Part 17

21. Those then who oppose the Nomades, or Troglodytæ[110], or Ichthyophagi, to the legal institutes of the nations which we have adduced, are ignorant that these people were brought to the necessity of eating animals through the infecundity of the region they inhabit, which is so barren, that it does not even produce herbs, but only shores and sands. And this necessity is indicated by their not being able to make use of fire, through the want of combustible materials; but they dry their fish on rocks, or on the shore. And these indeed live after this manner from necessity. There are, however, certain nations whose manners are rustic, and who are naturally savage; but it is not fit that those who are equitable judges should, from such instances as these, calumniate human nature. For thus we should not only be dubious whether it is proper to eat animals, but also, whether we may not eat men, and adopt all other savage manners. It is related, therefore, that the Massagetæ and the Derbices consider those of their kindred to be most miserable who die spontaneously. Hence, preventing their dearest friends from dying naturally, they slay them when they are old, and eat them. The Tibareni hurl from rocks their nearest relatives, even while living, when they are old. And with respect to the Hyrcani and Caspii, the one exposed the living, but the other the dead, to be devoured by birds and dogs. But the Scythians bury the living with the dead, and cut their throats on the pyres of the dead by whom they were especially beloved. The Bactrii likewise cast those among them that are old, even while living, to the dogs. And Stasanor, who was one of Alexander’s prefects, nearly lost his government through endeavouring to destroy this custom. As, however, we do not on account of these examples subvert mildness of conduct towards men, so neither should we imitate those nations that feed on flesh through necessity, but we should rather imitate the pious, and those who consecrate themselves to the Gods. For Democrates[111] says, that to live badly, and not prudently, temperately, and piously, is not to live in reality[112], but to die for a long time.

22. It now remains that we should adduce a few examples of certain individuals, as testimonies in favour of abstinence from animal food. For the want of these was one of the accusations which were urged against us. We learn, therefore, that Triptolemus was the most ancient of the Athenian legislators; of whom Hermippus[113], in the second book of his treatise on Legislators, writes as follows: “It is said, that Triptolemus established laws for the Athenians. And the philosopher Xenocrates asserts, that three of his laws still remain in Eleusis, which are these, Honour your parents; Sacrifice to the Gods from the fruits of the earth; Injure not animals.” Two of these, therefore, he says, are properly instituted. For it is necessary that we should as much as possible recompense our parents for the benefits which they have conferred on us; and that we should offer to the Gods the first-fruits of the things useful to our life, which they have imparted to us. But with respect to the third law, he is dubious as to the intention of Triptolemus, in ordering the Athenians to abstain from animals. Was it, says he, because he thought it was a dire thing to slay kindred natures, or because he perceived it would happen, that the most useful animals would be destroyed by men for food? Wishing, therefore, to make our life as mild as possible, he endeavoured to preserve those animals that associate with men, and which are especially tame. Unless, indeed, because having ordained that men should honour the Gods by offering to them first-fruits, he therefore added this third law, conceiving that this mode of worship would continue for a longer time, if sacrifices through animals were not made to the Gods. But as many other causes, though not very accurate, of the promulgation of these laws, are assigned by Xenocrates, thus much from what has been said is sufficient for our purpose, that abstinence from animals was one of the legal institutes of Triptolemus. Hence, those who afterwards violated this law, being compelled by great necessity, and involuntary errors, fell, as we have shown, into this custom of slaughtering and eating animals. The following, also, is mentioned as a law of Draco: “Let this be an eternal _sacred law_[114] to the inhabitants of Attica, and let its authority be predominant for ever; viz. that the Gods, and indigenous Heroes, be worshipped publicly, conformably to the laws of the country, delivered by our ancestors; and also, that they be worshipped privately, according to the ability of each individual, in conjunction with auspicious words, the firstlings of fruits, and annual cakes. So that this law ordains, that divinity should be venerated by the first offerings of fruits which are used by men, and cakes made of the fine flour of wheat.”[115]

FOOTNOTES:

[84] There were many celebrated men of this name among the ancients, concerning which vid. Fabric. Biblioth. Græc. L. III. c. 11.

[85] These lines are from Hesiod. Oper. 116. The different ages, however, of mankind, which are celebrated by Hesiod in his Works and Days, signify the different lives which the individuals of the human species pass through; and as Proclus on Hesiod beautifully observes, they may be comprehended in this triad, the _golden_, the _silver_, and the _brazen_ age. But by the _golden_ age an intellectual life is implied. For such a life is pure, impassive, and free from sorrow; and of this impassivity and purity, gold is an image, through never being subject to rust or putrefaction. Such a life, too, is very properly said to be under Saturn, because Saturn is an _intellectual_ God, or a God characterised by intellect. By the _silver_ age, a rustic and natural life is implied, in which the attention of the rational soul is entirely directed to the care of the body, but without proceeding to extreme depravity. And by the _brazen_ age, a dire, tyrannic, and cruel life is implied, which is entirely passive, and proceeds to the very extremity of vice. The order, also, of these metals, harmonizes, as Proclus observes, with that of the lives. “For,” says he, “_gold_ is _solar-form_, because the sun is solely immaterial light. But _silver_ is _lunar-form_, because the moon partakes of shadow, just as silver partakes of rust. And _brass_ is _earthly_, so far as not having a nature similar to a lucid body; it is replete with abundance of corruption.”

[86] The medimnus was a measure containing six bushels.

[87] An Attic measure, containing six Attic pints.

[88] In the original, και δηλον ως τοιαυτῃ πολιτειᾳ οικειον, το της αποχης της παντελους, ταις δε διεφθαρμεναις, το της βρωσεως. But the latter part of this sentence is evidently defective, though the defect is not noticed either by Valentinus, or Reiske, or Rhoer. It appears therefore to me, that της τρυφης is wanting; so that for το της βρωσεως, we should read το της τρυφης της βρωσεως. And my conjecture is justified by the version of Felicianus, which is, “Huic autem abstinentiam, cæteris _luxuriam_ victus fuisse peculiarem perspicuum est.”

[89] Those who, in being initiated, _closed the eyes_, which _muesis_ signifies, no longer (says Hermias in Phædrum) received by sense those divine mysteries, but with the pure soul itself. See my Dissertation on the Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries.

[90] In the original, και πορους ανθρωπινους; but for πορους I read πονους, and Felicianus appears to have found the same reading in his MS.; for his version is, “laboribusque humanis.” Neither Reisk, however, nor Rhoer, have at all noticed the word πορους as improper in this place.

[91] Much is related about the Egyptian priests by Herodotus, lib. ii. 37. With respect to Chæremon, the decisions of the ancients concerning him are very discordant.

[92] _i.e._ Those to whose care the sacred vestments were committed.

[93] These were so denominated from carrying the little receptacles in which the images of the Gods were contained.

[94] See on this subject Plutarch’s excellent treatise of Isis and Osiris.

[95] Fabricius is of opinion, that this _Euphantus_ is the same with the _Ecphantus_ mentioned by Iamblichus (in Vit. Pyth.) as one of the Pythagoreans. Vid. Fabric. Bibl. Græc. lib. ii. c. 13.

[96] This is not wonderful; for the Jews appear to have been always negligent of cleanliness. The intelligent reader will easily perceive that there is some similitude between these Essæans and the ancient Pythagoreans, but that the latter were infinitely superior to the former. See my translation of Iamblichus’ Life of Pythagoras.

[97] This was a very necessary oath for these Essæans to take; as the Jews in general, if we may believe Tacitus and other ancient historians, were always a people immoderately addicted to gain.

[98] As the Essæans appear to have been an exception to the rest of the Jews, the reason is obvious why they took this oath.

[99] Similar to this was the garment with which Apuleius was invested after his initiation into the mysteries of Isis, and which he describes as follows:—“There [_i.e._ on a wooden throne] I sat conspicuous, in a garment which was indeed linen, but was elegantly painted. A precious cloak also depended from my shoulders behind my back, as far as to my heels. Nevertheless, to whatever part of me you directed your view, you might see that I was remarkable by the animals which were painted round my vestment, in various colours. Here were Indian dragons, there Hyperborean griffins, which the other hemisphere generates in the form of a winged animal. Men devoted to the service of divinity, call this cloak the Olympic garment.”—See Book II. of my translation of the Metamorphosis of Apuleius.

[100] Proclus, however, in his Scholia on the Cratylus of Plato, gives a much more theological account of the derivation of the name of Proserpine, as follows:—“Socrates now delivers these three vivific monads in a consequent order, viz. Ceres, Juno, Proserpine; calling the first the mother, the second the sister, and the third the daughter of the Demiurgus [Jupiter]. All of them, however, are partakers of the whole of fabrication; the first in an exempt manner, and intellectually; the second in a fontal manner, and, at the same time, in a way adapted to a principle [αρχικως]; and the third in a manner adapted to a principle and a leader [αρχικως και ηγεμονικως].

“Of these Goddesses the last is allotted triple powers, and impartibly and uniformly comprehends three monads of Gods. But she is called Core [κορη] through the purity of her essence, and her undefiled transcendency in her generations. She also possesses a first, middle, and last empire; and according to her summit, indeed, she is called Diana by Orpheus; but, according to her middle, Proserpine; and according to the extremity of the order, Minerva. Likewise, according to an essence transcending the other powers of this triple vivific order, the dominion of Hecate is established; but according to a middle power, and which is generative of wholes, that of soul; and, according to intellectual conversion, that of Virtue[A]. Ceres, therefore, subsisting on high, and among the supermundane Gods, uniformly extends this triple order of divinities; and, together with Jupiter, generates Bacchus, who impartibly presides over partible fabrication. But beneath, in conjunction with Pluto, she is particularly beheld according to the middle characteristic: for it is this which, proceeding every where, imparts vivification to the last of things. Hence she is called Proserpine, because she especially associates with Pluto, and, together with him, distributes in an orderly manner the extremities of the universe. And, according to her extremities, indeed, she is said to be a virgin, and to remain undefiled; but, according to her middle, to be conjoined with Hades, and to beget the Furies in the subterranean regions. She, therefore, is also called Ceres, but after another manner than the supermundane and ruling Ceres. For the one is the connective unity of the three vivific principles; but the other is the middle of them, in herself possessing the peculiarities of the extremes. Hence, in the Proserpine conjoined with Pluto, you will find the peculiarities of Hecate and Minerva; but these extremes subsist in her occultly, while the peculiarity of the middle shines forth, and that which is characteristic of ruling soul, which in the supermundane Ceres was of a _ruling_[B] nature, but here subsists according to a mundane peculiarity.”

Proclus farther observes, “that Proserpine is denominated either through judging of forms, and separating them from each other, thus obscurely signifying the subversion of slaughter[C], (δια το κρινειν τα ειδη, και χωριζειν αλληλων ως του φονου την αναιρεσιν αινιττομενον,) or through separating souls perfectly from bodies, through a conversion to things on high, which is the most fortunate slaughter and death to such as are worthy of it. (ἢ δια το χωριζειν τας ψυχας τελεως εκ των σωματων δια της προς τα ανω επιστροφης, οπερ εστιν ευτυχεστατος φονος και θανατος τοις αξιουμενοις ταυτου.) But the name φερεφαττα, _Pherephatta_, is adapted to Proserpine, according to a contact with generation; but according to wisdom and counsel, to Minerva. At the same time, however, all the appellations by which she is distinguished, are adapted to the perfection of soul. On this account, also, she is called Proserpine, and not by the names of the extremes; since that which was ravished by Pluto, is this middle deity; the extremes at the same time being firmly established in themselves; according to which Ceres is said to remain a virgin.”

[A] Proclus says this conformably to the theology of the Chaldeans; for, according to that theology, the first monad of the vivific triad is _Hecate_, the second _Soul_, and the third _Virtue_.

[B] That is, of a supermundane nature; for the _ruling_ are the _supermundane_ Gods.

[C] Proclus here alludes to the war which subsists among forms through their union with matter, and which Proserpine subverts by separating them from each other.

[101] The first subsistence of Maia, who, according to the Orphic theology, is the same with the Goddess Night, is at the summit of _the intelligible, and at the same time intellectual_ order, and is wholly absorbed in the intelligible. As we are also informed by Proclus (in Cratylum), “She is the paradigm of Ceres. For immortal Night is the nurse of the Gods [according to Orpheus]. Night, however, is the cause of aliment intelligibly: for the intelligible is, as the Chaldean Oracle says, the aliment of the intellectual orders of Gods. But Ceres, first of all, separates the two kinds of aliment [nectar and ambrosia] in the Gods.” He adds, “Hence our sovereign mistress [δεσποινα], Ceres, not only generates life, but that which gives perfection to life; and this from supernal natures, to such as are last. For _virtue is the perfection of souls_.”

[102] Concerning the Indian philosophers, see the second book of Diodorus Siculus.

[103] This is the Bardesanes who lived in the time of Marcus Antoninus, and who wrote a treatise on the Lake of Probation in India, which is mentioned by Porphyry in his fragment De Styge, preserved by Stobæus.

[104] Βαναυσοι, _i.e._ dirty mechanics and bellows-blowers, an appellation by which Plato in his Rivals designates the _experimentalists_.

[105] Zagreus is an epithet of Bacchus. Wodhull, however, from whose translation of Euripides the above lines are taken, is greatly mistaken in saying, that “it is evident from the hymns of Orpheus that Zagreus was a name given to Bacchus at his sacred rites.” For the word Ζαγρευς (Zagreus) is not to be found either in the hymns of Orpheus, or in any other of the Orphic writings that are extant.

[106] Iliad, IV. v. 141.

[107] Oper. et Dies, 595.

[108] Iliad, V. v. 341.

[109] In the original, ου πολυ το ενοικιον, ως φησι που Θεοφραστος, τῳ σωματι διδουσης της ψυχης, κ.τ.λ. But for ου πολυ το ενοικιον, it appears to me to be necessary to read, ου μονον πολυ το ενοικιον, κ.τ.λ.

[110] Vid. Diod. Sic. lib. iii. 32.

[111] Reisk says, that he does not know who this Democrates is; but there can, I think, be no doubt of its being the Pythagorean of that name, whose Golden Sentences are extant in the Opuscula Mythologica of Gale, of which see Mr. Bridgman’s translation.

[112] In the original, ου κακως ζῃν ειναι. But for ου κακως, I read, ουκ οντως. For without this emendation, Democrates will contradict himself.

[113] This Hermippus is also cited by Diogenes Laertius in Pyth.

[114] In the original, θεσμος, which, as we are informed by Proclus, signifies _divine order, and a uniform boundary_.

[115] This book is evidently imperfect, because there are wanting at the end examples of illustrious Greeks and Romans, who, from the most remote antiquity, abstained from animal food. And this was also obvious to Reisk.

ON THE CAVE OF THE NYMPHS, IN THE THIRTEENTH BOOK OF THE ODYSSEY.

1. What does Homer obscurely signify by the cave in Ithaca, which he describes in the following verses?

“High at the head a branching olive grows, And crowns the pointed cliffs with shady boughs. A cavern pleasant, though involv’d in night, Beneath it lies, the Naiades’ delight: Where bowls and urns of workmanship divine And massy beams in native marble shine; On which the Nymphs amazing webs display, Of purple hue, and exquisite array. The busy bees within the urns secure Honey delicious, and like nectar pure. Perpetual waters through the grotto glide, A lofty gate unfolds on either side; That to the north is pervious to mankind; The sacred south t’ immortals is consign’d.”

That the poet, indeed, does not narrate these particulars from historical information, is evident from this, that those who have given us a description of the island, have, as Cronius[116] says, made no mention of such a cave being found in it. This likewise, says he, is manifest, that it would be absurd for Homer to expect, that in describing a cave fabricated merely by poetical license, and thus artificially opening a path to Gods and men in the region of Ithaca, he should gain the belief of mankind. And it is equally absurd to suppose, that nature herself should point out, in this place, one path for the descent of all mankind, and again another path for all the Gods. For, indeed, the whole world is full of Gods and men: but it is impossible to be persuaded, that in the Ithacensian cave men descend, and Gods ascend. Cronius, therefore, having premised thus much, says, that it is evident, not only to the wise but also to the vulgar, that the poet, under the veil of allegory, conceals some mysterious signification; thus compelling others to explore what the gate of men is, and also what is the gate of the Gods: what he means by asserting that this cave of the Nymphs has two gates; and why it is both pleasant and obscure, since darkness is by no means delightful, but is rather productive of aversion and horror. Likewise, what is the reason why it is not simply said to be the cave of the Nymphs, but it is accurately added, of the Nymphs which are called Naiades? Why, also, is the cave represented as containing bowls and amphoræ, when no mention is made of their receiving any liquor, but bees are said to deposit their honey in these vessels as in hives? Then, again, why are oblong beams adapted to weaving placed here for the Nymphs; and these not formed from wood, or any other pliable matter, but from stone, as well as the amphoræ and bowls? Which last circumstance is, indeed, less obscure; but that, on these stony beams, the Nymphs should weave purple garments, is not only wonderful to the sight, but also to the auditory sense. For who would believe that Goddesses weave garments in a cave involved in darkness, and on stony beams; especially while he hears the poet asserting, that the purple webs of the Goddesses were visible. In addition to these things likewise, this is admirable, that the cave should have a twofold entrance; one made for the descent of men, but the other for the ascent of Gods. And again, that the gate, which is pervious by men, should be said to be turned towards the north wind, but the portal of the Gods to the south; and why the poet did not rather make use of the west and the east for this purpose; since nearly all temples have their statues and entrances turned towards the east; but those who enter them look towards the west, when standing with their faces turned towards the statues, they honour and worship the Gods. Hence, since this narration is full of such obscurities, it can neither be a fiction casually devised for the purpose of procuring delight, nor an exposition of a topical history; but something allegorical must be indicated in it by the poet, who likewise mystically places an olive near the cave. All which particulars the ancients thought very laborious to investigate and unfold; and we, with their assistance, shall now endeavour to develope the secret meaning of the allegory. Those persons, therefore, appear to have written very negligently about the situation of the place, who think that the cave, and what is narrated concerning it, are nothing more than a fiction of the poet. But the best and most accurate writers of geography, and among these Artemidorus the Ephesian, in the fifth book of his work, which consists of eleven books, thus writes: “The island of Ithaca, containing an extent of eighty-five stadia[117], is distant from Panormus, a port of Cephalenia, about twelve stadia. It has a port named Phorcys, in which there is a shore, and on that shore a cave, in which the Phæacians are reported to have placed Ulysses.” This cave, therefore, will not be entirely an Homeric fiction. But whether the poet describes it as it really is, or whether he has added something to it of his own invention, nevertheless the same inquiries remain; whether the intention of the poet is investigated, or of those who founded the cave. For, neither did the ancients establish temples without fabulous symbols, nor does Homer rashly narrate the particulars pertaining to things of this kind. But how much the more any one endeavours to show that this description of the cave is not an Homeric fiction, but prior to Homer was consecrated to the Gods, by so much the more will this consecrated cave be found to be full of ancient wisdom. And on this account it deserves to be investigated, and it is requisite that its symbolical consecration should be amply unfolded into light.