Part 23

But that we may pass on. Because this unnaturall resemblance of God as an angry Deity in impure minds, should it blaze too furiously, like the Basilisk would kill with its looks; therefore these Painters use their best arts a little to sweeten it, and render it less unpleasing. And those that fancy God to be most hasty and apt to be displeased, yet are ready also to imagine him so impotently mutable, that his favour may be won again with their uncouth devotions, that he will be taken with their formall praises, and being thirsty after glory and praise and solemn addresses, may, by their pompous furnishing out all these for him, be won to a good liking of them: and thus they represent him to themselves as Lucian, in his _De Sacrificiis_ [c. I] speaks too truly, though it may be too profanely, ὡς κολακευόμενον ἥδεσθαι, καὶ ἀγανακτεῖν ἀμελούμενον. And therefore _Superstition_ will alwaies abound in these things whereby this Deity of their own, made after the similitude of men, may be most gratified, slavishly crouching to it. We will take a view of it in the words of _Plutarch_, though what refers to the JEWS, if it respects more their rites than their Manners, may seem to contain too hasty a censure of them. _Superstition_ brings in πηλώσεις, καταβορβορώσεις, σαββατισμούς, ῥίψεις ἐπὶ πρόσωπον, αἰσχρὰς προκαθίσεις, ἀλλοκότους προσκυνήσεις, _wallowings in the dust, tumblings in the mire, observations of Sabbaths, prosternations, uncouth gestures, and strange rites of worship_. Superstition is very apt to think that Heaven may be bribed with such false-hearted devotions; as Porphyrie, _Lib._ 2, περὶ ἀποχῆς, hath well explained it by this, that it is ὑπόληψις τοῦ δεκάζειν δύνασθαι τὸ θεῖον, _an apprehension that a man may corrupt and bribe the Deity_; which (as he there observes) was the Cause of all those bloudy sacrifices and of some inhumane ones among the Heathen men, imagining διὰ τῶν θυσιῶν ἐξωνεῖσθαι τὴν ἁμαρτίαν like him in the Prophet that thought by the fruit of his body and the firstlings of his flock to expiate the sinne of his Soul. _Micah_ 6.

But it may be we may seeme all this while to have made too Tragicall a Description of _Superstition_; and indeed one Author whom we have all this while had recourse to, seemes to have set it forth, as anciently Painters were wont to doe those pieces in which they would demonstrate most their own skill; they would not content themselves with the shape of one Body onely, but borrowed severall parts from severall Bodies as might most fit their design and fill up the picture of that they desired chiefly to represent. _Superstition_ it may be looks not so foul and deformed in every Soul that is dyed with it, as he hath there set it forth, nor doth it every where spread it self alike: this πάθος that shrowds it self under the name of _Religion_, wil _variously_ discover it self as it is seated in Minds of a _various_ temper, and meets with _variety of matter_ to exercise it self about.

We shall therefore a little further inquire into it, and what the Judgments of the soberest men anciently were of it; the rather that a learned Author of our own seems unwilling to own that Notion of it which we have hitherto out of _Plutarch_ and others contended for; who though he have freed it from that gloss which the late Ages have put upon it, yet he may seem to have too strictly confined it to a Cowardly Worship of the ancient Gentile Daemons, as if _Superstition and Polytheism_ were indeed the same thing, whereas _Polytheism_ or _Daemon-worship_ is but one branch of it, which was partly observed by the learned _Casaubon_ in his Notes upon that Chapter of _Theophrastus_ περὶ δεισιδαιμονίας, when it is described to be δειλία πρὸς τὸ δαιμόνιον, which he thus interprets, Theophrastus _voce_ δαιμόνιον _et Deos et Daemones complexus est, et quicquid divinitatis esse particeps malesana putavit antiquitas_. And in this sense it was truly observed by _Petronius Arbiter_,

_Primus in orbe Deos fecit Timor_—

The whole progeny of the ancient Daemons, at least in the Minds of the Vulgar, sprung out of _Fear_, and were supported by it: though notwithstanding, this Fear, when in a Being void of all true sense of Divine goodness, hath not escaped the censure of _Superstition_ in _Varro’s_ judgment, whose Maxim it was, as S. _Austin_ tells us, _Deum a religioso vereri, a superstitioso timeri_: which distinction _Servius_ seems to have made use of in his Comment upon _Virgil_, _Aeneid_ 6, where the Poet describing the torments of the wicked in hell, he runs out into an Allegoricall exposition of all, it may be too much in favour of _Lucretius_, whom he there magnifies. His words are these, _Ipse etiam Lucretius dicit per eos super quos jamjam casurus imminet lapis_, Superstitiosos _significare, qui inaniter semper verentur, et de Diis et Cœlo et locis superioribus male opinantur; nam_ Religiosi _sunt qui per reverentiam timent_.

But that we may the more fully unfold the _Nature_ of this πάθος, and the effects of it, which are not alwaies of one sort, we shall first premise something concerning the Rise of it.

The _Common Notions_ of a Deity, strongly rooted in Mens Souls, and meeting with the Apprehensions of _Guiltiness_, are very apt to excite the _Servile_ fear: and when men love their own filthy lusts, that they may spare them, they are presently apt to contrive some other waies of appeasing the Deity and compounding with it. Unhallowed minds, that have no inward foundation of true Holiness to fix themselves upon, are easily shaken and tossed from all inward peace and tranquillity; and as the thoughts of some Supreme power above them seize upon them, so they are struck with the lightning thereof into inward affrightments, which are further encreas’d by a vulgar observation of those strange, stupendious, and terrifying Effects in Nature, whereof they can give no certain reason, as Earthquakes, Thundrings, and Lightnings, blazing Comets and other Meteors of a like Nature, which are apt to terrifie those especially who are already unsetled and Chased with an inward sense of guilt, and, as Seneca speaks, _inevitabilem metum ut supra nos aliquid timeremus incutiunt_. _Petronius Arbiter_ hath well described this business for us,

_Primus in orbe Deos fecit Timor, ardua cœlo Fulmina cum caderent, discussaque moenia flammis, Atque ictus flagraret Athos_—

From hence it was that the _Libri fulgurales_ of the _Romanes_, and other such volumes of _Superstition_, swelled so much, and that the _pulvinaria Deorum_ were so often frequented, as will easily appear to any one a little conversant in _Livy_, who everywhere sets forth this Devotion so largely, as if he himself had been too passionately in love with it.

And though as the _Events_ in Nature began sometimes to be found out better by a discovery of their immediate Natural Causes, so some particular pieces of Superstitious Customs were antiquated and grown out of date (as is well observ’d concerning those _Charms_ and _Februations_ anciently in use upon the appearing of an Eclipse, and some others) yet often affrights and horrours were not so easily abated, while they were unacquainted with the Deity, and with the other mysterious events in Nature, which begot those Furies and unlucky Empusas ἀλάστορας καὶ παλαμναίους δαίμονας, in the weak minds of men. To all which we may adde the frequent _Spectres_ and frightfull _Apparitions_ of Ghosts and _Mormos_: all which extorted such a kind of Worship from them as was most correspondent to such Causes of it. And those Rites and Ceremonies which were begotten by Superstition, were again the unhappy Nurses of it, such as are well described by _Plutarch_ in his _De defect. Oracul._, Ἑορταὶ καὶ θυσίαι, ὥσπερ ἡμέραι ἀποφράδες, καὶ σκυθρωπαί, ἐν αἷς ὠμοφαγίας, &c. _Feasts and Sacrifices, as likewise observations of unlucky and fatall dayes, celebrated with eating of raw things, lacerations, fastings, and howlings, and many times filthy Speeches in their sacred rites_, and frantick behaviour.

But as we insinuated before, This Root of _Superstition_ diversely branched forth it self, sometimes into _Magick_ and _Exorcismes_, other times into Pædanticall Rites and idle observations of _Things_ and _Times_, as _Theophrastus_ hath largely set them forth in his Tract περὶ δεισιδαιμονίας: in others it displayed itself in inventing as many _new Deities_ as there were severall Causes from whence their affrights proceeded, and finding out many φρικτὰ μυστήρια appropriate to them, as supposing they ought to be worshipt _cum sacro horrore_. And hence it is that we hear of those inhumane and Diabolicall sacrifices called ἀνθρωποθυσίαι, frequent among the old Heathens (as among many others _Porphyry_ in his _De abstinentia_ hath abundantly related) and of those dead mens bones which our Ecclesiastick writers tell us were found in their Temples at the demolishing of them. Sometimes it would express itself in a prodigall way of sacrificing, for which _Ammianus Marcellinus_ (an heathen Writer, but yet one who seems to have been well pleased with the simplicity and integrity of Christian Religion) taxeth _Julian_ the Emperor for Superstition. _Iulianus, Superstitiosus magis quam legitimus sacrorum observator, innumeras sine parsimonia pecudes mactans, ut æstimaretur, si revertisset de Parthis, boves iam defuturos_: like that Marcus Caesar, of whom he relates this common proverb, οἱ λευκοὶ βέες Μάρκῳω τῷ Καίσαρι, ἄν συ νικήσῃς, ἡμεῖς ἀπωλόμεθα. Besides many other ways might be named wherein _Superstition_ might occasionally shew it self.

All which may best be understood, if we consider it a little in that Composition of _Fear_ and _Flattery_ which before we intimated: and indeed _Flattery_ is most incident to _base_ and _slavish_ minds; and when the fear and jealousy of a Deity disquiet a wanton dalliance with sin, and disturb the filthy pleasure of Vice, then this fawning and crouching disposition will find out devices to quiet an angry conscience within, and an offended God without, (though as men grow more expert in this cunning, these fears may in some degree abate). This the ancient Philosophy hath well taken notice of, and therefore well defin’d δεισιδαιμονία by κολακεία, and useth these terms promiscuously. Thus we find Max. Tyrius in his Dissert. 4 concerning the difference between a _Friend_ and a _Flatterer_. ὁ μὲν εὐσεβής, φίλος θεῷ, ὁ δὲ δεισιδαίμων, κόλαξ θεοῦ· καὶ μακάριος ὁ εὐσεβής, ὁ φίλος θεοῦ, δυστυχὴς δὲ ὁ δεισιδαίμων. ὁ μὲν θαρσῶν τῇ ἀρετῇ, πρόσεισι τοῖς θεοῖς ἄνευ δέους· ὁ δὲ ταπεινὸς διὰ μοχθηρίαν, μετὰ πολλοῦ δέους, δύσελπις, καὶ δεδιὼς τοὺς θεοὺς ὥσπερ τοὺς τυράννους. The sense whereof is this, _The Pious man is God’s friend, the Superstitious is a flatterer of God: and indeed most happy and blest is the condition of the Pious man, God’s friend, but right miserable and sad is the state of the Superstitious. The Pious man, emboldened by a good Conscience and encouraged by the sense of his integrity, comes to God without fear and dread: but the Superstitious being sunk and deprest through the sense of his own wickedness, comes not without much fear, being void of all hope and confidence, and dreading the Gods as so many Tyrants._ Thus _Plato_ also sets forth this _Superstitious_ temper, though he mentions it not under that name, but we may know it by a property he gives of it, viz.: _to colloque with Heaven_, Lib. 10, _de Legibus_, where he distinguisheth of Three kinds of Tempers in reference to the Deity, which he then calls πάθη, which are, _Totall Atheism_, which he saies never abides with any man till his Old age; and _Partial Atheism_, which is a Negation of Providence; and a Third, which is a perswasion concerning the Gods ὅτι εὐπαράμυθοί εἰσι θύμασι καὶ εὐχαῖς, _that they are easily won by sacrifices and prayers_, which he after explaines thus, ὅτι παραιτητοί εἰσι τοῖσιν ἀδικοῦσιν, δεχόμενοι δῶρα, &c., _that with gifts unjust men may find acceptance with them_. And this Discourse of _Plato’s_ upon these three kinds of Irreligious πάθη _Simplicius_ seems to have respect to in his comment upon _Epictetus_, cap. 38, which treats about _Right Opinions_ in Religion; and there having pursued the two former of them, he thus states the latter, which he calls ἀθεΐας λόγον as well as the other two, as a conceit θεοὺς παρατρέπεσθαι δώροις, καὶ ἀναθήμασι, καὶ κερματίου διαδόσεσιν, _quod muneribus et donariis et stirpis distributione a sententia deducuntur_, such men making account by their devotions to draw the Deity to themselves, and winning the favour of Heaven, to procure such an indulgence to their lusts as no sober man on earth would give them; they in the meanwhile not considering ὡς μεταμέλειαι, καὶ ἱκετεῖαι, καὶ εὐχαί, καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα, ἀναλογοῦσι τῷ κάλῳ, that _Repentance, Supplications, and Prayers, &c., ought to draw us nearer to God, not God nearer to us; as in a ship, by fastning a Cable to a firm Rock, we intend not to draw the Rock to the Ship, but the Ship to the Rock_. Which last passage of his is therefore the more worthy to be taken notice of, as holding out so large an Extent that this Irreligious temper is of, and of how subtil a Nature. This fond and gross dealing with the Deity was that which made the scoffing _Lucian_ so much sport, who in his Treatise _De Sacrificiis_ tells a number of stories how the Daemons loved to be feasted, and when and how they were entertained, with such devotions which are rather used Magically as Charms and Spells for such as use them, to defend themselves against those Evils which their own Fears are apt perpetually to muster up, and to endeavour by bribery to purchase Heaven’s favour and indulgence, as _Juvenal_ speaks of the Superstitious Aegyptian,

_Illius lacrimae mentitaque munera præstant Ut veniam culpae non abnuat, ansere magno Scilicet et tenui popano corruptus Osiris._

Though all this while I would not be understood to condemn too severely all servile fear of God, if it tend to make men avoid true wickedness, but that which settles upon these lees of Formality.

To conclude, Were I to define _Superstition_ more generally according to the ancient sense of it, I would call it _Such an apprehension of God in the thoughts of men, as renders him grievous and burdensome to them, and so destroys all free and cheerfull converse with him; begetting in the stead thereof a forc’d and jejune devotion, void of inward Life and Love._ It is that which discovers itself _Pædantically_ in the worship of the Deity, in anything that makes up but onely the _Body_ or _outward Vesture_ of Religion; though then it may make a mighty bluster; and because it comprehends not the true Divine good that ariseth to the Souls of men from an _internall frame_ of Religion, it is therefore apt to think that all its _insipid devotions_ are as so many _Presents_ offered to the Deity and _gratifications_ of him. How _variously_ Superstition can discover and manifest itself, we have intimated before: To which I shall only adde this, That we are not so well rid of _Superstition_, as some imagine when they have expell’d it out of their Churches, expunged it out of their Books and Writings, or cast it out of their Tongues, by making Innovations in names (wherein they sometimes imitate those old _Caunii_ that _Herodotus_ speaks of, who that they might banish all the forrein Gods that had stollen in among them, took their procession through all their Country, beating and scourging the Aire along as they went;) No, for all this, _Superstition_ may enter into our chambers, and creep into our closets, it may twine about our secret Devotions, and actuate our Formes of belief and Orthodox opinions, when it hath no place else to shroud itself or hide its head in; we may think to flatter the Deity by these, and to bribe it with them, when we are grown weary of more pompous solemnities: nay it may mix it self with a seeming Faith in Christ; as I doubt it doth now in too many, who laying aside all sober and serious care of true Piety, think it sufficient to offer up their Saviour, his Active and Passive Righteousness, to a severe and rigid Justice, to make expiation for those sins they can be willing to allow themselves in.

ON THE FACE WHICH APPEARS ON THE ORB OF THE MOON A DIALOGUE

INTRODUCTION

Plutarch’s Dialogue on _The Face in the Moon_ is not a scientific treatise, and its author would have disclaimed any intention of writing to advance science. It is discussion for the sake of discussion, the ‘good talk’ of which Plutarch wished that Athens should have no monopoly, any more than she had when the Boeotian Simmias and Cebes were among the trusted friends of Socrates, or, later, when ‘plain living and high thinking’ could be exhibited in lofty perfection in the Theban home of Epaminondas. A mixed company, which includes an astronomer, another mathematician, a literary man, and professed philosophers (there is no Epicurean here), with Lamprias, Plutarch’s brother, for president, discusses the movements and physical nature of the moon, from many points of view. Reference is made throughout to a previous discussion at which Lamprias, and Lucius, another of the speakers, had been present, when a person called ‘Our Comrade’ had dealt faithfully with the Peripatetic view, endorsed by the Stoics, that the moon is not of substance like our earth, but is a fiery or starlike body. This discussion had wandered into mystical theories as to the moon’s office in the birth and death of human souls, and her connexion with ‘daemons’. Sylla has joined the present company with a myth to relate bearing on these deep subjects, which had come to him at Carthage as a traveller’s tale. Its production is delayed until the end of the Dialogue, which it closes after the manner of a Platonic myth; the phrases with which it is opened and dismissed may be compared with those of the _Gorgias_. This double device, of referring part of the matter to a former conversation (as the _E at Delphi_ is a recollection of an old discourse by Ammonius), and part to a new and strange tale, skilfully relieves this elaborate Dialogue. Some difficulty is caused by the imperfect, or doubtful, condition of the text of the opening chapter, as no complete explanation seems to be given as to the place or time of the former discussion. Probably this abruptness is intentional, but the text requires careful attention.

Perhaps this Dialogue throws more light on the views about the solar system accepted or under discussion in the first century of our era than a scientific treatise could have done. No reference is made to the great astronomical work of Ptolemy, which belongs to the second century, and closed most questions until the sixteenth. The estimate, e.g. of the moon’s distance (56 earth’s radii) is not Ptolemy’s (59). Some of the geographical details, as that of the Caspian Sea, seem to show that Ptolemy’s geographical work was not known to the Author.

It may be useful to enumerate some of the simpler of the accepted views about the heavens :

(1) That the earth is a Sphere was known to Pythagoras and allowed by Plato (_Phaedo_ 110 B), and affirmed by Aristotle, _De Caelo_, 2, 14, 297 b 18. The moon, and, according to Aristotle, the stars, are also spherical.

(2) That the moon derived her light from the sun was a discovery due to Anaxagoras (fifth century B.C.).

(3) The true cause of eclipses was known to the Pythagoreans, and is stated by Aristotle, and, with more precision, by Posidonius.

(4) The inclination of the equator to the sun’s path is stated by Oenopides of Chios (a little after Anaxagoras).

(5) That the moon revolves round the earth at a moderate distance is stated by Empedocles.

(6) The other planets (including the sun) revolve round the earth at a distance vastly less than that of the fixed stars. (No actual estimate of the distances or sizes is given even by Ptolemy, who is not able to state a parallax for any, or an angular diameter.)

(7) That the planets share in the (apparent) daily motion of the stars, and also have an (apparent) motion of their own in the reverse direction was held by Pythagoras.

All these refer to physical facts and can be stated without the use of mathematical language, though many of the discoverers were expert mathematicians. Gradually, and certainly from the time of the great astronomer Hipparchus (about 130 B.C.), attention came to be fixed upon the accurate mathematical interpretation of observed _apparent_ facts; in a favourite phrase, the object was ‘to save the phenomena’, irrespective of physical and actual fact.

In the case of the moon, the two lines of inquiry are less sharply divided than in that of other bodies. Very correct statements as to her size and distance from the earth may be gathered from Plutarch’s Dialogue. A guess is even hazarded that she is lighter than the earth, bulk for bulk, because of the action of fire in the past.