Part 9
52. Nevertheless, we permit those whose life is rolled about externals, having once acted impiously towards themselves, to be borne along to that to which they tend; but we rightly say, that the man whom we designate as a philosopher, and who is separated from externals, will not be disturbed by dæmons, nor be in want of diviners, nor of the viscera of animals. For he earnestly endeavours to be separated from those things for the sake of which divinations are effected. For he does not betake himself to nuptials, in order that he may molest the diviner about wedlock, or merchandise, or inquiries about a servant, or an increase of property, or any other object of vulgar pursuit. For the subjects of his investigation are not clearly indicated by any diviner or viscera of animals. But he, as we have said, approaching through himself to the [supreme] God, who is established in the true inward parts of himself, receives from thence the precepts of eternal life, tending thither by a conflux of the whole of himself, and instead of a diviner praying that he may become a confabulator of the mighty Jupiter.
53. For if such a one is impelled by some necessary circumstance, there are good dæmons, who, to the man living after this manner, and who is a domestic of divinity, will indicate and prevent, through dreams and symbols, and omens, what may come to pass, and what is necessarily to be avoided. For it is only requisite to depart from evil, and to know what is most honourable in the whole of things, and every thing which in the universe is good, friendly, and familiar. But vice, and an ignorance of divine concerns, are dire, through which a man is led to despise and defame things of which he has no knowledge; since nature does not proclaim these particulars with a voice which can be heard by the ears, but being herself intellectual[62], she initiates through intellect those who venerate her. And even though some one should admit the art of divination for the sake of predicting what is future, yet it does not from thence necessarily follow that the flesh of animals is to be eaten; as neither does it follow, that because it is proper to sacrifice to Gods or dæmons, food from animals is therefore to be introduced. For, not only the history which is related by Theophrastus, but also many other narrations inform us, that in ancient times men were sacrificed, yet it must not be inferred that on this account men are to be eaten.
54. And that we do not carelessly assert these things, but that what we have said is abundantly confirmed by history, the following narrations sufficiently testify. For in Rhodes, on the sixth day of June, a man was sacrificed to Saturn; which custom having prevailed for a long time, was afterwards changed [into a more human mode of sacrificing]. For one of those men who, by the public decision, had been sentenced to death, was kept in prison till the Saturnalia commenced; but as soon as this festival began, they brought the man out of the gates of the city, opposite to the temple of Aristobulus, and giving him wine to drink, they cut his throat. But in the island which is now called Salamis, but was formerly denominated Coronis, in the month according to the Cyprians Aphrodisius, a man was sacrificed to Agraule, the daughter of Cecrops, and the nymph Agraulis. And this custom continued till the time of Diomed. Afterwards it was changed, so that a man was sacrificed to Diomed. But the temples of Minerva, of Agraule, and Diomed, were contained in one and the same enclosure. The man also who was about to be slain, was first led by young men thrice round the altar, afterwards the priest pierced him with a lance in the stomach, and thus being thrown on the pyre, he was entirely consumed.
55. This sacred institute was, however, abolished by Diphilus, the king of Cyprus, who flourished about the time of Seleucus, the theologist. But Dæmon substituted an ox for a man; thus causing the latter sacrifice to be of equal worth with the former. Amosis also abolished the law of sacrificing men in the Egyptian city Heliopolis; the truth of which is testified by Manetho in his treatise on Antiquity and Piety. But the sacrifice was made to Juno, and an investigation took place, as if they were endeavouring to find pure calves, and such as were marked by the impression of a seal. Three men also were sacrificed on the day appointed for this purpose, in the place of whom Amosis ordered them to substitute three waxen images. In Chios likewise, they sacrificed a man to Omadius Bacchus[63], the man being for this purpose torn in pieces; and the same custom, as Euelpis Carystius says, was adopted in Tenedos. To which may be added, that the Lacedæmonians, as Apollodorus says, sacrificed a man to Mars.
56. Moreover the Phœnicians, in great calamities, either of war, or excessive dryness, or pestilence, sacrificed some one of their dearest friends, who was selected by votes for this purpose. The Phœnician history also is replete with instances of men being sacrificed, which history was written by Sanchoniatho in the Phœnician tongue, and was interpreted into Greek in eight books, by Philo Byblius. But Ister, in his collection of the Cretan sacrifices, says that the Curetes formerly sacrificed children to Saturn. And Pallas, who is the best of those that have collected what pertains to the mysteries of Mithras, says, that under the Emperor Adrian the sacrificing of men was nearly totally abolished. For, prior to his time, in Laodicea, which is in Syria, they anciently sacrificed a virgin to Minerva, but now they sacrifice a stag. The Carthaginians too, who dwell in Libya, formerly sacrificed men; but this custom was abolished by Iphicrates. And the Dumatii, a people of Arabia, annually sacrificed a boy, whom they buried under the altar, which was used by them as a statue. But Phylarchus narrates, that it was the general custom of all the Greeks, before they went to war, to immolate men. I omit to mention the Thracians and Scythians, and also the Athenians, who slew the daughter of Erechtheus and Praxithea. And even at present, who is ignorant that in the great city of Rome, in the festival of Jupiter Latialis, they cut the throat of a man? Human flesh, however, is not on this account to be eaten; though, through a certain necessity, a man should be sacrificed. For, when a famine takes place during a siege, some of the besieged feed on each other, yet at the same time those who do so are deemed execrable, and the deed is thought to be impious.
57. After the first war, likewise, waged by the Romans against the Carthaginians, in order to obtain Sicily, when the mercenary soldiers of the Phœnicians revolted, and, together with them, those of Africa deserted, Amilcar, who was surnamed Barkas, in attacking the Romans, was reduced to such a scarcity of food, that at first his men ate those that fell in battle; but afterwards, these failing, they ate their captives; in the third place, their servants; and in the last place, they attacked each other, and devoured their fellow-soldiers, who were led to be slaughtered for this purpose by lot. But Amilcar, taking those men that were in his power, caused his elephants to trample on such of the soldiers as had acted in this manner, conceiving that it was not holy to suffer them to be any longer mingled with other men; and neither did he admit that men should be eaten because certain persons had dared to do this; nor his son Hannibal, who, when he was leading his army into Italy, was advised by a certain person to accustom his troops to feed on human flesh, in order that they might never be in want of food. It does not follow, therefore, that because famine and war have been the causes of eating other animals, it is also requisite to feed on them for the sake of pleasure; as neither must we admit, that on this account men are to be eaten. Nor does it follow, that because animals are sacrificed to certain powers, it is also requisite to eat them. For neither do those who sacrifice men, on this account, feed on human flesh. Through what has been said, therefore, it is demonstrated, that it does not entirely follow that animals are to be eaten because they are sacrificed.
58. But that those who had learnt what the nature is of the powers in the universe, offered sacrifices through blood, not to Gods, but to dæmons, is confirmed by theologists themselves. For they also assert, that of dæmons, some are malefic, but others beneficent, who will not molest us, if we offer to them the first-fruits of those things alone which we eat, and by which we nourish either the soul or the body. After, therefore, we have added a few observations more, in order to show that the unperverted conceptions of the multitude accord with a right opinion respecting the Gods, we shall conclude this book. Those poets, therefore, who are wise, though but in a small degree, say,
What man so credulous and void of mind, What man so ignorant, as to think the Gods In fiery bile and fleshless bones rejoice, For hungry dogs a nutriment not fit; Or that such offerers they will e’er reward?
But another poet says,
My offerings to the Gods from cakes alone And frankincense shall be; for not to friends But deities my sacrifice I make.
59. Apollo also, when he orders men to sacrifice according to paternal institutes, appears to refer every thing to ancient custom. But the ancient custom of sacrificing was, as we have before shown, with cakes and fruits. Hence also, sacrifices were called θυσιαι, _thusiai_, and θυηλαι, _thuelai_, and θυμελαι, _thumelai_, and αυτο το θυειν, _auto to thuein_, i.e. _the act of sacrificing_, signified the same thing as του θυμιᾳν, _tou thumian_, i.e. _to offer incense_, and which is now called by us, επιθυειν, _epithuein_, i.e. _to sacrifice something more_. For what we now call θυειν, _thuein_, _i.e. to sacrifice_, the ancients denominated ερδειν, _erdein_, i.e. _to perform_ or _make_.
They perfect hecatombs of bulls, or goats, _Made_ to Apollo.
60. But those who introduced costliness into sacrifices, were ignorant that, in conjunction with this, they also introduced a swarm of evils, viz. superstition, luxury, an opinion that a divine nature may be corrupted by gifts, and that a compensation may be made by sacrifices for injustice. Or whence do some make an oblation of three animals with gilded horns, but others of hecatombs? And whence did Olympias, the mother of Alexander [the Great,] sacrifice a thousand of each species of animals, unless sumptuousness had at length proceeded to superstition? But when the young man was informed that the Gods rejoiced in magnificent sacrifices, and, as they say, in solemn banquets of oxen and other animals, how, though he was willing to act wisely, was it possible that he could? How also, when he conceived that these sacrifices were acceptable to the Gods, was it possible he should not fancy that he was permitted to act unjustly, when he might exonerate himself from erroneous conduct through sacrifices? But if he had been persuaded that the Gods have no need of these things, and that they look to the manners of those who approach to them, _and conceive that a right opinion of them, and of things themselves, is the greatest sacrifice_, how is it possible that he should not have been temperate, holy, and just?
61. To the Gods, indeed, the most excellent offering is a pure intellect and an impassive soul, and also a moderate oblation of our own property and of other things, and this not negligently, but with the greatest alacrity. For the honours which we pay to the Gods should be accompanied by the same promptitude as that with which we give the first seat to worthy men, and with which we rise to, and salute them, and not by the promptitude with which we pay a tribute. For man must not use such language as the following to God:
If, O Philinus, you recal to mind, And love me for, the benefits which I On you conferr’d, ’tis well, since for the sake Of these alone my bounty was bestow’d.
For divinity is not satisfied with such assertions as these. And hence Plato says [in his Laws], that it pertains to a good man to sacrifice, and to be always conversant with the Gods by prayers, votive offerings, sacrifices, and every kind of religious worship; but that to the bad man, much labour about the Gods is inefficacious and vain. For the good man knows what ought to be sacrificed, and from what it is requisite to abstain; what things are to be offered to divinity, and of what the first-fruits are to be sacrificed; but the bad man exhibiting honours to the Gods from his own disposition and his own pursuits, acts in so doing more impiously than piously. Hence Plato thought, that a philosopher ought not to be conversant with men of depraved habits; for this is neither pleasing to the Gods, nor useful to men; but the philosopher should endeavour to change such men to a better condition, and if he cannot effect this, he should be careful that he does not himself become changed into their depravity. He adds, that having entered into the right path, he should proceed in it, neither fearing danger from the multitude, nor any other blasphemy which may happen to take place. For it would be a thing of a dire nature, that the Syrians indeed will not taste fish, nor the Hebrews swine, nor most of the Phœnicians and Egyptians cows; and though many kings have endeavoured to change these customs, yet those that adopt them would rather suffer death, than a transgression of the law [which forbids them to eat these animals]; and yet that we should choose to transgress the laws of nature and divine precepts through the fear of men, or of a certain denunciation of evil from them. For the divine choir of Gods, and divine men, may justly be greatly indignant with us, if it perceives us directing our attention to the opinions of depraved men, and idly looking to the terror with which they are attended, though we daily meditate how we may become [philosophically] dead to other things in the present life.
FOOTNOTES:
[40] _i.e._ The Egyptians.
[41] In the original αρασαμενους, which is derived from the verb αραομαι, _imprecor_, _maledico_; and from hence, according to Porphyry, came the word αρωματα.
[42] _i.e._ May be rather called _malevolent_ than _unhappy_.
[43] Fabricius is of opinion that these _Thoes_ are the same with the Acrothoitæ, mentioned by Simplicius in his Comment. in Epictet. from Theophrastus.
[44] In the original, η γαρ θυσια, οσια τις εστιν κατα τουνομα.
[45] In the original, και τα μεν παρατιθεναι, which Felicianus very erroneously renders, “alius siquidem mihi ad vescendem sumo;” but Valentinus rightly, “et horum aliqua coram illis apponere.”
[46] A round, broad, and thin cake, which was offered in sacrifice to the Gods.
[47] Tynnichus, the Chalcidensian, is mentioned by Plato in his Io.
[48] Vid. Hesiod, Fragm. v. 169.
[49] A city of Crete.
[50] _i.e._ Under the pretext of being patronized by divinity in so doing.
[51] Porphyry, in what he here says of the Jews, alludes to that sect of them called Essæans; concerning whom, see the 4th book of this work.
[52] In the original, ους νυν ορωντας τιμαν τουτους, κ.τ.λ., instead of which, Reisk proposes to read, ους νυν ουχ ορωντας τιμαν δει [vel χρη] τουτοις, κ.τ.λ. But the insertion of ουχ is most absurd: for the _celestial_ are called the _visible_ Gods. Thus Plato, in the Timæus, in the speech of the Demiurgus to the junior or mundane Gods, who consist of the _celestial_ and _sublunary_ deities, calls the _celestial Gods_ those that _visibly_ revolve, and the _sublunary_, those that become apparent when they please: Επει ουν παντες οσοι τε περιπολουσι φανερως, και οσοι φαινονται καθ’ οσον αν εθελωσι θεοι, γενεσιν εσχον, κ.τ.λ. Conformably, therefore, to the above translation, I read, ους νυν ορωντας τιμαν δει τουτοις, κ.τ.λ. To which may be added, that our author, in paragraph 37, expressly calls the stars _visible Gods_.
[53] In the original, Θύσομεν τοινυν και ημεις· αλλα θυσομεν, ως προσηκει, διαφορους τας θυσιας, ως αν διαφοροις δυναμεσι προσαγοντες. This Valentinus erroneously translates as follows: “Sacrificabimus igitur etiam et nos, sed prout decet, victimas scilicet _eximias_ potestatibus _eximiis_ adducentes.” For διαφορους and διαφοροις, in this passage, evidently mean _different_, and not _excellent_.
[54] Concerning the appellations which the Pythagoreans gave to numbers, see my Theoretic Arithmetic, in which also the occult meaning of these appellations is unfolded.
[55] “Plotinus ni fallor, aut Plato, sed ille potius,” says Reisk; but every one who is at all conversant with Platonic writers, will immediately see that by _the theologist_, Porphyry means _Orpheus_.
[56] Though Porphyry excelled in all philosophical knowledge, whence also he was called κατ’ εξοχην, _the philosopher_, yet he was inferior to his auditor Iamblichus, in theological information. On this account, Iamblichus was called by all the Platonists posterior to him, _the divine_, and _the great_ priest. I shall present the reader, therefore, with an extract from my translation of his treatise on the Mysteries, which appears to me to be an admirable supplement to what Porphyry has said in this book, about sacrificing animals, and a satisfactory answer to the question whether they are to be sacrificed or not.
In Chap. 14, therefore, of Sect. 5, he observes as follows: “We shall begin the elucidation of this subject in the best possible manner, if we demonstrate that the sacred law of sacrifices is connected with the order of the Gods. In the first place, therefore, we say, that of the Gods some are material, but others immaterial. And the material, indeed, are those that comprehend matter in themselves, and adorn it; but the immaterial are those that are perfectly exempt from, and transcend matter: but, according to the sacrific art, it is requisite to begin sacred operations from the material Gods; for the ascent to the immaterial Gods will not otherwise be effected. The material Gods, therefore, have a certain communication with matter, so far as they preside over it. Hence they have dominion over things which happen about matter, such as the division, percussion, repercussion, mutation, generation, and corruption of all material bodies. He, therefore, who wishes to worship these theurgically, in a manner adapted to them, and to the dominion which they are allotted, should, as they are material, employ a material mode of worship. For thus we shall be wholly led to a familiarity with them, and worship them in an allied and appropriate manner. _Dead bodies, therefore, and things deprived of life, the slaying of animals, and the consumption of victims, and, in short, the mutation of the matter which is offered, pertain to these Gods, not by themselves, but on account of the matter over which they preside._ For though they are, in the most eminent degree, separate from it, yet, at the same time, they are present with it; and, though they comprehend matter in an immaterial power, yet they are co-existent with it. Things also that are governed, are not foreign from their governors; and things which are subservient as instruments, are not unadapted to those that use them. Hence it is foreign to the immaterial Gods, to offer matter to them through sacrifices, but this is most adapted to all the material Gods.”
In the following chapter, Iamblichus observes, “that as there is a time when we become wholly soul, are out of the body, and sublimely revolve on high, in conjunction with all the immaterial Gods; so, likewise, there is a two-fold mode of worship, one of which is simple, incorporeal, and pure from all generation; and this mode pertains to undefiled souls; but the other is replete with every thing of a material nature, and is adapted to souls which are neither pure, nor liberated from all generation.” He adds, “we must admit, therefore, that there are two-fold species of sacrifices; one kind, indeed, pertaining to men who are not entirely purified, which, as Heraclitus says, rarely happens to one man, or to a certain easily-to-be-numbered few of mankind; but the other kind being material, and consisting in mutation, is adapted to souls that are still detained by the body. Hence, to cities and people not yet liberated from sublunary fate, and the impending communion of bodies, if such a mode of sacrifice as this latter is not permitted, they will wander both from immaterial and material good. For they will not be able to receive the former, and to the latter they will not offer what is appropriate.”
He farther informs us, in Chap. 22, that though the summit of the sacrific art recurs to the most principal one of the whole multitude of Gods [_i.e._ to the ineffable cause of all,] and at one and the same time worships the many essences and principles that are [rooted and concentred] in it; yet this happens at the latest period, and to a very few, and that we must be satisfied, if it takes place, when the sun of life is setting. “But,” says he, “our present discussion does not ordain laws for a man of this kind; for he is superior to all law; but it promulgates a law such as that of which we are now speaking, to those who are in want of a certain divine legislation.” In the above passage, by “_a man of this kind_,” Iamblichus most probably alludes to Plotinus, as both his works, and the life of him, written by Porphyry, show that he was a man capable of recurring to, and becoming united with the highest God, and thus at the same time worshipping all the divine powers that are rooted in him.
To what Iamblichus has thus excellently observed, may be added what the philosopher Sallust says in his golden treatise On the Gods and the World, viz. “that since life primarily subsists in the Gods, and there is also a certain human life, but the latter desires to be united to the former, a medium is required; for natures much distant from each other cannot be conjoined without a medium; and it is necessary that the medium should be similar to the connected natures. Life, therefore, must necessarily be the medium of life. Hence, men of the present day that are happy, and all the ancients, have sacrificed animals; and this, indeed, not rashly, but in a way accommodated to every God, with many other ceremonies respecting the cultivation of divinity.” Let the _truly intellectual and pious man_, however, never forget that prayer, as Proclus divinely observes, possesses _of itself_ a supernatural perfection and power.
[57] For a more _theological_ account of dæmons, I refer the reader to my translation of the before-mentioned admirable treatise of Iamblichus on the Mysteries.
[58] In the original, ως γαρ φασιν οι θεολογοι τοις δεομενοις υπο των εκτος και μηδεπω κρατουσιν των παθων, κ.τ.λ. But for δεομενοις, it is necessary to read δεδεμενοις; and it is evident that both the Latin translators of this work found δεδεμενοις in their manuscripts. For Felicianus has “qui _devincti_ externis rebus sunt,” and Valentinus, “qui rebus externis _illigantur_.” Reisk, however, has taken no notice of this error in the printed text.
[59] Reisk, with his usual stupidity, where merely verbal emendations are not concerned, says that this Egyptian is Plotinus, whose country was Lycopolis, in Egypt. But what instance can be adduced, in all antiquity, of the disciple of a philosopher speaking of his preceptor in this indefinite manner? Is it not much more probable that this Egyptian is the priest mentioned by Porphyry in his Life of Plotinus, who, at the request of a certain friend of Plotinus, (which friend was, perhaps, Porphyry himself,) exhibited to Plotinus, in the temple of Isis, at Rome, the familiar dæmon, or, in modern language, the guardian angel of that philosopher?