Apuleius: DE DOGMATE PLATONIS

I. Plato omnem naturam rerum, quod eius ad animalia praecipua pertineat, trifariam divisit censuitque esse summos deos. Summum, medium et infimum fac intellegas non modo loci disclusione verum etiam naturae dignitate, quae et ipsa neque uno neque gemino modo sed pluribus cernitur. Ordiri tamen manifestius fuit a loci dispositione.

1. Plato divided the whole nature of things, in so far as that pertains to the principal animals, threefold, and judged that there are supreme gods. Understand the highest, the middle, and the lowest not only by a separation of place but also by a dignity of nature, which itself is discerned not in one or in a twin fashion, but in several. Yet it was more manifest to begin from the disposition of place.

Nam proinde ut maiestas postulabat, diis inmortalibus caelum dicavit, quos quidem deos caelites partim visu usurpamus, alios intellectu vestigamus. Ac visu quidem cernimus ...vos, o clarissima mundi lumina, labentem caelo quae ducitis annum; nec modo ista praecipua: diei opificem lunamque, solis aemulam, noctis decus, seu corniculata seu dividua seu protumida seu plena sit, varia ignium face, quando longius facessat a sole, tanto largius conlustrata, pari incremento itineris et luminis, mensem suis auctibus ac dehinc paribus dispendiis aestimans; sive illa proprio sed perpeti candore pollens, ut Chaldaei arbitrantur, parte luminis conpos, parte altera cassa fulgoris, pro circumversione oris discoloris multiiuga speciem sui variat, seu tota proprii candoris expers, alienae lucis indigua, denso corpore sed levi ceu quodam speculo radios solis obstipi vel adversi usurpat et, ut verbis utar Lucreti, notham iactat de corpore lucem;

Accordingly, as majesty demanded, he dedicated heaven to the immortal gods, whom indeed, the heavenly gods, we in part lay hold of by sight, others we track by intellect. And by sight we discern …you, O most shining lights of the world, who lead the year gliding through the sky; and not only those principal ones: the artificer of the day, and the moon, the emulator of the sun, the adornment of night, whether she be horned or divided or swollen or full, with a varied torch of fires, when she withdraws farther from the sun, so much the more widely illumined, with an equal increase of journey and of light, reckoning the month by her augmentations and thereafter by equal diminutions; whether she, abounding in her own but enduring candor, as the Chaldaeans judge, is in part possessed of light, in the other part void of brightness, by the revolution of her discolored face varying the manifold image of herself; or wholly devoid of her own candor, needy of another’s light, with a dense but light body, as with a certain mirror, she appropriates the rays of the sun askew or opposite and, to use Lucretius’s words, flings from her body a spurious light;

II. utracumque harum vera sententia est nam hoc postea videro, tamen neque de luna neque de sole quisquam Graecus aut barbarus facile cunctaverit deos esse, nec modo istos, ut dixi, verum etiam quinque stellas, quae vulgo vagae ab inperitis nuncupantur, quae tamen indeflexo et certo et stato cursu meatus longe ordinatissimos divinis vicibus aeterno efficiunt. Varia quippe curriculi sui specie, sed una semper et aequabili pernicitate, tunc progressus, tunc vero regressus mirabili vicissitudine adsimulant pro situ et flexu et instituto circulorum, quos probe callet qui signorum ortus et obitus conperit. In eodem visibilium deorum numero cetera quoque sidera, qui cum Platone sentis, locato: Arcturum pluviasque Hyadas geminosque Triones aliosque itidem radiantis deos, quibus caeli chorum comptum et coronatum suda tempestate visimus, pictis noctibus severa gratia, torvo decore, suspicientes in hoc perfectissimo mundi, ut ait Ennius, clipeo miris fulguribus variata caelamina.

2. whichever of these opinions is true—for this I will consider later—yet neither about the moon nor about the sun would any Greek or barbarian easily hesitate that they are gods; and not only these, as I said, but also the five stars, which by the unskilled are commonly named “wandering,” which nevertheless, by an inflexible and sure and fixed course, bring to completion with divine vicissitudes through eternity motions that are most orderly. Indeed, with a varying appearance of their course, but with one and always even swiftness, now advances, now truly retrogressions they simulate by a wondrous alternation, according to the position and bend and arrangement of the circles, which he knows well who has learned the risings and settings of the signs. In the same number of visible gods place also the other stars, if you feel with Plato: Arcturus and the rainy Hyades and the twin Triones, and other likewise radiant gods, with which we have seen the chorus of the sky adorned and crowned in clear weather, in painted nights with austere grace, with grim decor, as we look up at the sky’s relief-work, variegated with marvelous lightnings, on this most perfect shield of the world, as Ennius says.

Est aliud deorum genus, quod natura visibus nostris denegavit, nec non tamen intellectu eos rimabundi contemplamur, acie mentis acrius contemplantes. Quorum in numero sunt illi duodecim (numero) situ nominum in duo versus ab Ennio coartati: Iuno, Vesta, Minerva, Ceres, Diana, Venus, Mars, Mercurius, Iovis, Neptunus, Vulcanus, Apollo ceterique id genus, quorum nomina quidem sunt nostris auribus iam diu cognita, potentiae vero animis coniectatae per varias utilitates in vita agenda animadversas in iis rebus, quibus eorum singuli curant.

There is another genus of gods, which nature has denied to our sight, and yet we inquisitively contemplate them by intellect, contemplating more sharply with the edge of the mind. Of their number are those twelve (in number) compressed by Ennius, by the placement of their names, into two verses: Juno, Vesta, Minerva, Ceres, Diana, Venus, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Neptune, Vulcan, Apollo, and the others of that kind, whose names indeed have long been known to our ears, but whose powers have been conjectured by our minds from the various utilities observed in the conduct of life, in those matters which each of them individually cares for.

III. Ceterum profana philosophiae turba inperitorum, vana sanctitudinis, priva verae rationis, inops religionis, inpos veritatis, scrupulosissimo culto, insolentissimo spretu deos neglegit, pars in superstitione, pars in contemptu timida vel tumida. Hoc namque cunctos deos in sublimi aetheris vertice locatos, ab humana contagione procul discretos plurimi sed non rite venerantur, omnes sed inscie metuunt, pauci sed impie diffitentur. Quos deos Plato existimat naturas incorporalis, animalis, neque fine ullo neque exordio, sed prorsus ac retro aeviternas, a corporis contagione suapte netura remotas, ingenio ad summam beatitudinem perfecto, nullius extrarii boni participatione sed ex sese bonas et ad omnia conpetentia sibi promptu facili, simplici, libero, absoluto.

III. Moreover, the profane crowd of those unskilled in philosophy, empty of sanctity, deprived of true reason, poor in religion, destitute of truth, with most scrupulous worship, with most insolent disdain, neglects the gods, part in superstition, part in contempt, timid or puffed-up. For this, namely: that all the gods, placed on the lofty summit of the aether, set far apart from human contagion, very many do venerate, but not rightly; all fear, but ignorantly; a few deny, but impiously. Which gods Plato judges to be natures incorporeal, animate, neither with any end nor any beginning, but altogether and back to the past aeviternal, removed from the contagion of body by their very nature, in disposition perfected to the highest beatitude, with no participation of any extraneous good, but good from themselves, and, for all things competent to themselves, with a readiness easy, simple, free, complete.

Quorum parentem, qui omnium rerum dominator atque auctor est, solutum ab omnibus nexibus patiendi aliquid gerendive, nulla vice ad alicuius rei munia obstrictum, cur ergo nunc dicere exordiar, cum Plato caelesti facundia praeditus, aequiperabilia diis inmortalibus disserens, frequentissime praedicet hunc solum maiestatis incredibili quadam nimietate et ineffabili non posse penuria sermonis humani quavis oratione vel modice conprehendi, vix sapientibus viris, cum se vigore animi, quantum licuit, a corpore removerunt, intellectum huius dei, id quoque interdum, velut in artissimis tenebris rapidissimo coruscamine lumen candidum intermicare? Missum igitur hunc locum faciam, in quo non mihi (quidem) tantum, sed ne Platoni quidem meo quiverunt ulla verba pro amplitudine rei suppetere, [f]ac iam rebus mediocritatem meam [in] longe superantibus receptui canam tandemque orationem de caelo in terram devocabo. In qua praecipuum animal homines sumus, quamquam plerique se incuria verae disciplinae ita omnibus erroribus ac piacularibus depravaverint, sceleribus inbuerint et prope exesa mansuetudine generis sui inmane efferarint, ut possit videri nullum animal in terris homine postremius.

As for their Parent, who is the ruler and author of all things, released from every bond of suffering anything or of doing, in no respect constrained to the functions of any thing—why then should I now begin to speak, when Plato, endowed with celestial eloquence, discoursing things equiparable to the immortal gods, most frequently proclaims that this One alone, by a certain incredible excess of majesty and as ineffable, cannot—through the poverty of human speech—be grasped by any oration even moderately; that scarcely do wise men, when by the vigor of mind they have removed themselves, so far as permitted, from the body, perceive the intellection of this God, and that too only at times, as in the tightest darkness a candid light flickers by a most rapid coruscation? I will therefore let this topic go, in which not for me only, but not even for my Plato, were any words able to suffice to the amplitude of the matter; grant now that, in matters far surpassing my mediocrity, I sound the retreat and at length call my oration down from heaven to earth. In which realm we humans are the preeminent animal, although very many, by neglect of true discipline, have so depraved themselves with every error and piacular offense, have steeped themselves in crimes and, with the gentleness of their kind almost eaten away, have rendered themselves monstrously feral, that it can seem no animal on earth is more abject than man.

Sed nunc non de errorum disputatione, sed de naturae distributione disserimus.

But now we are not discoursing about the disputation of errors, but about the distribution of nature.

IV. Igitur homines ratione gaudentes, oratione pollentes, inmortalibus animis, moribundis membris, levibus et anxiis mentibus, brutis et obnoxiis corporibus, dissimilis moribus, similibus erroribus, pervicaci audacia, pertinaci spe, casso labore, fortuna caduca, singillatim mortales, cunctim tamen universo genere perpetui, vicissim sufficienda prole mutabiles, volucri tempore, tarda sapientia, cita morte, querula vita, terras incolunt. Habetis interim bina animalia: deos ab hominibus plurimum differentis loci sublimitate, vitae perpetuitate, naturae perfectione, nullo inter se propinquo communicatu, cum et habitacula summa ab infimis tanta intercapedo fastigii dispescat et vivacitas illic aeterna et indefecta sit, hic caduca et subsiciva, et ingenia illa ad beatitudinem sublimata sint, haec ad miserias infimata. Quid igitur?

4. Therefore men, rejoicing in reason, excelling in oration, with immortal souls and moribund limbs, with light and anxious minds, with brute and subject bodies, dissimilar in morals, similar in errors, with pervicacious audacity, pertinacious hope, vain labor, a falling fortune, individually mortal, yet all together in the universal race perpetual, changeable, to be supplied in turn by offspring, with winged time, slow in wisdom, swift in death, with a querulous life, inhabit the lands. Meanwhile you have two creatures: gods differing from men very greatly—in the loftiness of place, in the perpetuity of life, in the perfection of nature—with no kindred communication between themselves, since both the highest habitations are separated from the lowest by so great an interval of height, and the vitality there is eternal and indefective, here falling and makeshift; and those intellects are exalted to beatitude, these are abased to miseries. What then?

Nullone conexu natura se vinxit, sed in divinam et humanam partem partitam se et interruptam ac veluti debilem passa est? Nam, ut idem Plato ait, nullus deus miscetur hominibus, sed hoc praecipuum eorum sublimitatis specimen est, quod nulla adtrectatione nostra contaminantur. Pars eorum tantummodo obtutu hebeti visuntur, ut sidera, de quorum adhuc et magnitudine et coloribus homines ambigunt, ceteri autem solo intellectu neque prompto noscuntur.

By no nexus did nature bind itself, but into the divine and the human part has it suffered itself to be partitioned and interrupted and, as it were, made debilitated? For, as the same Plato says, no god is mingled with men, but this is the preeminent specimen of their sublimity, that by no handling of ours are they contaminated. A part of them is seen only by a dull gaze, like the stars, about whose size and colors men still are in doubt, but the rest are known solely by intellect, and not readily.

Quod quidem mirari super diis inmortalibus nequaquam congruerit, cum alioquin et inter homines, qui fortunae munere opulenti elatus et usque ad regni nutabilem suggestum et pendulum tribunal evectus est, raro aditu sit, longe remotis arbitris in quibusdam dignitatis suae penetralibus degens. Parit enim conversatio contemptum, raritas conciliat admirationem.

Which indeed would by no means be fitting to marvel at concerning the immortal gods, since otherwise even among men—one who by fortune’s gift, opulent, has been exalted and carried up to the tottering dais of kingship and the pendulous tribunal—is of rare access, living with arbiters far removed in certain penetralia of his dignity. For familiarity breeds contempt; rarity conciliates admiration.

V. Quid igitur, orator, obiecerit aliqui, post istam caelestem quidem sed paene inhumanam tuam sententiam faciam, si omnino homines a diis inmortalibus procul repelluntur atque ita in haec terrae tartara relegantur, ut omnis sit illis adversus caelestes deos communio denegata nec quisquam eos e caelitum numero velut pastor vel equiso vel busequa ceu balantium vel hinnientium vel mugientium greges intervisat, qui ferocibus moderetur, morbidis medeatur, egenis opituletur? Nullus, inquis, deus humanis rebus intervenit: cui igitur preces allegabo? Cui votum nuncupabo?

5. What then, orator, someone will object, shall I do, after that opinion of yours—heavenly indeed, but almost inhuman—if in every way men are driven far from the immortal gods, and are relegated into these Tartars of the earth, so that all communion with the celestial gods is denied them, and no one of the number of the heaven-dwellers, like a shepherd or a horse-groom or an oxherd, looks in upon them as upon flocks bleating or neighing or lowing, to restrain the fierce, to heal the sick, to aid the needy? “No god,” you say, “intervenes in human affairs: to whom, then, shall I address prayers? To whom shall I pronounce a vow?”

Cui victimam caedam? Quem miseris auxiliatorem, quem fautorem bonis, quem adversatorem malis in omni vita ciebo? Quem denique, quod frequentissimum est, iuri iurando arbitrum adhibebo?

To whom shall I slaughter a victim? Whom shall I summon as a helper for the wretched, as a favorer of the good, as an adversary of the wicked throughout the whole of life? Whom, finally—which is most frequent—shall I bring in as arbiter to an oath?

An ut Vergilianus Ascanius per caput hoc iuro, per quod pater ante solebat? At enim, o Iule, pater tuus hoc iure iurando uti poterat inter Troianos stirpe cognatos et fortasse an inter Graecos proelio cognitos; at enim inter Rutulos recens cognitos si nemo huic capiti crediderit, quis pro te deus fidem dicet? An ut (se) ferocissimo Mezentio dextra et telum?

Or as the Vergilian Ascanius: “by this head I swear, by which my father was wont before”? But indeed, O Iulus, your father could use this oath among the Trojans, kin by stock, and perhaps even among the Greeks known by battle; but among the Rutuli, newly acquainted, if no one should trust in this head, what god will declare credence for you? Or as if he should commit himself to the most ferocious Mezentius, with right hand and spear?

Quippe haec sola advenerat, quibus propugnabat: dextra mihi deus et telum, quod missile libro. Apage sis tam cruentos deos, dextram caedibus fessam telumque sanguine robiginosum: utrumque idoneum non est, propter quod adiures, neve per ista iuretur, cum sit summi deorum hic honor proprius. Nam et ius iurandum Iovis iurandum dicitur, ut ait Ennius.

For indeed these alone were at hand, with which he fought: “my right hand is my god, and the weapon which as a missile I brandish.” Away with, pray, such blood-stained gods—a right hand wearied with slaughters and a weapon blood-rusted: neither is a suitable thing by which to adjure, nor should one swear by such things, since this honor properly belongs to the highest of the gods. For even the oath is called Jove’s oath, as Ennius says.

Quid igitur censes? Iurabo per Iovem lapidem Romano vetustissimo ritu? Atque si Platonis vera sententia est, numquam se deum se deum cum homine communicare, facilius me audierit lapis quam Iuppiter.

What then do you think? Shall I swear by Jove the Stone, according to the most ancient Roman rite? And if Plato’s opinion is true, that a god never communicates with man, the stone will more easily have heard me than Jupiter.

VI. Non usque adeo responderit enim Plato pro sententia sua mea voce non usque adeo, inquit, seiunctos et alienatos a nobis deos praedico, ut ne vota quidem nostra ad illos arbitrer pervenire. Neque enim illos a cura rerum humanarum, sed contrectatione sola removi. Ceterum sunt quaedam divinae mediae potestates inter summum aethera et infimas terras in isto intersitae aeris spatio, per quas et desideria nostra et merita ad eos commeant.

6. Not to that extent—for Plato, on behalf of his own sententia, will answer in my voice—“not to that extent,” he says, “do I proclaim the gods sundered and alienated from us, that I should suppose not even our vows reach them. For I have removed them not from the care of human affairs, but only from physical contact. Moreover, there are certain divine intermediate powers between the highest aether and the lowest lands, set in that interval of air which lies between, through whom both our desires and our merits travel to them.”

Hos Graeci nomine daemonas nuncupant, inter terricolas caelicolasque vectores hinc petitiones inde suppetias ceu quidam utri[u]sque interpretes et salutigeri. Per hos eosdem, ut Plato in Symposio autumat, cuncta denuntiata et magorum varia miracula omnesque praesagiorum species reguntur. Eorum quippe de numero praediti curant singuli [eorum], proinde ut est cuique tributa provincia, vel somniis conformandis vel extis fissiculandis vel praepetibus gubernandis vel ostinibus erudiendis vel vatibus inspirandis vel fulminibus iaculandis vel nubibus coruscandis ceterisque adeo, per quae futura dinoscimus.

These the Greeks designate by the name “daemons,” carriers between earth‑dwellers and heaven‑dwellers—hence conveying petitions, thence bringing succor—like certain interpreters of both and salutation‑bearers. Through these same, as Plato avers in the Symposium, all announcements and the various miracles of the magi and all species of presages are governed. For indeed, from their number, those endowed each attend [of them], according as a province has been allotted to each: either to shape dreams, or to fissure entrails, or to govern the auspicious birds, or to instruct regarding ostents, or to inspire seers, or to hurl lightnings, or to make the clouds coruscate, and all the rest by which we discern things to come.

Quae cuncta caelestium voluntate et numine et auctoritate, sed daemonum obsequio et opera et ministerio fieri arbitrandum est.

All these things are to be considered done by the will and numen and authority of the celestials, but by the compliance and work and ministry of the daemons.

VII. Horum enim munus atque opera atque cura est, ut Hannibali somnia orbitatem oculi commin[ar]entur, flaminio extispicia periculum cladis praedicant, Attio Navio auguria miraculum cotis addicant; item ut nonnullis regni futuri signa praecurrant, ut Tarquinius Priscus aquila obumbretur ad apice, Servius Tullius flamma conluminetur a capite; postremo cuncta hariolorum praesagia, Tuscorum piacula, fulguratorum bidentalia, carmina Sibyllarum. Quae omnia, ut dixi, mediae quaepiam potestates inter homines ac deos obeunt. Neque enim pro maiestate deum caelestium fuerit, ut eorum quisquam vel Hannibali somnium fingat vel Flaminio hostiam conruget vel Attio Navio avem velificet vel Sibyllae fatiloquia versificet vel Tarquinio velit apicem rapere sed reddere, Servio vero inflammare verticem nec exurere.

7. For it is the function and the operation and the care of these, that dreams threaten Hannibal with the loss of an eye, that to Flaminius the extispicies pre-dict the peril of a disaster, that to Attius Navius the auguries adjudge the miracle of the whetstone; likewise that for some the signs of a future kingship run before, that Tarquinius Priscus be overshadowed by an eagle at the apex, that Servius Tullius be co-illumined by a flame from his head; finally, all the soothsayers’ presages, the Tuscan piacular rites, the fulgurators’ bidental shrines, the songs of the Sibyls. All these, as I said, certain median powers discharge between men and gods. For it would not be befitting to the majesty of the celestial gods, that any one of them should either fashion a dream for Hannibal, or wrinkle the sacrificial victim’s entrails for Flaminius, or for Attius Navius put a ship under sail, or versify the Sibyl’s fatiloquies, or wish to snatch the apex from Tarquin but to give it back, and in truth to inflame Servius’s crown yet not to burn it up.

Non est operae diis superis ad haec descendere: mediorum divorum ista sortitio est, qui in aeris plagis terrae conterminis nec minus confinibus caelo perinde versantur, ut in quaque parte naturae propria animalia, in aethere volventia, in terra gradientia.

It is not the business of the supernal gods to descend to these things: this allotment is of the middle divinities, who are conversant in the tracts of the air, contiguous to the earth and no less bordering on heaven, just as in each part of nature there are proper animals— in the aether those that revolve, on the earth those that walk.

VIII. Nam cum quattuor sint elementa notissima, veluti quadrifariam natura magnis partibus disterminata, sintque propria animalia terrarum, aquarum, flammarum, Siquidem Aristoteles auctor est in Fornacibus flagrantibus quaedam (propria) animalia, pennulis apta volitare totumque aevum suum in igne deversari, cum eo exoriri cumque eo extingui, praeterea cum totiuga sidera, ut iam prius dictum est, sursum in aethere, id est in ipso liquidissimo ignis ardore, conpareant, cum hoc solum quartum elementum aeris, quod tanto spatio intersitum est, cassum ab omnibus, desertum a cultoribus suis natura pateretur, quin in eo quoque aeria animalia gignerentur, ut in igni flammida, in unda fluxa, in terra glebulenta? Nam quidem qui aves aeri attribuet, falsum sententiae meritissimo dixeris, quippe (quae aves) nulla earum ultra Olympi verticem sublimatur. Qui cum excellentissimus omnium perhibeatur, tamen altitudinem perpendiculo si metiare, ut geometrae autumant, decem stadia altitudo fastigii non aequiperat, cum sit aeris agmen inmensum usque ad citiman lunae helicem, quae porro aetheris sursum versus exordium est.

VIII. For since there are four most well-known elements, as though nature were fourfoldly partitioned into great parts, and since there are proper animals of lands, of waters, of flames, since indeed Aristotle is authority that in blazing Furnaces there are certain (proper) animals, fitted with little wings to flit and to pass their whole lifetime lodging in fire, to rise with it and to be extinguished with it; moreover, since the whole host of the stars, as was said before, appear up above in the aether, that is, in the most liquid ardor of fire itself—would nature allow that this sole fourth element, air, which is interposed at so great a distance, be empty of everything, deserted by its own dwellers, without that in it too aerial animals be generated, as in fiery flame, in flowing wave, in cloddy earth? For indeed the man who would ascribe birds to the air, you would most deservedly call false in opinion, since (which birds) none of them is borne up above the summit of Olympus. Which, although it is held the most excellent of all, nevertheless if you measure the height with the plumbline, as the geometers affirm, the height of its peak does not equal ten stades, whereas the mass of the air is immense up to the nearest helix of the moon, which furthermore is the beginning of the aether upward.

Quid igitur tanta vis aeris, quae ab humillimis lunae anfractibus usque ad summum Olympi verticem interiacet? Quid tandem? Vacabitne animalibus suis atque erit ista naturae pars mortua ac debilis?

What then of the so great extent of the air, which lies between the very lowest circuits of the moon and the highest summit of Olympus? What, then? Will it be vacant of its own animals, and will that part of nature be dead and feeble?

Immo enim si sedulo advertas, ipsae quoque aves (per) terrestre animal, non aerium rectius perhibeantur. Enim semper illis victus ommis in terra, ibidem pabulum, ibidem cubile, tantum quod aera proximum terrae volitando transuerberant. Ceterum cum illis fessa sunt remigia pinnarum, terra ceu portus est.

Rather indeed, if you diligently attend, the birds themselves too should more rightly be called a (thoroughly) terrestrial animal, not an aerial one. For all their victuals are on the earth—there their provender, there their couch—only that by flying they cleave the air next to the earth. Moreover, when for them the oarage of the pinions is weary, the earth is as a port.

IX. Quod si manifestum flagitat ratio debere propria animalia etiam in aere intellegi, superest ut, quae tandem et cuiusmodi ea sint, disseramus. Igitur terrena nequaquam devergant enim pondere sed nec flammida, ne sursum versus calore rapiantur. Temperanda est ergo nobis pro loci medietate media natura, ut ex regionis ingenio si etiam cultoribus eius ingenium.

9. But if manifest reason demands that there must be proper animals to be understood even in the air, it remains that we discuss which, then, and of what sort they are. Therefore let them by no means be terrene, lest they incline downward by their weight; but neither let them be fiery, lest they be rapt upward by heat. A middle nature, then, must be tempered for us in accordance with the place’s middle position, so that from the region’s genius there is likewise the genius of its inhabitants.

Cedo igitur mente formemus et gignamus animo id genus corporum texta, quae neque tam bruta quam terrea neque tam levia quam aetheria, sed quodam modo utrimque seiugata vel enim utrimque commixta sint, sive amolita seu modificata utrisque rei participatione: sed facilius ex utroque quam ex neutro intellegentur. Habeant igitur haec daemonum corpora et modicum ponderis, ne ad superna inscendant, et aliquid levitatis, ne ad inferna praecipitentur.

Come then, let us with the mind form and with the spirit beget the textures of that kind of bodies, which are neither so brute as terrene nor so light as aetherial, but in a certain way on both sides disjoined, or indeed on both sides commixed, whether removed or modified by the participation of both realities: yet they will be understood more easily from both than from neither. Let these bodies of daemons therefore have both a modicum of weight, lest they ascend to the supernal things, and some levity, lest they be precipitated to the infernal.

X. Quod ne vobis videar poetico ritu incredibilia confingere, dabo primum exemplum huius libratae medietatis: neque enim procul ab hac corporis subtilitate nubes concretas videmus; quae si usque adeo leves forent ut ea quae omnino carent pondere, numquam infra iuga, ut saepenumero animadvertimus, gravatae caput editi montis ceu quibusdam curvis torquibus coronarent. Porro si suapte natura spissae tam graves forent ut nulla illas vegetioris levitatis admixtio subleverat, profecto non secus quam plumbi robus et lapis suopte nisu caducae terris inliderentur. Nunc enimvero pendulae et mobiles huc atque illuc vice navium in aeris pelago ventis gubernantur, paululum inmutantes proximitate et longinquitate.

10. Lest I seem to you, in poetic rite, to be forging incredible things, I will give first an example of this librated middle-ness: for we see condensed clouds not far removed from this subtlety of body; which, if they were so light as those things which altogether lack weight, never would they, as we very often notice, weighed down, crown the head of a lofty mountain below the ridges as with certain curved torques. Furthermore, if by their own nature thick they were so heavy that no admixture of a more vigorous levity could lift them, assuredly they would dash themselves to the earth, no otherwise than a mass of lead and a stone, fallen by their own impulse. Now indeed, hanging and mobile hither and thither, in the turn of ships on the sea of the air they are steered by the winds, slightly altering with proximity and distance.

Quippe si aliquo umore fecundae sunt, veluti ad fetum edendum deorsus degrassantur. Atque ideo umectiores humilius meant aliquo[nis] agmine, tractu segniore(s), sudis vero sublimior cursus est, cum lanarum velleribus similes aguntur, cano agmine, volatu pernicione. Nonne audis, quid super tonitru Lucretius facundissime disserat?

Indeed, if they are made fecund by some moisture, they, as it were, step downward to bring forth a brood. And therefore the wetter ones go lower in some column, with a more sluggish sweep, while the dry ones have a loftier course, when they are driven like fleeces of wool, in a hoary column, with a swifter flight. Do you not hear how most eloquently Lucretius discourses about thunder?

principio tonitru quatiuntur caerula caeli propterea quia concurrunt sublime volantes aetheriae nubes contra pugnantibus ventis.

In the first place, the cerulean heavens are shaken by thunder because the ethereal clouds, flying on high, collide while the winds are contending against one another.

XI. Quod si nubes sublime volitant, quibus omnis et exortus est terrenus et retro defluxus in terras, quid tandem censes daemonum corpora, quae sunt concretio multo tanta subtilior? Non enim ex hac faeculenta nubecula et umida caligine conglobata, sicuti nubium genus est, sed ex illo purissimo aeris liquido et sereno elemento coalita eoque nemini hominum temere visibilia, nisi divinitus speciem sui offerant, quod nulla in illis terrena soliditas locum luminis occuparit, quae nostris oculis possit obsistere, qua soliditate necessario offensa acies inmoretur, sed fila corporum possident rara et splendida et tenuia usque adeo ut radios omnis nostri tuoris et raritate transmittant et splendore reverberent et subtilitate frustrentur. Hinc est illa Homerica Minerva, quae mediis coetibus Graium cohibendo Achilli intervenit.

XI. But if clouds fly on high, whose whole origin is earthly and whose flowing back is into the lands, what then do you judge of the bodies of daemons, which are a concretion so much more subtle? For they are not massed from this dreggy little cloud and moist murk, as is the kind of clouds, but have coalesced from that most pure, liquid, and serene element of air, and therefore are visible to no human being rashly, unless by divine act they offer the appearance of themselves, because no earthly solidity in them has occupied the place of light that could oppose our eyes—upon which solidity, being necessarily struck, the edge of vision would be delayed—but they possess the threads of bodies that are rare, splendid, and thin to such a degree that they both transmit all the rays of our gaze by their rarity, and reverberate them by their splendor, and by their subtlety baffle them. Hence that Homeric Minerva, who, restraining, intervened with Achilles in the midst of the gatherings of the Greeks.

Versum Graecum, si paulisper opperiamini, Latine enuntiabo, atque adeo hic sit inpraesentiarum: Minerva igitur, ut dixi, Achilli moderando iussu Iunonis advenit: soli perspicua est, aliorum nemo tuetur. Hinc et illa Vergiliana Iuturna, quae mediis milibus auxiliabunda fratri conversatur miscetque viris neque cernitur ulli, prorsus quod Plautinus miles super clipeo suo gloriatur, praestringens oculorum aciem hostibus.

the Greek verse, if you wait a little, I will enunciate in Latin, and indeed let it be here for the present: Minerva therefore, as I said, came to moderate Achilles by Juno’s command: she is visible to him alone, of the others no one perceives her. Hence also that Vergilian Juturna, who, aiding her brother, moves among the ranks and mixes with the men and is seen by no one, exactly as the Plautine soldier boasts about his shield, dazzling the keenness of the eyes to the enemies.

XII. Ac ne ceteros longius persequar, ex hoc ferme daemonum numero poetae solent haudquaquam procul a veritate osores et amatores quorundam hominum deos fingere: hos prosperare et evehere, illos contra adversari et adfligere; igitur et misereri et indignari et angi et laetari omnemque humani animi faciem pati, simili motu cordis et salo mentis ad omnes cogitationum aestus fluctuare, quae omnes turbelae tempestatesque procul a deorum caelestium tranquillitate, exulant. Cuncti enim caelites semper eodem statu mentis aeterna aequabilitate potiuntur, qui numquam illis nec ad dolorem versus nec ad voluptatem finibus suis pellitur nec quoquam a sua perpetua secta ad quempiam subitum habitum demovetur nec alterius vi nam nihil est deo potentius neque suapte natura nam nihil est deo perfectius. Porro autem qui potest videri perfectus fuisse, qui a priore statu ad alium rectiorem statum migrat, cum praesertim nemo sponte capessat nova, nisi quem paenituit priorum?

XII. And lest I pursue the others at greater length, from this, roughly speaking, number of daemons, poets are wont, by no means far from the truth, to fashion gods as haters and lovers of certain men: these to prosper and to raise up, those on the contrary to oppose and to afflict; therefore also to pity and to be indignant and to be anguished and to rejoice, and to undergo every visage of the human mind, to fluctuate with a similar motion of heart and with the sea-swell of mind to all the surges of thoughts—all which tumults and tempests are exiled far from the tranquility of the celestial gods. For all the celestials always possess the same state of mind with an eternal equability, which is never for them driven from its bounds either toward pain or toward pleasure, nor is it anywhere diverted from its perpetual course to any sudden disposition, nor by the force of another—for nothing is more powerful than God—nor by its own nature—for nothing is more perfect than God. Furthermore, how can he seem to have been perfect, who migrates from a prior state to another more right state, since especially no one of his own accord takes up new things, except one who has repented of the former?

Non potest enim subsequi illa mutata ratio sine praecedentium infirmatione. Quapropter debet deus nullam perpeti vel odii vel amoris temporalem perfunctionem et idcirco nec indignatione nec misericordia contingi, nullo angore contrahi, nulla alacritate gestire, sed ab omnibus animi passionibus liber nec dolere umquam nec aliquando laetari nec aliquid repentinum velle vel nolle.

For that altered rationale cannot follow without an infirmation of what preceded. Wherefore God ought to undergo no temporal fulfillment either of hatred or of love, and therefore to be touched neither by indignation nor by mercy, to be constrained by no anguish, to exult with no alacrity, but, free from all passions of the mind, neither ever to suffer pain nor at any time to rejoice, nor to will or to be unwilling anything sudden.

XIII. Sed et haec cuncta et id genus cetera daemonum mediocritati rite congruunt. Sunt enim inter nos ac deos ut loco regionis ita ingenio mentis intersiti, habentes communem cum superis inmortalitatem, cum inferis passionem. Nam proinde ut nos pati possunt omnia animorum placamenta vel incitamenta, ut et ira incitentur et misericordia flectantur et donis invitentur et precibus leniantur et contumeliis exasperentur et honoribus mulceantur aliisque omnibus ad similem nobis modum varient.

13. But both all these things and the rest of that kind duly agree with the daemons’ intermediate condition. For they are interposed between us and the gods, as by place and region so by the nature of mind, having in common with the supernal beings immortality, with those below passibility. For just as we do, they can undergo all the placations or incitements of souls, so that they are stirred to anger and bent by compassion, invited by gifts and soothed by prayers, exasperated by insults and caressed by honors, and in all other respects vary in a manner like to us.

Quippe, ut fine conprehendam, daemones sunt genere animalia, ingenio rationabilia, animo passiva, corpore aeria, tempore aeterna. Ex his quinque, quae commemoravi, tria a principio eadem quae nobis sunt, quartum proprium, postremum commune cum diis inmortalibus habent, sed differunt ab his passione. Quae propterea passiva non absurde, ut arbitror, nominavi, quod sunt iisdem, quibus nos, turbationibus mentis obnoxii.

Indeed, to comprehend in conclusion: the demons are animals by genus, rational by intellect, passible in soul, aerial in body, eternal in time. Of these five which I have mentioned, three from the beginning are the same as those we have, the fourth is proper to them, the last they have in common with the immortal gods, but they differ from these in passion. On which account I have not absurdly, as I think, called them passible, because they are liable to the same perturbations of mind as we are.

XIV. Vnde etiam religionum diversis observationibus et sacrorum variis suppliciis fides inpertienda est, esse nonnullos ex hoc divorum numero, qui nocturnis vel diurnis, promptis vel occultis, laetioribus vel tristioribus hostiis vel caerimoniis vel ritibus gaudeant, uti Aegyptia numina ferme plangoribus, Graeca plerumque choreis, barbara autem strepitu cymbalistarum et tympanistarum et choraularum. Itidem pro regionibus et cetera in sacris differunt longe varietate: pomparum agmina, mysteriorum silentia, sacerdotum officia, sacrificantium obsequia; item deorum effigiae et exuviae, templorum religiones et regiones, hostiarum cruores et colores. Quae omnia pro cuisque more loci sollemnia et rata sunt, ut plerumque somniis et vaticinationibus et oraculis conperimus saepenumero indignata numina, si quid in sacris socordia vel superbia neglegatur.

14. Whence also, from the diverse observances of religions and the various supplications of sacred rites, credence must be imparted that there are some from this number of the divine ones who rejoice in nocturnal or diurnal, open or hidden, more cheerful or more mournful victims or ceremonies or rites—just as the Egyptian numina almost in wailings, the Greek for the most part in dances, but the barbarian in the din of cymbalists and tympanists and choraules. Likewise, according to regions, the rest in sacred things differ by great variety: the ranks of processions, the silences of mysteries, the duties of priests, the services of sacrificers; likewise the effigies and trappings of the gods, the sanctities and precincts of temples, the blood and the colors of the victims. All of which, according to the custom of each place, are solemn and valid, as for the most part we have learned by dreams and vaticinations and oracles that the numina are often indignant if anything in sacred rites is neglected through sloth or pride.

Cuius generis mihi exempla adfatim suppetunt, sed adeo celebrata et frequentata sunt ut nemo ea commemorare adortus sit, quin multo plura omiserit quam recensuerit. Idcirco supersedebo inpraesentiarum in his rebus orationem occupare, quae si non apud omnis certam fidem, at certe penes cunctos notitiam promiscuam possident. Id potius praestiterit Latine dissertare, varias species daemonum philosophis perhiberi, quo liquidius et plenius de praesagio Socratis deque eius amico numine cognoscatis.

Of which kind examples abound for me, but they are so celebrated and so frequent that no one who has attempted to commemorate them has not omitted far more than he has catalogued. Therefore I will for the present refrain from occupying speech with these matters, which, if they do not have certain credence with all, yet surely possess a common notoriety among everyone. It will be preferable rather to dissertate in Latin, that various species of daemons are affirmed by philosophers, so that you may more clearly and more fully learn about the presage of Socrates and about his friendly numen.

XV Nam quodam significatu et animus humanus etiam nunc in corpore situs daemon nuncupatur: ...dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt, Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido? Igitur et bona cupido animi bonus deus est. Vnde nonnulli arbitrantur, ut iam prius dictum est, eudaemonas dici beatos, quorum daemon bonus id est animus virtute perfectus est.

15 For in a certain signification even the human mind, still now situated in the body, is named a daemon: ...“do they add this ardor to minds, Euryalus, or does each one’s own dread desire become his god?” Therefore even a good desire is the mind’s good god. Whence some think, as has already been said, that the blessed are called eudaemons, whose daemon is good, that is, a mind perfected by virtue.

Eum nostra lingua, ut ego interpretor, haud sciam an bono, certe quidem meo periculo poteris Genium vocare, quod is deus, qui est animus sui cuique, quamquam sit inmortalis, tamen quodam modo cum homine gignitur, ut eae preces, quibus Genium et genua precantur, coniunctionem nostram nexumque videantur mihi obtestari, corpus atque animum duobus nominibus conprehendentes, quorum communio et copulatio sumus. Est et secundo significatus species daemonum animus humanus emeritis stipendiis vitae corpore suo abiurans. Hunc vetere Latina lingua reperio Lemurem dictitatum.

You will be able, in our tongue, as I interpret, I do not know whether for good, certainly indeed at my own peril, to call him the Genius; because that god, who is the mind of each person himself, although he is immortal, yet in a certain way is born together with the human being, so that those prayers by which they entreat the Genius and the knees seem to me to call to witness our conjunction and bond, comprehending body and mind under two names, whose communion and coupling we are. And there is, in a second signification, as a species of daemons, the human mind, its terms of service in life completed, abjuring its body. This I find in the old Latin tongue was commonly called a Lemur.

Ex hisce ergo Lemuribus qui posterorum suorum curam sortitus placato et quieto numine domum possidet, Lar dicitur familiaris; qui vero ob adversa vitae merita nullis (bonis) sedibus incerta vagatione ceu quodam exilio punitur, inane terriculamentum bonis hominibus, ceterum malis noxium, id genus plerique Larvas perhibent. Cum vero incertum est, quae cuique eorum sortitio evenerit, utrum Lar sit an Larva, nomine Manem deum nuncupant: scilicet et honoris gratia dei vocabulum additum est; quippe tantum eos deos appellant, qui ex eodem numero iuste ac prudenter curriculo vitae gubernato pro numine postea ab hominibus praediti fanis et caerimoniis vulgo advertuntur, ut in Boeotia Amphiaraus, in Africa Mopsus, in Aegypto Osiris, alius alibi gentium, Aesculapius ubique.

From these Lemures, therefore, the one who, having drawn the care of his posterity, with placated and quiet numen possesses the house, is called a household Lar; but the one who, on account of adverse merits in life, is punished with no (good) seats, by uncertain wandering as by a kind of exile—an empty bugbear to good men, yet harmful to the wicked—most people term that kind Larvae. But when it is uncertain what allotment has befallen each of them, whether he is a Lar or a Larva, they call him by the name Manes, a god: namely, even for the sake of honor the word “god” has been added; for they call only those “gods” who, from that same number, their course of life steered justly and prudently, are later, as numen, publicly observed by men as endowed with shrines and ceremonies, as in Boeotia Amphiaraus, in Africa Mopsus, in Egypt Osiris, one or another elsewhere among the nations, Aesculapius everywhere.

XVI. Verum haec omnis distributio eorum daemonum fuit, qui quondam in corpore humano fuere. Sunt autem non posteriore numero, praestantiore longe dignitate, superius aliud, augustius genus daemonum, qui semper a corporis conpedibus et nexibus liberi certis potestatibus curant. Quorum e numero Somnus atque Amor diversam inter se vim possident, Amor vigilandi, Somnus soporandi.

16. But this whole distribution was of those daemons who once were in a human body. Yet there is, not of a later rank, but of far more outstanding dignity, another, higher and more august kind of daemons, who, always free from the shackles and bonds of the body, operate with fixed powers. Of whose number Sleep and Love possess forces different from one another—Love, of keeping awake; Sleep, of inducing slumber.

Ex hac igitur sublimiore daemonum copia Plato autumat (singulis) hominibus in vita agenda testes et custodes singulis additos, qui nemini conspicui semper adsint arbitri omnium non modo actorum verum etiam cogitatorum. At ubi vita edita remeandum est, eundem illum, qui nobis praeditus fuit, raptare ilico et trahere veluti custodiam suam ad iudicium atque illic in causa dicunda adsistere, si qua commentiatur, redarguere, si qua vera dicat, adseverare, prorsus illius testimonio ferri sententiam. Proinde vos omnes, qui hanc Platonis divinam sententiam me interprete auscultatis, ita animos vestros ad quaecumque agenda vel meditanda formate, ut sciatis nihil homini prae istis custodibus nec intra animum nec foris esse secreti, quin omnia curiose ille participet; omnia visitet, omnia intellegat, in ipsis penitissimis mentibus vice conscientiae deversetur.

From this loftier abundance of daemons, therefore, Plato supposes that to (individual) humans, for conducting life, witnesses and guardians are assigned to individuals, who, visible to no one, are always present as arbiters of all things, not only of deeds but even of thoughts. But when life has been completed and there must be a return, that very one who was assigned to us forthwith seizes and draws, as it were his own charge, to judgment, and there, when the case is being pleaded, if he fabricates anything, he refutes; if he says anything true, he asseverates; and the sentence is carried entirely on his testimony. Therefore, all of you who listen to this divine opinion of Plato with me as interpreter, fashion your minds for whatever things are to be done or meditated, so that you may know that there is nothing secret to a human in comparison with those guardians, neither within the mind nor outside, but that he shares in all things meticulously; he visits all things, he understands all things, and in the very deepest minds he lodges in the stead of conscience.

Hic, quem dico, privus custos, singularis praefectus, domesticus speculator, proprius curator, intimus cognitor, adsiduus observator, individuus arbiter, inseparabilis testis, malorum inprobator, bonorum probator, si rite animadvertatur, sedulo cognoscatur, religiose colatur, ita ut a Socrate iustitia et innocentia cultus est, in rebus incertis prospector, dubiis praemonitor, periculosis tutator, egenis opitulator, qui tibi queat tum insomniis, tum signis, tum etiam fortasse coram, cum usus postulat, mala averruncare, bona prosperare, humilia sublimare, nutantia fulcire, obscura clarare, secunda regere, adversa corrigere.

This one, whom I speak of, a private guardian, a singular prefect, a household scout, a personal curator, an intimate cognizer, an assiduous observer, an indivisible arbiter, an inseparable witness, a disapprover of evils, an approver of goods—if he be rightly observed, diligently known, religiously cultivated, as by Socrates justice and innocence were cultivated—will be, in uncertain matters, a prospector (lookout), in doubtful ones a premonisher, in perilous ones a protector, for the needy a helper; who can for you, both by dreams and by signs and even perhaps face-to-face, when occasion demands, avert evils, prosper goods, raise the lowly, prop the wavering, clarify the obscure, steer prosperous affairs, correct adverse ones.

XVII. Igitur mirum, si Socrates, vir adprime perfectus et Apollinis quoque testimonio sapiens, hunc deum suum cognovit et coluit, ac propterea eius custos prope dicam Lar contubernio familiaris cuncta et arcenda arcuit et praecavenda praecavit et praemonenda praemonuit, sicubi tamen interfectis sapientiae officiis non consilio sed praesagio indigebat, ut ubi dubitatione clauderet, ibi divinatione consisteret? Multa sunt enim, multa de quibus etiam sapientes viri ad hariolos et oracula cursitent. An non apud Homerum, ut quodam ingenti speculo, clarius cernis haec duo distributa, seorsus divinationis, seorsus sapientiae officia?

17. Therefore, is it a marvel if Socrates, a man supremely perfect and, by the testimony of Apollo as well, wise, knew and cultivated this his god, and on that account his guardian—one might almost say Lar—familiar as a tent-companion in contubernium, warded off all things to be warded off, took precautions against things to be guarded against, and warned of things to be warned of, whenever, however, with the offices of wisdom failing he needed not counsel but a presage, so that where he was shut in by doubt, there he might stand by divination? For there are many things, many, about which even wise men run to soothsayers and oracles. Or do you not, in Homer, as in a certain vast mirror, see more clearly these two set apart—the offices of divination apart, the offices of wisdom apart?

Nam cum duo columina totius exercitus dissident, Agamemnon regno pollens et Achilles bello potens, desideraturque vir facundia laudatus et peritia memoratus, qui Atridae superbiam sedet, Pelidae ferociam conpescat atque eos auctoritate advertat, exemplis moneat, oratione permulceat, quis igitur tali in tempore me ad dicendum exhortus est? Nempe Pylius orator, eloquio comis, experimentis catus, senecta venerabilis, cui omnes sciebant corpus annis habere, animum prudentia vigere, verba dulcedine adfluere.

For when the two pillars of the whole army are at odds—Agamemnon preeminent in kingship and Achilles powerful in war—and a man is wanted, praised for eloquence and remembered for experience, to calm the pride of the Atreid, to restrain the ferocity of the Pelid, and to turn them back by authority, to admonish by examples, to soothe by speech, who then at such a time exh orted me to speak? Surely the Pylian orator, affable in eloquence, shrewd through experiences, venerable in old age, whom all knew to have the body aged by years, the spirit vigorous with prudence, the words overflowing with sweetness.

XVIII. Itidem cum rebus crepis et adflictis speculatores deligendi sunt, qui nocte intempesta castra hostium penetrent, nonne Vlixes cum Diomede deliguntur veluti consilium et auxilium, mens et manus, animus et gladius? Enimvero cum ab Aulide desidibus et obsessis ac taedio abnuentibus difficultas belli et facultas itineris et tranquillitas maris et clementia ventorum per fibrarum notas et alitum vias et serpentium escas exploranda est, tacent nemque mutuo duo illa sapientiae Graiae summa cacumina, Ithacensis et Pylius. Calchas autem longe praestabilis hariolari simul alites et altaria et arborem contemplatus est, actutum sua divinatione et tempestates flexit et classem deduxit et decennium praedixit; non secus et in Troiano exercitu cum divinatione res indigent, tacet ille sapiens senatus nec audet aliquid pronuntiare vel Hicetaon vel Lampo vel Clytius, sed omnes silentio auscultant aut ingrata auguria Heleni aut incredita vaticinia Cassandrae.

18. Likewise, when affairs are involved and afflicted and scouts must be chosen to penetrate the enemy’s camp in the dead of night, are not Ulysses with Diomedes chosen as counsel and assistance, mind and hand, spirit and sword? But indeed when at Aulis, with men idle and besieged and refusing through weariness, the difficulty of the war and the feasibility of the journey and the tranquility of the sea and the clemency of the winds must be explored through the marks of entrails and the paths of birds and the prey of serpents, the two loftiest peaks of Greek wisdom, the Ithacan and the Pylian, fall silent, each to the other. Calchas, however, far pre-eminent as a soothsayer, contemplated at once the birds and the altars and the tree, and forthwith by his divination he both bent the storms and launched the fleet and foretold a decade; likewise also in the Trojan army, when matters have need of divination, that wise senate is silent, nor does either Hicetaon or Lampus or Clytius dare to pronounce anything, but all in silence listen either to the unwelcome auguries of Helenus or the untrusted vaticinations of Cassandra.

Ad eundem modum Socrates quoque, sicubi locorum aliena sapientiae officiis consultatio ingruerat, ibi vi daemonis praesagiri egebat. Verum eius monitis sedulo oboediebat eoque erat deo suo longe acceptior.

In the same manner Socrates too, whenever in some places a consultation alien to the offices of wisdom pressed in, there he needed to be fore-warned by the power of a daemon. Yet he assiduously obeyed its admonitions, and for that he was by far more acceptable to his own god.

XIX. Quod autem incepta Socratis quaepiam daemon ille ferme prohibitum ibat, numquam adhortatum, quodam modo ratio praedicta est. Enim Socrates, utpote vir adprime perfectus, ex sese ad omnia congruentia sibi officia promptus, nullo adhortatore umquam indigebat, at vero prohibitore nonnumquam, si quibus forte conatibus eius periculum suberat, ut monitus praecaveret, omitteret coepta inpraesentiarum, quae tutius vel postea capesseret vel alia via adoriretur. In huiuscemodi rebus (dixit) vocem quampiam divinitus exortam dicebat audire ita enim apud Platonem, ne quisquam arbitretur omina eum vulgo loquentium captitasse.

XIX. But as to the fact that that daemon for the most part went to prohibit certain undertakings of Socrates, never to exhort, in a certain way the rationale has been stated above. For Socrates, as a man supremely perfected, out of himself prompt to all duties congruent to him, never at any time stood in need of an exhorter; but indeed of a prohibitor sometimes, if by chance some danger lurked under any of his attempts, so that, being warned, he might take precautions, and omit for the present his beginnings, which he might more safely either afterwards take up or approach by another route. In matters of this kind (he said) he used to say that he heard a certain voice arisen divinely—so indeed it is in Plato—lest anyone suppose that he had been catching omens from those speaking in the vulgar crowd.

Quippe etiam semotis arbitris uno cum Phaedro extra pomerium sub quodam arboris opaco umbraculo signum illud adnuntium sensit, ne prius transcendet Ilissi amnis modicum fluentum, quam increpitu(m) indignatum Amorem recinendo placasset. Cum praeterea, si omina observitaret, aliquando eorum nonnulla etiam hortamenta haberet, ut videmus plerisque usu evenire, qui nimia ominum superstitione non suopte corde sed alterius verbo reguntur ac per angiporta reptantes consilia ex alienis vocibus conligunt et, ut ita dixerim, non animo sed auribus cogitant.

Indeed, even with the observers dismissed, together with Phaedrus alone outside the pomerium under a certain tree’s shady arbor, he sensed that announcing sign: that he should not first cross the slight stream of the river Ilissus, before he had appeased Love, angered by reproach, by singing back in reply. Moreover, if he were observing omens, at times he would even have some of them also as encouragements, as we see happen by experience to very many, who, by excessive superstition of omens, are governed not by their own heart but by another’s word, and, crawling through back-alleys, gather counsels from others’ voices and, so to speak, think not with the mind but with the ears.

XX. Verum enimvero, ut ista sunt, certe quidem ominum harioli vocem audiunt saepenumero auribus suis usurpatam, de qua nihil cunctentur (de qua sciunt) ex ore humano profectam. At enim Socrates non vocem sibi sed "vocem quampiam" dixit oblatam, quo additamento profecto intellegas non usitatam vocem nec humanam significari. Quae si foret, frustra "quaepiam", quin potius aut "vox" aut certe "cuiuspiam vox" diceretur, ut ait illa Terentiana meretrix: audire vocem visa sum modo militis.

20. But indeed, as these things are, certainly the soothsayers of omens hear a voice very often employed upon their ears, about which they do not hesitate (about which they know) that it has proceeded from a human mouth. But Socrates said that not “a voice” but “a certain voice” was presented to him, by which addition you surely understand that a not-usual voice and not a human one is signified. Which, if it were human, “a certain” would be in vain; nay rather either “a voice,” or at least “someone’s voice,” would be said, as that Terentian courtesan says: “I seemed just now to hear a soldier’s voice.”

Quid vero vocem quampiam dicat audisse, aut nescit unde ea exorta sit, aut in ipsa aliquid addubitat, aut eam quiddam insolitum et arcanum demonstrat habuisse, ita ut Socrates eam, quam sibi (ac) divinitus editam tempestive accidere dicebat. Quod equidem arbitror non modo auribus eum verum etiam oculis signa daemonis sui usurpasse. Nam frequentius non (prae)vocem sed signum divinum sibi oblatum prae se ferebat.

But as for his saying that he heard a certain voice, either he does not know whence it arose, or he has some doubt about it itself, or he shows that it possessed something unusual and arcane, just as Socrates said that that voice, which was (and) divinely uttered for him, used to befall him at a timely moment. Which indeed I take to mean that he made use of the signs of his daemon not only with his ears but even with his eyes. For more often he put forward not a (pre)voice but a divine sign offered to him.

Id signum potest et ipsius daemonis species fuisse, quam solus Socrates cerneret, ita ut Homericus Achilles Minervam. Credo plerosque vestrum hoc, quod commodum dixi, cunctantius credere et inpendio mirari formam daemonis Socrati visitatam. At enim (secundum) Pythagoricos contra mirari oppido solitos, si quis se negaret umquam vidisse daemonem, satis, ut reor, idoneus auctor est Aristoteles.

That sign could also have been the very form of the daemon himself, which Socrates alone perceived, as the Homeric Achilles [perceived] Minerva. I believe that most of you will more hesitantly credit this which I have just said, and will marvel exceedingly that the form of a daemon visited Socrates. But indeed, (according to) the Pythagoreans, on the contrary, they were mightily wont to marvel if anyone should deny that he had ever seen a daemon; Aristotle is, as I reckon, a sufficiently suitable authority.

Quod si cuivis potest evenire facultas contemplandi divinam effigiem, cur non adprime potuerit Socrati optingere, quem cuivis amplissimo numini sapientiae dignitas coaequarat? Nihil est enim deo similius et gratius quam vir animo perfecte bonus, qui hominibus ceteris antecellit, quam ipse a diis immortalibus distat.

If the faculty of contemplating the divine effigy can befall anyone whatsoever, why could it not in the highest degree have befallen Socrates, whom the dignity of wisdom had coequaled with any most august numen? For nothing is more similar and more gratifying to a god than a man perfectly good in soul, who excels the other men by as much as he himself is distant from the immortal gods.

XXI. Quia potius non quoque Socratis exemplo et commemoratione erigimur ac nos secundo studio philosophiae [pari similitudini numinum caventes permittimus? De quo quidem nescio qua ratione detrahimur. Et nihil aeque miror quam, cum omnes et cupiant optime vivere et sciant non alia re quam animo vivi nec fieri posse quin, ut optime vivas, animus colendus sit, tamen animum suum non colant.

21. Why rather are we not likewise, by Socrates’ example and commemoration, uplifted and commit ourselves to a favorable zeal for philosophy, [being wary of an equal similitude to the divinities? From which indeed I do not know by what rationale we are dragged down. And nothing do I marvel at so much as that, although all both desire to live optimally and know that one lives by nothing other than by the mind, nor can it be otherwise than that, in order that you may live best, the mind must be cultivated, nevertheless they do not cultivate their own mind.

At si quis velit acriter cernere, oculi curandi sunt, quibus cernitur; si velis perniciter currere, pedes curandi sunt, quibus curritur; itidem si pugillare valde velis, brachia vegetanda sunt, quibus pugillatur. Similiter in omnibus ceteris membris sua cuique cura pro studio est. Quod cum omnes facile perspiciant, nequeo satis mecum reputare et proinde, ut res est, admirari cur non etiam animum suum ratione excolant.

But if someone should wish to discern keenly, the eyes by which one discerns must be cared for; if you should wish to run nimbly, the feet by which one runs must be cared for; likewise, if you should wish to box strenuously, the arms by which one boxes must be invigorated. Similarly, in all the other members, to each its own care is proportioned to the pursuit. Since all easily perceive this, I cannot sufficiently reckon with myself, and accordingly, as the matter stands, marvel why they do not also cultivate their mind by reason.

Quae quidem ratio vivendi omnibus aeque necessaria est, non ratio pingendi nec ratio psallendi, quas quivis bonus vir sine ulla animi vituperatione, sine turpitudine, sine rubore contempserit. Nescio ut Ismenias tibiis canere, sed non pudet me tibicinem non esse; nescio ut Apelles coloribus pingere, sed non pudet me non esse significem; itidem in ceteris artibus, ne omnis persequar, licet tibi nescire nec pudeat.

This rule of living indeed is equally necessary for all, not the rule of painting nor the rule of psalmody, which any good man may contemn without any vituperation of mind, without turpitude, without a blush. I do not know how Ismenias plays the pipes, but I am not ashamed not to be a flute-player; I do not know how Apelles paints with colors, but I am not ashamed not to be a painter; likewise in the other arts, not to pursue them all, it is permitted for you to be ignorant and not be ashamed.

XXII. Enimvero dic, sodes: "nescio bene vivere, ut Socrates, ut Plato, ut Pythagoras vixerunt, nec pudet me nescire bene vivere"; numquam hoc dicere audebis. Sed cumprimis mirandum est, quod ea, quae minime videri volunt nescire, discere tamen neglegunt et eiusdem artis disciplinam simul et ignorantiam detrectant. Igitur cotidiana eorum aera dispungas: invenias in rationibus multa prodige profusa et in semet nihil, in sui dico daemonis cultum, qui cultus non aliud quam philosophiae sacramentum est.

22. But indeed, say, I pray you: "I do not know how to live well, as Socrates, as Plato, as Pythagoras lived, nor am I ashamed not to know how to live well"; you will never dare to say this. But above all it is to be wondered at, that the very things which they least wish to seem not to know, they nevertheless neglect to learn, and they reject both the discipline of the same art and the ignorance. Therefore, if you audit their daily accounts, you will find in the books many things prodigally poured out, and nothing upon themselves—upon, I mean, the cult of their own daemon, which cult is nothing other than the sacrament of philosophy.

Plane quidem villas opipare exstruunt et domos ditissime exornant et familias numerosissime conparant. Sed in istis omnibus tanta adfluentia rerum nihil est praeterquam ipse dominus pudendum; nec iniuria: cumulata enim habent, quae sedulo percolunt, ipsi autem horridi, indocti incultique circumeunt. Igitur illa spectes, in quae patrimonia sua profuderunt: amoenissima et exstructissima et ornatissima deprehendas, villas aemulas urbium conditas, domus vice templorum exornatas, familias numerosissimas et calamistratas, opiparam supellectilem, omnia adfluentia, omnia opulentia, omnia ornata praeter ipsum dominum, qui solus Tantali vice in suis divitiis inops, egens, pauper non quidem fluentum illud fugitivum captat et fallacis undae sitit, sed verae beatitudinis, id est secundae vitae et prudentiae fortunatissimae, esurit et sitit.

Plainly indeed they build villas lavishly and adorn houses most richly and acquire households in the greatest numbers. But in all these things, amid so great an affluence of goods, there is nothing shameful except the master himself; and not unjustly: for they have heaped-up possessions, which they sedulously cultivate, while they themselves go about rough, unlearned, and uncultivated. Therefore look at those things into which they have poured out their patrimonies: you will find the most pleasant and the most constructed and the most ornamented—villas founded as rivals of cities, houses adorned in the stead of temples, households most numerous and calamistrated, sumptuous furnishings, everything overflowing, everything opulent, everything adorned except the master himself, who alone, in Tantalus’s stead, in his riches is needy, destitute, poor; he does not indeed seize that fugitive stream and thirst for the deceitful wave, but for true beatitude, that is, for a favorable life and for most fortunate prudence, he hungers and thirsts.

Quippe non intellegit aeque divites spectari debere ut equos mercamur.

Indeed, he does not understand that the rich ought to be inspected just as we purchase horses.

XXIII. Neque enim in emendis equis phaleras consideramus et baltei polimina inspicimus et ornatissimae cervicis divitias contemplamur, si ex auro et argento et gemmis monilia variegata dependent, si plena artis ornamenta capiti et collo circumiacent, si frena caelata, si ephippia fucata, si cingula aurata sunt. Sed istis omnibus exuviis amolitis equum ipsum nudum et solum corpus eius et animum contemplamur, ut sit et ad speciem honestus et ad cursuram vegetus et ad vecturam validus: iam primum in corpore si sit argutum caput, brevis alvus obesaque terga luxuriatque toris animosum pectus honesti; praeterea si duplex agitur per lumbos spina: volo enim non modo perniciter verum etiam molliter pervehat. Similiter igitur et in hominibus contemplandis noli illa aliena aestimare, sed ipsum hominem penitus considera, ipsum ut meum Socratem pauperem specta.

23. For indeed, when buying horses we do not consider the trappings, nor inspect the polishings of the baldric, nor contemplate the riches of an exceedingly adorned neck—whether variegated necklaces hang down of gold and silver and gems, whether ornaments full of art lie around the head and neck, whether the bit is chased, whether the saddles are dyed, whether the girths are gilded. But with all these panoplies removed, we contemplate the horse itself, bare—his body alone and his spirit—so that he be seemly in appearance, lively for running, and sturdy for carrying: now first in the body, whether there be a keenly defined head, short in the belly, full-backed, and his spirited chest luxuriates with muscular ridges, comely; besides, whether a double ridge runs through the loins: for I wish him to carry me not only swiftly but also smoothly. So likewise in contemplating human beings do not appraise those alien things, but consider the man himself in his depths; gaze upon the man himself, as my Socrates—poor— look upon him.

Aliena autem voco, quae parentes pepererunt et quae fortuna largita est. Quorum nihil laudibus Socratis mei admisceo, nullam generositatem, nullam prosapiam, nullos longos natales, nullas invidiosas divitias. Haec enim cuncta, ut dico, aliena sunt.

But I call alien those things which parents have begotten and which Fortune has bestowed. Of which I mingle nothing into the praises of my Socrates: no nobility, no lineage, no long ancestry, no riches that provoke envy. For all these, as I say, are alien.

Sat Parthaonio gloriae est, qui talis fuit, ut eius nepotem non puderet. Igitur omnia similiter aliena numeres licebit; "generosus est": parentes laudas. "Dives est": non credo fortunae.

It is sufficient for Parthaonius’s glory that he was such that his grandson would not be ashamed. Accordingly you may reckon all such things likewise as alien; "he is well-born": you praise the parents. "He is rich": I do not trust Fortune.

Nec magis ista adnumero: "validus est": aegritudine fatigabitur. "Pernix est": stabit in senectute. "Formosus est": exspecta paulisper et non erit.

Nor do I count these either: "he is strong": he will be wearied by sickness. "He is nimble": he will stand still in old age. "He is handsome": wait a little while and he will not be.

"At enim bonis artibus doctus et adprime est eruditus et, quantum licet homini, sapiens et boni consultus": tandem aliquando ipsum virum laudas. Hoc enim nec a patre hereditarium est nec a casu pendulum nec a suffragio anniculum nec a corpore caducum nec ab aetate mutabile. Haec omnia meus Socrates habuit et ideo cetera habere contempsit.

"But indeed trained in good arts and is preeminently erudite and, as much as is permitted to a human, sapient and a counselor of the good": at last, for once, you are praising the man himself. This indeed is neither hereditary from a father nor dependent on chance nor annual by suffrage nor perishable from the body nor mutable by age. All these things my Socrates possessed, and therefore he scorned to possess the rest.

XXIV. Quin igitur et tu ad studium sapientiae accingeris vel properas saltem, ut nihil alienum in laudibus tuis audias, sed ut, qui te volet nobilitare, aeque laudet, ut Accius Vlixen laudavit in Philocteta suo, in eius tragoediae principio: inclite, parva prodite patria, nomine celebri claroque potens pectore, Achivis classibus auctor, gravis Dardaniis gentibus ultor, Laertiade? Novissime patrem memorat. Ceterum omnes laudes eius viri audisti: nihil inde nec Laertes sibi nec Anticlia nec Arcisius vindicat: [nec] tota, ut vides, laudis huius propria Vlixi possessio est.

24. Why then do you not also gird yourself for the study of wisdom, or at least make haste, so that you may hear nothing alien in your praises, but that whoever shall wish to ennoble you may praise you likewise, as Accius praised Ulysses in his Philoctetes, at the beginning of that tragedy: “illustrious, brought forth from a small fatherland, powerful with a celebrated name and a clear breast, author of the Achaean fleets, a weighty avenger to the Dardanian peoples, son of Laertes?” Finally he mentions the father. Moreover, you have heard all the praises of that man: from it neither Laertes nor Anticleia nor Arcesius claims anything for themselves: [nor] is the whole, as you see, of this praise the proper possession of Ulysses.

Nec aliud te in eodem Vlixe Homerus docet, qui semper ei comitem voluit esse prudentiam, quam poetico ritu Minervam nuncupavit. Igitur hac eadem comite omnia horrenda subiit, omnia adversa superavit. Quippe ea adiutrice Cyclopis specus introiit, sed egressus est; Solis boves vidit, sed abstinuit; ad inferos demeavit et ascendit; eadem sapientia comite Scyllam praeternavigavit nec ereptus est; Charybdi consaeptus est nec retentus est; Circae poculum bibit nec mutatus est; ad Lotophagos accessit nec remansit; Sirenas audiit nec accessit.

Nor does Homer teach you anything else in that same Ulysses, who always wished Prudence to be his companion, whom by poetic rite he named Minerva. Therefore, with this same companion he underwent all dreadful things, he overcame all adverse things. Indeed, with her as helper he entered the cave of the Cyclops, yet he came out; he saw the cattle of the Sun, yet he abstained; he descended to the underworld and ascended; with the same wisdom as companion he sailed past Scylla and was not snatched away; he was hemmed in by Charybdis and was not held; he drank Circe’s cup and was not changed; he approached the Lotus-eaters and did not remain; he heard the Sirens and did not approach.