Porpryry, the celebrated author of the treatises translated in this volume, was dignified by his contemporaries, and by succeeding Platonists, with the appellation of the philosopher, on account of his very extraordinary philosophical attain- ments. He is likewise called by Simplicius, the most learned of the philosophers, and is praised by | Proclus for his ssgorgern νοηματὰ, or conceptions adapted to sanctity; the truth of all which appel- lations is by the following treatises most abun- dantly and manifestly confirmed.
A few biographical particulars only have been transmitted to us respecting this great man, and these are as follow. He was born at Tyre, in the twelfth year of the reign of the Emperor Alex- ander Severus, and in the two hundred and thirty-third of the Christian era; and he died at Rome, when he was more than seventy years old, in the latter part of the Emperor Dioclesian’s reign. He was also a disciple first of Longinus, and afterwards of the great Plotinus, with whom he became acquainted in the thirtieth year of his b vi INTRODUCTION.
b vi INTRODUCTION.
age; and it is to Porphyry we are indebted for the publication of the inestimable and uncom- monly profound works of that most extraordinary man. For, as I have observed in my History of the Restoration of the Platonic Theology, it was a long time before Plotinus committed his thoughts to writing, and gave the world a copy of his inimitable mind. That light which was destined to illuminate the philosophical world, as yet shone with solitary splendour, or beamed only on a beloved few; and it was through Por- phyry alone that it at length emerged from its sanctuary, and displayed its radiance in full per- fection, and with unbounded diffusion. For Por- phyry, in the language of Eunapius, “ like a Mercurial chain let. down for the benefit of mortals, unfolded every thing with accuracy and clearness, by the assistance of universal eru- dition.”
We are likewise informed, by the same Eu- napius, that Porphyry, when he first associated with Plotinus, bade farewell to all his other preceptors, and totally applied himself to the friendship of that wonderful man. Here he filled his mind with science, as from a perennial and never-satiating fount. But afterwards, being con- quered, as it were, by the magnitude of his doc- trines, he conceived a hatred of body, and could no longer endure the fetters of mortality. — INTRODUCTION. Vil INTRODUCTION. Vil ‘‘ Hence,” says he*, “1 formed au intention’ of Ὁ _ destroying myself, which Plotinus wonderfully perceived; and as I was walking home, stood before me, and said, Your present design, O Porphyry, is not the dictate of a sound intellect, but rather of a soul raging with an atrabilarious fury. In consequence of this he ordered me to depart from Rome; and accordingly I went to Sicily, having heard that a certain worthy and elegant man dwelt at that time about Lilybeum. And thus, indeed, I was liberated from this perturba- tion of soul; but was, in the meantime, hindered from being with Plotinus till his death.” Porphyry also maintains a very distinguished rank among those great geniuses who contributed to the development of the genuine dogmas of Plato, after they had been lost for upwards of five hundred years; as I have shown in my above- mentioned History of the Restoration of the Pla- tonic Theology. Among these dogmas, that which is transcendently important is this,— that the inef- fable principle of things, which is denominated by Plato the good and the one, is something supe- rior to intellect and being itself. This, as we are informed by Proclus, was demonstrated by Por- phyry, by many powerful and. beautiful argu- ments, in his treatise Concernmg Principles, 2 In Vit. Plotin.
Vili INTRODUCTION.
which is unfortunately lost. And this dognia}’ which was derived principally from the 6th. book of the Republic, and the Parmenides, of Plato, and was adopted by all succeeding Platonists, is copiously unfolded, and the truth of it supported by reasoning replete with what Plato calls geo- metrical necessities, by those two great philo- sophical luminaries Proclus and Damascius’; the former of whom was the Corypheus of the Plato- nists, and the latter possessed a profoundly in- vestigatmg mind.
Of the disciples of Porphyry the most cele- brated was Iamblichus, a man of an uncommonly penetrating genius, and who, like his master Plato, on account of the sublimity of his con- ceptions, and his admirable proficiency in theo- Jogical learning, was surnamed the divine. This extraordinary man, though zealously attached to the Platonic philosophy, yet explored the wisdom of other sects, particularly of the Pythagoreans, ᾿ Egyptians, and Chaldeans; and formed one beau- tiful system of recondite knowledge, from their harmonious conjunction‘.
» See the 2d book of my translation of Proclus on the Theology of Plato, and the Introduction to my translation of Plato, and notes on the 3d volume of that translation.
e See my translation of his Life of Pythagoras, and also of his treatise on the Mysteries. The Emperor Julian says of Iamblichus, ‘ that he was posterior in time, but not in genius, _ to Plato himself.”
INTRODUCTION. ix: With respect to the works of Porphyry which are translated in this volume, the first, which’ is On Abstinence from Amimal Food, is a treatise not only replete with great erudition, but 15 remarkable for the purity of life which it ‘incul- cates, and the sanctity of conception with which it abounds. At the same time it must be remem- bered, that it was written solely, as Porphyry himself informs us, with a view to the man who wishes in the present life to liberate himself as much as possible from the fetters of the corporeal nature, in order that he may elevate his intel- lectual eye to the contemplation of truly-evisting being (το ovrws ov,) and may establish himself in deity as in his paterv’hl port*. But such a one, as 4 Such a man as this, is arranged by Plotinus in the class of divine men, in the following extract from my translation of his treatise on Intellect, Ideas, and Real Being, Ennead V. 9. The extract, which is uncommonly beautiful in the original, forms the beginning of the treatise. ‘ Since all men, from their birth, employ sense prior to intellect, and are necessarily first ' conversant with sensibles, some, proceeding no farther, pass through life, considering these as the first and last of things, and apprehending, that whatever is painful among these, is evil, and whatever is pleasant, is good; thus, thinking it sufficient to pursue the one and avoid the other. Those, too, among them, who pretend to a greater share of reason than others, esteem this to be wisdom; being affected in a manner similar to more heavy birds, who, collecting many things from the earth, and being oppressed with the weight, are unable to fly on high, Χ INTRODUCTION.
Χ INTRODUCTION.
he beautifully observes, must divest himself of every thing of a mortal nature which he has assumed, must withdraw himself from sense and imagination, and the irrationality with which they are attended, and from an adhering affec- tion and passion towards them; and must enter the stadium naked and unclothed, striving for the most glorious of all prizes, the Olympia of the 5001". Hence, says he, ‘‘ my discourse is not directed to those who are occupied in sordid mechanical arts, nor to those who are engaged in athletic exercises; neither to soldiers nor sailors, nor rhetoricians, nor to those who lead an active though they have received wings fdr this purpose from nature. But others are in a small degree elevated from things subor- dinate, the more excellent part of the soul recalling them from pleasure to a more worthy pursujt. As they are, however, unable to look on high, and as not possessing any thing else which can afford them rest, they betake themselves, together with the name of virtue, to actions and the election of things inferior, from which they at first endeavoured to raise themselves, ' though in vain. In the third class is the race of divine men, who through a more excellent power, and with piercing eyes, acutely perceive supernal light, to the vision of which they raise them- selves, above the clouds and darkness, as it were, of this lower world, and there abiding, despise every thing in these regions of sense; being no otherwise delighted with the place which is truly and properly their own, than he who, after many wander- ings, is at length restored to his lawful country.” * Page 23.
INTRODUCTION. xi life’; but I write to the man who considers what he is, whence he came, and whither he ought to tend, and who, in what pertains to nutriment and other necessary concerns, 15 different from those who propose to themselves other kinds of life; for to none but such as these do I direct my discourse®.” This treatise, also, is highly valuable for the historical information which it contains, independently of the philosophical beauties with which it abounds. | The Explanation of the Homeric Cave of the Nymphs, which follows next, is not only remark- able for the great erudition which it displays, but also for containing some profound arcana of the mythology and symbolical theology of the Greeks.
And the third treatise, which is denominated * The translator of this work, and of the other treatises con- tained in this volume, having been so circumstanced, that he has been obliged to mingle the active with the contemplative life (μετα θεορητικου vou πολιτευόμενος) in acquiring for himself a knowledge of the philosophy of Plato, and disseminating that philosophy for the good of others, has also found it expedient to make use of a fleshy diet. Nothing, however, but an imperious necessity, from causes which it would be superfluous to detail at present, could have induced him to adopt animal, instead of vegetable nutriment. But though he has been nurtured in Eleatic and Academic studies, yet it has not been in Academic bowers.
§ Page 19.
ΧΙ] INTRODUCTION.
Auziliaries ἐφ the Perception of Inteliigibles, may be considered as an excellent introduction to the works of Plotinus in general, from which a great part of it is extracted, and in particular, to the following books of that most sublime genius, viz. On the Virtues"; On the Impassivity of Incar- poreal Natures’; and ‘On Truly-Existing Being, in which it is demonstrated that such being js every where one and the same whole*. This Porphyrian treatise, also, is admirably calculated to afford assistance to the student of the Theolo- gical Elements of Proclus, a work never to be suffi- ciently praised for the scientific accuracy, pro- fundity of conception, and luminous development of the most important dogmas, which it display.
In the fourth place, Porphyry, in his treatise On the Cave of the Nymphs, having informed us, that Numenius, the Pythagorean, considered the person of Ulysses, in the Odyssey, as the image of a man who passes in a regular manner over the stormy sea of generation, or a sensible life, and thus at length arrives at a region where tempest and seas are unknown, and finds a nation “Who ne’er new salt, or heard the billows roar:” I have endeavoured, by the assistance of this bh Ennead I. 2. 1 Ennead III. 6. * Ennead VI. lib. 4, δ.
INTRODUSTFON. xiii intimation, to unfold,.in the Appendix: which concludes the work, the secret: meaning of the allegory; and, I trust, in a way which will not be . deemed by the intelligent reader either visionary oer vain.
With respectto the translation of the treatises, I have endeavoured faithfully to preserve both the matter and manner of the author; and have availed myself of the best editions of them, and, likewise, of all the information which appeared to me to be most important, and most appropriate, from the remarks of critics and philologists, but especially from the elucidations of philosophers. This, I trust, will be evident from a perusal of the notes which aceompany the translation.
Of all the other writings of Porphyry, besides those translated in this volume, few unfortunately have been preserved entire’, the greater part of what remains of them being fragments. Among these fragments, however, there is one very important, lately found by Angelus Maius, and ~ published by him, Mediol. 1816, 8ve.. It is nearly the whole of the Epistle of Porphyry to his wife Marcella, in which I have discovered the ' For even with respect to the treatise On Abstinence from Animal Food, there is every reason to believe that something is wanting at the end of it.
ΧΙΝ INTRODUCTION.
original of many of the Sentences of the cele- brated Sextus Pythagoricus”, which have been m See the Latin translation of these Sentences by Ruffinus, in the Opuscula Mythologica of Gale. The Sentences which are to be found in this Epistle of Porphyry, were published by me, with some animadversions, in the Classical Journal, about two years ago; but on account of the great importante of these Sentences, and for the sake of those who may not have this Journal in their possession, I shall here repeat what I have there said on this subject.
After having premised that great praise is due to the editor for the publication of this Epistle, but that, as he has taken no notice of the sources whence most of the beautiful moral sen- tences with which this Epistle abounds, are derived, it becomes necessary to unfold them to the reader, particularly as by this means several of the Sentences of Sextus Pythagoricus may be obtained in the original Greek; — I then observe: ‘‘ Previous, however, to this development, I shall present the reader with the emendation of the following defective sen- tence in p. 19: To δὲ πεπαιδευσθαι οὐκ εν «ολυμαθειας ἀναληψεῖι 880 παλαξει δὲ των Ψυχικὼων wader εθεωρειτος. The editor, not being an adept in the philosophy of Pythagoras and Plato, con- ceived that παλαξει was a genuine word; for he remarks, ‘* Nota vocabulum wraAaéic,” whereas it is only a part of a word, i.e. it is a part of απαλλαξει. Hence, if after αναληψει, the words ἐν απαλλάξει are-inserted, the sentence of Porphyry will be perfect both in its construction and meaning, and will be in English, “ Erudition does not consist in the resumption of polymathy, but is to be surveyed in a liberation from the passions pertaining to the soul.” The editor, not perceiving the necessity of this emendation, has, by the following version, totally mistaken the meaning of the sentence: ‘* Bonam autem institutionem nun- INTRODUCTION. => XV hitherto supposed to be alone extant in the fraudulent Latin version of the Presbyter Rufquam estimem, quee cum eruditionis copia, animalium quoque passionum contaminatione sordescat.”
The first sentence of which I have discovered the source, is from Sextus, and is the following, in p. 23: θεὸς μεν γαρ δειται ουδενος" coos δὲ μονοῦυ θεου: 2.6. ““ For God is not in want of any thing; but the wise man is alone in want of God.” This, in the version of Ruffinus, is: “ Deus quidem nullius eget, fidelis autem Dei solius.” (Vid. Opusc. Mytholog. 8vo. 1688, p. 646.)
2: Tlaons πραξεως καὶ WITS ἐργοῦυ καὶ λογου θεος ἐποπτης “-ἀρεστὼ καὶ εῷορος, (p. 24): ἢ, ε. “ Of every action, and of every deed and word, God is present as the scrutator and inspector.” This is evidently derived from the following sentence of Demophilus,.
(Opusc. Mythol. p. 621): Ἐὰν aes μνημονευης, ors ὁποῦ ἂν ἢ ἡ Ψψυχη σου, καὶ TO THe epyor ἀπόοτελει, θεος ἐφεστηκχεν εῴορος, ay πάσαις σου dass εὐχαῖς καὶ πράξεσιν, αιδεσθησὴ μὲν τοῦ θεωρου τὸ ἀληστον, εξεις δὲ τὸν θεὸν σύναικον, ὃ. 6. “ If you always remember, that wherever your soul, or your body, performs any deed, God is present as an inspector, in all your prayers and actions, you will reverence the nature of an inspector, from whom nothing can be con- cealed, and will have God for a cohabitant.” What imme- diately follows in this paragraph is from Sextus, viz. xa: πάντων ὧν πράττομεν ἀγαθὼν tov θεὸν aitiov ἡγωμεθα: 2.e. ““ OF all the ‘good that we do, we should consider God as the cause.” And Sextus says, p. 648. “ Deus in bonis actibus hominibus dux est.” Porphyry adds: Twy δὲ χακὼν curios ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν οι EAOMEVOS, bcos δὲ ἀναίτιος. And the latter part is evidently from Sextus, who says, Ὁ. 648, ‘‘ Mali nullius autor est Deus.” Porphyry further adds: Odev καὶ εὐκταῖον ta ἀξια θεου" και αἰτωμεθα ἃ μη λαθδοιμεν ἂν παρ᾽ ετερου" καὶ WY ἡγεμόνες οἱ μετ᾽ ἄρετὴς TOVOL, ταυτὰ εὐχόμεθα γενεσθαι μετα τοὺς πονοὺς: ὃ. 6. “ Hence we should ask of God things which are worthy of him, and which we cannot ΧΥ INTRODUCTION.
ΧΥ INTRODUCTION.
fnus. And for an account of the other entire works and fragments that are extant, and also receive from any other. The goods also, of which labours are the leaders, in conjunction with virtue, we should pray that we may obtain after the labours [are accomplished].” ΑἹ] this is from Sextus. For, in p. 648, he says: “ Hee posce ἃ Deo, quee dignum est preestare Deum. Ea pete 4 Deo, que accipere ab homine non potes. In quibus preecedere debet labor, heec tibi opta evenire post laborem.” Only, in this last sentence, Ruffinus has omitted to add, after labor, the words cum virtute. What Porphyry says, almost immediately after this, is precisely the first of the Sentences of Demophilus, (Opuse. Mythol. p. 626), viz. “A de κτησάμενος ov καθεξεις, un αἰτου παρα θεου" δῶρον yap feou παν αναφαιρετον' wore ov duces ὃ μη καθεξεις: 1. ε. “ Do not ask of God that which, when you have obtained, you can- not preserve. For every gift of God is incapable of being taken away; so that he will not give that which you cannot retain.” The sentence immediately following this is ascribed to Pytha- goras, and is to be found in the Sentences of Stobeeus, (edit. 1609, p. 65): viz. Ὧν de του σώματος απαλλάγεισα ov δεηθησῃ, ἐκείνων καταφρόνει" καὶ ὧν ἂν «παλλαγεισιι den, εἰς Tare av ασκουμενὴ Tov θεον παρεκάλει γενεσθαι συλλήπτορα. In Stobeug, however, there is some difference, so as to render the sentence more complete. For immediately after καταῴρονει, there is παν- τῶν; for dendnon there is denon; for den, denon; for τὸν θερν, Tous beous; for cu ἀσκουμενη, σοι ἀσκουμεένῳ; and instead of yevecbas συλληπτορα, yeverbas σοι συλλήπτορα. ‘This, therefore, translated, will be: ““ Despise.all those things which, when liberated from the body, you will not want; and exercising yourself in those things, of which, when liberated from the body, you will be | in want, invoke the Gods to become your helpers.” In pp, 27 and 28, Porphyry says, αἱρετώτερον σοι οντος [xpnuata] ein of the lost writings of Porphyry, I. τοίου the: réadet to the Bibliotheca Greeca of. Fabricius, and: Baas ἢ Acyov: και το ἡττασθρι τ᾽ ἀληθὴ λεγοντα, ἣ νικῶν “πατωντα: ἐ, 6. “ It should be more eligible to you carelessly to throw away riches than reason; and to be vanquished when speaking the truth, than to vanquish by deception.” And the latter part of this sentence is to be found in Sextus: for in p. 649 he says, “ Melius est vinci vera dicentem, quam vincere, mentientem. Almost immediately after Porphyry adds, Αδυνατον τὸν avrov Φιλοθεον τε εἰναι καὶ Φιληδονον καὶ Φιλοσωμᾶτον' o γαρ Φιληδόνος καὶ Φιλοσωμάᾶτος. πάντως καὶ Φιλοχρηματος' o δὲ φιλοχρήματος, εξ ἀγαγκὴς αδικος" 0 δὲ adixos, καὶ εἰς θεὸν καὶ εἰς πατερῶς ἀνοσίος, καὶ. εἰς τοὺς αλλοὺς παράνομος wore καν εκατομβας θνη, καὶ μυριοις ἀναθημασι γεως ἀγαλλῃ, «ἀσεβὴς ἐστι καὶ ἀθεος xdu τῇ προαιρεσει ἐεβοσυλος Olo και σαντα φιλοσωμοίτον ὡς abeov καὶ μμᾶρον extoemecbat xen. This sentence is the last of the Sentences of Demophilus, (Opusc.. Mythol. p.. 625); but in Porphyry it is in one part defective, and in another is fuller thanin Demophilus. For in the first colon, φιλοχρήματον is wanting: in the second colon, after o yap Piandovos καὶ φιλοσωματος, the words ὁ δὲ Φιλοσωμᾶτος ate: wanting. And in Demophilus, instead of ο δὲ adixos. καὶ eis θεον και εἰς WATERS AVOTIOS, και εἰς τοὺς ἀλλοὺς παράνομος, there is‘ nothing more than ὁ δὲ adixos, εἰς μεν θεὸν ἀνόσιος, εἰς δὲ ανϑρωπους σαρανομος. In Demophilus also, after wore xay ἑκατόμβας bun the words xa: μυριοις ἀναθημασι τοὺφ vews ἀγαλληῃ, are wanting. And in Porphyry, after yews ayaaan, the words πολυ μάλλον avorimTepos ἐστι, καὶ, are wanting. This sentence therefore, thus amended, will be in English, “ It is impossible for the same person to be a lover of God, a lover of pleasure, a lover of body, and a lover of riches. For a lover of pleasure is also a lover of body; but a lover of body is entirely a lover of riches; and a XVIll INTRODUCTION.
to my before-mentioned History of the Restora- tion of the Platonic Theology; in which latter lover of riches is necessarily unjust. But he who is unjust is impious towards God and his parents, and lawless towards others. So that, though he should sacrifice hecatombs, and adorn temples with ten thousand gifts, he will be much more unholy, impious, atheistical, and sacrilegious in his deliberate choice. Hence it is necessary to avoid every lover of body, as one who is without God, and is defiled.”
3: The following passages in the epistle of Porphyry, are from Sextus: O δὲ ἀξιος ανθρωπος θεου, Osos ἂν ein, (p. 30,) 3. 6. ‘ The man who is worthy of God, will be himself a God.” And Sextus says, ‘¢ Dignus Deo homo, deus est et in hominibus.” (p. 654.) Porphyry SAYS, Kas τιμήσεις μὲν ἄριστα Toy θεον, οτᾶν τῷ θεω τὴν cautns διανοιαν ομοιῶσεις, (p. 30,) ὁ. 6, “ And you will honour God in the best manner, when you assimilate your reasoning power to God.” Thus also Sextus, ‘‘ Optime honorat Deum 1116, qui mentem suam, quantum fieri potest, similem Deo facit,” (p. 655.) Again, Porphyry says, Θεὸς δὲ ανθρωπον βεβαιοι πρασσοντα καλα" κακῶν δὲ weatswy κακὸς δαιμὼν ἡγεμὼν, (p. 31): te. “ God corroborates man when he performs beautiful deeds; but an evil deemon is the leader of bad actions.” And Sextus says, “ Deus bonos actus hominum confirmat. Malorum actuum, malus deemon dux est.” (p. 653). Porphyry adds, Ῥυχη δὲ σοῷου αρμοξεται % 005 θεον, aes θεον Ope, 'συνεστιν aes θεῳ, (p. 31,) a. e. “ The soul of the wise man is adapted to God; it always beholds God, and is always present with God.” Thus, too, Sextus, ‘‘ Sapientis anima audit Deum, sapientis anima aptatur a Deo, sapientis anima semper est cum Deo, (p. 655). There is, how- ever, some difference between the original and the Latin version, which is most probably owing to the fraud of Ruffinus, And in INTRODUCTION. xIX ‘work, in: speaking of Porphyry-s lost ‘treatise on the Reascent of the Soul, I have given a the last place, Porphyry says, AAA xengis ευσεδειας σοι νομιξισθω ἡ φιλανθρωπια, (p. ὅ8,) 1. 6. ““ Philanthropy should be considered by you as the foundation of piety.” And Sextus says, “ Fun- ᾿ damentum et initium est cultis Dei, amare Dei homines.” (p. 664). Ruffinus, however, in this version, fraudulently trans- lates Q:Aavbgatria, amare Det homines, in order that this sentence, as well as the others, might appear to be written by Sixtus the bishop! | 4. The learned reader will find the following passages in the Epistle of Porphyry, to be sentences of Demophilus, viz. Aoyov yap θεου τοις ὑπὸ δοξης διεφθαρμενοις λέγειν, κιτ.λ. usque ad scov Φερει, (p. 29). Οὐχ n yawrra tou copou τιμιον παρα θεω, x.7.A. usque ad μονος εἰδὼς ευξασθαι, (p. 32). Ou xorwbevres ουν οἱ Geos βλαπτουσι, x.T.A. usque ad bem δὲ οὐδὲν aBouantoy, (p. 35). Ours δακρυα καὶ ixeteias θεὸν επιστρεφουσι, ουτε θυηπολια θεὸν τιμωσιν, ουτε ἀναθημάτων πληθος κοσμουσι θεὸν, κιτ.λ. usque ad ἐεροσυλοις xopnyia, (p. 36). In which passage, however, there is ἃ remark- able difference, as the learned reader will find, between the text of Porphyry and that of Demophilus. Eazy οὖν ass μνημονευης, οτι οπου avn uxn cou περιπατῃ, xa To σωμᾶ evepyov (lege Epyov,) QMOTEAN, X.T.A. uSque ad τὸν θεὸν σύνοικον, (p. 37). Ο συνετὸς cmp καὶ Geopirns, x.T.A. usque ad σπουδαξεται πονησας, (p. 54). Γυμνος δὲ ἀποσταάλεις [copes] x.7.a. usque ad eanxoos ὁ θεος, (p. 54.) Χαλεπωτερον dovasvew πάθεσιν ἢ τυράννοις. And ora yap ain ψυχης, τοσουτοῖ καὶ wuor δεσποται, (p. 57). And lastly, πολλῳ Yap κρείττον τεῦναναι ἢ δὶ axpaciay τὴν ψυχὴν ἀμαύυρωσαι, (p. 58). In all these passages, it will be found, by comparing them with Porphyry, that they occasionally differ from the text of Demophilus, yet not so as to alter the sense.
xx INTRODUCTION.
. jong.and most interesting extract relative to that * treatise, from Synesias on Dreams: _ Lonly add, that many of the Sentences of Demophilus will be found among those of Sextus. Nor is this at all wonderful, as it was usual with the Pythagoreans, from their exalted notions of friendship, to consider the work of one of them as the pro- duction of all.
THE SELECT WORKS OF PORPHYRY.
eo ON ABSTINENCE FROM ANIMAL FOOD.
BOOK THE FIRST.
I. Hearine from some of our acquaintance, O Firmus*, that you, having rejected a fleshless diet, have again returned to animal food, at first I did not credit the report, when I considered your temperance, and the reverence which you have been taught to pay to those ancient and pious men from whom we have received the precepts of philosophy. But when others who came after these confirmed this report, it appeared to me that it would be too rustic and remote from the rational method of persuasion to reprehend you, who neither, according to the proverb, flying from evil have found something better, nor according to Empedocles, having lamented your former life, have converted yourself to one that is more excellent. I have therefore thought it worthy of the friendship which subsists between us, and also adapted to those who have arranged their life con- * Porphyry elsewhere calls this Firmus Castricius his friend and fellow disciple. See more concerning him in Porphyry’s Life of Plotinus.
B 2 ON ABSTINENCE FROM formably to truth, to disclose your errors through a con- futation derived from an argumentative discussion.
2. For when I considered with myself what could be > the cause of this alteration in your diet, I could by no means suppose that it was for the sake of health and strength, as the vulgar and idiots would say; since, on the contrary, you yourself, when you were with us, con- fessed that a fleshless diet contributed both to health and to the proper endurance of philosophic labours; and experience testifies, that in saying this you spoke the truth. It appears, therefore, that you have returned to your former illegitimate” conduct, either through decep- tion’, because you think it makes no difference with respect to the acquisition of wisdom whether you use this or that diet; or perhaps through some other cause of which 1 am ignorant, which excited in you a greater fear than that which could be produced by the impiety of transgression. For I should not say that you have despised the philosophic laws which we derived from our ancestors, and which you have so much admired, through intemperance, or for the sake of voracious gluttony; or that you are naturally inferior to some ofthe vulgar, who, when they have assented to laws, though contrary to those under which they formerly lived, will suffer ampu- tation [rather than violate them], and will abstain from certain animals on which they before fed, more than they ‘would from human flesh.
3. But when I was also informed by certain persons that you even employed arguments against those who abstained from animal food, I not only pitied, but was b gagavoysnuara, Porphyry calls the conduct of Firmus illegitimate, because the feeding on flesh is for the most part contrary to the laws of "genuine philosophy.
¢ The original in this place is, 4% ἀπάτην ov, ἢ τὸ μηδὲν διαφέρειν ἡγείσθαι προς φρόνησιν, X.7.A.; but, for ἢ τὸ μηδὲν διαφέρειν, 1 read δια τὸ μηδὲν διαφέρειν. And this appears to have been the reading which Felicianus found in his MS.; for his version of this passage is, “ Vel 1 igitur deceptione inductus, quod sive hoe sive illo modo vescaris, &c.”
indignant with you, that, being persuaded by certain frigid and very corrupt sophisms, you have deceived yourself, and have endeavoured to subvert a dogma which is both ancient and dear to the Gods. Hence it appeared to me to be requisite not only to show you what our own ἢ opinion is on this subject, but also to collect and dissolve the arguments of our opponents, which are much stronger than those adduced by you in multitude and power, and every other apparatus; and thus to demonstrate, that truth is not vanquished even by those arguments which seem to be weighty, and much less by superficial sophisms. For you are perhaps ignorant, that not a few philosophers are adverse to abstinence from animal food, but that this is the case with those of the Peripatetic and Stoic sects, and with most of the Epicureans; the last of whom have written in opposition to the philosophy of Pythagoras and Empedocles, of which you once were studiously emulous. To this abstinence, likewise, many philologists are adverse, among whom Clodius the Nea- politan wrote a treatise against those who abstain from flesh. Of these men I shall adduce the disquisitions and common arguments against this dogma, at the same time omitting those reasons which are peculiarly employed by them against the demonstrations of Empedocles.
The Arguments of the. Peripatetics and Stotcs, from Heraclides Ponticus*. | 4, Our opponents therefore say, in the first place, that justice will be confounded, and things immoveable be moved, if we extend what is just, not only to the rational, but also to the irrational nature; conceiving that not only Gods and men pertain to us, but that there is likewise an alliance between us and brutes, who fin reality] have no conjunction with us. Nor shall we employ some of them in laborious works, and use others for food, from a conviction that the association which is. - 4 This philosopher was an auditor of Plato and Speusippus.
4 ΟΝ ABSTINENCE FROM between us and them, in the same manner as that of some foreign polity, pertains to a tribe different from ours, and is dishonourable. For he who uses these as if they were men, sparing and not injuring them, thus endeavouring to adapt to justice that which it cannot bear, both destroys its power, and corrupts that which is appropriate, by the introduction of what is foreign. For it necessarily follows, either that we act unjustly by sparing them, or if we spare and do not employ them, that it will be impossible for us to live. We shall also, after a manner, live the life of brutes, if we reject the.use which they are capable of affording.