Ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν ἐφάνη ἡμῖν ἡ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ φύσις ἁπλῆ καὶ πρώτη, πᾶν γὰρ τὸ οὐ πρῶτον οὐχ ἁπλοῦν, καὶ οὐδὲν ἔχον ἐν ἑαυτῷ, ἀλλ’ ἕν τι, καὶ τοῦ ἑνὸς λεγομένου ἡ φύσις ἡ αὐτή· καὶ γὰρ αὕτη οὐκ ἄλλο, εἶτα ἕν, οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἄλλο, εἶτα ἀγαθόν· ὅταν λέγωμεν τὸ ἕν, καὶ ὅταν λέγωμεν τἀγαθόν, τὴν αὐτὴν δεῖ νομίζειν τὴν φύσιν καὶ μίαν λέγειν οὐ κατηγοροῦντας ἐκείνης οὐδέν, δηλοῦντας δὲ ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς ὡς οἷόν τε. καὶ τὸ πρῶτον δὲ οὕτως, ὅτι ἁπλούστατον, καὶ τὸ αὔταρκες, ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ πλειόνων· οὕτω γὰρ ἀναρτήσεται εἰς τὰ ἐξ ὧν· καὶ [τὸ] οὐκ ἐν ἄλλῳ, ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἐν ἄλλῳ καὶ παρ’ ἄλλου. εἰ οὖν μηδὲ παρ’ ἄλλου μηδὲ ἐν ἄλλῳ μηδὲ σύνθεσις μηδεμία, ἀνάγκη μηδὲν ὑπὲρ αὐτὸ εἶναι.
Since, then, the nature of the Good has appeared to us as simple and first—for everything that is not first is not simple—and as having nothing in itself but being something one; and since the nature of what is called the One is the same—for this is not something else and then one, nor is that something else and then good—when we say “the One” and when we say “the Good,” we must think of it as the same nature and call it one, not predicating anything of it, but making it clear to ourselves as far as we can. It is called the First, too, because it is simplest; and self-sufficient, because it is not made of many things—otherwise it would depend on the things it is made of; and not in another, because everything that is in another also comes from another. If, then, it is neither from another nor in another, nor any composition at all, there must be nothing above it.
οὐ τοίνυν δεῖ ἐφ’ ἑτέρας ἀρχὰς ἰέναι, ἀλλὰ τοῦτο προστησαμένους, εἶτα νοῦν μετ’ αὐτὸ καὶ τὸ νοοῦν πρώτως, εἶτα ψυχὴν μετὰ νοῦν· αὕτη γὰρ τάξις κατὰ φύσιν· μήτε πλείω τούτων τίθεσθαι ἐν τῷ νοητῷ, μήτε ἐλάττω. εἴτε γὰρ ἐλάττω, ἢ ψυχὴν καὶ νοῦν ταὐτὸν φήσουσιν, ἢ νοῦν καὶ τὸ πρῶτον· ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἕτερα ἀλλήλων, ἐδείχθη πολλαχῇ. λοιπὸν δὴ ἐπισκέψασθαι ἐν τῷ παρόντι, εἰ πλείω τῶν τριῶν τούτων. τίνες ἂν οὖν εἶεν φύσεις παρ’ αὐτάς; τῆς τε γὰρ λεχθείσης οὕτως ἔχειν ἀρχῆς πάντων οὐδεὶς ἂν εὕροι ἁπλουστέραν οὐδὲ ἐπαναβεβηκυῖαν ἡντινοῦν. οὐ γὰρ δὴ τὴν μὲν δυνάμει, τὴν δὲ ἐνεργείᾳ φήσουσι· γελοῖον γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἐνεργείᾳ οὖσι καὶ ἀύλοις τὸ δυνάμει καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ διαιρουμένους φύσεις ποιεῖσθαι πλείους.
So we should not go off after other principles. We should set this first, then Intellect after it, the primary thinker, then Soul after Intellect—for this is the order according to nature—and posit neither more than these in the intelligible world, nor fewer. If fewer, they will say either that Soul and Intellect are the same, or Intellect and the First; but that they differ from one another has been shown in many places. What remains is to consider now whether there are more than these three. What natures could there be besides them? No one could find anything simpler than the principle of all, described as we have described it, or anything at all rising above it. They will surely not say that one is in potentiality and another in actuality: it is ridiculous, among things that are in actuality and immaterial, to make more natures by dividing between potentiality and actuality.
ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ἐν τοῖς μετὰ ταῦτα· οὐδ’ ἐπινοεῖν τὸν μέν τινα νοῦν ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ τινί, τὸν δὲ οἷον κινούμενον. τίς γὰρ ἂν ἡσυχία νοῦ καὶ τίς κίνησις καὶ προφορὰ ἂν εἴη ἢ τίς ἀργία καὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου τί ἔργον; ἔστι γὰρ ὡς ἔστι νοῦς ἀεὶ ὡσαύτως ἐνεργείᾳ κείμενος ἑστώσῃ· κίνησις δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ περὶ αὐτὸν ψυχῆς ἤδη ἔργον καὶ λόγος ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ εἰς ψυχὴν ψυχὴν νοερὰν ποιῶν, οὐκ ἄλλην τινὰ μεταξὺ νοῦ καὶ ψυχῆς φύσιν. οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ διὰ τοῦτο πλείους νοῦς ποιεῖν, εἰ ὁ μὲν νοεῖ, ὁ δὲ νοεῖ ὅτι νοεῖ.
Nor can we do it among the realities that come after these, conceiving of one intellect at rest and another, as it were, in motion. What would rest of Intellect be, and what its motion and utterance? Or what would the idleness of one be, and what the work of the other? Intellect is as it is, always the same, set in a stationary activity. Motion toward it and around it is already the work of Soul; and a rational principle passing from it into Soul makes Soul intellectual, not some other nature between Intellect and Soul. Nor, for that matter, should we make several intellects on the grounds that one thinks and another thinks that it thinks.
καὶ γὰρ εἰ ἄλλο τὸ ἐν τούτοις νοεῖν, ἄλλο δὲ τὸ νοεῖν ὅτι νοεῖ, ἀλλ’ οὖν μία προσβολὴ οὐκ ἀναίσθητος τῶν ἐνεργημάτων ἑαυτῆς· γελοῖον γὰρ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ νοῦ τοῦτο ὑπολαμβάνειν, ἀλλὰ πάντως γε ὁ αὐτὸς ἔσται [τῷ] ὅσπερ ἐνόει ὁ νοῶν ὅτι νοεῖ. εἰ δὲ μή, ὁ μὲν ἔσται νοῶν μόνον, ὁ δὲ ὅτι νοεῖ νοῶν ἄλλου ὄντος, ἀλλ’ οὐκ αὐτοῦ τοῦ νενοηκότος.
For even if, in beings like us, thinking is one thing and thinking that one thinks another, still it is a single act of apprehension, not unaware of its own activities. It would be ridiculous to suppose this of the true Intellect; no, the one who thinks that it thinks will be entirely the same as the one who was thinking. Otherwise one will be merely thinking, and the other thinking that it thinks while being someone else, not the very one who did the thinking.
ἀλλ’ εἰ ἐπινοίᾳ φήσουσι, πρῶτον μὲν τῶν πλειόνων ὑποστάσεων ἀποστήσονται· ἔπειτα δεῖ σκοπεῖν, εἰ καὶ αἱ ἐπίνοιαι χώραν ἔχουσι λαβεῖν νοῦν νοοῦντα μόνον, μὴ παρακολουθοῦντα δὲ ἑαυτῷ ὅτι νοεῖ· ὃ καὶ ἐφ’ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν εἰ γίγνοιτο τῶν ἀεὶ ἐπιστατούντων ταῖς ὁρμαῖς καὶ ταῖς διανοήσεσιν, εἰ καὶ μετρίως σπουδαῖοι εἶμεν, αἰτίαν ἂν ἀφροσύνης ἔχοιμεν. ὅταν δὲ δὴ ὁ νοῦς ὁ ἀληθινὸς ἐν ταῖς νοήσεσιν αὑτὸν νοῇ καὶ μὴ ἔξωθεν ᾖ τὸ νοητὸν αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ’ αὐτὸς ᾖ καὶ τὸ νοητόν, ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἐν τῷ νοεῖν ἔχει ἑαυτὸν καὶ ὁρᾷ ἑαυτόν· ὁρῶν δὲ ἑαυτὸν οὐκ ἀνοηταίνοντα, ἀλλὰ νοοῦντα ὁρᾷ. ὥστε ἐν τῷ πρώτως νοεῖν ἔχοι ἂν καὶ τὸ νοεῖν ὅτι νοεῖ ὡς ἓν ὄν· καὶ οὐδὲ τῇ ἐπινοίᾳ ἐκεῖ διπλοῦν.
But if they say the distinction is only in thought, first, they will be abandoning their multiple hypostases. Then we must consider whether even conceptual distinctions have room to take an intellect that only thinks, without being conscious that it thinks. If this happened even in us, who always oversee our impulses and our thinking, we would be charged with folly, if we were even moderately serious people. But when the true Intellect, in its thoughts, thinks itself, and its intelligible object is not outside it but it is itself the intelligible, then necessarily in thinking it has itself and sees itself; and seeing itself, it sees itself not unthinking but thinking. So in thinking primarily it would also have the thinking that it thinks, as one thing; and there it is not double even in conception.
εἰ δὲ καὶ ἀεὶ νοῶν εἴη, ὅπερ ἔστι, τίς χώρα τῇ ἐπινοίᾳ τῇ χωριζούσῃ τὸ νοεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ νοεῖν ὅτι νοεῖ; εἰ δὲ δὴ καὶ ἑτέραν ἐπίνοιάν τις τρίτην ἐπεισάγοι ἐπὶ τῇ δευτέρᾳ τῇ λεγούσῃ νοεῖν ὅτι νοεῖ, τὴν λέγουσαν [νοεῖν] ὅτι νοεῖ ὅτι νοεῖ, ἔτι μᾶλλον καταφανὲς τὸ ἄτοπον. καὶ διὰ τί οὐκ εἰς ἄπειρον οὕτω; τὸν δὲ λόγον ὅταν τις ἀπὸ τοῦ νοῦ ποιῇ, εἶτα ἀπὸ τούτου γίνεσθαι ἐν ψυχῇ ἄλλον ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ λόγου, ἵνα μεταξὺ ψυχῆς καὶ νοῦ ᾖ οὗτος, ἀποστερήσει τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ νοεῖν, εἰ μὴ παρὰ τοῦ νοῦ κομιεῖται, ἀλλὰ παρὰ ἄλλου τοῦ μεταξὺ τὸν λόγον· καὶ εἴδωλον λόγου, ἀλλ’ οὐ λόγον ἕξει, καὶ ὅλως οὐκ εἰδήσει νοῦν οὐδ’ ὅλως νοήσει.
And if it is always thinking, as it is, what room is there for a conception that separates thinking from thinking that it thinks? And if someone brought in yet another, third conception on top of the second, which says that it thinks that it thinks—one that says [it thinks] that it thinks that it thinks—the absurdity would be even more evident. And why not go on like this to infinity? And when someone makes the rational principle come from Intellect, and then from this has another arise in Soul from that rational principle itself, so that it stands between Soul and Intellect, he will deprive Soul of thinking, if it is to receive its rational principle not from Intellect but from another, intermediate one. It will have an image of a rational principle, not a rational principle; it will not know Intellect at all, nor think at all.
οὐ τοίνυν οὔτε πλείω τούτων οὔτε ἐπινοίας περιττὰς ἐν ἐκείνοις, ἃς οὐ δέχονται, θετέον, ἀλλ’ ἕνα νοῦν τὸν αὐτὸν ὡσαύτως ἔχοντα, ἀκλινῆ πανταχῇ, μιμούμενον τὸν πατέρα καθ’ ὅσον οἷόν τε αὐτῷ. ψυχῆς δὲ ἡμῶν τὸ μὲν ἀεὶ πρὸς ἐκείνοις, τὸ δὲ πρὸς ταῦτα ἔχειν, τὸ δὲ ἐν μέσῳ τούτων· φύσεως γὰρ οὔσης μιᾶς ἐν δυνάμεσι πλείοσιν ὁτὲ μὲν τὴν πᾶσαν συμφέρεσθαι τῷ ἀρίστῳ αὐτῆς καὶ τοῦ ὄντος, ὁτὲ δὲ τὸ χεῖρον αὐτῆς καθελκυσθὲν συνεφελκύσασθαι τὸ μέσον· τὸ γὰρ πᾶν αὐτῆς οὐκ ἦν θέμις καθελκύσαι.
So we must not posit more than these, nor superfluous conceptual distinctions in those realities, which do not admit them; but one Intellect, the same, always in the same state, unwavering in every way, imitating its father as far as it can. And we should hold that of our soul one part is always directed toward those realities, one toward these things here, and one in the middle between them. For since it is one nature in many powers, sometimes the whole of it is carried along with the best of itself and of being, and sometimes the worse part of it is dragged down and drags the middle along with it; for it was not right that the whole of it should be dragged down.
καὶ τοῦτο συμβαίνει αὐτῇ τὸ πάθος, ὅτι μὴ ἔμεινεν ἐν τῷ καλλίστῳ, ὅπου ψυχὴ μείνασα, ἡ μὴ μέρος μηδὲ ἧς ἡμεῖς ἔτι μέρος, ἔδωκε τῷ παντὶ σώματι αὐτῷ τε ἔχειν ὅσον δύναται παρ’ αὐτῆς ἔχειν, μένει τε ἀπραγμόνως αὐτὴ οὐκ ἐκ διανοίας διοικοῦσα οὐδέ τι διορθουμένη, ἀλλὰ τῇ εἰς τὸ πρὸ αὐτῆς θέᾳ κατακοσμοῦσα δυνάμει θαυμαστῇ. ὅσον γὰρ πρὸς αὐτῇ ἐστι, τόσῳ καλλίων καὶ δυνατωτέρα· κἀκεῖθεν ἔχουσα δίδωσι τῷ μετ’ αὐτὴν καὶ ὥσπερ ἐλλάμπουσα [ἀεὶ] ἀεὶ ἐλλάμπεται.
And this experience befalls it because it did not remain in the most beautiful, where Soul remains—the Soul that is not a part, and of which we are no longer a part—and by remaining gave the body of the All to have from it as much as it can have. It remains untroubled itself, not governing by discursive thought nor setting anything right, but ordering things with a wonderful power by its vision of what is before it. For the more intent it is on this vision, the more beautiful and powerful it is; having from there, it gives to what comes after it, and as it illuminates, it is [always] always illuminated.
ἀεὶ οὖν ἐλλαμπομένη καὶ διηνεκὲς ἔχουσα τὸ φῶς δίδωσιν εἰς τὰ ἐφεξῆς, τὰ δὲ ἀεὶ συνέχεται καὶ ἄρδεται τούτῳ τῷ φωτὶ καὶ ἀπολαύει τοῦ ζῆν καθ’ ὅσον δύναται· ὥσπερ εἰ πυρὸς ἐν μέσῳ που κειμένου ἀλεαίνοιντο οἷς οἷόν τε. καίτοι τὸ πῦρ ἐστιν ἐν μέτρῳ· ὅταν δὲ δυνάμεις μὴ μετρηθεῖσαι μὴ ἐκ τῶν ὄντων ὦσιν ἀνῃρημέναι, πῶς οἷόν τε εἶναι μέν, μηδὲν δὲ αὐτῶν μεταλαμβάνειν; ἀλλ’ ἀνάγκη ἕκαστον τὸ αὑτοῦ διδόναι καὶ ἄλλῳ, ἢ τὸ ἀγαθὸν οὐκ ἀγαθὸν ἔσται, ἢ ὁ νοῦς οὐ νοῦς, ἢ [ἡ] ψυχὴ μὴ τοῦτο, εἰ μή τι μετὰ τὸ πρώτως ζῶν ζῴη καὶ δευτέρως ἕως ἔστι τὸ πρώτως. ἀνάγκη τοίνυν ἐφεξῆς εἶναι πάντα ἀλλήλοις καὶ ἀεί, γενητὰ δὲ τὰ ἕτερα τῷ παρ’ ἄλλων εἶναι.
Always illuminated, then, and having the light continuously, it gives it to what comes next; and these are always held together and watered by this light and enjoy life as far as they can—as if a fire lay somewhere in the middle and those who could were warmed by it. And yet the fire has a limited measure; but when powers that are unmeasured have not been removed from among the things that are, how could they exist while nothing shared in them? No: each must give of its own to another too, or the Good will not be good, or Intellect not Intellect, or Soul not what it is—unless, after what lives primarily, something also lives secondarily, for as long as what is primary exists. So all things must follow on one another in sequence, and always; and the others are generated in the sense that they come from others.
οὐ τοίνυν ἐγένετο, ἀλλ’ ἐγίνετο καὶ γενήσεται, ὅσα γενητὰ λέγεται· οὐδὲ φθαρήσεται, ἀλλ’ ἢ ὅσα ἔχει εἰς ἅ· ὃ δὲ μὴ ἔχει εἰς ὅ, οὐδὲ φθαρήσεται. εἰ δέ τις εἰς ὕλην λέγοι, διὰ τί οὐ καὶ τὴν ὕλην; εἰ δὲ καὶ τὴν ὕλην φήσει, τίς ἦν ἀνάγκη, φήσομεν, γενέσθαι; εἰ δὲ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι φήσουσι παρακολουθεῖν, καὶ νῦν ἀνάγκη. εἰ δὲ μόνη καταλειφθήσεται, οὐ πανταχοῦ, ἀλλ’ ἔν τινι τόπῳ ἀφωρισμένῳ τὰ θεῖα ἔσται καὶ οἷον ἀποτετειχισμένα· εἰ δὲ οὐχ οἷόν τε, ἐλλαμφθήσεται.
So the things said to be generated did not come into being at some point; they were always coming into being and will go on coming into being. Nor will they be destroyed, except those that have something to dissolve into; what has nothing to dissolve into will not be destroyed. If someone says “into matter,” why should matter not perish too? And if he says matter too, what necessity was there, we shall ask, for it to come into being? And if they say it was necessary for it to follow along, it is necessary now as well. And if matter is to be left alone, the divine things will not be everywhere but in some separate place, walled off, as it were; and if that is impossible, matter will be illuminated.
Did Soul fall to make the world?
The Soul of the All neither inclined nor forgot; the cosmos is the best possible image of the intelligible.
εἰ δὲ οἷον πτερορρυήσασαν τὴν ψυχὴν φήσουσι πεποιηκέναι, οὐχ ἡ τοῦ παντὸς τοῦτο πάσχει· εἰ δὲ σφαλεῖσαν αὐτοὶ φήσουσι, τοῦ σφάλματος λεγέτωσαν τὴν αἰτίαν. πότε δὲ ἐσφάλη; εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἐξ ἀιδίου, μένει κατὰ τὸν αὐτῶν λόγον ἐσφαλμένη· εἰ δὲ ἤρξατο, διὰ τί οὐ πρὸ τοῦ; ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐ νεῦσαί φαμεν τὴν ποιοῦσαν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον μὴ νεῦσαι. εἰ δὲ ἔνευσε, τῷ ἐπιλελῆσθαι δηλονότι τῶν ἐκεῖ· εἰ δὲ ἐπελάθετο, πῶς δημιουργεῖ; πόθεν γὰρ ποιεῖ ἢ ἐξ ὧν εἶδεν ἐκεῖ; εἰ δὲ ἐκείνων μεμνημένη ποιεῖ, οὐδὲ ὅλως ἔνευσεν. οὐδὲ γάρ, εἰ ἀμυδρῶς ἔχει, οὐ μᾶλλον νεύει ἐκεῖ, ἵνα μὴ ἀμυδρῶς ἴδῃ. διὰ τί γὰρ ἂν οὐκ ἐθέλησεν ἔχουσα ἡντινοῦν μνήμην ἐπανελθεῖν; τί γὰρ ἂν ἑαυτῇ καὶ ἐλογίζετο γενέσθαι ἐκ τοῦ κοσμοποιῆσαι;
If they say that Soul made the world after, as it were, shedding its wings, the Soul of the All does not suffer this. And if they say it erred, let them state the cause of the error. When did it err? If from eternity, it remains in error by their own account; if it began, why not before? We, for our part, do not say that the soul that makes inclined downward; on the contrary, we say it did not incline. If it inclined, it was obviously by forgetting the realities there; and if it forgot, how does it craft? From what does it make, except from what it saw there? And if it makes while remembering them, it did not incline at all. For even if it has them only dimly, would it not rather incline toward there, so as not to see dimly? Why would it not have wanted to go back up, if it had any memory at all? What did it reckon it would gain for itself from making a cosmos?
γελοῖον γὰρ τὸ ἵνα τιμῷτο, καὶ μεταφερόντων ἀπὸ τῶν ἀγαλματοποιῶν τῶν ἐνταῦθα. ἐπεὶ καὶ εἰ διανοίᾳ ἐποίει καὶ μὴ ἐν τῇ φύσει ἦν τὸ ποιεῖν καὶ ἡ δύναμις ἡ ποιοῦσα ἦν, πῶς ἂν κόσμον τόνδε ἐποίησε; πότε δὲ καὶ φθερεῖ αὐτόν; εἰ γὰρ μετέγνω, τί ἀναμένει; εἰ δὲ οὔπω, οὐκ ἂν μεταγνοίη ἔτι ἤδη εἰθισμένη καὶ τῷ χρόνῳ προσφιλεστέρα γενομένη. εἰ δὲ τὰς καθ’ ἕκαστον ψυχὰς ἀναμένει, ἤδη ἔδει μηκέτι ἐλθεῖν εἰς γένεσιν πάλαι πειραθείσας ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ γενέσει τῶν τῇδε κακῶν· ὥστε ἤδη ἂν ἐπέλιπον ἰοῦσαι. οὐδὲ τὸ κακῶς γεγονέναι τόνδε τὸν κόσμον δοτέον τῷ πολλὰ εἶναι ἐν αὐτῷ δυσχερῆ· τοῦτο γὰρ ἀξίωμα μεῖζόν ἐστι περιτιθέντων αὐτῷ, εἰ ἀξιοῦσι τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι τῷ νοητῷ, ἀλλὰ μὴ εἰκόνα ἐκείνου.
It’s ridiculous to say “so that it might be honored”—they are transferring this from the sculptors here below. Besides, if it made by discursive thought, and making was not in its nature and its power was not a making power, how could it have made this cosmos? And when will it destroy it? If it repented, what is it waiting for? And if it has not yet repented, it would not repent now, being used to it by now and grown fonder of it with time. And if it is waiting for the individual souls, they ought by now to have stopped coming into birth, having long ago experienced the evils here in their previous birth; so they would already have ceased coming. Nor must we grant that this cosmos has come about badly because there are many unpleasant things in it. That is the claim of people who assign it too high a rank, if they think it should be the same as the intelligible and not an image of it.
ἢ τίς ἂν ἐγένετο ἄλλη καλλίων εἰκὼν ἐκείνου; τί γὰρ ἄλλο πῦρ βελτίων [εἰκὼν] τοῦ ἐκεῖ πυρὸς παρὰ τὸ ἐνταῦθα πῦρ; ἢ τίς γῆ ἄλλη παρὰ ταύτην μετὰ τὴν ἐκεῖ γῆν; τίς δὲ σφαῖρα ἀκριβεστέρα ἢ εὐτακτοτέρα τῇ φορᾷ μετὰ τὴν ἐκεῖ τοῦ κόσμου τοῦ νοητοῦ περιοχὴν ἐν αὑτῷ; ἄλλος δὲ ἥλιος μετ’ ἐκεῖνον πρὸ τούτου τοῦ ὁρωμένου τίς;
Or what other image of that world could have come about more beautiful? What other fire would be a better [image] of the fire there than the fire here? Or what other earth than this one, after the earth there? What sphere more exact, or more regular in its motion, after the self-enclosing compass of the intelligible cosmos there? And what other sun, after that one, could come before this visible one?
ἀλλ’ [ἄλογον] αὐτοὺς μὲν σῶμα ἔχοντας, οἷον ἔχουσιν ἄνθρωποι, καὶ ἐπιθυμίας καὶ λύπας καὶ ὀργὰς τὴν παρ’ αὐτοῖς δύναμιν μὴ ἀτιμάζειν, ἀλλ’ ἐφάπτεσθαι τοῦ νοητοῦ λέγειν ἐξεῖναι, μὴ εἶναι δὲ ἐν ἡλίῳ ταύτης ἀπαθεστέραν ἐν τάξει μᾶλλον καὶ οὐκ ἐν ἀλλοιώσει μᾶλλον οὖσαν, οὐδὲ φρόνησιν ἔχειν ἀμείνονα ἡμῶν τῶν ἄρτι γενομένων καὶ διὰ τοσούτων κωλυομένων τῶν ἀπατώντων ἐπὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐλθεῖν· οὐδὲ τὴν μὲν αὑτῶν ψυχὴν ἀθάνατον καὶ θείαν λέγειν καὶ τὴν τῶν φαυλοτάτων ἀνθρώπων, τὸν δὲ οὐρανὸν πάντα καὶ τὰ ἐκεῖ ἄστρα μὴ τῆς ἀθανάτου κεκοινωνηκέναι ἐκ πολλῷ καλλιόνων καὶ καθαρωτέρων ὄντα, ὁρῶντας ἐκεῖ μὲν τὸ τεταγμένον καὶ εὔσχημον καὶ εὔτακτον καὶ μάλιστα τὴν ἐνταῦθα περὶ γῆν ἀταξίαν αὐτοὺς αἰτιωμένους· ὥσπερ τῆς ἀθανάτου ψυχῆς τὸν χείρω τόπον ἐπίτηδες ἑλομένης, παραχωρῆσαι δὲ τοῦ βελτίονος τῇ θνητῇ ψυχῇ ἑλομένης.
But [it is unreasonable] that these people, who have a body such as humans have, and desires and griefs and angers, should not disparage the power within themselves but say it can touch the intelligible—and yet deny that the power in the sun is freer of affection than theirs, more in order and less subject to change, or that it has better understanding than we, who were born only just now and are hindered by so many deceptions from reaching the truth. Nor should they call their own soul immortal and divine, and that of the most worthless people too, while denying that the whole heaven and the stars in it share in the immortal soul—though they are made of far more beautiful and purer things—when they see the order there, the grace and regularity, and are themselves the loudest in blaming the disorder here around the earth. As if the immortal soul had deliberately chosen the worse place and decided to cede the better one to the mortal soul!
ἄλογος δὲ καὶ ἡ παρεισαγωγὴ αὐτοῖς τῆς ἑτέρας ψυχῆς ταύτης, ἣν ἐκ τῶν στοιχείων συνιστᾶσι· πῶς γὰρ ἂν ζωὴν ἡντινοῦν ἔχοι ἡ ἐκ τῶν στοιχείων σύστασις; ἡ γὰρ τούτων κρᾶσις ἢ θερμὸν ἢ ψυχρὸν ἢ μικτὸν ποιεῖ, ἢ ξηρὸν ἢ ὑγρὸν ἢ μῖγμα ἐκ τούτων.
Unreasonable, too, is their bringing in of this other soul, which they compose out of the elements. For how could a compound of the elements have any life at all? Their mixture produces something hot or cold or mixed, or dry or wet or a blend of these.
πῶς δὲ συνοχὴ τῶν τεσσάρων ὑστέρα γενομένη ἐξ αὐτῶν; ὅταν δὲ προστιθῶσι καὶ ἀντίληψιν αὐτῇ καὶ βούλευσιν καὶ ἄλλα μυρία, τί ἄν τις εἶποι; ἀλλ’ οὐ τιμῶντες ταύτην τὴν δημιουργίαν οὐδὲ τήνδε τὴν γῆν καινὴν αὑτοῖς φασι γῆν γεγονέναι, εἰς ἣν δὴ ἐντεῦθεν ἀπελεύσονται· τοῦτο δὲ λόγον εἶναι κόσμου. καίτοι τί δεῖ αὐτοῖς γενέσθαι ἐν παραδείγματι κόσμου, ὃν μισοῦσι; πόθεν δὲ τὸ παράδειγμα τοῦτο; τοῦτο γὰρ κατ’ αὐτοὺς νενευκότος ἤδη πρὸς τὰ τῇδε τοῦ τὸ παράδειγμα πεποιηκότος. εἰ μὲν οὖν ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ ποιήσαντι πολλὴ φροντὶς τοῦ κόσμον μετὰ τὸν κόσμον τὸν νοητὸν ὃν ἔχει ἄλλον ποιῆσαι — καίτοι τί ἔδει; — [ἢ πρὸ τοῦ κόσμου τοῦδε ἐποίησεν ἢ μετὰ τὸν κόσμον]. καὶ εἰ μὲν πρὸ τοῦ κόσμου, ἵνα τί; ἵνα φυλάξωνται αἱ ψυχαί.
And how could it hold the four together, when it came later than they did and out of them? And when they also attribute to it apprehension and deliberation and countless other things, what is one to say? Since they do not honor this craftsmanship, or this earth, they say a new earth has come into being for them, to which they will go away from here; and that this is the rational principle of the cosmos. And yet why do they need to be in the model of a cosmos they hate? Where does this model come from? On their account, it comes from the maker of the model when he had already inclined toward the things here. If, then, the maker himself was greatly concerned to make another cosmos after the intelligible cosmos he possesses—and yet what need was there?—[he made it either before this cosmos or after the cosmos]. And if before the cosmos, for what purpose? So that souls might be on their guard.
πῶς οὖν οὐκ ἐφυλάξαντο, ὥστε μάτην ἐγένετο; εἰ δὲ μετὰ τὸν κόσμον ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου λαβὼν ἀποσυλήσας τῆς ὕλης τὸ εἶδος, ἤρκει ἡ πεῖρα ταῖς πειραθείσαις ψυχαῖς πρὸς τὸ φυλάξασθαι. εἰ δὲ ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς λαβεῖν ἀξιοῦσι τοῦ κόσμου τὸ εἶδος, τί τὸ καινὸν τοῦ λόγου;
Then how is it that they did not guard themselves, so that it came into being in vain? And if after the cosmos, taking the form from the cosmos and stripping it from matter, then experience would have been enough for the souls that had experienced it to be on their guard. And if they claim that the form of the cosmos was received in souls, what is new in their doctrine?
τὰς δὲ ἄλλας ὑποστάσεις τί χρὴ λέγειν ἃς εἰσάγουσι, παροικήσεις καὶ ἀντιτύπους καὶ μετανοίας; εἰ μὲν γὰρ ψυχῆς ταῦτα λέγουσι πάθη, ὅταν ἐν μετανοίᾳ ᾖ, καὶ ἀντιτύπους, ὅταν οἷον εἰκόνας τῶν ὄντων, ἀλλὰ μὴ αὐτά πω τὰ ὄντα θεωρῇ, κενολογούντων ἐστὶν εἰς σύστασιν τῆς ἰδίας αἱρέσεως· ὡς γὰρ τῆς ἀρχαίας Ἑλληνικῆς οὐχ ἁπτόμενοι ταῦτα σκευωροῦνται εἰδότων σαφῶς τῶν Ἑλλήνων καὶ ἀτύφως λεγόντων ἀναβάσεις ἐκ τοῦ σπηλαίου καὶ κατὰ βραχὺ εἰς θέαν ἀληθεστέραν μᾶλλον καὶ μᾶλλον προιούσας. ὅλως γὰρ αὐτοῖς τὰ μὲν παρὰ τοῦ Πλάτωνος εἴληπται, τὰ δέ, ὅσα καινοτομοῦσιν, ἵνα ἰδίαν φιλοσοφίαν θῶνται, ταῦτα ἔξω τῆς ἀληθείας εὕρηται. ἐπεὶ καὶ αἱ δίκαι καὶ οἱ ποταμοὶ οἱ ἐν ᾅδου καὶ αἱ μετενσωματώσεις ἐκεῖθεν.
What should one say about the other hypostases they introduce—“sojournings,” “antitypes” and “repentances”? If they say these are affections of soul—“repentance” when it repents, and “antitypes” when it contemplates, as it were, images of the beings and not yet the beings themselves—then they are talking emptily, to set up their own sect. As though they had no hold on the ancient Greek philosophy, they contrive these things, while the Greeks knew clearly and spoke without inflation of ascents out of the cave, advancing little by little toward a truer and truer vision. In general, some of their ideas are taken from Plato, while those in which they innovate in order to set up a philosophy of their own have been found outside the truth. The judgments of the dead, too, and the rivers in Hades, and the reincarnations come from there.
καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν νοητῶν δὲ πλῆθος ποιῆσαι, τὸ ὂν καὶ τὸν νοῦν καὶ τὸν δημιουργὸν ἄλλον καὶ τὴν ψυχήν, ἐκ τῶν ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῳ λεχθέντων εἴληπται· εἰπόντος γὰρ αὐτοῦ ‘ᾗπερ οὖν νοῦς ἐνούσας ἰδέας ἐν τῷ ὃ ἔστι ζῷον καθορᾷ, τοσαύτας καὶ τόδε ὁ ποιῶν τὸ πᾶν διενοήθη σχεῖν.’ οἱ δὲ οὐ συνέντες τὸν μὲν ἔλαβον ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ ἔχοντα ἐν αὑτῷ πάντα τὰ ὄντα, τὸν δὲ νοῦν ἕτερον παρ’ αὐτὸν θεωροῦντα, τὸν δὲ διανοούμενον — πολλάκις δὲ αὐτοῖς ἀντὶ τοῦ διανοουμένου ψυχή ἐστιν ἡ δημιουργοῦσα — καὶ κατὰ Πλάτωνα τοῦτον οἴονται εἶναι τὸν δημιουργὸν ἀφεστηκότες τοῦ εἰδέναι τίς ὁ δημιουργός.
Their making of a plurality in the intelligible world—Being, Intellect, a further craftsman, and Soul—is taken from what is said in the Timaeus. For he said: “As many Forms as Intellect sees present in the Living Being that is, so many did the maker of the All resolve in his thought that this world too should have.” But they did not understand. They took one to be at rest, holding all beings within itself; another, Intellect, distinct from it, contemplating; and another thinking discursively—often for them the crafting principle is Soul instead of the one thinking discursively—and they think this is the craftsman according to Plato, far from knowing who the craftsman is.
καὶ ὅλως τὸν τρόπον τῆς δημιουργίας καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ καταψεύδονται αὐτοῦ καὶ πρὸς τὸ χεῖρον ἕλκουσι τὰς δόξας τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ὡς αὐτοὶ μὲν τὴν νοητὴν φύσιν κατανενοηκότες, ἐκείνου δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν μακαρίων ἀνδρῶν μή.
And in general they misrepresent the manner of the crafting and many other things in him, and drag the man’s views toward the worse, as if they themselves had understood the intelligible nature, while he and the other blessed men had not.
καὶ πλῆθος νοητῶν ὀνομάζοντες τὸ ἀκριβὲς ἐξευρηκέναι δόξειν οἴονται αὐτῷ τῷ πλήθει τὴν νοητὴν φύσιν τῇ αἰσθητῇ καὶ ἐλάττονι εἰς ὁμοιότητα ἄγοντες, δέον ἐκεῖ τὸ ὡς ὅτι μάλιστα ὀλίγον εἰς ἀριθμὸν διώκειν καὶ τῷ μετὰ τὸ πρῶτον τὰ πάντα ἀποδιδόντας ἀπηλλάχθαι ἐκείνου τῶν πάντων ὄντος καὶ νοῦ τοῦ πρώτου καὶ οὐσίας καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα καλὰ μετὰ τὴν πρώτην φύσιν.
And by naming a multitude of intelligibles they think they will seem to have found out the exact truth, though by that very multitude they are bringing the intelligible nature into likeness with the perceptible, inferior one. One should instead pursue the smallest possible number there, and, by attributing everything to what comes after the First, be done with it—since that is all things: the first Intellect, being, and every other fine thing that comes after the first nature.
ψυχῆς δὲ εἶδος τρίτον· διαφορὰς δὲ ψυχῶν ἐν πάθεσιν ἢ ἐν φύσει ἰχνεύειν μηδὲν τοὺς θείους ἄνδρας διασύροντας, ἀλλ’ εὐμενῶς δεχομένους τὰ ἐκείνων ὡς παλαιοτέρων καὶ ἃ καλῶς λέγουσι παρ’ ἐκείνων λαμβάνοντας, ψυχῆς ἀθανασίαν, νοητὸν κόσμον, θεὸν τὸν πρῶτον, τὸ τὴν ψυχὴν δεῖν φεύγειν τὴν πρὸς τὸ σῶμα ὁμιλίαν, τὸν χωρισμὸν τὸν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ, τὸ ἐκ γενέσεως φεύγειν εἰς οὐσίαν· ταῦτα γὰρ κείμενα παρὰ τῷ Πλάτωνι σαφῶς οὑτωσὶ λέγοντες καλῶς ποιοῦσιν.
Soul is a third form. And one should trace the differences of souls in their affections or in their nature without disparaging the divine men, but receiving their teachings kindly, as those of older men, and taking from them what they say well: the immortality of the soul, the intelligible world, the first god, that the soul must flee its association with the body, separation from it, flight from becoming to being. For these things are set down in Plato, and when they state them clearly in this way they do well.
οἷς [δὲ] θέλουσι διαφωνεῖν φθόνος οὐδεὶς λεγόντων· οὐδ’ ἐν τῷ τοὺς Ἕλληνας διασύρειν καὶ ὑβρίζειν τὰ αὑτῶν ἐν συστάσει παρὰ τοῖς ἀκούουσι ποιεῖν, ἀλλ’ αὐτὰ παρ’ αὐτῶν δεικνύναι ὀρθῶς ἔχοντα, ὅσα ἴδια αὐτοῖς ἔδοξε παρὰ τὴν ἐκείνων δόξαν λέγειν, εὐμενῶς καὶ φιλοσόφως αὐτὰς τὰς δόξας τιθέντας αὐτῶν καὶ οἷς ἐναντιοῦνται δικαίως, πρὸς τὸ ἀληθὲς βλέποντας, οὐ τὴν εὐδοκίμησιν θηρωμένους ἐκ τοῦ ἄνδρας κεκριμένους ἐκ παλαιοῦ οὐ παρὰ φαύλων ἀνδρῶν ἀγαθοὺς εἶναι ψέγειν, λέγοντας ἑαυτοὺς ἐκείνων ἀμείνους εἶναι.
No one begrudges them saying the things on which they wish to disagree. But they should not build up their own position among their listeners by disparaging and insulting the Greeks. They should show from their doctrines themselves that what they have chosen to say of their own, against the Greeks’ view, is correct, setting out their own opinions kindly and as philosophers, and those they oppose fairly, looking to the truth—not hunting for reputation by censuring men judged good long ago by men who were not worthless, and saying they are better than they.
ἐπεὶ τά γε εἰρημένα τοῖς παλαιοῖς περὶ τῶν νοητῶν πολλῷ ἀμείνω καὶ πεπαιδευμένως εἴρηται καὶ τοῖς μὴ ἐξαπατωμένοις τὴν ἐπιθέουσαν εἰς ἀνθρώπους ἀπάτην ῥᾳδίως γνωσθήσεται, τά τε ὕστερον τούτοις παρ’ ἐκείνων ληφθέντα, προσθήκας δέ τινας οὐδὲν προσηκούσας εἰληφότα, ἔν τε οἷς ἐναντιοῦσθαι θέλουσι γενέσεις καὶ φθορὰς εἰσάγοντες παντελεῖς καὶ μεμφόμενοι τῷδε τῷ παντὶ καὶ τὴν πρὸς τὸ σῶμα κοινωνίαν τῇ ψυχῇ αἰτιώμενοι καὶ τὸν διοικοῦντα τόδε τὸ πᾶν ψέγοντες καὶ εἰς ταὐτὸν ἄγοντες τὸν δημιουργὸν τῇ ψυχῇ καὶ τὰ αὐτὰ πάθη διδόντες, ἅπερ καὶ τοῖς ἐν μέρει.
For what the ancients said about the intelligibles is far better and said with learning, and those not deceived by the deception now rushing in upon people will easily recognize it. They will recognize, too, that what these people took later from the ancients has received certain additions that are not at all fitting—and also in the points where they want to oppose them: introducing total comings-to-be and destructions, finding fault with this All, blaming the soul’s association with the body, censuring the one who governs this All, identifying the craftsman with Soul and attributing to him the same affections as to souls that are parts.
ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὔτε ἤρξατο οὔτε παύσεται, ἀλλ’ ἔστιν ἀεὶ καὶ ὅδε ὁ κόσμος, ἕως ἂν ἐκεῖνα ᾖ, εἴρηται. τὴν δὲ πρὸς τὸ σῶμα τῇ ψυχῇ κοινωνίαν τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ πρὸ αὐτῶν εἴρηται ὡς οὐκ ἄμεινον τῇ ψυχῇ· τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμετέρας καὶ τὴν τοῦ παντὸς λαμβάνειν ὅμοιον, ὡς εἴ τις τὸ τῶν χυτρέων ἢ χαλκέων λαβὼν γένος ἐν πόλει εὖ οἰκουμένῃ τὴν ἅπασαν ψέγοι. δεῖ δὲ τὰς διαφορὰς λαμβάνειν τὰς τῆς ὅλης ὅπως διοικεῖ, ὅτι μὴ ὁ αὐτὸς τρόπος μηδὲ ἐνδεδεμένη. πρὸς γὰρ αὖ ταῖς ἄλλαις διαφοραῖς, αἳ μυρίαι εἴρηνται ἐν ἄλλοις, κἀκεῖνο ἐνθυμεῖσθαι ἔδει, ὅτι ἡμεῖς μὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ σώματος δεδέμεθα ἤδη δεσμοῦ γεγενημένου.
That this cosmos too neither began nor will cease, but always exists as long as those realities exist, has been said. As for the soul’s association with the body, it was said before them that it is not better for our soul. But to judge the Soul of the All from ours is like taking the class of potters or smiths in a well-run city and blaming the whole city. We must grasp the differences in how the whole Soul governs: it is not in the same way, nor is it bound. For besides the other differences, countless as they are, which have been stated elsewhere, we should have considered this one too: that we are bound by the body, the bond having already come about.
ἐν γὰρ τῇ πάσῃ ψυχῇ ἡ τοῦ σώματος φύσις δεδεμένη ἤδη συνδεῖ ὃ ἂν περιλάβῃ· αὐτὴ δὲ ἡ τοῦ παντὸς ψυχὴ οὐκ ἂν δέοιτο ὑπὸ τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτῆς δεδεμένων· ἄρχει γὰρ ἐκείνη. διὸ καὶ ἀπαθὴς πρὸς αὐτῶν, ἡμεῖς δὲ τούτων οὐ κύριοι· τὸ γὰρ ὅσον αὐτῆς πρὸς τὸ θεῖον τὸ ὑπεράνω ἀκέραιον μένει καὶ οὐκ ἐμποδίζεται, ὅσον δὲ αὐτῆς δίδωσι τῷ σώματι ζωὴν οὐδὲν παρ’ αὐτοῦ προσλαμβάνει.
For the nature of body, already bound within the whole Soul, binds together whatever it encompasses; but the Soul of the All itself could not be bound by the things it has bound—it is the ruler. That is why it is unaffected by them, whereas we are not masters of them. For what of it is turned toward the divine above remains pure and unhindered, and what of it gives life to the body takes on nothing from it in return.
ὅλως γὰρ τὸ μὲν ἄλλου πάθημα τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ ἐξ ἀνάγκης δέχεται, αὐτὸ δ’ αὖ ἐκείνῳ οὐκέτι τὸ αὑτοῦ δίδωσιν οἰκείαν ζωὴν ἔχοντι· οἷον εἰ ἐγκεντρισθέν τι εἴη ἐν ἄλλῳ, παθόντος μὲν τοῦ ἐν ᾧ συμπέπονθεν, αὐτὸ δὲ ξηρανθὲν εἴασεν ἐκεῖνο τὴν αὐτοῦ ζωὴν ἔχειν. ἐπεὶ οὐδ’ ἀποσβεννυμένου τοῦ ἐν σοὶ πυρὸς τὸ ὅλον πῦρ ἀπέσβη· ἐπεὶ οὐδ’ εἰ τὸ πᾶν πῦρ ἀπόλοιτο, πάθοι ἄν τι ἡ ψυχὴ ἡ ἐκεῖ, ἀλλ’ ἡ τοῦ σώματος σύστασις, καὶ εἰ οἷόν τε εἴη διὰ τῶν λοιπῶν κόσμον τινὰ εἶναι, οὐδὲν ἂν μέλοι τῇ ψυχῇ τῇ ἐκεῖ.
In general, what is in another necessarily receives that other’s affection, but does not in turn give its own to the other, which has a life of its own—as when something is grafted onto another: when the host is affected, the graft is affected with it, but if the graft withers, it leaves the host to keep its own life. When the fire in you goes out, the whole of fire has not gone out; indeed, even if the whole of fire perished, the soul there would not be affected at all, only the structure of the body; and if some kind of cosmos could exist through the remaining elements, the soul there would not care at all.
ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ ἡ σύστασις ὁμοίως τῷ παντὶ καὶ ζῴῳ ἑκάστῳ· ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖ οἷον ἐπιθεῖ κελεύσασα μένειν, ἐνταῦθα δὲ ὡς ὑπεκφεύγοντα εἰς τὴν τάξιν τὴν ἑαυτῶν δέδεται δεσμῷ δευτέρῳ· ἐκεῖ δὲ οὐκ ἔχει ὅποι φύγῃ. οὔτε οὖν ἐντὸς δεῖ κατέχειν οὔτε ἔξωθεν πιέζουσαν εἰς τὸ εἴσω ὠθεῖν, ἀλλ’ ὅπου ἠθέλησεν ἐξ ἀρχῆς αὐτῆς ἡ φύσις μένει. ἐὰν δέ πού τι αὐτῶν κατὰ φύσιν κινηθῇ, οἷς οὐκ ἔστι κατὰ φύσιν, ταῦτα πάσχει, αὐτὰ δὲ καλῶς φέρεται ὡς τοῦ ὅλου· τὰ δὲ φθείρεται οὐ δυνάμενα τὴν τοῦ ὅλου τάξιν φέρειν, οἷον εἰ χοροῦ μεγάλου ἐν τάξει φερομένου ἐν μέσῃ τῇ πορείᾳ αὐτοῦ χελώνη ληφθεῖσα πατοῖτο οὐ δυνηθεῖσα φυγεῖν τὴν τάξιν τοῦ χοροῦ· εἰ μέντοι μετ’ ἐκείνης τάξειεν ἑαυτήν, οὐδὲν ἂν ὑπὸ τούτου οὐδὲ αὐτὴ πάθοι.
For the structure is not the same in the All and in each living being. There, Soul, as it were, runs over it and commands it to remain; here, the parts, as if slipping away to their own place, are bound by a second bond. But there they have nowhere to flee. So Soul need neither hold them in from inside nor press from outside to push them in; it remains where its nature wanted from the beginning. And if any of them moves according to its nature, the things for which this is not natural are affected, while they themselves are carried along well, as parts of the whole. The others are destroyed, unable to bear the order of the whole—as if, when a great troupe of dancers was moving in order, a tortoise caught in the middle of its path were trampled, unable to get out of the dancers’ way; though if it had fallen into step with them, it would not have suffered anything from them either.
τὸ δὲ διὰ τί ἐποίησε κόσμον ταὐτὸν τῷ διὰ τί ἔστι ψυχὴ καὶ διὰ τί ὁ δημιουργὸς ἐποίησεν. ὃ πρῶτον μὲν ἀρχὴν λαμβανόντων ἐστὶ τοῦ ἀεί· ἔπειτα οἴονται τραπέντα ἔκ τινος εἴς τι καὶ μεταβαλόντα αἴτιον τῆς δημιουργίας γεγονέναι. διδακτέον οὖν αὐτούς, εἰ εὐγνωμόνως ἀνέχοιντο, τίς ἡ φύσις τούτων, ὡς αὐτοὺς παύσασθαι τῆς εἰς τὰ τίμια λοιδορίας, ἣν εὐχερῶς ποιοῦνται ἀντὶ πολλῆς προσηκόντως ἂν γενομένης εὐλαβείας. ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ τοῦ παντὸς τὴν διοίκησιν ὀρθῶς ἄν τις μέμψαιτο πρῶτον μὲν ἐνδεικνυμένην τῆς νοητῆς φύσεως τὸ μέγεθος.
Asking why Soul made a cosmos is the same as asking why there is Soul and why the craftsman made. First, this is the question of people who assume a beginning for what is eternal; then they think he became the cause of the crafting by turning from something to something and changing. So we must teach them, if they would bear it kindly, what the nature of these things is, so that they stop their abuse of what is venerable, which they indulge in so readily, instead of the great reverence that would be fitting. For one could not rightly find fault even with the government of the All, which first of all displays the greatness of the intelligible nature.
εἰ γὰρ οὕτως εἰς τὸ ζῆν παρελήλυθεν, ὡς μὴ ζωὴν ἀδιάρθρωτον ἔχειν — ὁποῖα τὰ σμικρότερα τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ, ἃ τῇ πολλῇ ζωῇ τῇ ἐν αὐτῷ ἀεὶ νύκτωρ καὶ μεθ’ ἡμέραν γεννᾶται — ἀλλ’ ἔστι συνεχὴς καὶ ἐναργὴς καὶ πολλὴ καὶ πανταχοῦ ζωὴ σοφίαν ἀμήχανον ἐνδεικνυμένη, πῶς οὐκ ἄν τις ἄγαλμα ἐναργὲς καὶ καλὸν τῶν νοητῶν θεῶν εἴποι; εἰ δὲ μιμούμενον μή ἐστιν ἐκεῖνο, αὐτὸ τοῦτο κατὰ φύσιν ἔχει· οὐ γὰρ ἦν [ἂν] ἔτι μιμούμενον. τὸ δὲ ἀνομοίως μεμιμῆσθαι ψεῦδος· οὐδὲν γὰρ παραλέλειπται ὧν οἷόν τε ἦν καλὴν εἰκόνα φυσικὴν ἔχειν. ἀναγκαῖον μὲν γὰρ ἦν εἶναι οὐκ ἐκ διανοίας καὶ ἐπιτεχνήσεως τὸ μίμημα· οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε ἦν ἔσχατον τὸ νοητὸν εἶναι.
If it has come into life in such a way as to have not an inarticulate life—like the smaller things in it, which are born night and day from the abundant life in it—but a life continuous, clear, abundant and everywhere, displaying immeasurable wisdom, how could one not call it a clear and beautiful statue of the intelligible gods? And if, being an imitation, it is not that, this is exactly its natural condition; otherwise it would no longer be imitating. To say it imitates badly is false: nothing has been left out that a beautiful natural image could have. The imitation had to exist, not from discursive thought and contrivance; for the intelligible could not be last.
εἶναι γὰρ αὐτοῦ ἐνέργειαν ἔδει διττήν, τὴν μὲν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, τὴν δὲ εἰς ἄλλο. ἔδει οὖν εἶναί τι μετ’ αὐτό· ἐκείνου γὰρ μόνου οὐδέν ἐστιν ἔτι πρὸς τὸ κάτω, ὃ τῶν πάντων ἀδυνατώτατόν ἐστι. δύναμις δὲ θαυμαστὴ ἐκεῖ θεῖ· ὥστε καὶ εἰργάσατο. εἰ μὲν δὴ ἄλλος κόσμος [οὐκ] ἔστι τούτου ἀμείνων, τίς οὗτος;
For its activity had to be twofold, one within itself, one toward another. So there had to be something after it; for only that which is the most powerless of all has nothing further below it. But a wonderful power runs there; and so it also worked. If, then, there is another cosmos better than this one, what is it?
εἰ δὲ ἀνάγκη εἶναι, ἄλλος δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τὸ μίμημα ἀποσώζων ἐκείνου. γῆ μὲν δὴ πᾶσα ζῴων ποικίλων πλήρης καὶ ἀθανάτων καὶ μέχρις οὐρανοῦ μεστὰ πάντα· ἄστρα δὲ τά τε ἐν ταῖς ὑποκάτω σφαίραις τά τε ἐν τῷ ἀνωτάτω διὰ τί οὐ θεοὶ ἐν τάξει φερόμενα καὶ κόσμῳ περιιόντα; διὰ τί γὰρ οὐκ ἀρετὴν ἕξουσιν ἢ τί κώλυμα πρὸς κτῆσιν ἀρετῆς αὐτοῖς; οὐ γὰρ δὴ ταῦτά ἐστιν ἐκεῖ, ἅπερ τοὺς ἐνταῦθα ποιεῖ κακούς, οὐδ’ ἡ τοῦ σώματος κακία ἐνοχλουμένη καὶ ἐνοχλοῦσα. διὰ τί δὲ οὐ συνιᾶσιν ἐπὶ σχολῆς ἀεὶ καὶ ἐν νῷ λαμβάνουσι τὸν θεὸν καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους τοὺς νοητοὺς θεούς, ἀλλ’ ἡμῖν σοφία βελτίων ἔσται τῶν ἐκεῖ; ταῦτα τίς ἂν μὴ ἔκφρων γεγενημένος ἀνάσχοιτο;
And if there must be one, and there is no other, this is the one that preserves the imitation of that world. The whole earth is full of living things of every kind, immortal ones too, and everything up to the heaven is full. And the stars, both those in the lower spheres and those in the highest—why are they not gods, moving in order and going round in ordered array? Why should they not have virtue, or what hinders them from acquiring virtue? The things that make people here bad are not there, nor the badness of body, troubled and troubling. And why should they not understand, always at leisure, and grasp in their intellect god and the other intelligible gods, while we have a wisdom better than theirs? Who but a man out of his mind could tolerate this?
ἐπεὶ καὶ αἱ ψυχαὶ εἰ μὲν βιασθεῖσαι ὑπὸ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ψυχῆς ἦλθον, πῶς βελτίους αἱ βιασθεῖσαι; ἐν γὰρ ψυχαῖς τὸ κρατῆσαν κρεῖττον. εἰ δὲ ἑκοῦσαι, τί μέμφεσθε εἰς ὃν ἑκοῦσαι ἤλθετε διδόντος καὶ ἀπαλλάττεσθαι, εἴ τις μὴ ἀρέσκοιτο; εἰ δὲ δὴ καὶ τοιοῦτόν ἐστι τόδε τὸ πᾶν, ὡς ἐξεῖναι ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ σοφίαν ἔχειν καὶ ἐνταῦθα ὄντας βιοῦν κατ’ ἐκεῖνα, πῶς οὐ μαρτυρεῖ ἐξηρτῆσθαι τῶν ἐκεῖ;
Then there are the souls. If they came here forced by the Soul of the All, how are they better, having been forced? Among souls, what prevails is superior. And if they came willingly, why do you blame the world you came into willingly, when it even lets you leave if you don’t like it? And if this All is such that within it one can have wisdom and, while here, live according to the realities there, how does it not bear witness that it depends on those realities?
Against the arrogance of the elect
Wealth and injustice here do not discredit the cosmos; claiming to be better than the gods is folly.
πλούτους δὲ καὶ πενίας εἴ τις μέμφοιτο καὶ τὸ οὐκ ἴσον ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις ἅπασι, πρῶτον μὲν ἀγνοεῖ, ὡς ὁ σπουδαῖος ἐν τούτοις τὸ ἴσον οὐ ζητεῖ, οὐδέ τι νομίζει τοὺς πολλὰ κεκτημένους πλέον ἔχειν, οὐδὲ τοὺς δυναστεύοντας τῶν ἰδιωτῶν, ἀλλὰ τὴν τοιαύτην σπουδὴν ἄλλους ἐᾷ ἔχειν, καὶ καταμεμάθηκεν ὡς διττὸς ὁ ἐνθάδε βίος, ὁ μὲν τοῖς σπουδαίοις, ὁ δὲ τοῖς πολλοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τοῖς μὲν σπουδαίοις πρὸς τὸ ἀκρότατον καὶ ἄνω, τοῖς δὲ ἀνθρωπικωτέροις διττὸς αὖ ὢν ὁ μὲν μεμνημένος ἀρετῆς μετίσχων ἀγαθοῦ τινος, ὁ δὲ φαῦλος ὄχλος οἷον χειροτέχνης τῶν πρὸς ἀνάγκην τοῖς ἐπιεικεστέροις. εἰ δὲ φονεύει τις ἢ ἡττᾶται τῶν ἡδονῶν ὑπὸ ἀδυναμίας, τί θαυμαστὸν καὶ ἁμαρτίας εἶναι οὐ νῷ, ἀλλὰ ψυχαῖς ὥσπερ παισὶν ἀνήβοις;
If someone finds fault with wealth and poverty, and the inequality in all such things, first, he does not know that the good person does not seek equality in these things. He does not think that those with many possessions have more, nor rulers more than private persons; he leaves such pursuits to others, and has learned that life here is twofold, one for the good and one for most people. For the good it is a life directed toward the highest and toward what is above; for the more human sort it is again twofold: one kind, mindful of virtue, has a share in some good, while the worthless crowd is, so to speak, a band of craftsmen of necessities for the better sort. And if someone commits murder, or is overcome by pleasures through weakness, what wonder is it that there are faults—not in intellect, but in souls like boys not yet grown?
εἰ δὲ γυμνάσιον εἴη νικώντων καὶ ἡττωμένων, πῶς οὐ καὶ ταύτῃ καλῶς ἔχει; εἰ δ’ ἀδικῇ, τί δεινὸν τῷ ἀθανάτῳ; καὶ εἰ φονεύῃ, ἔχεις ὃ θέλεις. εἰ δὲ ἤδη μέμφῃ πολιτεύεσθαι, ἀνάγκην οὐκ ἔχεις. ὁμολογεῖται δὲ καὶ δίκας εἶναι ἐνθάδε καὶ κολάσεις. πῶς οὖν ὀρθῶς ἔχει μέμφεσθαι πόλει διδούσῃ ἑκάστῳ τὴν ἀξίαν; οὗ καὶ ἀρετὴ τετίμηται, καὶ κακία τὴν προσήκουσαν ἀτιμίαν ἔχει, καὶ θεῶν οὐ μόνον ἀγάλματα, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτοὶ ἄνωθεν ἐφορῶντες, οἳ ῥηιδίως αἰτίας, φησίν, ἀποφεύξονται πρὸς ἀνθρώπων, πάντα ἄγοντες τάξει ἐξ ἀρχῆς εἰς τέλος μοῖραν ἑκάστῳ τὴν προσήκουσαν διδόντες κατὰ ἀμοιβὰς βίων τοῖς προυπηργμένοις ἀκόλουθον· ἣν ὁ ἀγνοῶν προπετέστερος ἀνθρώπων περὶ πραγμάτων θείων ἀγροικιζόμενος.
And if it is a training ground with winners and losers, how is it not fine in this way too? If you are wronged, what is terrible about that for an immortal being? And if you are murdered, you have what you want. And if you already find fault with taking part in civic life, you are under no necessity to do so. It is agreed that there are trials and punishments here too. How, then, is it right to blame a city that gives each his due? There virtue is honored and vice has its fitting dishonor, and not only statues of the gods but the gods themselves look down from above—who “will easily escape blame from men,” he says—leading all things in order from beginning to end, giving each the fitting lot, in keeping with what went before, through the succession of lives. Whoever is ignorant of this is one of the more reckless sort of men, showing his boorishness about divine matters.
ἀλλὰ χρὴ ὡς ἄριστον μὲν αὐτὸν πειρᾶσθαι γενέσθαι, μὴ μόνον δὲ αὑτὸν νομίζειν ἄριστον δύνασθαι γενέσθαι; οὕτω γὰρ οὔπω ἄριστος· ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀνθρώπους ἄλλους ἀρίστους, ἔτι καὶ δαίμονας ἀγαθοὺς εἶναι, πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον θεοὺς τούς τε ἐν τῷδε ὄντας κἀκεῖ βλέποντας, πάντων δὲ μάλιστα τὸν ἡγεμόνα τοῦδε τοῦ παντός, ψυχὴν μακαριωτάτην· ἐντεῦθεν δὲ ἤδη καὶ τοὺς νοητοὺς ὑμνεῖν θεούς, ἐφ’ ἅπασι δὲ ἤδη τὸν μέγαν τῶν ἐκεῖ βασιλέα καὶ ἐν τῷ πλήθει μάλιστα τῶν θεῶν τὸ μέγα αὐτοῦ ἐνδεικνυμένους· οὐ γὰρ τὸ συστεῖλαι εἰς ἕν, ἀλλὰ τὸ δεῖξαι πολὺ τὸ θεῖον, ὅσον ἔδειξεν αὐτός, τοῦτό ἐστι δύναμιν θεοῦ εἰδότων, ὅταν μένων ὃς ἔστι πολλοὺς ποιῇ πάντας εἰς αὐτὸν ἀνηρτημένους καὶ δι’ ἐκεῖνον καὶ παρ’ ἐκείνου ὄντας.
Rather, one should try to become as good as possible oneself, but not think that one alone can become best—for then one is not yet best. One should think that other men too are best, and that there are good spirits too, and much more the gods, both those in this world who look there and, above all, the leader of this All, the most blessed Soul; and from there go on to hymn the intelligible gods, and above all the great king of that world, displaying his greatness especially in the multitude of the gods. For not to contract the divine into one, but to show it as manifold, as much as he himself has shown it—this is what those who know the power of god do, when, remaining what he is, he makes many, all depending on him and existing through him and from him.
καὶ ὁ κόσμος δὲ ὅδε δι’ ἐκεῖνον ἔστι κἀκεῖ βλέπει καὶ πᾶς καὶ θεῶν ἕκαστος καὶ τὰ ἐκείνου προφητεύει ἀνθρώποις καὶ χρῶσιν ἃ ἐκείνοις φίλα. εἰ δὲ μὴ τοῦτό εἰσιν, ὃ ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν, αὐτὸ τοῦτο κατὰ φύσιν ἔχει. εἰ δ’ ὑπερορᾶν θέλεις καὶ σεμνύνεις σαυτὸν ὡς οὐ χείρων, πρῶτον μέν, ὅσῳ τις ἄριστος, πρὸς πάντας εὐμενῶς ἔχει [καὶ πρὸς θεοὺς] καὶ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους· ἔπειτα σεμνύνειν δεῖ εἰς μέτρον μετὰ οὐκ ἀγροικίας ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ἰόντα, ἐφ’ ὅσον ἡ φύσις δύναται ἡμῶν ἀνιέναι, τοῖς δ’ ἄλλοις νομίζειν εἶναι χώραν παρὰ τῷ θεῷ καὶ μὴ αὑτὸν μόνον μετ’ ἐκεῖνον τάξαντα ὥσπερ ὀνείρασι πέτεσθαι ἀποστεροῦντα ἑαυτὸν καθ’ ὅσον ἐστὶ δυνατὸν ψυχῇ ἀνθρώπου θεῷ γενέσθαι· δύναται δὲ εἰς ὅσον νοῦς ἄγει· τὸ δὲ ὑπὲρ νοῦν ἤδη ἐστὶν ἔξω νοῦ πεσεῖν.
And this cosmos too exists through him and looks there, both as a whole and each of the gods in it; it prophesies his things to men, and they give oracles of what is dear to the realities there. And if they are not what he is, this is exactly in accordance with their nature. But if you want to look down on them and exalt yourself as not inferior, first, the better someone is, the more kindly he is toward all, [toward gods] and toward men. Then, one should exalt oneself in due measure, without boorishness, going as far as our nature is able to rise; and think that there is room for others too beside god, and not, placing oneself alone next to him, fly as in dreams, depriving oneself of becoming god as far as is possible for a human soul. And it is possible as far as Intellect leads; to go beyond Intellect is already to fall outside Intellect.
πείθονται δὲ ἄνθρωποι ἀνόητοι τοῖς τοιούτοις τῶν λόγων ἐξαίφνης ἀκούοντες ὡς σὺ ἔσῃ βελτίων ἁπάντων οὐ μόνον ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλὰ καὶ θεῶν· πολλὴ γὰρ ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἡ αὐθάδεια, καὶ ὁ πρότερον ταπεινὸς καὶ μέτριος καὶ ἰδιώτης ἀνὴρ εἰ ἀκούσειε· σὺ εἶ θεοῦ παῖς, οἱ δ’ ἄλλοι, οὓς ἐθαύμαζες, οὐ [θεῶν] παῖδες οὐδὲ [θεῖα] ἃ τιμῶσιν ἐκ πατέρων λαβόντες, σὺ δὲ κρείττων καὶ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οὐδὲν πονήσας ⟨…⟩ εἶτα καὶ συνεπηχοῦσιν ἄλλοι.
Foolish people believe this kind of talk when they suddenly hear: “You will be better than everyone, not only men but gods.” For there is much self-will in human beings; and a man who was formerly humble and modest, an ordinary private person, if he were to hear, “You are a child of god, and the others you used to admire are not children [of gods], nor are the things they honor, having received them from their fathers, [divine]; you are greater even than heaven, without any effort” ⟨…⟩—and then others join in the chorus.
οἷον εἰ ἐν πλείστοις ἀριθμεῖν οὐκ εἰδόσιν ἀριθμεῖν οὐκ εἰδὼς πήχεων χιλίων εἶναι ἀκούοι, τί ἂν ἢ χιλιόπηχυς εἶναι νομίζοι, τοὺς [δ’] ἄλλους πενταπήχεις [εἰ πενταπήχεις] εἶναι ἀκούοι, μόνον δὲ φαντάζοιτο ὡς τὰ χίλια ἀριθμὸς μέγας; εἶτ’ ἐπὶ τούτοις ὑμῶν προνοεῖ ὁ θεός, τοῦ δὲ κόσμου παντὸς ἐν ᾧ καὶ αὐτοὶ διὰ τί ἀμελεῖ; εἰ μὲν γάρ, ὅτι οὐ σχολὴ αὐτῷ πρὸς αὐτὸν βλέπειν οὐδὲ θέμις αὐτῷ, πρὸς τὸ κάτω καὶ πρὸς αὐτοὺς βλέπων διὰ τί· οὐκ ἔξω βλέπει καὶ πρὸς τὸν κόσμον δὲ βλέπει ἐν ᾧ εἰσιν; εἰ δὲ μὴ ἔξω, ἵνα μὴ τὸν κόσμον ἐφορᾷ, οὐδὲ αὐτοὺς βλέπει.
It is as if a man who cannot count, among a great many others who cannot count, heard that he was a thousand cubits tall: what would he think but that he was a thousand cubits tall? And if he heard that the others were five cubits [if five cubits], he would only imagine that a thousand is a big number. On top of this: god cares for you—but why does he neglect the whole cosmos, in which they themselves are? If it is because he has no leisure to look at it, nor is it permitted him, then, when he looks downward and at them, why does he not look outside and at the cosmos in which they are? And if he does not look outside, so as not to oversee the cosmos, he does not look at them either.
ἀλλ’ οὐδὲν δέονται αὐτοῦ· ἀλλ’ ὁ κόσμος δεῖται καὶ οἶδε τὴν τάξιν αὑτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἐν αὐτῷ ὅπως ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ὅπως ἐκεῖ, καὶ ἀνδρῶν οἳ ἂν θεῷ ὦσι φίλοι, πρᾴως μὲν τὰ παρὰ τοῦ κόσμου φέροντες, εἴ τι ἐκ τῆς τῶν πάντων φορᾶς ἀναγκαῖον αὐτοῖς συμβαίνει· οὐ γὰρ πρὸς τὸ ἑκάστῳ καταθύμιον, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ πᾶν δεῖ βλέπειν· τιμῶν δὲ ἑκάστους κατ’ ἀξίαν, σπεύδων δ’ ἀεὶ οὗ πάντα σπεύδει τὰ δυνάμενα — πολλὰ δὲ ἔστι τὰ σπεύδοντα ἐκεῖ, καὶ τὰ μὲν τυγχάνοντα μακάρια, τὰ δὲ ὡς δυνατὸν ἔχει τὴν προσήκουσαν αὐτοῖς μοῖραν — οὐχ αὑτῷ μόνῳ διδοὺς τὸ δύνασθαι· οὐ γάρ, εἰ ἐπαγγέλλοιτο ἔχειν, ὃ λέγει τις ἔχει, ἀλλὰ πολλοὶ καὶ εἰδότες, ὅτι μὴ ἔχουσι, λέγουσιν ἔχειν καὶ οἴονται ἔχειν οὐκ ἔχοντες καὶ μόνοι ἔχειν, ὃ αὐτοὶ μόνοι οὐκ ἔχουσιν.
But they have no need of him? The cosmos, though, does need him, and it knows its own order; those within it know how they are within it and how they are there; and so do those men who are dear to god, bearing gently what comes from the cosmos if something necessarily befalls them from the movement of the whole—for one must look not to what pleases each individual but to the whole. Such a man honors each according to his worth, always hastening toward where all things hasten that can—and many are those hastening there; those that reach it are blessed, while the others have, as far as possible, the lot that fits them—and he does not grant the ability to himself alone. For if someone professes to have something, it does not follow that he has what he says; many say they have it even knowing they don’t, and think they have it when they don’t, and that they alone have what they alone do not have.
πολλὰ μὲν οὖν καὶ ἄλλα, μᾶλλον δὲ πάντα ἄν τις ἐξετάζων ἀφθονίαν ἔχοι ἂν καθ’ ἕκαστον λόγον δεικνὺς ὡς ἔχει. αἰδὼς γάρ τις ἡμᾶς ἔχει πρός τινας τῶν φίλων, οἳ τούτῳ τῷ λόγῳ ἐντυχόντες πρότερον ἢ ἡμῖν φίλοι γενέσθαι οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅπως ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ μένουσι. καίτοι αὐτοὶ οὐκ ὀκνοῦσι τὰ αὑτῶν ἐθέλοντες δοκεῖν εἶναι ἀληθῆ ἀξιοπίστως ἢ καὶ οἰόμενοι τὰ αὑτῶν οὕτως ἔχειν λέγειν ἃ δὴ λέγουσιν· ἀλλ’ ἡμεῖς πρὸς τοὺς γνωρίμους, οὐ πρὸς αὐτοὺς λέγοντες — πλέον γὰρ οὐδὲν ἂν γίγνοιτο πρὸς τὸ πείθειν αὐτούς — ἵνα μὴ πρὸς αὐτῶν ἐνοχλοῖντο οὐκ ἀποδείξεις κομιζόντων — πῶς γάρ;
Much else, or rather everything, one could examine, and have abundant material to show, argument by argument, how things stand. But a certain reticence holds us back with regard to some of our friends, who came upon this doctrine before they became our friends and, I don’t know how, persist in it. They themselves, to be sure, do not hesitate to say what they say—whether because they want their views to seem credibly true, or because they actually believe them to be so. But we, speaking to our pupils, not to them—for nothing more would be gained toward persuading them—so that our pupils may not be troubled by people who bring no proofs—how could they?—
— ἀλλ’ ἀπαυθαδιζομένων, ταῦτα εἰρήκαμεν ἄλλου ὄντος τρόπου, καθ’ ὃν ἄν τις γράφων ἠμύνατο τοὺς διασύρειν τὰ τῶν παλαιῶν καὶ θείων ἀνδρῶν καλῶς καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐχομένως εἰρημένα τολμῶντας. ἐκείνως μὲν οὖν ἐατέον ἐξετάζειν· καὶ γὰρ τοῖς ταῦτα ἀκριβῶς λαβοῦσι τὰ νῦν εἰρημένα ἔσται καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων ὅπως ἔχει εἰδέναι· ἐκεῖνο δὲ εἰπόντα ἐατέον τὸν λόγον, ὃ δὴ καὶ πάντα ὑπερβέβληκεν ἀτοπίᾳ, εἰ δεῖ ἀτοπίαν τοῦτο λέγειν.
—but only assert themselves arrogantly, we have said these things; for there is another method by which a written work might defend against those who dare to disparage what the ancient, divine men said well and in keeping with the truth. That way of examining must be left aside; for those who have grasped exactly what has now been said will be able to know how all the other points stand too. But I must end the discussion after mentioning one thing which surpasses everything in absurdity—if “absurdity” is even the word for it.
ψυχὴν γὰρ εἰπόντες νεῦσαι κάτω καὶ σοφίαν τινά, εἴτε τῆς ψυχῆς ἀρξάσης, εἴτε τῇ τοιαύτῃ αἰτίας γενομένης σοφίας, εἴτε ἄμφω ταὐτὸν θέλοντες εἶναι, τὰς μὲν ἄλλας ψυχὰς συγκατεληλυθέναι λέγοντες καὶ μέλη τῆς σοφίας ταύτας μὲν ἐνδῦναι λέγουσι σώματα, οἷον τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἧς δὲ χάριν καὶ αὐταὶ κατῆλθον, ἐκείνην λέγουσι πάλιν αὖ μὴ κατελθεῖν, οἷον μὴ νεῦσαι, ἀλλ’ ἐλλάμψαι μόνον τὸ σκότος, εἶτ’ ἐκεῖθεν εἴδωλον ἐν τῇ ὕλῃ γεγονέναι.
They say that Soul inclined downward, and a certain Wisdom too—whether Soul began it, or such a Wisdom was the cause, or they mean both to be the same. They say the other souls came down together with it, and as members of Wisdom put on bodies, human bodies for instance; but the one for whose sake they themselves came down, they say in turn did not come down—did not incline, as it were—but only illuminated the darkness, and then from there an image came to be in matter.
εἶτα τοῦ εἰδώλου εἴδωλον πλάσαντες ἐνταῦθά που δι’ ὕλης ἢ ὑλότητος ἢ ὅ τι ὀνομάζειν θέλουσι, τὸ μὲν ἄλλο, τὸ δὲ ἄλλο λέγοντες, καὶ πολλὰ ἄλλα ὀνόματα εἰπόντες οὗ λέγουσιν εἰς ἐπισκότησιν, τὸν λεγόμενον παρ’ αὐτοῖς, δημιουργὸν γεννῶσι καὶ ἀποστάντα τῆς μητρὸς ποιήσαντες τὸν κόσμον παρ’ αὐτοῦ ἄγουσιν ἐπ’ ἔσχατα εἰδώλων, ἵνα σφόδρα λοιδορήσηται ὁ τοῦτο γράψας.
Then they fashion an image of the image somewhere here, through matter or materiality or whatever they want to call it—calling it now one thing, now another, and using many other names for what they mean, to obscure it—and they generate what they call the craftsman. They make him revolt from his mother and then drag the cosmos, as made by him, down to the last of images, so that whoever wrote this might rail at it as violently as possible.
πρῶτον μὲν οὖν, εἰ μὴ κατῆλθεν, ἀλλ’ ἐνέλαμψε τὸ σκότος, πῶς ἂν ὀρθῶς λέγοιτο νενευκέναι; οὐ γάρ, εἴ τι παρ’ αὐτῆς ἔρρευσεν οἷον φῶς, ἤδη νενευκέναι αὐτὴν λέγειν προσήκει· εἰ μή που τὸ μὲν ἔκειτό που ἐν τῷ κάτω, ἡ δὲ ἦλθε τοπικῶς πρὸς αὐτὸ καὶ ἐγγὺς γενομένη ἐνέλαμψεν. εἰ δ’ ἐφ’ αὑτῆς μένουσα ἐνέλαμψε μηδὲν εἰς τοῦτο ἐργασαμένη, διὰ τί μόνη αὐτὴ ἐνέλαμψεν, ἀλλ’ οὐ τὰ δυνατώτερα αὐτῆς ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν; εἰ δὲ τῷ λογισμὸν λαβεῖν αὐτὴ κόσμου ἠδυνήθη ἐλλάμψαι ἐκ τοῦ λογισμοῦ, διὰ τί οὐχ ἅμα ἐλλάμψασα καὶ κόσμον ἐποίησεν, ἀλλ’ ἔμεινε τὴν τῶν εἰδώλων γένεσιν; ἔπειτα καὶ ὁ λογισμὸς ὁ τοῦ κόσμου, ἡ γῆ αὐτοῖς ἡ ξένη λεγομένη γενομένη ὑπὸ τῶν μειζόνων, ὡς λέγουσιν αὐτοί, οὐ κατήγαγεν εἰς νεῦσιν τοὺς ποιήσαντας.
First, then, if it did not come down but illuminated the darkness, how could it rightly be said to have inclined? If something like light flowed from it, that is no reason to say it has inclined—unless the darkness lay somewhere below and it came to it spatially and illuminated it when it was near. But if it illuminated while remaining by itself, having done nothing toward this, why did it alone illuminate, and not the things more powerful than it among the beings? And if it was by conceiving a reasoned plan of a cosmos that it was able to illuminate from that reasoning, why did it not make a cosmos at the same time as it illuminated, instead of waiting for the generation of the images? Then too, the reasoned plan of the cosmos—what they call the “alien earth,” made by the greater beings, as they themselves say—did not lead its makers down into inclining.
ἔπειτα πῶς ἡ ὕλη φωτισθεῖσα εἴδωλα ψυχικὰ ποιεῖ, ἀλλ’ οὐ σωμάτων φύσιν; ψυχῆς δὲ εἴδωλον οὐδὲν ἂν δέοιτο σκότους ἢ ὕλης, ἀλλὰ γενόμενον, εἰ γίνεται, παρακολουθοῖ ἂν τῷ ποιήσαντι καὶ συνηρτημένον ἔσται. ἔπειτα πότερον οὐσία τοῦτο ἤ, ὥς φασιν, ἐννόημα; εἰ μὲν γὰρ οὐσία, τίς ἡ διαφορὰ πρὸς τὸ ἀφ’ οὗ; εἰ δ’ ἄλλο εἶδος ψυχῆς, εἰ ἐκείνη λογική, τάχα ἂν φυτικὴ καὶ γεννητικὴ αὕτη· εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, πῶς ἂν ἔτι, ἵνα τιμῷτο, καὶ πῶς δι’ ἀλαζονείαν καὶ τόλμαν ἐποίει; καὶ ὅλως τὸ διὰ φαντασίας καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον τὸ λογίζεσθαι ἀνῄρηται. τί δ’ ἔτι ἔδει ἐμποιεῖν ἐξ ὕλης καὶ εἰδώλου τὸν ποιήσαντα; εἰ δ’ ἐννόημα, πρῶτον τὸ ὄνομα ἐπισημαντέον ὅθεν· ἔπειτα πῶς ἐστιν, εἰ μὴ τῷ ἐννοήματι δώσει τὸ ποιεῖν;
Then, how does matter, once illuminated, produce images of soul, rather than the nature of bodies? An image of soul would need no darkness or matter; once produced, if it is produced, it would follow its maker and remain attached to it. Then, is this a being, or, as they say, a thought? If a being, what is its difference from that from which it comes? And if it is another kind of soul—if that one is rational—perhaps this one is vegetative and generative; but if so, how could it still make “so that it might be honored,” and how could it make out of arrogance and audacity? In general, making through imagination, and still more through reasoning, is ruled out. And what further need was there for the maker to make it out of matter and image? And if a thought, first one must point out where the name comes from; then, how does it exist, unless he grants the thought the power to make?
ἀλλὰ πρὸς τῷ πλάσματι πῶς ἡ ποίησις; [ἢ ποιῆσαι] τουτὶ μὲν πρῶτον, ἄλλο δὲ μετ’ ἐκεῖνο ⟨…⟩ ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐπ’ ἐξουσίας λέγοντες. διὰ τί δὲ πρῶτον πῦρ;
But besides this fiction, how does the making happen? [Or to make] this first, and something else after that ⟨…⟩ but they speak as though they had license to say anything. And why fire first?
καὶ ἄρτι γενόμενον πῶς ἐπιχειρεῖ; [ἢ] μνήμῃ ὧν εἶδεν; ἀλλ’ ὅλως οὐκ ἦν, ἵνα ἂν καὶ εἶδεν, οὔτε αὐτὸς οὔτε ἡ μήτηρ, ἣν διδόασιν αὐτῷ. εἶτα πῶς οὐ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοὺς μὲν οὐκ εἴδωλα ψυχῶν ἐνθάδε ἐλθόντας, ἀλλ’ ἀληθινὰς ψυχάς, μόλις καὶ ἀγαπητῶς ἕνα ἢ δύο αὐτῶν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου κινηθῆναι [καὶ] ἐλθόντας εἰς ἀνάμνησιν μόλις ἀναπόλησιν λαβεῖν ὧν ποτε εἶδον, τὸ δὲ εἴδωλον τοῦτο, εἰ καὶ ἀμυδρῶς, ὡς λέγουσιν, ἀλλ’ οὖν ἄρτι γενόμενον ἐνθυμηθῆναι ἐκεῖνα, ἢ καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ, εἴδωλον ὑλικόν, καὶ μὴ μόνον ἐνθυμηθῆναι ἐκεῖνα καὶ κόσμου λαβεῖν ἔννοιαν [ἐκ] κόσμου ἐκείνου, ἀλλὰ καὶ μαθεῖν ἐξ ὧν ἂν γένοιτο; πόθεν δὴ καὶ πρῶτον πῦρ ποιῆσαι οἰηθέντα δεῖν τοῦτο πρῶτον; διὰ τί γὰρ οὐκ ἄλλο;
And how does it set to work when it has only just come into being? [Or] by memory of what it saw? But it did not exist at all to have seen anything—neither it nor the mother they give it. Then isn’t it astonishing that they themselves, who came here not as images of souls but as true souls, are barely and with difficulty moved away from the cosmos, one or two of them, [and], coming to recollection, barely recover some remembrance of what they once saw; while this image—dimly, as they say, but still—having only just come into being, conceived those realities, or its mother did, a material image; and not only conceived those realities and got the notion of a cosmos [from] that cosmos, but even learned what it might be made of? And where did it get the idea of making fire first, thinking that this had to come first? Why not something else?
ἀλλ’ εἰ ἐδύνατο ποιεῖν ἐνθυμηθεὶς πῦρ, διὰ τί ἐνθυμηθεὶς κόσμον — πρῶτον γὰρ ἔδει ἐνθυμηθῆναι τὸ ὅλον — οὐ κόσμον ἀθρόως ἐποίει; ἐμπεριείχετο γὰρ κἀκεῖνα ἐν τῇ ἐνθυμήσει. φυσικώτερον γὰρ πάντως, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὡς αἱ τέχναι ἐποίει· ὕστεραι γὰρ τῆς φύσεως καὶ τοῦ κόσμου αἱ τέχναι. ἐπεὶ καὶ νῦν καὶ τὰ κατὰ μέρος γινόμενα ὑπὸ τῶν φύσεων οὐ πρῶτον πῦρ, εἶθ’ ἕκαστον, εἶτα φύρασις τούτων, ἀλλὰ περιβολὴ καὶ περιγραφὴ τυποῦσα ἐπὶ τοῖς καταμηνίοις παντὸς τοῦ ζῴου. διὰ τί οὖν οὐ κἀκεῖ ἡ ὕλη περιεγράφετο τύπῳ κόσμου, ἐν ᾧ τύπῳ καὶ γῆ καὶ πῦρ καὶ τὰ ἄλλα;
But if it could make fire by conceiving fire, why, having conceived a cosmos—for it should have conceived the whole first—did it not make a cosmos all at once? Those things too were contained in the conception. It would surely have made in a more natural way, not as the crafts do; for the crafts come after nature and the cosmos. Even now, the things produced individually by natures do not come about by first fire, then each of the others, then a kneading of these together, but by an outline and contour shaping the whole animal upon the menstrual matter. Why, then, was matter there too not outlined with the imprint of a cosmos, an imprint containing earth and fire and the rest?
ἀλλ’ ἴσως αὐτοὶ οὕτω κόσμον ἐποίησαν ἂν ὡς ἀληθεστέρᾳ ψυχῇ χρώμενοι, ἐκεῖνος δὲ οὕτως ἠγνόει ποιῆσαι. καίτοι προιδεῖν καὶ μέγεθος οὐρανοῦ, μᾶλλον δὲ τοσοῦτον εἶναι, καὶ λόξωσιν τῶν ζῳδίων καὶ τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτὸν τὴν φορὰν καὶ τὴν γῆν οὕτως, ὡς ἔχειν εἰπεῖν αἰτίας δι’ ἃς οὕτως, οὐκ εἰδώλου ἦν, ἀλλὰ πάντως ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρίστων τῆς δυνάμεως ἐλθούσης· ὃ καὶ αὐτοὶ ἄκοντες ὁμολογοῦσιν. ἡ γὰρ ἔλλαμψις ἡ εἰς τὸ σκότος ἐξετασθεῖσα ποιήσει ὁμολογεῖν τὰς ἀληθεῖς τοῦ κόσμου αἰτίας. τί γὰρ ἐλλάμπειν ἔδει, εἰ μὴ πάντως ἔδει; ἢ γὰρ κατὰ φύσιν ἢ παρὰ φύσιν ἀνάγκη.
But perhaps they themselves would have made a cosmos that way, using a truer soul, while he did not know how to make it like that. And yet to foresee the size of the heaven, or rather that it should be just so great, and the obliquity of the zodiac, and the motion of the bodies beneath it, and the earth set as it is—so that one can state the reasons why it is so—this did not belong to an image; it surely came from a power that came from the best realities. And this they themselves admit, against their will. For the illumination into the darkness, once examined, will force them to admit the true causes of the cosmos. Why did it need to illuminate, unless it absolutely had to? It must be either according to nature or against nature.
ἀλλ’ εἰ μὲν κατὰ φύσιν, ἀεὶ οὕτως· εἰ δὲ παρὰ φύσιν, καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐκεῖ ἔσται τὸ παρὰ φύσιν, καὶ τὰ κακὰ πρὸ τοῦ κόσμου τοῦδε, καὶ οὐχ ὁ κόσμος αἴτιος τῶν κακῶν, ἀλλὰ τἀκεῖ τούτῳ, καὶ τῇ ψυχῇ οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν, ἀλλὰ παρ’ αὐτῆς ἐνταῦθα· καὶ ἥξει ὁ λόγος ἀναφέρων τὸν κόσμον ἐπὶ τὰ πρῶτα. εἰ δὲ δή, καὶ ἡ ὕλη, ὅθεν ἐφάνη. ἡ γὰρ ψυχὴ ἡ νεύσασα ἤδη ὂν τὸ σκότος, φασίν, εἶδε καὶ κατέλαμψε. πόθεν οὖν τοῦτο; εἰ δ’ αὐτὴν φήσουσι ποιῆσαι νεύσασαν, οὐκ ἦν δηλονότι ὅπου ἂν ἔνευσεν, οὐδ’ αὖ τὸ σκότος αἴτιον τῆς νεύσεως, ἀλλ’ αὐτὴ ἡ ψυχῆς φύσις. τοῦτο δὲ ταὐτὸν ταῖς προηγησαμέναις ἀνάγκαις· ὥστε ἐπὶ τὰ πρῶτα ἡ αἰτία.
If according to nature, it is always so. If against nature, there will be what is against nature even in the realities there, and evils before this cosmos; and the cosmos will not be the cause of evils, but the realities there will be the cause of them for it; and for soul they will not come from here, but from soul to here. And the argument will end up referring the cosmos back to the first realities. And if so, matter too, from which it appeared. For the soul that inclined saw the darkness, they say, already existing, and illuminated it. Where, then, did this come from? And if they say the soul made it by inclining, there was obviously nowhere for it to incline to, nor again was the darkness the cause of the inclining, but the soul’s nature itself. And this is the same as the necessities that went before; so the cause goes back to the first realities.
ὁ ἄρα μεμφόμενος τῇ τοῦ κόσμου φύσει οὐκ οἶδεν ὅ τι ποιεῖ, οὐδ’ ὅποι τὸ θράσος αὐτοῦ τοῦτο χωρεῖ. τοῦτο δέ, ὅτι οὐκ ἴσασι τάξιν ἐφεξῆς πρώτων καὶ δευτέρων καὶ τρίτων καὶ ἀεὶ μέχρι τῶν ἐσχάτων, καὶ ὡς οὐ λοιδορητέον τοῖς χείροσι τῶν πρώτων, ἀλλὰ πρᾴως συγχωρητέον τῇ πάντων φύσει αὐτὸν θέοντα πρὸς τὰ πρῶτα παυσάμενον τῆς τραγῳδίας τῶν φοβερῶν, ὡς οἴονται, ἐν ταῖς τοῦ κόσμου σφαίραις, αἳ δὴ πάντα μείλιχα τεύχουσιν αὐτοῖς· τί γὰρ φοβερὸν ἔχουσιν αὗται, ὡς φοβοῦσι τοὺς ἀπείρους λόγων καὶ πεπαιδευμένης ἀνηκόους καὶ ἐμμελοῦς γνώσεως; οὐ γάρ, εἰ πύρινα τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν, φοβεῖσθαι δεῖ συμμέτρως πρὸς τὸ πᾶν καὶ πρὸς τὴν γῆν ἔχοντα, εἰς δὲ τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν βλέπειν, αἷς καὶ αὐτοὶ δήπουθεν ἀξιοῦσι τίμιοι εἶναι.
So whoever finds fault with the nature of the cosmos does not know what he is doing, nor where this audacity of his is leading. This is because they do not know the sequential order of firsts, seconds and thirds, and so on always to the last, and that one must not abuse what is worse than the first, but gently accept the nature of all things and run oneself toward the first, putting an end to the melodrama of the terrors, as they think, in the spheres of the cosmos—which, in fact, “make all things gentle” for them. What is terrible about them, that they should frighten people inexperienced in argument, who have never heard of educated and harmonious knowledge? If their bodies are fiery, we need not fear them, since they are in proportion to the All and to the earth; we should look instead to their souls—the very thing for which these people themselves surely claim to be valued.
καίτοι καὶ τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν μεγέθει καὶ κάλλει διαφέροντα συμπράττοντα καὶ συνενεργοῦντα τοῖς κατὰ φύσιν γιγνομένοις, ἃ οὐκ ἂν οὐ γένοιτό ποτε ἔστ’ ἂν ᾖ τὰ πρῶτα, συμπληροῦντα δὲ τὸ πᾶν καὶ μεγάλα μέρη ὄντα τοῦ παντός. εἰ δὲ ἄνθρωποι τίμιόν τι παρ’ ἄλλα ζῷα, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ταῦτα οὐ τυραννίδος ἕνεκα ἐν τῷ παντὶ ὄντα, ἀλλὰ κόσμον καὶ τάξιν παρέχοντα. ἃ δὲ λέγεται γίνεσθαι παρ’ αὐτῶν σημεῖα νομίζειν τῶν ἐσομένων εἶναι, γίνεσθαι δὲ τὰ γινόμενα διάφορα καὶ τύχαις — οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε ἦν ταὐτὰ περὶ ἑκάστους συμβαίνειν — καὶ καιροῖς γενέσεων καὶ τόποις πλεῖστον ἀφεστηκόσι καὶ διαθέσεσι ψυχῶν.
And yet their bodies too, outstanding in size and beauty, cooperate and work together with the things that come about according to nature—things that could never fail to happen as long as the first realities exist—and they complete the All, being great parts of it. And if humans are something valuable compared with other animals, these are far more so, being in the All not to tyrannize but to provide order and arrangement. And what is said to come about from them should be taken as signs of what will be; while the things that come about turn out differently by chance circumstances—for the same things could not happen to everyone—and by the moments of birth, by places very far apart, and by the dispositions of souls.
καὶ οὐκ ἀπαιτητέον πάλιν ἀγαθοὺς πάντας, οὐδ’ ὅτι μὴ τοῦτο δυνατόν, μέμφεσθαι προχείρως [προσήκει] πάλιν ἀξιοῦσι μηδὲν διαφέρειν ταῦτα ἐκείνων, τό τε κακὸν μὴ νομίζειν ἄλλο τι ἢ τὸ ἐνδεέστερον εἰς φρόνησιν καὶ ἔλαττον ἀγαθὸν καὶ ἀεὶ πρὸς τὸ σμικρότερον· οἷον εἴ τις τὴν φύσιν κακὸν λέγοι, ὅτι μὴ αἴσθησίς ἐστι, καὶ τὸ αἰσθητικόν, ὅτι μὴ λόγος. εἰ δὲ μή, κἀκεῖ τὰ κακὰ ἀναγκασθήσονται λέγειν εἶναι· καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖ ψυχὴ χεῖρον νοῦ καὶ οὗτος ἄλλου ἔλαττον.
Nor, again, should one demand that all be good; nor, because this is impossible, [is it fitting] for those who once more claim that these things should differ in no way from those to be quick to find fault; nor should one think evil is anything other than what falls short in understanding, a lesser good, always toward the smaller—as if someone were to call nature evil because it is not perception, and the perceptive power evil because it is not reason. Otherwise they will be forced to say there are evils there too; for there too Soul is worse than Intellect, and Intellect less than something else.
Spells and the despising of virtue
Gnostic incantations and exorcisms are mocked, and their contempt for the world leaves no room for virtue.
μάλιστα δὲ αὐτοὶ καὶ ἄλλως ποιοῦσιν οὐκ ἀκήρατα τὰ ἐκεῖ. ὅταν γὰρ ἐπαοιδὰς γράφωσιν ὡς πρὸς ἐκεῖνα λέγοντες, οὐ μόνον τὴν ψυχήν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ἐπάνω, τί ποιοῦσιν ἢ γοητείας καὶ θέλξεις καὶ πείσεις λέγουσι καὶ λόγῳ ὑπακούειν καὶ ἄγεσθαι, εἴ τις ἡμῶν τεχνικώτερος εἰπεῖν ταδὶ καὶ οὑτωσὶ μέλη καὶ ἤχους καὶ προσπνεύσεις καὶ σιγμοὺς τῆς φωνῆς καὶ τὰ ἄλλα, ὅσα ἐκεῖ μαγεύειν γέγραπται. εἰ δὲ μὴ βούλονται τοῦτο λέγειν, ἀλλὰ πῶς φωναῖς τὰ ἀσώματα; ὥστε οἷς σεμνοτέρους αὑτῶν τοὺς λόγους ποιοῦσι φαίνεσθαι, τούτοις λελήθασιν αὑτοὺς τὸ σεμνὸν ἐκείνων ἀφαιρούμενοι.
But above all, they themselves in another way too make the beings there less than pure. When they write incantations as if addressing them, and not only the Soul but also what is above it, what are they doing but saying that those beings are subject to spells, charms and persuasions? That they obey a word and can be led, if one of us is skilled enough at saying these particular things in this particular way: chants and sounds, breathings and hissings of the voice, and everything else that their writings prescribe for working magic there? And if they don’t want to say this, then how can incorporeal beings be moved by sounds? So by the very means with which they make their own doctrines look more august, they have, without noticing it, stripped those beings of their majesty.
καθαίρεσθαι δὲ νόσων λέγοντες αὑτοὺς λέγοντες μὲν ἂν σωφροσύνῃ καὶ κοσμίᾳ διαίτῃ ἔλεγον ἂν ὀρθῶς, καθάπερ οἱ φιλόσοφοι λέγουσι· νῦν δὲ ὑποστησάμενοι τὰς νόσους δαιμόνια εἶναι καὶ ταῦτα ἐξαιρεῖν λόγῳ φάσκοντες δύνασθαι καὶ ἐπαγγελλόμενοι σεμνότεροι μὲν ἂν εἶναι δόξαιεν παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς, οἳ τὰς παρὰ τοῖς μάγοις δυνάμεις θαυμάζουσι, τοὺς μέντοι εὖ φρονοῦντας οὐκ ἂν πείθοιεν, ὡς οὐχ αἱ νόσοι τὰς αἰτίας ἔχουσιν ἢ καμάτοις ἢ πλησμοναῖς ἢ ἐνδείαις ἢ σήψεσι καὶ ὅλως μεταβολαῖς ἢ ἔξωθεν τὴν ἀρχὴν ἢ ἔνδοθεν λαβούσαις. δηλοῦσι δὲ καὶ αἱ θεραπεῖαι αὐτῶν. γαστρὸς γὰρ ῥυείσης ἢ φαρμάκου δοθέντος διεχώρησε κάτω εἰς τὸ ἔξω τὸ νόσημα καὶ αἵματος ἀφῃρημένου, καὶ ἔνδεια δὲ ἰάσατο, ἢ πεινήσαντος τοῦ δαιμονίου καὶ τοῦ φαρμάκου ποιήσαντος τήκεσθαι, ποτὲ δὲ ἀθρόως ἐξελθόντος, ἢ μένοντος ἔνδον.
They say they purify themselves of diseases. If they said they did it by moderation and an orderly way of life, they would be right, just as the philosophers say. As it is, they suppose that diseases are spirits, and they claim, and advertise, that they can drive these out by a word. This might make them seem more impressive to the many, who marvel at the powers of magicians. But they would not persuade people of sound mind that diseases do not have their causes in exhaustion, or excess, or deficiency, or decay, and in general in changes whose origin is either outside or inside. Their treatments show it too. When the bowels have moved, or a drug has been given, the disease has passed down and out; so too when blood has been drawn; and fasting too has cured. Or did the spirit get hungry, and did the drug make it waste away? Did it sometimes leave all at once, or stay inside?
ἀλλ’ εἰ μὲν ἔτι μένοντος, πῶς ἔνδον ὄντος οὐ νοσεῖ ἔτι; εἰ δὲ ἐξελήλυθε, διὰ τί; τί γὰρ αὐτὸ πέπονθεν; ἢ ὅτι ἐτρέφετο ὑπὸ τῆς νόσου. ἦν ἄρα ἡ νόσος ἑτέρα οὖσα τοῦ δαίμονος. ἔπειτα, εἰ οὐδενὸς ὄντος αἰτίου εἴσεισι, διὰ τί οὐκ ἀεὶ νοσεῖ; εἰ δὲ γενομένου αἰτίου, τί δεῖ τοῦ δαίμονος πρὸς τὸ νοσεῖν; τὸ γὰρ αἴτιον τὸν πυρετὸν αὔταρκές ἐστιν ἐργάσασθαι. γελοῖον δὲ τὸ ἅμα τὸ αἴτιον γενέσθαι καὶ εὐθέως ὥσπερ παρυποστῆναι τῷ αἰτίῳ τὸ δαιμόνιον ἕτοιμον ὄν. ἀλλὰ γάρ, ὅπως καὶ ταῦτα εἴρηται αὐτοῖς καὶ ὅτου χάριν, δῆλον· τούτου γὰρ ἕνεκα οὐκ ἧττον καὶ τούτων τῶν δαιμονίων ἐμνήσθημεν.
But if it still stays, how is it that the person is no longer sick while it is inside? And if it has gone out, why? What has happened to it? Perhaps it was being fed by the disease. Then the disease was something other than the spirit. Next, if it enters when there is no cause, why isn’t the person always sick? And if it enters when a cause has arisen, what need is there of the spirit to make him sick? The cause is enough to produce the fever. And it is absurd that the moment the cause arises, the spirit should at once spring into existence, as it were, alongside the cause, ready and waiting. But it is clear how, and for what purpose, they have said these things too; and that is why, no less than for the rest, we have mentioned these spirits as well.
τὰ δ’ ἄλλα ὑμῖν καταλείπω ἀναγινώσκουσιν ἐπισκοπεῖσθαι καὶ θεωρεῖν ἐκεῖνο πανταχοῦ, ὡς τὸ μὲν παρ’ ἡμῶν εἶδος φιλοσοφίας μεταδιωκόμενον πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις ἅπασιν ἀγαθοῖς καὶ τὴν ἁπλότητα τοῦ ἤθους μετὰ τοῦ φρονεῖν καθαρῶς ἐνδείκνυται, τὸ σεμνόν, οὐ τὸ αὔθαδες μεταδιώκουσαν, τὸ θαρραλέον μετὰ λόγου καὶ μετὰ ἀσφαλείας πολλῆς καὶ εὐλαβείας καὶ πλείστης περιωπῆς ἔχουσαν· τὰ δὲ ἄλλα τῷ τοιούτῳ παραβάλλειν. τὸ δὲ παρὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἐναντιώτατα κατεσκευάσθαι διὰ πάντων, οὐδὲν γὰρ ἂν πλέον περὶ αὐτῶν λέγειν ἡμῖν ἂν πρέποι.
The rest I leave to you to examine as you read, and to observe this everywhere: that the kind of philosophy we pursue, besides all its other goods, displays simplicity of character together with pure understanding. It aims at dignity, not arrogance; its confidence comes with reason, with great security and caution, and the widest circumspection. Compare everything else with philosophy of this kind. The philosophy of the others has been built in the most opposite way in every respect; it would not befit us to say any more about them.
ἐκεῖνο δὲ μάλιστα δεῖ μὴ λανθάνειν ἡμᾶς, τί ποτε ποιοῦσιν οἱ λόγοι οὗτοι εἰς τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν ἀκουόντων καὶ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ καταφρονεῖν πεισθέντων. δυεῖν γὰρ οὐσῶν αἱρέσεων τοῦ τυχεῖν τοῦ τέλους, μιᾶς μὲν τῆς ἡδονὴν τὴν τοῦ σώματος τέλος τιθεμένης, ἑτέρας δὲ τῆς τὸ καλὸν καὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν αἱρουμένης, οἷς καὶ ἐκ θεοῦ καὶ εἰς θεὸν ἀνήρτηται ἡ ὄρεξις — πῶς δέ, ἐν ἄλλοις θεωρητέον — ὁ μὲν Ἐπίκουρος τὴν πρόνοιαν ἀναιρῶν τὴν ἡδονὴν καὶ τὸ ἥδεσθαι, ὅπερ ἦν λοιπόν, τοῦτο διώκειν παρακελεύεται· ὁ δὲ λόγος οὗτος ἔτι νεανικώτερον τὸν τῆς προνοίας κύριον καὶ αὐτὴν τὴν πρόνοιαν μεμψάμενος καὶ πάντας νόμους τοὺς ἐνταῦθα ἀτιμάσας καὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν τὴν ἐκ παντὸς τοῦ χρόνου ἀνηυρημένην τό τε σωφρονεῖν τοῦτο ἐν γέλωτι θέμενος, ἵνα μηδὲν καλὸν ἐνταῦθα δὴ ὀφθείη ὑπάρχον, ἀνεῖλε τὸ σωφρονεῖν καὶ τὴν ἐν τοῖς ἤθεσιν ἔμφυτον δικαιοσύνην τὴν τελειουμένην ἐκ λόγου καὶ ἀσκήσεως καὶ ὅλως καθ’ ἃ σπουδαῖος ἄνθρωπος ἂν γένοιτο.
But above all we must not overlook what these doctrines do to the souls of those who hear them and are persuaded to despise the cosmos and what is in it. There are two schools of thought about attaining the end. One sets pleasure, the pleasure of the body, as the end; the other chooses the beautiful and virtue, the desire for which depends on god and leads back to god—how, we must consider elsewhere. Epicurus, who abolishes providence, urges us to pursue pleasure and enjoyment, which is all that is left. But this doctrine is still more brazen. It finds fault with the lord of providence and with providence itself; it scorns all the laws of this world; it mocks virtue, discovered over the whole course of time, and moderation along with it, so that nothing beautiful may be seen to exist here at all. And so it has done away with moderation, and with the justice that is innate in character and is perfected by reason and training, and in general with everything by which a person could become good.
ὥστε αὐτοῖς καταλείπεσθαι τὴν ἡδονὴν καὶ τὸ περὶ αὑτοὺς καὶ τὸ οὐ κοινὸν πρὸς ἄλλους ἀνθρώπους καὶ τὸ τῆς χρείας μόνον, εἰ μή τις τῇ φύσει τῇ αὑτοῦ κρείττων εἴη τῶν λόγων τούτων· τούτων γὰρ οὐδὲν αὐτοῖς καλόν, ἀλλὰ ἄλλο τι, ὅ ποτε μεταδιώξουσι.
So what is left for them is pleasure, their own interest, what is not shared with other people, and mere need—unless someone’s own nature is better than these doctrines. For nothing of all this is beautiful in their eyes; only something else, which they will go after some day.
καίτοι ἐχρῆν τοὺς ἤδη ἐγνωκότας ἐντεῦθεν διώκειν, διώκοντας δὲ πρῶτα κατορθοῦν ταῦτα ἐκ θείας φύσεως ἥκοντας· ἐκείνης γὰρ τῆς φύσεως καλὸν ἐπαίειν [τῆς] τὴν ἡδονὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀτιμαζούσης. οἷς δὲ ἀρετῆς μὴ μέτεστιν, οὐκ ἂν εἶεν τὸ παράπαν κινηθέντες πρὸς ἐκεῖνα. μαρτυρεῖ δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ τόδε τὸ μηδένα λόγον περὶ ἀρετῆς πεποιῆσθαι, ἐκλελοιπέναι δὲ παντάπασι τὸν περὶ τούτων λόγον, καὶ μήτε τί ἐστιν εἰπεῖν μήτε πόσα μήτε ὅσα τεθεώρηται πολλὰ καὶ καλὰ τοῖς τῶν παλαιῶν λόγοις, μήτε ἐξ ὧν περιέσται καὶ κτήσεται, μήτε ὡς θεραπεύεται ψυχὴ μήτε ὡς καθαίρεται. οὐ γὰρ δὴ τὸ εἰπεῖν ‘βλέπε πρὸς θεόν’ προὔργου τι ἐργάζεται, ἐὰν μὴ καὶ πῶς βλέψει διδάξῃ.
And yet those who already have knowledge ought to pursue it starting from here, and in pursuing it ought first to set these things right, since they come from a divine nature. For it belongs to that nature to heed the beautiful—[the] nature that scorns the pleasure of the body. Those who have no share in virtue could never be moved toward those higher things at all. There is evidence against them in this too: they have produced no account of virtue, and have left the discussion of these matters out entirely. They say neither what it is, nor how many kinds there are, nor any of the many fine things studied in the writings of the ancients, nor what it comes from and how it will be acquired, nor how the soul is cared for, nor how it is purified. Just saying “Look to god” does nothing to advance anyone, unless one also teaches how to look.
τί γὰρ κωλύει, εἴποι τις ἄν, βλέπειν καὶ μηδεμιᾶς ἀπέχεσθαι ἡδονῆς, ἢ ἀκρατῆ θυμοῦ εἶναι μεμνημένον μὲν ὀνόματος τοῦ θεός, συνεχόμενον δὲ ἅπασι πάθεσι, μηδὲν δὲ αὐτῶν πειρώμενον ἐξαιρεῖν; ἀρετὴ μὲν οὖν εἰς τέλος προιοῦσα καὶ ἐν ψυχῇ ἐγγενομένη μετὰ φρονήσεως θεὸν δείκνυσιν· ἄνευ δὲ ἀρετῆς ἀληθινῆς θεὸς λεγόμενος ὄνομά ἐστιν.
For what prevents someone, one might ask, from “looking” while abstaining from no pleasure, or while unable to control his anger—remembering the name “god” but held fast by every passion, and making no attempt to get rid of any of them? Virtue, advancing to its goal and coming to be in the soul together with understanding, reveals god. Without true virtue, “god” is just a name.
οὐδ’ αὖ τῷ καταφρονῆσαι κόσμου καὶ θεῶν τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων καλῶν ἀγαθόν ἐστι γενέσθαι. καὶ γὰρ πᾶς κακὸς καὶ πρὸ τοῦ καταφρονήσειεν ἂν θεῶν, καὶ μὴ πρότερόν τις κακὸς καταφρονήσας, καὶ εἰ τὰ ἄλλα μὴ πάντα κακὸς εἴη, αὐτῷ τούτῳ ἂν γεγονὼς εἴη. καὶ γὰρ ἂν καὶ ἡ πρὸς τοὺς νοητοὺς λεγομένη αὐτοῖς τιμὴ ἀσυμπαθὴς ἂν γένοιτο· ὁ γὰρ τὸ φιλεῖν πρὸς ὁτιοῦν ἔχων καὶ τὸ συγγενὲς πᾶν οὗ φιλεῖ ἀσπάζεται καὶ τοὺς παῖδας ὧν τὸν πατέρα ἀγαπᾷ· ψυχὴ δὲ πᾶσα πατρὸς ἐκείνου. ψυχαὶ δὲ καὶ ἐν τούτοις καὶ νοεραὶ καὶ ἀγαθαὶ καὶ συναφεῖς τοῖς ἐκεῖ πολὺ μᾶλλον ἢ αἱ ἡμῶν· πῶς γὰρ ἂν ἀποτμηθεὶς ὅδε ὁ κόσμος ἐκείνου ἦν; πῶς δὲ οἱ ἐν αὐτῷ θεοί;
Nor, again, does despising the cosmos and the gods in it and the other beautiful things make one good. Every bad person would despise the gods even before; and someone who was not bad before would become bad by that very act of despising, even if he were not bad in everything else. Indeed, the honor they claim to pay to the intelligible gods would itself become devoid of fellow-feeling. Whoever loves anything also cherishes everything akin to what he loves, and loves the children of the father he loves. And every soul is that father’s child. The souls in these beings too are intellectual and good, and joined to the beings there much more closely than ours are. For how could this cosmos exist if it were cut off from that one? And how could the gods in it?
ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν καὶ πρότερον· νῦν δέ, ὅτι καὶ τῶν συγγενῶν ἐκείνοις καταφρονοῦντες μηδὲ ἐκεῖνα ἴσασιν, ἀλλ’ ἢ λόγῳ. ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ πρόνοιαν μὴ διικνεῖσθαι εἰς τὰ τῇδε ἢ εἰς ὁτιοῦν, πῶς εὐσεβές; πῶς δὲ καὶ σύμφωνον ἑαυτοῖς [λέγουσι]; λέγουσι γὰρ αὑτῶν προνοεῖν αὖ μόνον. πότερα δὲ ἐκεῖ γενομένων ἢ καὶ ἐνθάδε ὄντων; εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἐκεῖ, πῶς ἦλθον; εἰ δὲ ἐνθάδε, πῶς ἔτι εἰσὶν ἐνθάδε; πῶς δὲ οὐ καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἐνθάδε; πόθεν γὰρ γνώσεται, ὅτι εἰσὶν ἐνθάδε; πῶς δέ, ὅτι ἐνθάδε ὄντες οὐκ ἐπελάθοντο αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐγένοντο κακοί; εἰ δὲ γινώσκει τοὺς μὴ γενομένους κακούς, καὶ τοὺς γενομένους γινώσκει, ἵνα διακρίνῃ ἀπ’ ἐκείνων αὐτούς. πᾶσιν οὖν παρέσται καὶ ἔσται ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τῷδε, ὅστις ὁ τρόπος· ὥστε καὶ μεθέξει αὐτοῦ ὁ κόσμος.
But we have said this before. The point now is that, since they despise what is akin to those beings, they don’t know those beings either, except in words. Again, how is it pious to say that providence does not reach to the things here, or to anything at all? And how is [it] consistent with themselves? For they say that it provides for them alone. Is that once they have got there, or also while they are here? If there, how did they come here? If here, how are they still here? And how is it that he himself is not here too? For how will he know that they are here? And how will he know that, being here, they have not forgotten him and become bad? But if he knows those who have not become bad, he knows those who have, too, in order to tell them apart from the others. So he will be present to all and will be in this cosmos, in whatever way; and so the cosmos will share in him.
εἰ δὲ ἄπεστι τοῦ κόσμου, καὶ ὑμῶν ἀπέσται, καὶ οὐδ’ ἂν ἔχοιτέ τι λέγειν περὶ αὐτοῦ οὐδὲ τῶν μετ’ αὐτόν.
But if he is absent from the cosmos, he will be absent from you too, and you will have nothing to say about him, or about the beings that come after him.
ἀλλ’ εἴτε ὑμῖν πρόνοιά τις ἔρχεται ἐκεῖθεν, εἴτε ὅ τι βούλεσθε, ἀλλ’ ὅ γε κόσμος ἐκεῖθεν ἔχει καὶ οὐκ ἀπολέλειπται οὐδ’ ἀπολειφθήσεται. πολὺ γὰρ μᾶλλον τῶν ὅλων ἢ τῶν μερῶν ἡ πρόνοια καὶ ἡ μέθεξις κἀκείνης τῆς ψυχῆς πολὺ μᾶλλον· δηλοῖ δὲ καὶ τὸ εἶναι καὶ τὸ ἐμφρόνως εἶναι. τίς γὰρ οὕτω τεταγμένος ἢ ἔμφρων τῶν ὑπερφρονούντων ἀφρόνως, ὡς τὸ πᾶν; ἢ παραβάλλειν καὶ γελοῖον καὶ πολλὴν τὴν ἀτοπίαν ἔχει, καὶ ὅ γε μὴ τοῦ λόγου ἕνεκα παραβάλλων οὐκ ἔξω ἂν τοῦ ἀσεβεῖν γένοιτο, καὶ οὐδὲ τὸ ζητεῖν περὶ τούτων ἔμφρονος, ἀλλὰ τυφλοῦ τινος καὶ παντάπασιν οὔτε αἴσθησιν οὔτε νοῦν ἔχοντος καὶ πόρρω τοῦ [τὸν] νοητὸν κόσμον ἰδεῖν ὄντος, ὃς τοῦτον οὐ βλέπει.
But whether some providence comes to you from there, or whatever you like, the cosmos at any rate has it from there, and has not been abandoned and never will be. Providence belongs much more to wholes than to parts, and so, much more, does the share in that Soul; its existence shows this, and its intelligent existence. Which of those who so senselessly look down on it is as well ordered or as intelligent as the All? Even to compare them is laughable and utterly absurd; anyone who made the comparison other than for the sake of argument could not escape impiety. Even to inquire about these things is not the mark of an intelligent person, but of someone blind, who has neither perception nor intellect at all and is far from seeing [the] intelligible world—since he does not see this one.
τίς γὰρ ἂν μουσικὸς ἀνὴρ εἴη, ὃς τὴν ἐν νοητῷ ἁρμονίαν ἰδὼν οὐ κινήσεται τῆς ἐν φθόγγοις αἰσθητοῖς ἀκούων; ἢ τίς γεωμετρίας καὶ ἀριθμῶν ἔμπειρος, ὃς τὸ σύμμετρον καὶ ἀνάλογον καὶ τεταγμένον ἰδὼν δι’ ὀμμάτων οὐχ ἡσθήσεται; εἴπερ οὐχ ὁμοίως τὰ αὐτὰ βλέπουσιν οὐδὲ ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς οἱ δι’ ὀμμάτων τὰ τῆς τέχνης βλέποντες, ἀλλ’ ἐπιγιγνώσκοντες μίμημα ἐν τῷ αἰσθητῷ τοῦ ἐν νοήσει κειμένου οἷον θορυβοῦνται καὶ εἰς ἀνάμνησιν ἔρχονται τοῦ ἀληθοῦς· ἐξ οὗ δὴ πάθους καὶ κινοῦνται οἱ ἔρωτες.
For who could be a musician who, having seen the harmony in the intelligible, will not be stirred when he hears the harmony in perceptible sounds? Or who skilled in geometry and numbers will not take pleasure when he sees with his eyes what is symmetrical, proportioned and ordered? After all, even with paintings, those who look at the works of art with their eyes do not all see the same things in the same way. When they recognize in the perceptible an imitation of what lies in thought, they are, as it were, thrown into turmoil and come to a recollection of the truth; and it is from this experience that loves are stirred.
ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν ἰδὼν κάλλος ἐν προσώπῳ εὖ μεμιμημένον φέρεται ἐκεῖ, ἀργὸς δέ τις οὕτως ἔσται τὴν γνώμην καὶ εἰς οὐδὲν ἄλλο κινήσεται, ὥστε ὁρῶν σύμπαντα μὲν τὰ ἐν αἰσθητῷ κάλλη, σύμπασαν δὲ συμμετρίαν καὶ τὴν μεγάλην εὐταξίαν ταύτην καὶ τὸ ἐμφαινόμενον ἐν τοῖς ἄστροις εἶδος καὶ πόρρωθεν οὖσιν οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν ἐνθυμηθήσεται, καὶ σέβας αὐτὸν λαμβάνει, οἷα ἀφ’ οἵων; οὐκ ἄρα οὔτε ταῦτα κατενόησεν, οὔτε ἐκεῖνα εἶδεν.
Someone who sees beauty well imitated in a face is carried off to that world. Will anyone, then, be so sluggish of mind and so unmoved toward anything else that, seeing all the beauties in the perceptible world, all its symmetry and this great good order, and the form that shines out in the stars, distant as they are, he will not be led by this to reflect, and be seized with awe—“What things, and from what source!”? Then he has neither understood these things nor seen those.
Beauty here and beauty there
Whoever despises the body’s beauty should look past it to the Soul that made it beautiful.
καίτοι, εἰ καὶ μισεῖν αὐτοῖς ἐπῄει τὴν τοῦ σώματος φύσιν, διότι ἀκηκόασι Πλάτωνος πολλὰ μεμψαμένου τῷ σώματι οἷα ἐμπόδια παρέχει τῇ ψυχῇ, καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν σωματικὴν φύσιν εἰπεῖν χείρονα, ἐχρῆν ταύτην περιελόντας τῇ διανοίᾳ ἰδεῖν τὸ λοιπόν, σφαῖραν νοητὴν τὸ ἐπὶ τῷ κόσμῳ εἶδος ἐμπεριέχουσαν, ψυχὰς ἐν τάξει, ἄνευ τῶν σωμάτων μέγεθος δούσας καὶ τὸ νοητὸν εἰς διάστασιν προαγαγούσας, ὡς τῷ μεγέθει τὸ γενόμενον τῷ ἀμερεῖ τῷ τοῦ παραδείγματος εἰς δύναμιν ἐξισωθῆναι· τὸ γὰρ ἐκεῖ μέγα ἐν δυνάμει ἐνταῦθα ἐν ὄγκῳ. καὶ εἴτε κινουμένην ταύτην τὴν σφαῖραν ἐβούλοντο νοεῖν περιαγομένην ὑπὸ θεοῦ δυνάμεως ἀρχὴν καὶ μέσα καὶ τέλος τῆς πάσης ἔχοντος, εἴτε ἑστῶσαν ὡς οὔπω καὶ ἄλλο τι διοικοῦσαν, καλῶς ἂν εἶχεν εἰς ἔννοιαν τῆς τόδε τὸ πᾶν ψυχῆς διοικούσης.
And yet, even if they were inclined to hate the nature of body because they have heard Plato often finding fault with the body for the hindrances it puts in the soul’s way, and saying that all bodily nature is inferior, they should have stripped it away in thought and looked at what remains. There is an intelligible sphere that embraces the form the cosmos bears; souls in their order, which without bodies give magnitude and lead the intelligible out into extension, so that what has come to be may, by its size, match in power the partlessness of its model—for what is great there in power is great here in bulk. And whether they wanted to think of this sphere as moving, carried round by the power of a god who holds the beginning, middle and end of it all, or as standing still, as not yet governing anything else, it would have served them well toward a conception of the Soul that governs this All.
ἐνθέντας δὲ ἤδη καὶ τὸ σῶμα αὐτῇ, ὡς οὐδὲν ἂν παθούσης, δούσης δὲ ἑτέρῳ, ὅτι μὴ θέμις φθόνον ἐν τοῖς θεοῖς εἶναι, ἔχειν, εἴ τι δύναται λαμβάνειν ἕκαστα, οὕτως αὐτοὺς διανοεῖσθαι κατὰ κόσμου τοσοῦτον διδόντας τῇ τοῦ κόσμου ψυχῇ δυνάμεως, ὅσῳ τὴν σώματος φύσιν οὐ καλὴν οὖσαν ἐποίησεν ὅσον ἦν αὐτῇ καλλύνεσθαι μετέχειν κάλλους· ὃ καὶ αὐτὸ τὰς ψυχὰς θείας οὔσας κινεῖ. εἰ μὴ ἄρα αὐτοὶ φαῖεν μὴ κινεῖσθαι, μηδὲ διαφόρως αἰσχρὰ καὶ καλὰ ὁρᾶν σώματα· ἀλλ’ οὕτως οὐδὲ αἰσχρὰ καὶ καλὰ ἐπιτηδεύματα οὐδὲ καλὰ μαθήματα· οὐδὲ θεωρίας τοίνυν· οὐδὲ θεὸν τοίνυν. καὶ γὰρ διὰ τὰ πρῶτα ταῦτα. εἰ οὖν μὴ ταῦτα, οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνα· μετ’ ἐκεῖνα τοίνυν ταῦτα καλά.
Then, placing the body in it too—the Soul suffering nothing, but giving to another, since there can be no envy among the gods, to have whatever each thing is able to receive—they should have thought about the cosmos in this way: granting the Soul of the cosmos so much power that it made the nature of body, which is not beautiful, share in beauty as far as it was capable of being made beautiful. And this very beauty moves souls, divine as they are. Unless, of course, they say that they themselves are not moved, and see no difference between ugly and beautiful bodies. But then they will see none between ugly and beautiful ways of life either, or beautiful studies; nor, then, contemplation; nor, then, god. For these things here exist because of the first ones. If not these, then, not those either; and so these things here are beautiful, coming after those.
ἀλλ’ ὅταν λέγωσι καταφρονεῖν τοῦ τῇδε κάλλους, καλῶς ἂν ποιοῖεν τοῦ ἐν παισὶ καὶ γυναιξὶ καταφρονοῦντες, ὡς μὴ εἰς ἀκολασίαν ἡττᾶσθαι.
But when they say they despise beauty here, they would do well to despise the beauty of boys and women, so as not to be overcome by it and fall into licentiousness.
ἀλλ’ εἰδέναι δεῖ, ὅτι οὐκ ἂν σεμνύνοιντο, εἰ αἰσχροῦ καταφρονοῖεν, ἀλλ’ ὅτι καταφρονοῦσι πρότερον εἰπόντες καλὸν κακῶς διατεθέντες· ἔπειτα, ὅτι οὐ ταὐτὸν κάλλος ἐπὶ μέρει καὶ ὅλῳ καὶ πᾶσι καὶ παντί· εἶθ’ ὅτι ἔστι τὰ τοιαῦτα κάλλη καὶ ἐν αἰσθητοῖς καὶ τοῖς ἐν μέρει, οἷα δαιμόνων, ὡς θαυμάσαι τὸν πεποιηκότα καὶ πιστεῦσαι, ὡς ἐκεῖθεν, καὶ ἐντεῦθεν ἀμήχανον τὸ ἐκεῖ κάλλος εἰπεῖν, οὐκ ἐχόμενον τούτων, ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ τούτων ἐπ’ ἐκεῖνα ἰόντα, μὴ λοιδορούμενον δὲ τούτοις· καὶ εἰ μὲν καὶ τὰ ἔνδον καλά, σύμφωνα ἀλλήλοις εἶναι λέγειν· εἰ δὲ τὰ ἔνδον φαῦλα, τοῖς βελτίοσιν ἠλαττῶσθαι. μήποτε δὲ οὐδὲ ἔστιν ὄντως τι καλὸν ὂν τὰ ἔξω αἰσχρὸν εἶναι τὰ ἔνδον· οὐ γὰρ τὸ ἔξω πᾶν καλὸν κρατήσαντός ἐστι τοῦ ἔνδον.
But they must realize that they would have nothing to be proud of if they despised what is ugly; their pride is in despising what they had first called beautiful, in their bad state of mind. Next, that beauty is not the same in a part and in the whole, in all the individuals and in the All. Then, that there are beauties of this kind even in perceptible and partial beings, such as those of the spirits, so that one admires their maker and believes that they come from there, and from this that the beauty there is beyond telling—that is, if one does not cling to these things but goes from them to those, without reviling these. And if they are beautiful within too, one should say that inner and outer are in harmony; if they are bad within, that they fall short in their better part. But perhaps it is not even possible for something really beautiful outside to be ugly inside; for the outside is not wholly beautiful without the inside having prevailed.
οἱ δὲ λεγόμενοι καλοὶ τἄνδον αἰσχροὶ ψεῦδος καὶ τὸ ἔξω κάλλος ἔχουσιν. εἰ δέ τις φήσει ἑωρακέναι καλοὺς ὄντως ὄντας, αἰσχροὺς δὲ τἄνδον, οἶμαι μὲν αὐτὸν μὴ ἑωρακέναι, ἀλλ’ ἄλλους εἶναι νομίζειν τοὺς καλούς· εἰ δ’ ἄρα, τὸ αἰσχρὸν αὐτοῖς ἐπίκτητον εἶναι καλοῖς τὴν φύσιν οὖσι· πολλὰ γὰρ ἐνθάδε τὰ κωλύματα εἶναι ἐλθεῖν εἰς τέλος. τῷ δὲ παντὶ καλῷ ὄντι τί ἐμπόδιον ἦν εἶναι καλῷ καὶ τἄνδον; καὶ μὴν οἷς μὴ τὸ τέλειον ἀπέδωκεν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἡ φύσις, τούτοις τάχ’ ἂν οὐκ ἐλθεῖν εἰς τέλος γένοιτο, ὥστε καὶ φαύλοις ἐνδέχεσθαι γενέσθαι, τῷ δὲ παντὶ οὐκ ἦν ποτε παιδὶ ὣς ἀτελεῖ εἶναι οὐδὲ προσεγίνετο αὐτῷ προιόντι [τι] καὶ προσετίθετο εἰς σῶμα. πόθεν γάρ; πάντα γὰρ εἶχεν. ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ εἰς ψυχὴν πλάσειεν ἄν τις.
Those who are called beautiful but are ugly within have a false outward beauty too. And if someone says he has seen people who really are beautiful but ugly within, I think he has not seen them, but takes others to be the beautiful ones. Or if he has, their ugliness is acquired, though they are beautiful by nature; for here there are many obstacles to reaching completion. But what was there to prevent the All, which is beautiful, from being beautiful within too? Moreover, those to whom nature did not give perfection from the beginning might perhaps fail to reach completion, so that they can even become bad. But the All was never a child, so as to be incomplete, nor did [anything] come to it as it advanced, or get added to its body. For from where? It had everything. Nor could one invent any such thing for its soul either.
εἰ δ’ ἄρα τοῦτό τις αὐτοῖς χαρίσαιτο, ἀλλ’ οὐ κακόν τι.
And even if one granted them this, it would still not be anything bad.
ἀλλ’ ἴσως φήσουσιν ἐκείνους μὲν τοὺς λόγους φεύγειν τὸ σῶμα ποιεῖν πόρρωθεν μισοῦντας, τοὺς δὲ ἡμετέρους κατέχειν τὴν ψυχὴν πρὸς αὐτῷ. τοῦτο δὲ ὅμοιον ἂν εἴη, ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ δύο οἶκον καλὸν τὸν αὐτὸν οἰκούντων, τοῦ μὲν ψέγοντος τὴν κατασκευὴν καὶ τὸν ποιήσαντα καὶ μένοντος οὐχ ἧττον ἐν αὐτῷ, τοῦ δὲ μὴ ψέγοντος, ἀλλὰ τὸν ποιήσαντα τεχνικώτατα πεποιηκέναι λέγοντος, τὸν δὲ χρόνον ἀναμένοντος ἕως ἂν ἥκῃ, ἐν ᾧ ἀπαλλάξεται, οὗ μηκέτι οἴκου δεήσοιτο, ὁ δὲ σοφώτερος εἶναι οἴοιτο καὶ ἑτοιμότερος ἐξελθεῖν, ὅτι οἶδε λέγειν ἐκ λίθων ἀψύχων τοὺς τοίχους καὶ ξύλων συνεστάναι καὶ πολλοῦ δεῖν τῆς ἀληθινῆς οἰκήσεως, ἀγνοῶν ὅτι τῷ μὴ φέρειν τὰ ἀναγκαῖα διαφέρει, εἴπερ καὶ μὴ ποιεῖ ταῦτα δυσχεραίνων [ἀλλ’] ἀγαπῶν ἡσυχῇ τὸ κάλλος τῶν λίθων.
But perhaps they will say that their doctrines make people flee the body, hating it from afar, while ours hold the soul down to it. That would be like two people living in the same beautiful house. One finds fault with its construction and its builder, yet stays in it none the less; the other does not find fault, but says the builder built it with the greatest skill, and waits for the time to come when he will leave and no longer need a house. The first might think himself wiser and readier to leave because he knows how to say that the walls are made of soulless stones and timber and fall far short of a true dwelling—not realizing that he differs only in not putting up with what is necessary; if indeed he does not do this out of discontent, [but] secretly loves the beauty of the stones.
δεῖ δὲ μένειν μὲν ἐν οἴκοις σῶμα ἔχοντας κατασκευασθεῖσιν ὑπὸ ψυχῆς ἀδελφῆς ἀγαθῆς πολλὴν δύναμιν εἰς τὸ δημιουργεῖν ἀπόνως ἐχούσης. ἢ ἀδελφοὺς μὲν καὶ τοὺς φαυλοτάτους ἀξιοῦσι προσεννέπειν, ἥλιον δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἀπαξιοῦσιν ἀδελφοὺς λέγειν οὐδὲ τὴν κόσμου ψυχὴν στόματι μαινομένῳ; φαύλους μὲν οὖν ὄντας οὐ θεμιτὸν εἰς συγγένειαν συνάπτειν, ἀγαθοὺς δὲ γενομένους καὶ μὴ σώματα ὄντας, ἀλλὰ ψυχὰς ἐν σώμασι καὶ οὕτως οἰκεῖν δυναμένους ἐν αὐτοῖς, ὡς ἐγγυτάτω εἶναι οἰκήσεως ψυχῆς τοῦ παντὸς ἐν σώματι τῷ ὅλῳ.
As long as we have bodies, we must stay in the houses built by a good sister soul, which has great power to create without toil. Or do they think fit to call even the basest of men brothers, while with their raving mouths they refuse to call the sun and the beings in the heavens brothers—or even the World Soul? It is not right, to be sure, to join ourselves in kinship to the bad; but only to those who have become good, and are not bodies but souls in bodies, and are able to dwell in them in a way that comes very close to the way the Soul of the All dwells in the whole body.
ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο τὸ μὴ κρούειν, μηδὲ ὑπακούειν τοῖς ἔξωθεν προσπίπτουσιν ἡδέσιν ἢ ὁρωμένοις, μηδ’ εἴ τι σκληρόν, ταράττεσθαι. ἐκείνη μὲν οὖν οὐ πλήττεται· οὐ γὰρ ἔχει ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡμεῖς δὲ ἐνθάδε ὄντες ἀρετῇ τὰς πληγὰς ἀπωθοίμεθ’ ἂν ἤδη ὑπὸ μεγέθους γνώμης τὰς μὲν ἐλάττους, τὰς δὲ οὐδὲ πληττούσας ὑπὸ ἰσχύος γενομένας. ἐγγὺς δὲ γενόμενοι τοῦ ἀπλήκτου μιμοίμεθ’ ἂν τὴν τοῦ σύμπαντος ψυχὴν καὶ τὴν τῶν ἄστρων, εἰς ἐγγύτητα δὲ ὁμοιότητος ἐλθόντες σπεύδοιμεν ἂν πρὸς τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ τὰ αὐτὰ ἂν ἐν θέᾳ καὶ ἡμῖν εἴη ἅτε καλῶς καὶ αὐτοῖς παρεσκευασμένοις φύσεσι καὶ ἐπιμελείαις· τοῖς δὲ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑπάρχει.
This means not to be jarred, not to give in to pleasures or sights that strike us from outside, and not to be disturbed if something is harsh. That Soul is not struck, for there is nothing to strike it. But we who are here could, by virtue, ward off the blows: some we could make smaller by greatness of mind, others, through strength, would not even strike us. And when we come close to being unstruck, we could imitate the Soul of the All and that of the stars; and having come close to likeness, we could hasten toward the same goal, and the same things would be objects of vision for us too, since we too have been well prepared, by nature and by care. But they have it from the beginning.
οὐδέ, εἰ μόνοι λέγοιεν θεωρεῖν δύνασθαι, πλέον ἂν θεωρεῖν αὐτοῖς γίγνοιτο, οὐδ’ ὅτι αὑτοῖς φασιν εἶναι ἐξελθεῖν ἀποθανοῦσι, τοῖς δὲ μή, ἀεὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν κοσμοῦσιν· ἀπειρίᾳ γὰρ ἂν τοῦ ἔξω ὅ τι ποτέ ἐστι τοῦτο ἂν λέγοιεν καὶ τοῦ ὃν τρόπον ψυχὴ παντὸς ἐπιμελεῖται ἡ ὅλη τοῦ ἀψύχου. ἔξεστιν οὖν καὶ μὴ φιλοσωματεῖν καὶ καθαροῖς γίνεσθαι καὶ τοῦ θανάτου καταφρονεῖν καὶ τὰ ἀμείνω εἰδέναι κἀκεῖνα διώκειν καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις τοῖς δυναμένοις διώκειν καὶ διώκουσιν ἀεὶ μὴ φθονεῖν ὡς οὐ διώκουσι, μηδὲ ταὐτὸ πάσχειν τοῖς οἰομένοις τὰ ἄστρα μὴ θεῖν, ὅτι αὐτοῖς ἡ αἴσθησις ἑστάναι αὐτὰ λέγει. διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ αὐτοὶ οὐκ οἴονται τὰ ἔξω βλέπειν τὴν τῶν ἄστρων φύσιν, ὅτι οὐχ ὁρῶσι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτῶν ἔξωθεν οὖσαν.
Nor, if they say that they alone can contemplate, would they contemplate any the more for it; nor because they claim that they can leave when they die, while those beings cannot, since they forever adorn the heavens. They would say this out of inexperience of what “outside” really is, and of the way all soul cares for all that is soulless. So it is possible not to love the body, to become pure, to despise death, to know what is better and pursue it, and not to begrudge others who are able to pursue it and are forever pursuing it, as if they were not. And it is possible not to suffer the same thing as those who think the stars do not move because their perception tells them the stars stand still. For this is why these people too do not think that the nature of the stars sees what is outside: because they do not see the stars’ soul being outside.