4]. But why would it be requisite that the passions should waste away, that we should die with respect to them, ‘and that this should.be daily the subject of our meditation, if it was possible for us, as some assert, to energize according to intellect, though we are at the sme time intimately connected with mortal concerns, and this without the intuition of intellect? For intellect sees, ahd intellect hears [as Epicharmus says]. But if, while eating luxuriously, and drinking the sweetest wine, it were possible to be present with immaterial natures, why may not this be frequently effected while you are present with, and are performing things which it is not becoming even to mention? For these passions every where pro- ceed from the δου" which is in us. And you certainly will admit that the baser these passions are, the more we ere drawn down towards them. For what will be the distinction which owght here to be made, if you admit that to some things it is not possible to be passive, with- out being present with them, but that you may ac- complish other things, at the same time that you are surveying intelligibles? For it is not because some things are apprehended to be base by the multitude, but others not. For all the above mentioned passions are base. So that to the attainment of a life according to mteliedt, * Sense, and that which is beautifal in 1 the energies of sense, are thus ‘denominated by Plato.
it is requisite to abstain from all these, in the samd manner as from venereal concerns. To nature therefore; bat‘ little food must be granted, through the necessity of generation [or of our connexion with a flowing con- dition of being.] For, where sense and sensible appre- hension are, there a departure and separation from thé intelligible take place; and by how much stronger the excitation is of the irrational part, by so much the greater is the departure from intellection. For it is not possible for us to be botne along to this place and to that, whilé we are here, and yet be there, [i.e. be present with an. intelligible essence.] For our attentions to things are not effected with a part, but with the whole of ourselves. 42. But to fancy that he who is passively affected according to sense, may, nevertheless, energize. about. intelligibles, has precipitated many of the Barbarians to destruction; who: arrogantly assert, that though they indulge in every kind of pleasure, yet they are able to convert themselves to things.of a different nature from sensibles, at thé same time that they are enervizing with the irrational part. For I have heard some persons patronizing their infelicity after the following manner. “ We are not,” say they, “ defiled by food, as neither is the sea by the filth of rivers. For we have dominion over all eatables, in the same manner as the sea over all humidity. But if the sea should shut up its mouth, so as not to receive the streams that now flow into it, it would be indeed, with respect to itself, great; but, with respect to the world, small, as not being able to receive dirt and corruption. If, however, it was afraid of bemg defiled, it would not receive these streams; but knowing its own magnitude, it receives all things, arid is not averse to any thing which proceeds intd it. In like wnanner, say they, we also, if we were afraid of food, should be enslaved by the conception of fear. But it is requisite that all things should be obedient to us. For, if we collect a little water, indeed, which has received any filth, it becomes immediately defiled and oppressed 32 ON ABSTINENCE FROM by the filth; but this is not the case with the profound sea. Thus, also, aliments vanquish the pusillanimous; but where there 18 an immense liberty with respect to food, all things are received for nutriment, and no defile- ment is produced.” These men, therefore, deceiving themselves by arguments of this kind, act in a manner conformable to their deception. But, instead of obtaining liberty, being precipitated into an abyss of infelicity, they are suffocated. This, also, induced some of the Cynics to be desirous of eating every kind of food, in consequence of their pertinaciously adhering to the cause of errors, which we are accustomed to call a thing of an indifferent nature.
43. The man, however, who is cautious, and is.susp!= cious of the enchantments of nature, who has surveyed the essential properties of body, and knows. that it was adapted as an instrument to the powers of the soul, will _ also know how readily passion is prepared to accord with the body, whether we are willing or not, when any thing external strikes it, and the pulsation at length arrives at perception. For perception is, as it were, an answer [to that which causes the perception.] But the soul cannot answer unless she wholly converts herself to the sound, and transfers her animadversive eye to the pulsation. In short, the irrational part not being able to judge to what extent, how, whence, and what thing ought to be the object of attention, but of itself being inconsiderate, like horses. without a charioteer‘; whither it verges down- ward, thither it is borne along, without any power of governing itself m things external. Nor does it know the fit time or the measure of the food which. should be taken, unless the eye of the charioteer is attentive to it, which regulates and governs the motions of irra- tionality, this part of the soul being essentially blind.
ἐ The rational part of the soul is assimilated by Plato, in the Phedrus, to a charioteer, and the two irrational parts, desire and anger, to two horses. ee my translation of that Dialogue.
But he who takes away from reason its dominion over the irrational part, and permits it to be borne along, conformably to its proper nature: such a.one, yielding to desire and anger, will suffer them to proceed to what- ever extent they please. On the contrary, the worthy man will so act that his deeds may be conformable to presiding reason, even in the energies of the irrational part.
44. And in this the worthy appears to differ from the depraved man, that the former has every where reason present, governing and guiding, like a charioteer, the Irrational part; but the latter performs many things without reason for his guide. Hence the latter is said to be most irrational, and is borne along in a disorderly manner by irrationality; but the former.is obedient to reason, and superior to every irrational desire. This, _ therefore, is the cause why the multitude err in words and deeds, in desire and anger, and why, on the contrary, good men act with rectitude, viz. that the former suffer the boy within them to do whatever it pleases; but the latter give themselves up to the guidance of the tutor of the boy, [. 6. to reason] and govern what pertains to themselves in conjunction with it. Hence in food, and in other corporeal energies and enjoyments, the cha- rioteer being present, defines what is commensurate and opportune. But when the charioteer is absent, and, as some say, is occupied in his own concerns, then, if he also has with him our attention, he does not permit it. to be disturbed, or at all to energize with the rational power. If, however, he should permit our attention to be directed to the boy, unaccompanied by himself, he would destroy the man, who would be precipitately borne along by the folly of the irrational part. | 45. Hence, to worthy men, abstinence in food, and in corporeal enjoyments and actions, is more appropriate than abstinence in what pertains to the touch; because though, while we touch bodies, it is necessary we should descend from our proper manners to the instruction of D 34 ON ABSTINENCE FROM that which is most irrational in us; yet this is still more necessary in thé assumption of food. For the irrational nature is incapable of considering what will be the effect of it, because this part of the soul is essentially ignorant of that which is absent. But, with respect to food, if it were possible to be liberated from it, in the same manner as from visible objects, when they are removed from the view; for we can attend to other things when the ima- gination is withdrawn from them; — if this were possible, it would be no great undertaking to be immediately emancipated from the necessity of the mortal nature, by yielding, in a small degree, to it. Since, however, a prolongation of time in cooking and digesting food, and together with this the co-operation of sleep and rest, are requisite, and, after these, a certaim temperament from digestion, and a separation of excrements, it is necessary that the tutor of the boy within us should be present, who, selecting things of a light nature, and which will be no impediment to him, may concede these to nature, in consequence of foreseeing the future, and the impediment which will be produced by his permitting the desires to introduce to us a burden not easily to be borne, through the trifling pleasure arising from the deglutition of food.
46. Reason, therefore, very properly rejecting the much and the superfluous, will circumscribe what is necessary in narrow boundaries, in order that it may not be molested in procuring what the wants of the body demand, through many things being requisite; nor being attentive to elegance, will it need a multitude of servants; nor endeavour to receive much pleasure in eating, nor, through satiety, to be filled with much indolence; nor by rendering its burden [the body] more gross, to become somnolent; nor through the body being replete with things of a fattening nature, to render the bond more strong, but himself more sluggish and imbecile in the performance of his proper works. For, let any man show us who endeavours as much as possible to live according to intellect, and not to be attracted by the passions of the body, that animal food is more easily procured than the food from fruits and herbs; or that the preparation of the former is more simple than that of the latter, and, in short, that it does not require cooks, but, when com- pared with inanimate nutriment, is unattended by plea- sure, is lighter in concoction, and is more rapidly digested, excites in a less degree the desires, and contributes less to the strength of the body than a vegetable diet.
47. If, however, neither any physician, nor philo- sopher, nor wrestler, nor any one of the vulgar, has dared to assert this, why should we not willingly abstain from this corporeal burden? Why should we not, at the same time, liberate ourselves from many inconveniences by abandoning a fleshly diet? For we should not be liberated from one only, but from myriads of evils, by accustoming ourselves to be satisfied with things of the smallest nature; viz. we should be freed from a superabundance of riches, from numerous servants, a multitude of uten- sils, a somnolent condition, from many and vehement diseases, from medical assistance, incentives to venery, more gross exhalations, an abundance of excrements, the crassitude of the corporeal bond, from the strength which excites to [base] actions, and, in short, from an Iliad of evils. But from all these, inanimate and slender food, and which is easily obtained, will liberate us, and will procure for us peace, by imparting salvation to our reasoning power. For, as Diogenes says, thieves and enemies are not found among those that feed on maize *, but sycophants and tyrants are produced from those who feed on flesh. The cause, however, of our being in want of many things being taken away, together with the multitude of nutriment introduced into the body, and also the weight of digestibles bemg lightened, the eye of the soul will become free, and will be established as in ® A kind of bread made of milk and flour.
36 ON ABSTINENCE FROM ‘a port beyond the smoke and the waves of the corporeal nature.
48. And this neither requires monition, nor demon- stration, on account of the evidence with which it is immediately attended. Hence, not only those who en- deavour to live according to intellect, and who establish for themselves an intellectual life, as the end of their pursuits, have perceived that this abstinence was neces- sary to the attainment of this end; but, as it appears to me, nearly every philosopher, preferring frugality to luxury, has rather embraced a life which is satisfied with a little, than one that requires a multitude of things. And, what will seem paradoxical to many, we shall find that this is asserted and praised by men who thought that pleasure is the end of those that philosophize. For most of the Epicureans, beginning from the Corypheus of their sect, appear to have been satisfied with maize and fruits, and have filled their writings with showing how little nature requires, and that its necessities may be sufficiently remedied by slender and easily-procured food.
49. For the wealth, say they, of nature is definite, and easily obtained; but that which proceeds from vain opinions, is indefinite, and procured with difficulty. For things which may be readily obtained, remove in a beautiful and abundantly sufficient manner that which, through ‘indigence, is the cause of molestation to the flesh; and these are such as have the simple nature of moist and dry aliments. But every thing else, say they, which terminates in luxury, is not attended with a neces- Sary appetition, nor is it necessarily produced from a certain something which is in pain; but partly arises from the molestation and pungency solely proceeding from something not being present; partly from joy; and partly from vain and false dogmas, which neither pertain to any natural defect, nor to the dissolution of the human frame, those not being present. For things which may every where be obtained, are sufficient for those purposes which nature necessarily requires. But these, through their simplicity and paucity, may be easily procured. And he, indeed, who feeds on flesh, requires also inani- | mate natures; but he who is satisfied with things inani- mate, is easily supplied from the half of what the other wants, and needs but a small expense for the preparation of his food. | . 50. They likewise say, it is requisite that he who prepares the necessaries of life, should not afterwards make use of philosophy as an accession; but, having obtained it, should, with a confident mind, thus genuinely endure* the events of the day. For we shall commit what pertains to ourselves to a bad counsellor, if we measure and procure what is necessary to nature, without philosophy. Hence it is necessary that those who phi- losophize should provide things of this kind, and strenu- ously attend to them as much as possible. But, so far as there is a dereliction from thence, [?.e. from philo- sophizing|, which is not capable of effecting a perfect purification’, so far we should not endeavour to procure either riches or nutriment. In conjunction, therefore, with philosophy, we should engage in things of this kind, and be immediately persuaded that it is much better to pursue what is the least, the most simple, and light in nutriment. For that which is least, and is unattended with molestation, is derived from that which is least?. 51. The preparation also of these things, draws along = In the original, adda wagacusvacapeavoy τὸ ϑάρρειν τὴ ψυχῇ γνησίως οὐτῶς «ντέχεσθαι τῶν xa’ ἡμέραν. But the editor of the quarto edition of this work, who appears to have been nothing more than a mere verbal critic, says, in a note on this passage, that the word ἀντέχεσθαι, signifies per- tinacissime illis inherere, nihil ultra studere; whereas it must be obvious to any man who understands what is here said, that in this place it signifies to endure.
Y In the original, o μη κυριευσι me τελείας ἐκθαρρησεως; but for ἐχθαρρησέως I read with Felicianus ἐκκαθαρσεως.
* In the original, sraxsoror yap καὶ τὸ oy drngey ax τοῦ ἐλαχίστου, But it is obviously necessary for oxAngv to read avexAngoy, and yet this was not perceived by the German editor of this work, Jacob Rhoer.
38 ON ABSTINENCE FROM with it many impediments, either from the weight of the body, [which they are adapted to increase,] or from the difficulty of procuring them, or from their preventing the continuity of the energy of our most principal reason- ings*, or from some other cause. For this energy then becomes immediately useless, and does not remain unchanged by the concomitant perturbations. It is neces- sary, however, that a philosopher should hope that he may not ‘be in want of any thing through the whole of life. But this hope will be sufficiently preserved by things which are easily procured; while, on the other hand, this hope is frustrated by things of a sumptuous nature. The multitude, therefore, on this account, though their possessions are abundant, incessantly labour to obtain more, as if they were in want. But the recol- lection that the greatest possible wealth has no power worth mentioning of dissolving the perturbations of the soul, will.cause us to be satisfied with things easily obtained, and of the most simple nature. Things also, which are very moderate and obvious, and which may be procured with the greatest facility, remove the tumult occasioned by the flesh. But the deficiency of things of a luxurious nature will not disturb him who meditates on death. Farther still, the pain arising from indigence is much milder than that which is produced by repletion, and will be considered to be so by him who does not deceive himself with vain opinions.. Variety also of food not only does not dissolve the perturbations of the soul, but does not even increase the pleasure which is felt by the flesh. For this is terminated as soon as pain is removed”. So that the feeding on flesh does not remove any thing which is troublesome to nature, nor effect any thing which, unless it is accomplished, will end in pain.
2 2, 6. Of our reasonings about intelligible objects.
b Conformable to this, it is beautifully observed by Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, that corporeal pleasures are the remedies of pain, and that they fill up the indigence of nature, but do not perfect any energy of the [rationad] soul.
But'the pleasantness with which it is attended is violent, and, perhaps, mingled with the contrary. For it does not contribute to the duration of life, but to the variety of pleasure; and in this respect resembles venereal enjoy- ments, and the drinking of foreign wines, without which nature is able to remain. For those things, without which nature cannot last, are very few, and may be pro- cured easily, and in conjunction with justice, liberty, quiet, and abundant leisure.
52. Again, neither does animal food contribute, but is rather an impediment to health. For health is preserved through those things by which it is recovered. But it is recovered through a most slender and fleshless diet; so that by this also it is preserved. If, however, vegetable food does not contribute to the strength of Milo, nor, in short, to an increase of strength, neither does a philo- sopher require strength, or an increase of it, if he intends to give himself up to contemplation, and not to an active and intemperate life. But it is not at all wonderful, that the vulgar should fancy that animal food contributes to health; for they also think that sensual enjoyments and venery are preservative of health, none of which benefit any one; and those that engage in them must be thankful if they are not injured by them. And if many are not of this opinion, it is nothing to us. For neither is any fidelity and constancy in friendship and benevolence to be found among the vulgar; nor are they capable of receiving these, nor of participating of wisdom, or any portion of it which deserves to be mentioned. Neither do they understand what is privately or publicly advan- tageous; nor are they capable of forming a judgment of depraved and elegant manners, so as to distinguish the one from the other. And, in addition to these things, they are full of insolence and intemperance. On this account, there is no occasion to fear that there will not be those who will feed on animals.
53. For if all men conceived rightly, there would be no need of fowlers, or hunters, or fishermen, or swine- 40 ON ABSTINENCE FROM herds. But animals governing themselves, and having no guardian and ruler, would quickly perish, and be destroyed by others, who would attack them and diminish their multitude, as is found to be the case with myriads of animals on which men do not feed. But all-various folly incessantly dwelling with mankind, there will be an innumerable multitude of those who will voraciously feed. on flesh. It is necessary however to preserve health; not by the fear of death, but for the sake of not being impeded in the attainment of the good which is derived from contemplation. But that which is especially pre- servative of health, is an undisturbed state of the soul, and a tendency of the reasoning power towards truly existing being. For much benefit is from hence derived to the body, as our associates have demonstrated from experience. Hence some who have been afflicted with the gout in the feet and hands, to such a degree as to be infested with it for eight entire years, have expelled it through abandoning wealth, and betaking themselves to the contemplation of divinity’. At the same time, there- fore, that they have abandoned riches, and a solicitude about human concerns, they have also been liberated from bodily disease. So that a certain state of the soul greatly contributes both to health and‘ to the good of the whole body, And to this also, for the most part, a diminution of nutriment contributes. In short, as Epicurus likewise has rightly said, that food is to be avoided, the enjoyment of which we desire and pursue, | but which, after we have enjoyed, we rank among things of an unacceptable nature. But of this kind is every thing luxuriant and gross. And in this manner those are affected, who are vehemently desirous of such nutri- ment, and through it are involved either in great expense, or in disease, or repletion, or the privation of leisure‘. - 5 This is said by Porphyry, in his Life of Plotinus, to have been the case with the senator Rogatianus.
¢ And leisure, to those who know how rightly to employ it, is, as Socrates said, κάλλιστον κτημάτων, “ the most beautiful of possessions.”
54. Hence also, in simple and slender food, repletion is to be avoided, and every where we should consider what will be the consequence of the possession or enjoy- ment of it, what the magnitude of it is, and what molest- ation of the flesh or of the soul it is capable of dis- solving. For we ought never to act indefinitely, but in things of this kind we should employ a boundary and measure; and infer by a reasoning process, that he who fears to abstain from animal food, if he suffers himself to. feed on flesh through pleasure, is afraid of death. For immediately, together with a privation of such food, he ‘conceives that something indefinitely dreadful will be present, the consequence of which will be death. But from these and similar causes, an insatiable desire is pro- duced of riches, possessions, and renown, together with an opinion that every good is increased with these in a ‘greater extent of time, and the dread of death as of an | infinite evil. The pleasure however which is produced through luxury, does not even approach to that which is experienced by him who lives with frugality. For such a one has great pleasure in thinking how little he requires. For luxury, astonishment about venereal occupations, and ambition about external concerns, being taken away, what remaining use can there be of idle wealth, ‘which will be of no advantage to us whatever, but will only become a burden, no otherwise than repletion?— while, on the other hand, the pleasure arising from frugality is genuine and pure. It is also necessary to accustom the body to become alienated, as much as possible, from the pleasure of the satiety arising from luxurious food, but not from the fulness produced by a slender diet, in order that moderation may proceed through all things, and that what is necessary, or what is most excellent, may fix a boundary to our diet. For he who thus mortifies his body will receive every possible good, through being sufficient to himself, and an assimilation to divinity. And thus also, he will not desire a greater extent of time, as if it would bring with it an augmentation of good. He will 42 ON ABSTINENCE FROM likewise thus be truly rich, measuring wealth by a natural bound, and not by vain opinions. Thus too, he will not depend on the hope of the greatest pleasure, the exist- ence of which is incredible, since this would be most troublesome. But he will remain satisfied with his present condition, and will net be anxious to live for a longer period of time.
55. Besides this also, is it not absurd, that he who is in great affliction, or is in some grievous external calamity, or is bound with chains, does not even think of food, nor concern himself about the means of obtaining it; but when it is placed before him, refuses what is necessary to his subsistence; and that the man who is truly in bonds, and is tormented by inward calamities, should endea- vour to procure a variety of eatables, paying attention to things through which he will strengthen his bonds? And how is it possible that this should be the conduct of men who know what they suffer, and not rather of those who are delighted with their calamities, and who are ignorant éf the evils which they endure? For these are affected in a way contrary to those who are in chains, and who are conscious of their miserable condition; since these, experiencing no gfatification in the present life, and being full of immense perturbation, insatiably aspire after another life. For no one who can easily liberate himself from all perturbations, will desire to possess silver tables and couches, and to have ointments and cooks, splendid vessels and garments, and suppers remarkable for their sumptuousnegs and variety; but such a desire arises from a perfect uselessness to every purpose of the present life, from an indefinite generation of good, and from immense perturbation. Hence some do not remember the past, the recollection of it being expelled by the present; but others do not inquire about the present, because they al are not gratified with existing circumstances.
56. The contemplative philosopher, however, will in- variably adopt a slender diet. For he knows the parti- culars in which his bond consists, so that he is not ef capable of desiring luxuries. Hence, being delighted with simple food, he will not seek for animal nutriment, as if he was not satisfied with a vegetable diet. But if. the nature of the body in a philosopher was not such as we have supposed it to be, and was not so tractable, and s0: adapted to have its wants satisfied through things easily procured, and it was requisite to endure some paing and molestations for the sake of true salvation; ought we not [willingly] to endure them? For when it is requisité that we should be liberated from disease, do we not voluntarily sustain many pains, viz. while we are cut, cavered with blood, burnt, drink bitter medicines, and are purged through the beHy, through emeties, ‘and | through the nostrils, and do we not also reward those who cause us to suffer in this manner? And this being the case, ought we not to sustain every thing, though of the most afflictive nature, with equanimity, for the sake of being purified from internal disease, since our contest is for immortality, and an association with divinity, from which we are prevented through an association with the body? By no means, therefore, ought we to follow the. laws of the body, which are violent and adverse to the laws of intellect, and to the paths which lead to salvation. Since, however, we do not now philosophize about the endurance of pain, but about the rejection of pleasures which are not necessary, what apology can remain for those, who impudently endeavour to defend their own intemperance?