barbelo -whom Irenæus, I, 26, 1 f. (pp. 221 ff., Harvey), describes under that -name as reverenced by the “Barbeliotae or Naassenes”; in any case, -probably, some analogue of the earth-goddess, ever bringing forth and -yet ever a virgin.] - -[Footnote 144: Matt. vii. 13, 14. The A. V. has εἰσέρχομαι for -διέρχομαι.] - -[Footnote 145: See n. on p. 119 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 146: _i. e._ Attis.] - -[Footnote 147: ἀμύσσω is rather to “scratch,” or “scarify,” than as in -the text.] - -[Footnote 148: Cf. John iv. 21.] - -[Footnote 149: Cruice’s restoration. Schneidewin’s would read: “The -Spirit is there where also the Father is named, and the Son is there -born from the Father.”] - -[Footnote 150: Cf. Ezekiel x. 12.] - -[Footnote 151: ῥῆμα, not λόγος.] - -[Footnote 152: Here we see the interpretation put by Hippolytus an the -Aristotelian τὰ ὅλα.] - -[Footnote 153: θεμελιόω. The whole of this sentence singularly -resembles that in the _Great Announcement_ ascribed to Simon Magus, for -which see II, p. 12 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 154: This idea of the Indivisible Point, which recurs in -several Gnostic writings, including those of Simon and Basilides, seems -founded on the mathematical axiom that the line and therefore all solid -bodies spring from the point, which itself has “neither parts nor -magnitude.”] - -[Footnote 155: Ἐπινοίᾳ. This also is used by Simon as the equivalent of -Ἔννοια.] - -[Footnote 156: Ps. xix. 3.] - -[Footnote 157: ἀπρονοήτως, Cr., _sine numine quidquam_; Macmahon, -“without premeditation.”] - -[Footnote 158: Performances in the theatres formed part of the -Megalesia or Festival of the Great Mother.] - -[Footnote 159: I should be inclined to read τῆς Μεγάλης μυστήρια, -“Mysteries of the Great Mother.”] - -[Footnote 160: An allusion to the variant of the Cybele legend which -makes her the emasculator of Attis.] - -[Footnote 161: So Conington, who translated the hymns into English -verse, and Schneidewin. Hippolytus, however, evidently gave this -invocation to the Greeks. See p. 132 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 162: δ’ ὀφίαν, according to Schneidewin’s restoration (for -which see p. 176 Cr.), seems better sense, if we can suppose that the -Sabazian serpent was so called.] - -[Footnote 163: The whole hymn with the next fragment is given as -restored to metrical form where quoted in last note.] - -[Footnote 164: That is of the _Galli_, or eunuch-priests of Attis and -Cybele.] - -[Footnote 165: Thales only said, so far as we know, that water was the -beginning of all things.] - -[Footnote 166: The cornucopia: horn of the goat (not bull) Amalthea -seems to have been intended. I see no likeness between this and the -passage in Deut. xxxiii. 17, to which Macmahon refers it.] - -[Footnote 167: Gen. ii. 10.] - -[Footnote 168: This and the three following quotations are from Gen. -ii. 10-14 and follow the Septuagint version.] - -[Footnote 169: Play upon Euphrates and εὐφραίνει, “rejoices.”] - -[Footnote 170: χαρακτηρίζει. “Stamps” would be more correct, but -singularly incongruous with water.] - -[Footnote 171: John iv. 10. No substantial difference from A. V.] - -[Footnote 172: οὐσίαι, but not in the theological sense.] - -[Footnote 173: This simile, repeated often later, has been the chief -support of Salmon and Stähelin’s forgery theory. Yet Clement of -Alexandria (Book VII, c. 2, _Stromateis_) also uses it, and the turning -of swords into ploughshares and spears into pruning-hooks appears in -Micah iv. 3, as well as in Isaiah ii. 4, without arguing a common -origin.] - -[Footnote 174: John 1. 9.] - -[Footnote 175: Isa. xl. 15.] - -[Footnote 176: Play upon χριόμενοι, “anointed,” and χριστιανοί.] - -[Footnote 177: 1 Sam. x. 1; xvi. 13, 14.] - -[Footnote 178: The hymn which follows is so corrupt that Schneidewin -declared it beyond hope of restoration. Miller shows that the original -metre was anapæstic, the number of feet diminishing regularly from -6 to 4. He likens this to that of the hymns of Synesius and the -_Tragopodagra_ of Lucian.] - -[Footnote 179: Reading φάος for χάος.] - -[Footnote 180: This seems to correspond with the Ophite description of -Sophia or the third Person of their Triad in Chaos. Cf. Irenæus, I, 28.] - -[Footnote 181: The source of this chapter on the Naassenes is so -far undiscoverable. Contrary to his usual practice, Hippolytus here -mentions the name of no heretical author as he does in the following -chapters of this Book. It is probable, therefore, that he may have -taken down his account of “Naassene” doctrines from the lips of some -convert, which would account for the extreme wildness of the quotations -and to the incoherence with which he jumps about from one subject to -another. This would also account for the heresy here described being -far more Christian in tone than the other forms of Ophitism which -follow it in the text, and the quotations from Scripture, especially -the N.T., being more numerous and on the whole more apposite than -in the succeeding chapters. The style, such as it is, is maintained -throughout and its continuity should perhaps forbid us to see in it a -plurality of authors. Little prominence in it is given to the Serpent -which gives its name to the sect, although it is here said that he is -good, and this seems to point to the Naassene being more familiar with -the Western than with the Eastern forms of Cybele-worship.] - -[Footnote 182: No mention of this sect is made by Irenæus or -Epiphanius, and Theodoret’s statements concerning it correspond so -closely with those of our text as to make it certain either that -they were drawn from it or that both he and Hippolytus drew from a -common source. Yet Clement of Alexandria knew of the Peratics (see -_Stromateis_ VII, 16), and Origen (_cont. Cels._ VI, 28) speaks of -the Ophites generally as boasting Euphrates as their founder. The -name given to them in our text is said by Clement (_ubi cit._) to -be a place-name, and the better opinion seems to be that it means -“Mede” or one who lives on the further side of the Euphrates. The main -point of their doctrine seems to be the great prominence given in -it to the Serpent, whom they call the Son, and make an intermediate -power between the Father of All and Matter. In this they are perhaps -following the lead of some of the Græco-Oriental worships like that of -Sabazius, one of the many forms of Attis, or that of Dionysos whose -symbol was the serpent. The proof of their doctrines, however, they -sought for not, like the Naassenes, in the mystic rites, but in a kind -of astral theology which looked for religious truths in the grouping -of the stars; and it was in pursuit of this that they identified the -Saviour Serpent with the constellation Draco. Yet they were ostensibly -Christians, being apparently perfectly willing to accept the historical -Christ as their great intermediary. Their attitude to Judaism is -more difficult to grasp because, while they quoted freely from the -Old Testament, they apparently considered its God as an evil, or at -all events, an unnecessarily harsh, power, in which they anticipated -Manes and probably Marcion. Had we more of their writings we should -probably find in them the embodiment of a good deal of early Babylonian -tradition, to which most of these astrological heresies paid great -attention.] - -[Footnote 183: πηγή.] - -[Footnote 184: τὸ μὲν ἓν μέρος. Cruice thinks these words should be -added here instead of in the description of the “great source” just -above. See Book X, II, p. 481 _infra_.] - -[Footnote 185: Probably “Great Father.”] - -[Footnote 186: This is entirely contradictory of Hippolytus’ own -statement later of their doctrine that the universe consists of Father, -Son, and Matter. Αὐτογενής, for which αὐτογέννητος is substituted a -page later, is the last epithet to be applied to a _son_. Is it a -mistake for μονογέννητος, “only begotten?” For the three worlds, see -the Naassene author also, p. 121 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 187: The cause assigned a little later is the salvation of -the _three_ worlds.] - -[Footnote 188: τριδύναμος probably means with powers from all three -worlds. The phrase is frequent in the _Pistis Sophia_.] - -[Footnote 189: συγκρίματα, _concretiones_, Cr. and Macmahon. It might -mean “decrees” and is used in the Septuagint version of Daniel for -“interpretations” of dreams.] - -[Footnote 190: Coloss. i. 19, and ii. 9.] - -[Footnote 191: From the starry influences?] - -[Footnote 192: John iii. 17.] - -[Footnote 193: 1. Cor. xi. 32.] - -[Footnote 194: But see n. 4 on last page and text three sentences -earlier.] - -[Footnote 195: It was not the world, but the Zodiac that the -astrologers divided into dodecatemories. See Bouché-Leclercq, -_L’Astrologie Gr._, _passim_.] - -[Footnote 196: There must be some mistake here. The planetary world, -according to the astronomy of the time, only began at the Moon.] - -[Footnote 197: The words which follow, down to the end of this -paragraph, with the exception of one sentence, are taken, not from the -astrologers, but from the opponent Sextus Empiricus. They correspond -to pp. 339 ff. of the Leipzig edition of Sextus and the restorations -from this are shown by round brackets. The whole passage doubtless once -formed the beginning of Book IV of our text, the opening words of which -they repeat. For the probable cause of this needless repetition see the -Introduction, p. 20 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 198: Sextus’ comment, not Hippolytus’.] - -[Footnote 199: The personal followers of Pythagoras were called -Pythagorics, those who later gave a general assent to his doctrines -Pythagoreans.] - -[Footnote 200: An echo of a tradition which seems widespread in Asia. -In the _Pistis Sophia_ it is said that half the signs of the Zodiac -rebelled against the order to give up “the purity of their light” and -joined the wicked Adamas, while the other half remained faithful under -the rule of Jabraoth. Cf. Rev. xii. 7, and the Babylonian legend of the -assault of the seven evil spirits on the Moon.] - -[Footnote 201: “Toparch” = ruler of a place. Proastius, “suburban,” or -a dweller in the environs of a town. It here probably means the ruler -of a part of the heavens near or under the influence of a planet.] - -[Footnote 202: The bombastic phrases which follow seem to have been -much corrupted and to have been translated from some language other -than Greek. Νυκτόχροος and ὑδατόχροος are not, I think, met with -elsewhere, and the genders are much confused throughout the whole -quotation, Poseidon being made a female deity and Isis a male one. -The more outlandish names have some likeness to the “Munichuaphor,” -“Chremaor,” etc., of the _Pistis Sophia_. There seems some logical -connection between the name of the powers and those born under them, -the lovers being assigned to Eros, and so on.] - -[Footnote 203: Cruice points out that “eyes” are here probably written -for “wells,” the Hebrew for both being the same, and refers us to the -twelve wells of Elim in Exod. xv. 27.] - -[Footnote 204: Schneidewin here quotes from Berossos the well-known -passage about the woman Omoroca, Thalatth, or Thalassa, who presided -over the chaos of waters and its monstrous inhabitants. See Cory’s -_Ancient Fragments_, p. 25. The name has been generally taken to cover -that of Tiamat whom Bel-Merodach defeated. See Rogers, _Religion of -Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 107.] - -[Footnote 205: All Titans, like Kronos himself.] - -[Footnote 206: Macmahon reads here Ino, but this name appears later.] - -[Footnote 207: There is some confusion here. The Platonists, following -Philolaos, attributed singular properties to the twelve-angled figure -made out of pentagons and declared it to have been the model after -which the Zodiac was made.] - -[Footnote 208: νυκτόχροος. It seems to be a translation of the Latin -_nocticolor_.] - -[Footnote 209: So the Codex. Schneidewin and Cruice would read Κρόνος, -but that name has already occurred.] - -[Footnote 210: Here again Schneidewin would read ἀστέρος, “star”; but -the next sentence makes it plain that it is the wind which is meant.] - -[Footnote 211: Ariel is in one of the later documents of the _Pistis -Sophia_ made one of the torturers in hell.] - -[Footnote 212: Probably Saclan or Asaqlan whom the Manichæans made the -Son of the King of Darkness and the husband of the Nebrod or Nebroe -mentioned above.] - -[Footnote 213: πρωτοκαμάρον. Macmahon translates it the “star -Protocamarus,” for which I can see no authority. It seems to me to be -an inversion of πρωτομακάρος, “first-best,” very likely to happen in -turning a Semitic language into Greek and back again.] - -[Footnote 214: The dogstar, Sothis, or Sirius, was identified with -Isis.] - -[Footnote 215: Μύγδων. In a magic spell, Pluto, who has many analogies -with Attis, is saluted as “Huesemigadon,” perhaps “Hye, Cye, Mygdon.” -Has this Mygdon any analogy with _amygdalon_ the almond?] - -[Footnote 216: Qy. Mise, the hermaphrodite Dionysos?] - -[Footnote 217: Βουμέγας, “great ox”? All the other names which follow -are those of magicians or diviners.] - -[Footnote 218: Two of the seven “angels of the presence.” Their -appearance in a list mainly of Greek heroes is inexplicable.] - -[Footnote 219: τῆς ἄνω. Perhaps we should insert δυνάμεως, “the Power -on High.”] - -[Footnote 220: See _Sibyll. Orac._, III. But the Sibyl says the exact -opposite. Cf. Charles, _Apocrypha and Psuedepigrapha of the O.T._, II, -377.] - -[Footnote 221: περᾶσαι. The derivation is too much even for Theodoret, -who says that the name of the sect is taken from “Euphrates the -Peratic” (or Mede).] - -[Footnote 222: So modern astrologers make him the “greater malefic.”] - -[Footnote 223: A fragment from Heraclitus according to Schleiermacher.] - -[Footnote 224: So the _Pistis Sophia_ speaks repeatedly of “the Pleroma -of all Pleromas.”] - -[Footnote 225: Many magical books bore the name of Moses. See -_Forerunners_, II, 46, and n.] - -[Footnote 226: Is this why one Ophite sect was called the Cainites? The -hostility here shown to the God of the Jews is common to many other -sects such as that of Saturninus, of Marcion and later of Manes. Cf. -_Forerunners_, II, under these names.] - -[Footnote 227: Gen. x. 9. Nimrod, who is sometimes identified with the -hero Gilgames, plays a large part in all this Eastern tradition.] - -[Footnote 228: John iii. 13, 14.] - -[Footnote 229: _Ibid._, i. 1-4.] - -[Footnote 230: For this identification of Eve with the Mother of Life -or Great Goddess of Asia, see _Forerunners_, II, 300, and n.] - -[Footnote 231: ἄκραν. Cruice and Macmahon both read ἀρχή, “beginning,” -but see ταύτην τὴν ἄκραν later.] - -[Footnote 232: All this is, of course, quite different to the meaning -assigned to these stars by the unnamed heretics of Book IV.] - -[Footnote 233: If we could be sure that Hippolytus was here summarizing -fairly Ophite doctrines, it would appear that the Ophites rejected the -Platonic theory that matter was essentially evil. What is here said -presents a curious likeness to Stoic doctrines of the universe, as of -man’s being. Hippolytus, however, never quotes a Stoic author and seems -throughout to ignore Stoicism save in Book I.] - -[Footnote 234: πρόσωπον. The word used to denote the “character” or -part or a person on the stage.] - -[Footnote 235: ἰδέαι. So throughout this passage.] - -[Footnote 236: Gen. xxx. 37 ff.] - -[Footnote 237: χαρακτῆρες. See n. on p. 143 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 238: Not “ring-straked” like Jacob’s sheep.] - -[Footnote 239: ὁμοούσιος.] - -[Footnote 240: Matt. vii. 11. Note the change of “Your” for “Our.”] - -[Footnote 241: John viii. 44.] - -[Footnote 242: Here again he dwells upon the supposed evil nature of -the Demiurge.] - -[Footnote 243: Or as Macmahon translates, “the substantial from the -Unsubstantial one.”] - -[Footnote 244: A lacuna in the text is thus filled by Cruice.] - -[Footnote 245: Again this simile is not necessarily by the Peratic -author, but seems to be introduced by Hippolytus. For the supposed -conduct of naphtha in the presence of fire, see Plutarch, _vit Alex._] - -[Footnote 246: ἐξεικονισμένον. A different metaphor from the “type.” -We shall meet with this one frequently in the work attributed to Simon -Magus.] - -[Footnote 247: The text has ἐκ καμαρίου. Here Schneidewin agrees -that the proper reading is μακαρίου, there being no reason why any -“life-giving substance” should exist in the brain-pan. He thus confirms -the reading in n. on p. 152 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 248: This chapter on the Peratæ is evidently drawn from more -sources than one. The author’s first statement of their doctrines, -which occupies pp. 146-149 _supra_, represents probably his first -impression of them and contains at least one glaring contradiction, -duly noted in its place. Then comes a long extract from Sextus -Empiricus which is to all appearance a repetition of the earliest part -of Book IV, only pardonable if it be allowed that the present Book -was delivered in lecture form. There follows a quotation longer and -more sustained than any other in the whole work from a Peratic book -which he says was called _Proastii_, with a bombastic prelude much -resembling the language of Simon Magus’ _Great Announcement_ in Book -VI, followed by a catalogue of starry “influences” which reads much as -if it were taken from some astrological manual. There follows in its -turn a dissertation on the Ophite Serpent showing how this object of -their adoration, identified with the Brazen Serpent of Exodus, was made -to prefigure or typify in the most incongruous manner many personages -in the Old and New Testaments, including Christ Himself. After this he -announces an “epitome” of the Peratic doctrine which turns out to be -perfectly different from anything before said, divides the universe, -which he has previously said the Peratics divided into unbegotten, -self-begotten and begotten, into a new triad of Father, Son (_i. e._ -Serpent), and Matter, and gives a fairly consistent statement of the -Peratic scheme of salvation based on this hypothesis. One can only -suppose here that this last is an afterthought added when revising the -book and inspired by some fresh evidence of Peratic beliefs probably -coloured by Stoic or Marcionite doctrine. In those parts of the chapter -which appear to have been taken from genuinely Peratic sources, the -reference to some Western Asiatic tradition concerning cosmogony and -the protoplasts and differing considerably from the narrative of -Genesis, is plainly apparent.] - -[Footnote 249: This chapter is the most difficult of the whole book -to account for, with the doubtful exception of the much later one -on the Docetæ. A sect of Sethians is mentioned by Irenæus, who does -not attempt to separate their doctrines from those of the Ophites. -Pseudo-Tertullian in his tractate _Against All Heresies_ also connects -with the Ophites a sect called Sethites or Sethoites, the main dogma he -attributes to them being an attempt to identify Christ with the Seth -of Genesis. Epiphanius follows this last author in this identification -and calls them Sethians, but does not expressly connect them with -the Ophites, makes them an Egyptian sect, and does not attribute to -them serpent-worship. The sectaries of this chapter are called in the -rubric Sithiani, altered to Sēthiani in the Summary of Book X, and -the name is not necessarily connected with that of the Patriarch. In -the Bruce Papyrus, a Power, good but subordinate to the Supreme God, -is mentioned, called “the Sitheus,” which may possibly, by analogy -with the late-Egyptian Si-Osiris and Si-Ammon, be construed “Son of -God.” Of their doctrines little can be made from Hippolytus’ brief but -confused description. Their division of the cosmos into three parts -does not seem to differ much from that of the Peratæ, although they -make a sharper distinction than this last between the world of light -and that of darkness, which has led Salmon (_D.C.B._ s.v., Ophites) to -conjecture for them a Zoroastrian origin. This is unlikely, and more -attention is due to Hippolytus’ own statement that they derived their -doctrines from Musæus, Linus, and Orpheus. In _Forerunners_ it is -sought to show that the Orphic teaching was one of the foundations on -which the fabric of Gnosticism was reared, and the image of the earth -as a matrix was certainly familiar to the Greeks, who made Delphi its -ὀμφαλός or navel. Hence the imagery of the text, offensive as it is -to our ideas, would not have been so to them, and Epiphanius (_Hær._, -XXXVIII, p. 510, Oehl.) knew of several writings, κατὰ τῆς Ὑστέρας, or -the Womb, which he says the sister sect of Cainites called the maker -of heaven and earth. In this case, we need not take the story in the -text about the generation by the bad or good serpent as necessarily -referring to the Incarnation. One of the scenes in the Mysteries of -Attis-Sabazius, and perhaps of those of Eleusis also, seems to have -shown the seduction by Zeus in serpent-form of his virgin daughter -Persephone and the birth therefrom of the Saviour Dionysos who was but -his father re-born. This story of the fecundation of the earth-goddess -by a higher power in serpent shape seems to have been present in all -the religions of Western Asia, and was therefore extremely likely to be -caught hold of by an early form of Gnosticism. In no other respect does -this so-called “Sethian” heresy seem to have anything in common with -Christianity, and it may therefore represent a pre-Christian form of -Ophitism. The serpent in it is, perhaps, neither bad nor good.] - -[Footnote 250: τούτοις δοκεῖ, “it seems to them.”] - -[Footnote 251: Cruice and Macmahon both translate this “into the same -nature with the spirit.”] - -[Footnote 252: This anxiety of the higher powers to redeem from matter -darkness or chaos, the scintilla of their own being which has slipped -into it, is the theme of all Gnosticism from the Ophites to the _Pistis -Sophia_ and the Manichæan writings. See _Forerunners_, II, _passim_.] - -[Footnote 253: Or “the substances brought up to the sealer.”] - -[Footnote 254: ἰδέαι. And so throughout.] - -[Footnote 255: Schneidewin, Cruice, and Macmahon would here and -elsewhere read ὁ φαλλὸς. But see the next sentence about pregnancy.] - -[Footnote 256: ἐξετύπωσεν, “struck off.”] - -[Footnote 257: πρωτόγονος. The others were “unbegotten” like the -highest world of the Peratæ and Naassenes.] - -[Footnote 258: εἴδεσιν.] - -[Footnote 259: Is this Ps. xxix. 3, 10 already quoted by the Naassene -author? Cf. p. 133 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 260: This idea of a divine son superior to his father is -common to the whole Orphic cosmogony and leads to the dethroning of -Uranus by Kronos, Kronos by Zeus and finally of Zeus by Dionysos. It is -met with again in Basilides (see Book VII _infra_).] - -[Footnote 261: A lacuna here which Cruice thus fills.] - -[Footnote 262: This has not been previously described. Is the narrative -of the Fall alluded to?] - -[Footnote 263: Cruice and Macmahon would translate “any other than -man’s.”] - -[Footnote 264: Phil. ii. 7. The only quotation from the N.T. other than -that from Matt. used by the Sethians, if it be not, as I believe it is, -the interpolation of Hippolytus.] - -[Footnote 265: ἀπελούσατο. Yet it may refer to baptism which preceded -initiation in nearly all the secret rites of the Pagan gods. Cf. -_Forerunners_, 1, c. 2.] - -[Footnote 266: The whole of this paragraph reads like an interpolation, -or rather as something which had got out of its place. The statement -about the physicists is directly at variance with the opening of the -next which attributes the Sethian teaching to the Orphics. The triads -he quotes are all of three “good” powers and therefore would belong -much more appropriately to the system of the Peratæ. The quotation from -Deut. iv. 11, he attributes to several other heresiarchs.] - -[Footnote 267: The codex has ὀμφαλός for ὁ φαλλὸς which is -Schneidewin’s emendation. No book attributed to Orpheus called -“Bacchica” has come down to us, but the Rape of Persephone was a -favourite theme with Orphic poets. Cf. Abel’s _Orphica_, pp. 209-219.] - -[Footnote 268: This is not improbable; but Hippolytus gives us no -evidence that this is the case, as Plutarch, from whom he quotes, -certainly did not connect the frescoes of Phlium in the Peloponnesus -(not Attica as he says) with the Sethians, nor does the light in their -story _desire_ the water.] - -[Footnote 269: This too is a stock quotation which has already done -duty for the Naassene author. Cf. p. 131 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 270: So has this with the “Peratic.” Cf. p. 154 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 271: κράσις ... μίξις.] - -[Footnote 272: καταμεμῖχθαι λεπτῶς.] - -[Footnote 273: τέχνη.] - -[Footnote 274: Matt. x. 34.] - -[Footnote 275: This again seems to be Hippolytus’ own repetition of a -simile which he met with in the Naassene author and which so pleased -him that he made use of it in his account of the Peratic heresy as well -as here. Cf. pp. 144 and 159 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 276: ἅλας πηγνύμενον.] - -[Footnote 277: Herodotus VI, 20, mentions the City of Ampe, but says -nothing there about the well which is described in c. 119 as at -Ardericca in Cissia.] - -[Footnote 278: The title of the book is given in the text as Παράφρασις -Σήθ, which is a well-nigh impossible phrase.] - -[Footnote 279: On the whole it may be said that this is the most -suspect of all the chapters in the _Philosophumena_, and that, if ever -Hippolytus was deceived into purchasing forged documents according to -Salmon and Stähelin’s theory, one of them appears here. Much of it -is mere verbiage as when, after having identified Mind or Nous with -the fragrance of the spirit, he again explains that it is a ray of -light sent from the perfect light, or when he explains the difference -between the three different kinds of law. The quotations too are -seldom new, nearly all of them appearing in other chapters and are, -if it were possible, more than usually inapposite, while almost the -only new one is inaccurate. The sentence about the Paraphrase (of) -Seth, if that is the actual title of the book, does not suggest that -Hippolytus is quoting from that work, nor does the phrase, “he says,” -occur with anything like the frequency of its use in _e. g._, the -Naassene chapter. On the whole, then, it seems probable that in this -Hippolytus was not copying or extracting from any written document, -but was writing down, to the best of his recollection the statements -of some convert who professed to be able to reveal its teaching. It is -significant in this respect that when the summary in Book X had to be -made, the summarizer makes no attempt to abbreviate the statement of -the supposed tenets of the Sethians, but merely copies out the part of -the chapter in which they are described, entirely omitting the stories -of the frescoed porch at Phlium and the oil-well at Ampa.] - -[Footnote 280: Nothing is known of this Justinus, whose name is not -mentioned by any other patristic writer, and there is no sure means of -fixing his date. Macmahon, relying apparently on the last sentence of -the chapter, would make him a predecessor of Simon Magus, and therefore -contemporary with the Apostles’ first preaching. This is extremely -unlikely, and Salmon on the other hand (_D.C.B._, s.v., “Justinus the -Gnostic”) considers his heresy should be referred to “the latest stage -of Gnosticism” which, if taken literally, would make it long posterior -to Hippolytus. The source of his doctrine is equally obscure; for -although Hippolytus classes him with the Ophites, the serpent in his -system is certainly not good and plays as hostile a part towards man -as the serpent of Genesis, while his supreme Triad of the Good Being, -an intermediate power ignorant of the existence of his superior, and -the Earth, differs in all essential respects from the Ophite Trinity -of the First and Second Man and First Woman. Yet the names of the -world-creating angels and devils here given, bear a singular likeness -to those which Theodore bar Khôni in his _Book of Scholia_ attributes -to the Ophites and also to those mentioned by Origen as appearing on -the Ophite Diagram. On the other hand, there are many likenesses not -only of ideas but of language between the system of Justinus and that -of Marcion, who also taught the existence of a Supreme and Benevolent -God and of a lower one, harsh, but just, who was the unwitting author -of the evil which is in the world. This, indeed, leaves out of the -account the third or female power; but an Armenian account of Marcion’s -doctrines attributes to him belief in a female power also, called -Hyle or Matter and the spouse of the Just God of the Law, with whom -her relations are pretty much as described in the text. Justinus, -however, was not like Marcion a believing Christian; for he makes his -Saviour the son of Joseph and Mary and the mere mouthpiece of the -subaltern angel Baruch, while his account of the Crucifixion differs -materially from that of Marcion. The obscene stories he tells about the -protoplasts also appear in much later Manichæan documents and seem to -be drawn from the Babylonian tradition of which the loves of the angels -in the Book of Enoch are probably also a survival. It is therefore not -improbable that Justinus, the Book of Enoch, the Ophites, and perhaps -Marcion, alike derived their tenets on these points from heathen myths -of the marriage of Heaven and Earth, which may possibly be traced back -to early Babylonian theories of cosmogony. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, cc. 8 -and 11, _passim_.] - -[Footnote 281: Hippolytus, like the Gnostic writers, seems to know of -an oral as well as a written tradition from the Evangelists.] - -[Footnote 282: Matt. x. 5. In the A.V. as here, τὰ ἔθνη, “the nations.”] - -[Footnote 283: πρότερον διδάξας or “at first teaches.”] - -[Footnote 284: ψυχαγωγίας χάριν. The reader must again be reminded that -while the ψυχή of the Greeks was what we should call “mind,” the πνεῦμα -is spirit, answering more to our word “soul.”] - -[Footnote 285: παραμύθιον, a play upon μύθος.] - -[Footnote 286: 1 Cor. ii. 9.] - -[Footnote 287: Lit., “guarded the secrets of silence.”] - -[Footnote 288: Ps. cx. 4.] - -[Footnote 289: “The Blessed.”] - -[Footnote 290: παραπλάσει, “given it another form.” As a fact, -Justinus’ quotation from Herodotus is singularly accurate, save as -afterwards noted.] - -[Footnote 291: Herodotus, IV, 8-10.] - -[Footnote 292: An island near Cadiz. The codex has Ἐρυθρᾶς, “the Red -Sea.”] - -[Footnote 293: In Herodotus it is mares and a chariot.] - -[Footnote 294: μιξοπάρθενος. A neologism.] - -[Footnote 295: In Herodotus the prophecy is given by the girl.] - -[Footnote 296: To explain the origin of the Scythian nation.] - -[Footnote 297: Or perhaps, as above, “the things of the universe.”] - -[Footnote 298: Supplied from the summary in Book X. So the _Pistis -Sophia_ has a Power never otherwise described but not benevolent who is -called “the great unseen Forefather,” and seems to rule over material -things.] - -[Footnote 299: There is nothing to show that Hippolytus or Justinus -knew this to be a plural.] - -[Footnote 300: Seven names are missing from the text. Of the five -given, Michael, Amen and Gabriel are given in the chapter on the -Ophites in Theodore bar Khôni’s _Book of Scholia_ as the first angels -created by God, the name of Baruch being replaced by that of “the -great Yah.” “Esaddæus” is probably El Shaddai, who is said in the same -book to be the angel sent to give the Law to the Jews and to have -treacherously persuaded them to worship himself.] - -[Footnote 301: Of these twelve names, Babel is written in bar Khôni -as Babylon and said to be masculo-feminine, Achamoth is the Hebrew -חכמת, Chochmah, Sophia, or Wisdom whom most Gnostics called the Mother -of Life, Naas is the Serpent as is explained in the chapter on the -Naassenes, Bel, Baal or the Chaldæan Bel, for Belias we should probably -read Beliar, the devil of works like the _Ascensio Isaiae_, Kavithan -should probably be Leviathan, Adonaios is the Hebrew Adonai, or the -Lord, while Sael, Karkamenos and Lathen cannot be identified. Pharaoh -and “Samiel,” a homonym of Satan, appear in bar Khôni’s list of angels -who rule one or other of the ten heavens, and Adonaios and Leviathan in -the Ophite Diagram described by Celsus. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, pp. 70 -ff.] - -[Footnote 302: Gen. ii. 8.] - -[Footnote 303: So a Chinese Manichæan treatise lately discovered (see -_Forerunners_, II, p. 352) speaks of demons inhabiting the soul as -“trees.”] - -[Footnote 304: ξύλον τοῦ εἰδέναι γνῶσιν κ.τ.λ., “the Tree _of seeing_ -Knowledge,” etc.] - -[Footnote 305: The context shows that it is the unity, etc., of Elohim -and Edem that is referred to.] - -[Footnote 306: Cf. n. on p. 177 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 307: Gen. i. 28.] - -[Footnote 308: Macmahon, “viceregal”; but the “satrap” shows from which -country the story comes.] - -[Footnote 309: Thus the Armenian version of Marcion’s theology (for -which see _Forerunners_, II, p. 217, n. 2) makes the “God of the Law’s” -withdrawal from Hyle or Matter, and his retirement to a higher heaven, -the cause of all man’s woes.] - -[Footnote 310: Cf. Ps. cxvii. 19, 20; but the likeness is not exact.] - -[Footnote 311: Ps. cx. 1.] - -[Footnote 312: Lit., “until she wishes it not.”] - -[Footnote 313: “Serpent.” See n. on p. 173 _supra_.] - -[Footnote 314: Gen. ii. 16, 17.] - -[Footnote 315: That these stories about the protoplasts endured into -Manichæan times, see M. Cumont’s _La Cosmogonie Manichéenne_, Appendix -I.] - -[Footnote 316: Here again a power is referred to by its number instead -of its name, as with the Naassene author.] - -[Footnote 317: Gal. v. 17.] - -[Footnote 318: τὴν πλάσιν τὴν πονηράν, _malam fictionem_, Cr. Yet we -have been told nothing of any deceit by Edem towards her partner.] - -[Footnote 319: The Ophite Diagram, and bar Khôni’s authority both -figure the powers hostile to man as taking the shapes of these animals.] - -[Footnote 320: So one of the latest documents of the _Pistis Sophia_ -calls the planet Aphrodite by a _place_-name, which in that case is -Bubastis.] - -[Footnote 321: προφητεία.] - -[Footnote 322: If these words are to be taken literally, Justinus -was the only heretic of early date who denied His divinity, and this -would distinguish him finally from Marcion. But the words are not -inconsistent with the Adoptionist view.] - -[Footnote 323: These words are Miller’s suggestion.] - -[Footnote 324: John xix. 26.] - -[Footnote 325: παραθέμενος. So Luke xxiii. 46.] - -[Footnote 326: ἐπριοποίησε. The derivation is absurd and the word if -it had any meaning would be something like “made like a saw.” προποιέω -would make the pun at which he seems to have been striving.] - -[Footnote 327: This was not the case, the statues of Priapus being -placed in gardens. The whole passage seems to have been interpolated by -some one ignorant of Greek and of Greek customs or mythology.] - -[Footnote 328: Isa. i. 2.] - -[Footnote 329: τελεῖσθας or “initiated.” In any case a mystical word.] - -[Footnote 330: Lit., “washed”; but the context shows that it is baptism -which is in question. It played an important part not only in all these -heretical sects but in heathen “mysteries” like those of Isis and -Mithras.] - -[Footnote 331: Hosea i. 2. The A.V. has “_departing_ from the Lord.” -Here we have Edem clearly identified with the Earth goddess which is -the key to the whole of Justinus’ story.] - -[Footnote 332: ταῖς ἑξῆς ... τὰς τῶν ἀκολούθων αἱρέσεων. Macmahon, -following Cruice, translates as above. It may well be, however, that -the “heresies which follow” only mean which follow in the book.] - -[Footnote 333: There is no reason to doubt Hippolytus’ assertion that -this chapter is compiled from a book called _Baruch_ in which Justinus -set forth his own doctrines. The narrative therein is, unlike that of -the earlier chapters, perfectly coherent and plain, and the author’s -use of the historical present gives it a dramatic form which is lacking -from the _oratio obliqua_ formerly employed. Solecisms like the -omission of the article are also rare, and the very long sentences in -which Hippolytus seems to have delighted do not appear except in those -passages where he is speaking in his own person. Whether from this or -from some other cause, moreover, the transcription of it seems to have -given less difficulty to the scribe Michael than some of the other -chapters, and there is therefore far less need to constantly restore -the text as in the case of the quotations from Sextus Empiricus. On the -whole, therefore, we may assume that, as we have it, it is a genuine -summary of Justinus’ doctrines taken from a work by his own hand.] - - - - - PUBLICATIONS - - OF THE - - S. P. C. K. - - BOOKS FOR - STUDENTS - AND - OTHERS - - SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING - CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE - - LONDON: _Central Offices_: 6 ST. MARTIN’S PLACE, W.C. 2 - _Book Shops_: 64 NEW BOND STREET, W. 1 - 43 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, E.C. 4 - - BRIGHTON: 129 NORTH STREET. BATH: 39 GAY STREET - - _And of all Booksellers._ - - _New York_: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY - - - - - BOOKS FOR STUDENTS - - - _Translations of Early Documents_ - - A Series of texts important for the study of Christian origins. Under - the Joint Editorship of the Rev. W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D., and the - Rev. Canon G. H. BOX, M.A. - - _The object of this Series is to provide short, cheap, and handy - textbooks for students, either working by themselves or in classes. - The aim is to furnish in translations important texts unencumbered by - commentary or elaborate notes, which can be had in larger works._ - - - EXTRACTS FROM PRESS NOTICES. - -=The Times Literary Supplement= says: “These Jewish Apocalypses have a -direct relation to the thought and religious ideals which confronted -primitive Christianity in Palestine, and not only for their own sakes, -but for their influence on the New Testament and Apostolic Christianity -they deserve careful attention. Handbooks at once so scholarly and so -readable will be welcomed by all interested in Christian origins.” - -=The Church Quarterly Review= says: “To the theological student who is -anxious to know something of the circumstances and thought of the time -during which Christianity grew up, and of the Jewish environment of the -teaching of our Lord and the Apostles, there is no class of books more -valuable than the later Jewish Apocrypha.” - -=The Church Times= says: “The names of the Editors are a guarantee of -trustworthy and expert scholarship, and their work has been admirably -performed.” - -=The Tablet= says: “A valuable series ... well brought out and should -prove useful to students.” - -=Catholic Book Notes= says: “The S.P.C.K. is to be congratulated on its -various series of cheap and useful books for students.” - -=The Journal of the Society of Oriental Research (U.S.A.)= says: “The -S.P.C.K. have again made the whole body of students, interested in -things Jewish and Early Christian, their debtors ... their splendid -work in this series.” - -=The Living Church (U.S.A.)= says: “To praise this project too highly -is an impossibility. Everyone has felt the need of such a series of -handy and inexpensive translations of these documents and ... we are -assured of excellent results.” - - - _Translations of Early Documents_ - - - FIRST SERIES--Palestinian-Jewish and Cognate Texts (Pre-Rabbinic) - - -1. Jewish Documents of the Time of Ezra - - Translated from the Aramaic by A. E. COWLEY, Litt.D., Sub-Librarian of - the Bodleian Library, Oxford. 4_s._ 6_d._ net. - - -2. The Wisdom of Ben-Sira (Ecclesiasticus) - - By the Rev. W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D., Vicar of St. Alban’s, Bedford - Park, W.; Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of London. 3_s._ 6_d._ net. - - -3. The Book of Enoch - - By the Rev. R. H. CHARLES, D.D., Canon of Westminster. 3_s._ 6_d._ net. - - -4. The Book of Jubilees - - By the Rev. Canon CHARLES. 4_s._ 6_d._ net. - - -5. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs - - By the Rev. Canon CHARLES. 3_s._ 6_d._ net. - - -6. The Odes and Psalms of Solomon - - By the Rev. G. H. BOX, M.A., Rector of Sutton, Beds., Hon. Canon of - St. Albans. - - -7. The Ascension of Isaiah - - By the Rev. Canon CHARLES. Together with No. 10 in one volume. 4_s._ - 6_d._ net. - - -8. The Apocalypse of Ezra (ii. Esdras) - - By the Rev. Canon BOX. 3_s._ 6_d._ net. - - -9. The Apocalypse of Baruch - - By the Rev. Canon CHARLES. Together with No. 12 in one volume. 3_s._ - 6_d._ net. - - -10. The Apocalypse of Abraham - - By the Rev. Canon BOX. Together with No. 7 in one volume. 4_s._ 6_d._ - net. - - -11. The Testaments of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - - By the Rev. Canon BOX and S. GASELEE. - - -12. The Assumption of Moses - - By Rev. W. J. FERRAR, M.A., Vicar of Holy Trinity, East Finchley. With - No. 9 in one volume. 3_s._ 6_d._ net. - - -13. The Biblical Antiquities of Philo - - By M. R. JAMES, Litt.D., F.B.A., Hon. Litt.D., Dublin, Hon. LL.D., St. - Andrews, Provost of King’s College, Cambridge. 8_s._ 6_d._ net. - - -14. The Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament - - By M. R. JAMES, Litt.D. 5_s._ 6_d._ net. - - - SECOND SERIES--Hellenistic-Jewish Texts - - -1. The Wisdom of Solomon - - By W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D. 3_s._ 6_d._ net. - - -2. The Sibylline Oracles (Books iii-v) - - By the Rev. H. N. BATE, M.A., Vicar of Christ Church, Lancaster Gate, - W.; Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of London. 3_s._ 6_d._ net. - - -3. The Letter of Aristeas - - By H. ST. JOHN THACKERAY, M.A., King’s College, Cambridge. 3_s._ 6_d._ - net. - - -4. Selections from Philo - - -5. Selections from Josephus - - By H. ST. J. THACKERAY, M.A. 5_s._ net. - - -6. The Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees - - By the Rev. C. W. EMMET, B.D., Vicar of West Hendred, Berks. 3_s._ - 6_d._ net. - - -7. The Book of Joseph and Asenath - - Translated from the Greek text by E. W. BROOKS. 3_s._ 6_d._ net. - - - THIRD SERIES--Palestinian-Jewish and Cognate Texts (Rabbinic) - - [1]=1. The Sayings of the Jewish Fathers (Pirke Aboth).= Translated - from the Hebrew by W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D. 5_s._ net. - - [1]=2. Berakhoth.= By the Rev. A. LUKYN WILLIAMS, D.D. - - [1]=3. Yoma.= By the Rev. Canon BOX. - - [1]=4. Shabbath.= By W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D. - - [1]=5. Tractate Sanhedrin. Mishnah and Tosefta.= The Judicial - procedure of the Jews as codified towards the end of the second - century A.D. Translated from the Hebrew, with brief Annotations, by - the Rev. HERBERT DANBY, M.A., Sub-Warden of St. Deiniol’s Library, - Hawarden. 6_s._ net. - - [The special importance of this consists in the light thrown by it on - the trial of our Lord.] - - [1]=6. Kimhi’s Commentary on the Psalms (Book I, Selections).= By the - Rev. R. G. FINCH, B.D. 7_s._ 6_d._ net. - - =7. Tamid= - - =8. Aboda Zara= - - =9. Middoth= - - =10. Sopherim= - - =11. Megilla= - - =12. Sukka= - - =13. Taanith= - - =14. Megillath Taanith= - - - Jewish Literature and Christian Origins: - - =Vol. I. The Apocalyptic Literature.= - - =Vol. II. A Short Survey of the Literature of Rabbinical and Mediæval - Judaism.= - - By W. O. E. OESTERLEY, M.A., D.D., and G. H. BOX, M.A., D.D. 12_s._ - 6_d._ net. - - - The Uncanonical Jewish Books - - A Short Introduction to the Apocrypha and the Jewish Writings 200 - B.C.-A.D. 100. By WILLIAM JOHN FERRAR, M.A., Vicar of East Finchley. - 3_s._ 6_d._ net. - - A popularisation of the work of specialists upon these books, which - have attracted so much attention. - - - - - _Translations of Christian Literature_ - - General Editors: - - W. J. SPARROW SIMPSON, D.D.; W. K. LOWTHER CLARKE, B.D. - -A number of translations from the Fathers have already been published -by the S.P.C.K, under the title “Early Church Classics.” It is now -proposed to enlarge this series to include texts which are neither -“early” nor necessarily “classics.” The divisions at present proposed -are given below. Volumes belonging to the original series are marked -with an asterisk. - - =The Month= says: “The cheap and useful series.” - - =The Church Times= says: “The splendid series.” - - =Studies= says: “For the intelligent student of Church history who - cannot afford to be a specialist ... such books abound in information - and suggestion.” - - - SERIES I.--GREEK TEXTS. - - =Dionysius the Areopagite: The Divine Names and the Mystical - Theology.= By C. E. ROLT. 7_s._ 6_d._ net. - - =The Library of Photius.= By J. H. FREESE, M.A. In 6 Vols. Vol. I. - 10_s._ net. - - =The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes.= By T. W. CRAFER, D.D. 7_s._ - 6_d._ net. - - [1]=The Epistle of St. Clement, Bishop of Rome.= By the Rt. Rev. J. A. - F. GREGG, D.D. 1_s._ 9_d._ net. - - [1]=Clement of Alexandria: Who is the Rich Man that is being saved?= - By P. M. BARNARD, B.D. 1_s._ 9_d._ net. - - [1]=St. Chrysostom: On the Priesthood.= By T. A. MOXON. 2_s._ 6_d._ - net. - - =The Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles.= By C. BIGG, D.D. Revised by the - Right Rev. A. J. MACLEAN, D.D. - - [1]=The Epistle to Diognetus.= By the Rt. Rev. L. B. RADFORD, D.D. - 2_s._ 6_d._ net. - - =St. Dionysius of Alexandria.= By C. L. FELTOE, D.D. 4_s._ net. - - [1]=The Epistle of the Gallican Churches: Lugdunum and Vienna.= With - an Appendix containing Tertullian’s Address to Martyrs and the Passion - of St. Perpetua. By T. H. BINDLEY, D.D. 1_s._ 9_d._ net. - - [1]=St. Gregory of Nyssa: The Catechetical Oration.= By the Ven. J. H. - SRAWLEY, D.D. 2_s._ 6_d._ net. - - [1]=St. Gregory of Nyssa: The Life of St. Macrina.= By W. K. LOWTHER - CLARKE, B.D. 1_s._ 9_d._ net. - - =Gregory Thaumaturgus (Origen the Teacher): the Address of Gregory to - Origen, with Origen’s Letter to Gregory.= By W. METCALFE, B.D. 3_s._ - 6_d._ net. _Re-issue._ - - [1]=The Shepherd of Hermas.= By C. TAYLOR, D.D. 2 vols. 2_s._ 6_d._ - each net. - - =Eusebius: The Proof of the Gospel.= By W. J. FERRAR, 2 vols. - - =Hippolytus: Philosophumena.= By F. LEGGE. 2 vols. - - =The Epistles of St. Ignatius.= By the Ven. J. H. SRAWLEY, D.D. 4_s._ - net. - - [1]=St. Irenaeus: Against the Heresies.= By F. R. M. HITCHCOCK, D.D. 2 - vols. 2_s._ 6_d._ each net. - - =Palladius: The Lausiac History.= By W. K. LOWTHER CLARKE, B.D. 5_s._ - net. - - =Palladius: The Life of St. Chrysostom.= By H. MOORE. - - [1]=St. Polycarp.= By B. JACKSON. 1_s._ 9_d._ net. - - =St. Macarius: Fifty Spiritual Homilies.= By A. J. MASON, D.D. - - - SERIES II.--LATIN TEXTS. - - =Tertullian’s Treatises concerning Prayer, concerning Baptism.= By A. - SOUTER, D.Litt. 3_s._ net. - - =Tertullian against Praxeas.= By A. SOUTER, D.Litt. 5_s._ net. - - =Tertullian concerning the Resurrection of the Flesh.= By A. SOUTER, - D.Litt. - - =Novatian on the Trinity.= By H. MOORE. 6_s._ net. - - [1]=St. Augustine: The City of God.= By F. R. M. HITCHCOCK, D.D. 2_s._ - net. - - [1]=St. Cyprian: The Lord’s Prayer.= By T. H. BINDLEY, D.D. 2_s._ net. - - =Minucius Felix: The Octavius.= By J. H. FREESE. 3_s._ 6_d._ net. - - [1]=Tertullian: On the Testimony of the Soul and On the Prescription - of Heretics.= By T. H. BINDLEY, D.D. 2_s._ 6_d._ net. - - [1]=St. Vincent of Lerins: The Commonitory.= By T. H. BINDLEY, D.D. - 2_s._ 6_d._ net. - - =St. Bernard: Concerning Grace and Free Will.= By W. WATKIN WILLIAMS. - - =The Life of Otto: Apostle of Pomerania, 1060-1139.= By CHARLES H. - ROBINSON, D.D. - - - SERIES III.--LITURGICAL TEXTS. - - EDITED BY C. L. FELTOE, D.D. - - =St. Ambrose: On the Mysteries and on the Sacraments.= By T. THOMPSON, - B.D., and J. H. SRAWLEY, D.D. 4_s._ 6_d._ net. - - [1]=The Apostolic Constitution and Cognate Documents, with special - reference to their Liturgical elements.= By DE LACY O’LEARY, D.D. - 1_s._ 9_d._ net. - - [1]=The Liturgy of the Eighth Book of the Apostolic Constitution, - commonly called the Clementine Liturgy.= By R. H. CRESSWELL. 2_s._ net. - - =The Pilgrimage of Etheria.= By M. L. MCCLURE. 6_s._ net. - - [1]=Bishop Sarapion’s Prayer-Book.= By the Rt. Rev. J. WORDSWORTH, - D.D. 2_s._ net. - - =The Swedish Rite.= Vol. I., by E. E. YELVERTON. - Vol. II., by J. H. SWINSTEAD, D.D. - - - SERIES IV.--ORIENTAL TEXTS. - - =The Ethiopic Didascalia.= By J. M. HARDEN, B.D. 9_s._ net. - - =The Apostolic Preaching of Irenaeus (Armenian).= By J. A. ROBINSON, - D.D. 7_s._ 6_d._ net. - - - SERIES V.--LIVES OF THE CELTIC SAINTS. - - EDITED BY ELEANOR HULL. - - =St. Malachy of Armagh (St. Bernard).= By H. J. LAWLOR, D.D. 12_s._ - net. - - =St. Ciaran of Clonmacnois.= By R. A. S. MACALISTER. - - =St. Patrick: Life and Works.= By N. J. D. WHITE, D.D. 6_s._ 6_d._ net. - - - SERIES VI.--SELECT PASSAGES. - - =Documents Illustrative of the History of the Church.= Vol. I. To A.D. - 313. Edited by B. J. KIDD, D.D. 7_s._ 6_d._ net. - - - SERIES VII.--MODERN EUROPEAN LANGUAGES. - - =Lives of the Serbian Saints.= By VOYESLAV YANICH, DD., and C. P. - HANKEY, M.A. - - - _Handbooks of Christian Literature_ - - =The Letters of St. Augustine.= By the Rev. Canon W. J. SPARROW - SIMPSON, D.D. Cloth boards, 10_s._ net. - - =The Early Christian Books. A Short Introduction to Christian - Literature to the Middle of the Second Century.= By W. JOHN FERRAR, - M.A., Vicar of East Finchley. Cloth boards, 3_s._ 6_d._ net. - - =The Inspiration and Authority of Holy Scripture. A Study in the - Literature of the First Five Centuries.= By GEORGE DUNCAN BARRY, B.D. - Cloth boards, 4_s._ 6_d._ net. - - =The Eucharistic Office of the Book of Common Prayer.= By the Rev. - LESLIE WRIGHT, M.A., B.D. Cloth boards, 3_s._ 6_d._ net. - - - _Helps for Students of History_ - -Edited by C. JOHNSON, M.A., H. W. V. TEMPERLEY, M.A. and J. P. WHITNEY, -D.D., D.C.L. - - 1. =Episcopal Registers of England and Wales.= By R. C. FOWLER, B.A., - F.S.A. 6_d._ net. - - 2. =Municipal Records.= By F. J. C. HEARNSHAW, M.A. 6_d._ net. - - 3. =Medieval Reckonings of Time.= By REGINALD L. POOLE, LL.D., Litt.D. - 6_d._ net. - - 4. =The Public Record Office.= By C. JOHNSON, M.A. 6_d._ net. - - 5. =The Care of Documents.= By C. JOHNSON, M.A. 6_d._ net. - - 6. =The Logic of History.= By C. G. CRUMP. 8_d._ net. - - 7. =Documents in the Public Record Office, Dublin.= By R. H. MURRAY, - Litt.D. 8_d._ net. - - 8. =The French Wars of Religion.= By ARTHUR A. TILLEY, M.A. 6_d._ net. - - -By Sir A. W. WARD, Litt.D., F.B.A. - - 9. =The Period of Congresses--I. Introductory.= 8_d._ net. - - 10. =The Period of Congresses--II. Vienna and the Second Peace of - Paris.= 1_s._ net. - - 11. =The Period of Congresses--III. Aix-la-Chapelle to Verona.= 1_s._ - net. - - Nos. 9, 10, and 11 in one volume, cloth, 3_s._ 6_d._ net. - - 12. =Securities of Peace: A Retrospect (1848-1914).= Paper, 2_s._ net; - cloth, 3_s._ net. - - * * * * * - - 13. =The French Renaissance.= By A. A. TILLEY, M.A. 8_d._ net. - - 14. =Hints on the Study of English Economic History.= By W. CUNNINGHAM, - D.D., F.B.A., F.S.A. 8_d._ net. - - 15. =Parish History and Records.= By A. HAMILTON THOMPSON, M.A., F.S.A. - 8_d._ net. - - 16. =A Short Introduction to the Study of Colonial History.= By A. P. - NEWTON, M.A., D.Litt. 6_d._ net. - - 17. =The Wanderings and Homes of Manuscripts.= By M. R. JAMES, Litt.D., - F.B.A. Paper, 2_s._; cloth, 3_s._ net. - - 18. =Ecclesiastical Records.= By the Rev. CLAUDE JENKINS, M.A., - Librarian of Lambeth Palace. 1_s._ 9_d._ net. - - 19. =An Introduction to the History of American Diplomacy.= By - CARL RUSSELL FISH, Ph.D., Professor of American History, Wisconsin - University. 1_s._ net. - - 20. =Hints on Translation from Latin into English.= By ALEXANDER - SOUTER, D.Litt. 6_d._ net. - - 21. =Hints on the Study of Latin (A.D. 125-750).= By ALEXANDER SOUTER, - D.Litt. 8_d._ net. - - 22. =Report of the Historical MSS. Commission.= By R. A. ROBERTS, - F.R.Hist.S. 2_s._ 6_d._ net. - - 23. =A Guide to Franciscan Studies.= By A. G. LITTLE. 1_s._ 6_d._ net. - - 24. =A Guide to the History of Education.= By JOHN WILLIAM ADAMSON, - Professor of Education in the University of London. 8_d._ net. - - 25. =Introduction to the Study of Russian History.= By W. F. REDDAWAY. - 6_d._ net. - - 26. =Monuments of English Municipal Life.= By W. CUNNINGHAM, D.D., - F.B.A. 1_s._ net. - - 27. =La Guyenne Pendant la Domination Anglaise, 1152-1453.= Esquisse - d’une Bibliographie Méthodique par CHARLES BÉMONT. 1_s._ 4_d._ net. - - 28. =The Historical Criticism of Documents.= By R. L. MARSHALL, M.A., - LL.D. 1_s._ 3_d._ net. - - 29. =The French Revolution.= By G. P. GOOCH. 8_d._ net. - - 30. =Seals.= By H. S. KINGSFORD. 1_s._ 3_d._ net. - - 31. =A Student’s Guide to the Manuscripts of the British Museum.= By - JULIUS P. GILSON, M.A. 1_s._ net. - - 32. =A Short Guide to some Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity - College, Dublin.= By ROBERT H. MURRAY, Litt.D. 1_s._ 9_d._ - - 33. =Ireland, 1494-1603.= By R. H. MURRAY, Litt.D. 1_s._ - - 34. =Ireland, 1603-1714.= By R. H. MURRAY, Litt.D. 1_s._ - - 35. =Ireland, 1714-1829.= By R. H. MURRAY, Litt.D. 1_s._ - - 36. =Coins and Medals.= By G. F. HILL, M.A., F.B.A. 1_s._ 6_d._ net. - - 37. =The Latin Orient.= By WILLIAM MILLER, M.A. 1_s._ 6_d._ net. - - 38. =The Turkish Restoration in Greece, 1718-1797.= By WILLIAM MILLER, - M.A. 1_s._ 3_d._ net. - - - _The Story of the English Towns_ - -Popular but Scholarly Histories of English Towns, for the general -reader, but suitable also for use in schools. With Maps, Plans, and -Illustrations. Cloth boards. 4_s._ net. - - =Birmingham.= By J. H. B. MASTERMAN. - =Harrogate and Knaresborough.= By J. S. FLETCHER. - =Leeds.= By J. S. FLETCHER. - =Nottingham.= By E. L. GUILFORD, M.A. - =Peterborough.= By K. and R. E. ROBERTS. - =Plymouth.= By A. L. SALMON. - =Pontefract.= By J. S. FLETCHER. - =St. Albans.= By W. PAGE, F.S.A. - =Sheffield.= By J. S. FLETCHER. - =Westminster.= By H. F. WESTLAKE, M.A., F.S.A. - - _In the Press_-- - - =The City of London.= By P. H. DITCHFIELD. - =Bath= =Halifax= =Hastings=, =etc.= - - - _Studies in Church History_ - - =Some Eighteenth-Century Churchmen: Glimpses of English Church Life - in the Eighteenth Century.= By G. LACEY MAY, M.A. With several - Illustrations. Cloth boards. 9_s._ net. - - =Christian Monasticism in Egypt to the Close of the Fourth Century.= - By W. H. MACKEAN, D.D. Cloth boards. 8_s._ net. - - =The Venerable Bede. His Life and Writings.= By the Right Rev. G. F. - BROWNE, D.D. With Illustrations. Cloth boards, 10_s._ net. - - =The Reformation in Ireland. A Study of Ecclesiastical Legislation.= - By HENRY HOLLOWAY, M.A., B.D. Cloth boards, 7_s._ 6_d._ net. - - =The Emperor Julian. An Essay on His Relations with the Christian - Religion.= By EDWARD J. MARTIN, B.D. Cloth boards, 3_s._ 6_d._ net. - - =The Importance of Women in Anglo-Saxon Times; The Cultus of St. Peter - and St. Paul, and other Addresses.= By the Right Rev. G. F. BROWNE, - D.D. With two Illustrations. Cloth boards, 7_s._ 6_d._ net. - - =Essays Liturgical and Historical.= By J. WICKHAM LEGG, D.Litt., - F.S.A. Cloth boards, 5_s._ net. - - =French Catholics in the Nineteenth Century.= By the Rev. W. J. - SPARROW SIMPSON, D.D. Cloth, 5_s._ net. - - =An Abbot of Vézelay.= By ROSE GRAHAM, F.R.Hist.S. With eight - Illustrations. Cloth boards, 3_s._ 6_d._ net. - - - _Texts for Students_ - -General Editors: CAROLINE A. J. SKEEL, D.Lit.; H. J. WHITE, D.D.; J. P. -WHITNEY, D.D., D.C.L. - - 1. =Select Passages from Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio Cassius=, - illustrative of Christianity in the First Century. Arranged by H. J. - WHITE, D.D. 3_d._ net. - - 2. =Selections from Matthew Paris.= By C. A. J. SKEEL, D.Lit. Paper - cover, 9_d._ net. - - 3. =Selections from Giraldus Cambrensis.= By C. A. J. SKEEL, D.Lit. - Paper cover, 9_d._ net. - - 4. =Libri Sancti Patricii.= The Latin Writings of St. Patrick, etc. - Edited by NEWPORT J. D. WHITE, D.D. Paper cover, 6_d._ net. - - 5. =A Translation of the Latin Writings of St. Patrick.= By NEWPORT J. - D. WHITE, D.D. Paper cover, 6_d._ net. - - 6. =Selections from the Vulgate.= Paper cover, 9_d._ net. - - 7. =The Epistle of St. Clement of Rome.= 6_d._ net. - - 8. =Select Extracts from Chronicles and Records relating to English - Towns in the Middle Ages.= Edited, with Introduction, Notes, and - Glossary, by F. J. C. HEARNSHAW, M.A., LL.D. Paper cover, 9_d._ net. - - 9. =The Inscription on the Stele of Méša.= Commonly called the Moabite - Stone. The text in Moabite and Hebrew, with translation by the Rev. H. - F. B. COMPSTON, M.A. Paper cover, 6_d._ net. - - 10. =The Epistles of St. Ignatius.= Edited by T. W. CRAFER, D.D. 1_s._ - net. - - 11. =Christian Inscriptions.= By H. P. V. NUNN, M.A. With two - Illustrations. 1_s._ net. - - 12. =Selections from the “Historia Rerum Anglicarum” of William of - Newburgh.= 1_s._ 3_d._ net. - - 13. =The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.= By T. W. CRAFER, D.D. 4_d._ - net. - - 14. =The Epistle of Barnabas.= Edited by T. W. CRAFER, D.D. 6_d._ net. - - 15. =The Code of Hammurabi.= By PERCY HANDCOCK, M.A. 1_s._ net. - - 16. =Selections from the Tell El-Amarna Letters.= By PERCY HANDCOCK, - M.A. 4_d._ net. - - 17. =Select Passages Illustrating Commercial and Diplomatic Relations - between England and Russia.= By A. WEINER, M.A., F.R.Hist.S. 1_s._ - 6_d._ net. - - 18. =The Early History of the Slavonic Settlements in Dalmatia, - Croatia and Serbia.= By J. B. BURY, F.B.A. 2_s._ net. - - 19. =Select Extracts Illustrating Florentine Life in the Thirteenth - and Fourteenth Centuries.= By E. G. ROPER, B.A. 1_s._ net. - - 20. =Select Extracts Illustrating Florentine Life in the Fifteenth - Century.= By ESTHER G. ROPER, B.A. 1_s._ net. - - 21. =Itinerarium Regis Ricardi.= By M. T. STEAD. 1_s._ 9_d._ - - 22. =The Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.= Edited by T. - W. CRAFER, D.D. 6_d._ net. - - 23. =Select Extracts Illustrating Sports and Pastimes in the Middle - Ages.= By E. L. GUILFORD, M.A. 1_s._ 9_d._ - - 24. =Babylonian Flood Stories.= By P. HANDCOCK, M.A. - - 25. =Babylonian Penitential Psalms.= By P. HANDCOCK, M.A. - - =Documents Illustrating Irish History in the Sixteenth Century.= 4 - Vols. By CONSTANTIA MAXWELL. - - - _Pioneers of Progress_ - -MEN OF SCIENCE: Edited by S. CHAPMAN, M.A., D.Sc. Each with a Portrait. -Paper cover, =1s. 3d.=; cloth, =2s.= net. - - - =Galileo.= By W. W. BRYANT, F.R.A.S. - - =Michael Faraday.= By J. A. CROWTHER, D.Sc. - - =Alfred Russel Wallace. The Story of a Great Discoverer.= By LANCELOT - T. HOGBEN, B.A., B.Sc. - - =Joseph Priestley.= By D. H. PEACOCK, B.A., M.Sc., F.I.C. - - =Joseph Dalton Hooker, O.M., G.C.S.I., C.B., F.R.S., M.D., etc.= By - Professor F. O. BOWER, Sc.D., F.R.S. - - =Herschel.= By the Rev. HECTOR MACPHERSON, M.A., F.R.A.S., F.R.S.E. - - =Archimedes.= By Sir THOMAS L. HEATH, K.C.B., F.R.S. - - =The Copernicus of Antiquity (Aristarchus of Samos).= By Sir THOMAS L. - HEATH, K.C.B., F.R.S. - - =John Dalton.= By L. J. NEVILLE-POLLEY, B.Sc. - - =Kepler.= By W. W. BRYANT. - - - EMPIRE BUILDERS: - -Edited by A. P. NEWTON, M.A., D.Litt., B.Sc., and W. BASIL WORSFOLD, -M.A. - -With Portrait. 7¼ × 5. Paper cover, 1_s._ 3_d._; cloth, 2_s._ net. - - =Sir Francis Drake.= By WALTER J. HARTE, M.A. - - =Sir Robert Sandeman.= By A. L. P. TUCKER. - - - WOMEN: Edited by ETHEL M. BARTON. - -With Illustrations. Paper cover, 2_s._ 6_d._; cloth, 3_s._ 6_d._ net. - - =Florence Nightingale.= By E. F. HALL. - - =Dorothea Beale.= By ELIZABETH H. SHILLITO, B.A. - - =Elsie Inglis.= By EVA SHAW MCLAREN. - - [1.10.20. - - -_Printed in Great Britain by R. Clay & Sons, Ltd., London and Bungay._ - - - FOOTNOTES - -[Footnote 1: It is proposed to publish these texts first by way of -experiment. If the Series should so far prove successful the others -will follow. Nos. 1, 5 and 6 are now ready.] - - - Transcriber's Notes - -The notes in the left and right margins, indicating page numbers in the -original Greek, have been converted to e.g. [Sidenote: p.216] in this -version. Obvious typographical errors and variable spelling were -corrected. The following corrections have been made to the text: - - Page Original New - ------------------------------------------- - 5 leben Leben - 12 recemmet récemment - 25 δοκείν δοκεῖν - 33 ἅ ἃ - 45 αὐτῆ αὐτῇ - 45 έξατμισθέντα ἐξατμισθέντα - 45 πυκνωθὲντα πυκνωθέντα - 45 κοὶλῳ κοίλῳ - 57 σολλογιστικώτερον συλλογιστικώτερον - 62 δασσαντο δάσσαντο - 63 Λἰθήρ Αἰθήρ - 63 καἰ καὶ - 66 δἰ δι’ - 68 Mathescos Matheseos - 69 δορυφορεἶσθαι δορυφορεῖσθαι - 69 σομπάσχει συμπάσχει - 71 sabacta subacta - 72 ν ἐν - 73 μερἰζεσθαί μερίζεσθαι - 75 οί οἱ - 80 Ideés Idées - 80 σομφωνίᾳ συμφωνίᾳ - 82 guess-work guesswork - 83 Scientarum Scientiarum - 85 ἀπαρτίσῄ ἀπαρτίσῃ - 87 ἀγωνίξωνται ἀγωνίζωνται - 92 Kapital Capitel - 98 σκολόπενδριον σκολόπενδρον - 98 ἀμορρύτων αὐτορρύτων - 99 after-thought afterthought - 103 windpipe wind-pipe - 106 ἀπερίξυγον ἀπερίζυγον - 109 ’εν ἐν - 110 Manichéisine Manichéisme - 111 positon position - 113 Ιασίδαο Ἰασίδαο - 113 ’ιδέας ἰδέας - 120 Stähelein Stähelin - 120 ἀφορμας ἀφορμὰς - 125 Ibia Ibid - 125 Ge Gê - 128 theogomy theogony - 133 Μαθητἁς Μαθητὰς - 143 χαρακτηρίξει χαρακτηρίζει - 147 begotten. begotten? - 147 ἕν ἓν - 152 Dogstar Dog-star - 153 Midheaven Mid-heaven - 163 ἐξετύπωσευ ἐξετύπωσεν - 166 Musaeus Musæus - 170 τά τὰ - 180 ἑξης ἑξῆς - 180 τάς τὰς - 180 ἀκουλούθων ἀκολούθων - 180 αἱρεσεων αἱρέσεων - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PHILOSOPHUMENA, VOLUME I *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |