57. For if it is requisite not to dissemble any thing through fear, but to speak freely, it is no otherwise. possible to obtain the end [of a contemplative life], than by adhering to God, as if fastened by a nail, being divulsed from body, and those pleasures of the soul which subsist through it; since our salvation is effected by deeds, and not by a mere attention to words. But as it is not possible with any kind of diet, and, in short, by feeding on flesh, to become adapted to an union with even some partial deity, much less is this possible with that God who is beyond all things, ‘and is above a nature Ὁ simply incorporeal; but after all-various purifications, both of soul and body, he who is naturally of an excellent disposition, and lives with piety and purity, will scarcely be thought worthy to perceive him. So that, by how | much more the Father of all things excels in simplicity, purity, and sufficiency to himself, as being established far beyond all material representation, by so much the more is it requisite, that he who approaches to him should be in every respect pure and holy, beginning from his body, and ending internally, and distributing to each of the parts, and in short to every thing which is present with him, a purity adapted to the nature of each. Per- haps, however, these things will not be contradicted by any one. But it may be doubted, why we admit absti- nence from animal food to pertain to purity, though in sacrifices we slay sheep and oxen, and conceive that these immolations are pure and acceptable to the Gods. Hence, since the solution of this requires a long discus- sion, the consideration of sacrifices must be assumed from another principle.
ΟΝ ABSTINENCE FROM ANIMAL FOOD.
BOOK THE SECOND.
a ee 1. Pursuine therefore the inquiries pertaining to sim- plicity and purity of diet, we have now arrived, O Cas- tricius, at the discussion of sacrifices; the consideration of which is difficult, and at the same time requires much explanation, if we intend to decide concerning it in such ἃ way as will be acceptable to the Gods. Hence, as this is the proper place for such a discussion, we shall now unfold what appears to us to be the truth on this subject, and what is capable of being narrated, correcting what was overlooked in the hypothesis proposed from the beginning.
2. In the first place therefore we say, it does not follow because animals are slain that it is necessary to eat them. Nor does he who admits the one, I mean that they should be slain, entirely prove that they should be eaten. For the laws permit us to defend ourselves against ‘enemies who attack us [by killing them]; but it did not seem proper to these laws to grant that we should eat thém, as being a thing contrary to the nature of man. In the second place, it does not follow, that because it is proper to sacrifice certain animals to demons, or Gods, or certain powers, through causes either known or un- known to men, it is therefore necessary to feed on animals. For it may be shown, that men assumed animals in sacrifices, which no one even of those who 48 ON ABSTINENCE FROM introduced, we do not rightly interpret; since we call the worship of the Gods through the immolation of animals Suoia, thusta. But so careful were the ancients not to transgress this custom, that against those who, neglecting the pristine, introduced novel modes of sacrificing, they employed execrations®, and therefore they now denominate the substances which are used for fumigations ἀρωματα, aromata, 1. 6. aromatics, [or things of an execrable nature. ] The antiquity, however, of the before-mentioned fumiga- tions may be perceived by him who considers that many now also sacrifice certain portions of odoriferous wood. Hence, when after grass, the earth produced trees, and men at first fed on the fruits of the oak, they offered to the Gods but few of the fruits on account of their rarity, but in sacrifices they burnt many of its leaves. After this, however, when human life proceeded to a.milder nutriment, and sacrifices from nuts were introduced, they said enough of the oak.
6. But as barley first appeared after leguminous sub- stances, the race of men used it in primitive sacrifices, moistening it for this purpose with water. Afterwards, when they had broken and bruised it, so as to render it eatable, as the instruments of this operation afforded a divine assistance to human life, they concealed them in an arcane place, and approached them as things of a sacred nature. But esteeming the food produced from it when bruised to be blessed, when compared with their former nutriment, they offered, in fine, the first-fruits of it to the Gods. Hence also now, at the end of the sacri- fices, we use fruits that are bruised. or ground; testi- fying by this how much fumigations have departed from their ancient simplicity; at the same time not perceiving on what account we perform each of these. Proceeding, however, from hence, and being more abundantly sup- > In the original αρασαμένους, which is derived from the verb agaouas, imprecor, maledico; and from hence, according to Porphyry, came the word agapara, \ plied, -both with other fruits and wheat, the first-fruits of cakes, made of the fine flour of wheat, and of every thing else, were offered in sacrifices to the Gods; many flowers being collected for this purpose, and with these all that was conceived to be beautiful, and adapted, by its odour, to a divine sense, being mingled. From these, also, some were used for garlands, and others were given to the fire. But when they had discovered the use of the divine drops of wine, and honey, and likewise of oil, for the purposes of human life, then they sacrificed these. to their causes, the Gods. 7 7. And these things appear to ‘be testified by the splendid procession in honour of the Sun and the Hours, which is even now performed at Athens, and in which there were other herbs besides grass, and also acorns, the fruit of the crab tree, barley, wheat, a heap of dried figs, cakes made of wheaten and barley flour; and, in the ᾿ Yast place, an earthen pot. This mode, however, of offer- ing first-fruits in sacrifices, having, at length, proceeded to great illegality, the assumption of immolations, most dire and full of cruelty, was introduced; so that it would seem that the execrations which were formerly uttered against us, have now received their consummation, in consequence of men slaughtering animals, and defiling altars with blood; and this commenced from that period in which mankind tasted of blood, through having expe- rienced the evils of famine and war. Divinity, therefore, as Theophrastus says, being indignant, appears to have inflicted a punishment adapted to the crime. Hence some men became atheists; but others, in consequence of forming erroneous conceptions of a divine nature, may ‘be more justly called καποῴρονες, kukophrones, than κακοθέοι, kakotheot*, because they think that the Gods are de-_ praved, and in no respect naturally more excellent than we are. ‘Thus, therefore, some were seen to live without < i.e, May be rather called malevolent than unhappy.
δ᾽ ΟΝ. ABSTINENCE FROM sacrificing any thing, and without offering the firdt-fruits of their possessions to the Gods; but others sacrificed improperly, and made use of illegal oblations.
8. Hence the Thoes*, who dwell in the confines of Thrace, as they neither offered any first-fruits, nor sacri ficed to the Gods, were at that time suddenly taken away from the rest of mankind; so that neither the inha+ bitants, aor the city, nor the foundations of the houses, , could by any one be found.
‘* Men prone to ill, denied the Gods their due, And by their follies made their days but few. The altars of the bless’d neglected stand, Without the offerings which the laws demand But angry Jove in dust this people laid, Because no henours to the Gods they paid.” Hesrop. Op. et Di. lib. i, v. 188.
Nor did they offer first-fruits to the Gods, as it was just that they should. But with respect to the Bassarians, who formerly were not only emulous of sacrificing bulls, but also ate the flesh of slaughtered men, m the same manner as we now do with other animals; for we offer to the Gods some parts of them as first-fruits, and eat the rest;— with respect to these men, who' has not heard, that insanely rushing on and biting each. other, and in reality feeding on blood, they did not cease to act in this manner till the whole race was destroyed of those whe used sacrifices of this kind?
9. The sacrifice, therefore, through animals is pos- terior and most recent, and originated from a cause which is not of a pleasing nature, like that of the sacri- fice from fruits, but received its commencement either from famine, or some other unfortunate circumstance. The causes, indeed, of the peculiar mactations among the ἃ Fabricius is of opinion that these Thoes are the same with the Acrothoitz, mentioned by Simplicius in his.Comment in Epictet. from _ Theophrastus.
ANIMAL FOOD.—800XK II. δῚ Athenians,-had their beginning either in ignorance, or anger, or fear. For the slaughter of swine is attributed to an involuntary error of Clymene, who, by unintentionally striking, slew the animal. Hence her husband, being terrified as if he had perpetrated an illegal deed, consulted the oracle of the Pythian God about it. But as the God did not condemn what had happened, the slaughter of animals was afterwards considered as a thing ‘of an indifferent nature. The inspector, however, of ' sacred rites, who was the offspring of prophets, wishing to make an offering of first-fruits from sheep, was pers mitted to do so, it is said, by an oracle, but with much caution and fear. For the oracle was as follows: — ‘* Offspring of prophets, sheep by force to slay, The Gods permit not thee; but with wash’d hands For thee ’tis lawful any sheep to kill, That dies a voluntary death.”
10. But a goat was first slain in Icarus, a mountain of Attiea, because it had cropped a vine. And Diomus, who was a priest of Jupiter Polieus, was the first that slew an ox; because, when the festival sacred to Jupiter, and called Diipolia, was celebrated, and fruits were pre- pared after the ancient manner, an ox approaching tasted the sacred cake. But the priest, being aided by othera who were present, slew the ox. And these are the ' causes, indeed, which are assigned by the Athenians for this deed; but by others, other causes are narrated. All of them, however, are full of explanations that are not holy. But most of them assign famine, and the injustice with which it is attended, as the cause. Hence men having tasted of animals, they offered them in sacrifice, as first-fruits, to the Gods; but prior to this, they were accustomed to abstain from animal food. Whence, since the sacrifice of animals is not more ancient than neces- sary food, it may be determined from this circumstance whet ought to be the nutriment of men. But it does not follow, because men have tasted of and offered animals in - 52 ON ABSTINENCE FROM sacrifices as firet-fruits, that it must necessarily be ad- mitted to be pious to eat that which was not piously offered to the Gods.
11. But what especially proves that every thing of this kind originated from injustice, is this, that the same things are neither sacrificed nor eaten in every nation, but that they conjecture what it is fit for them to do from what they find to be useful to themselves. With the Egyptians, therefore, and Phoenicians, any one would sooner taste human flesh than the flesh of a cow. The cause, however, is, that this animal being useful, is also rare among them. Hence, though they eat bulls, and offer them ‘in sacrifice as first-fruits, yet they spare cows for the sake of their progeny, and ordain that, if any one kill them, it shall be considered as an expiation. And thus, for the sake of utility in one and ‘the same genus of animals, they distinguish what is pious, and what is impious. So that these particulars subsisting after this manner, Theophrastus reasonably forbids those to sacri- fice animals who wish to be truly pious; employing these, and other similar arguments, such as the fol- lowing.
12. In the first place, indeed, because we sacrificed animals through the occurrence, as we have said, of a greater necessity. For pestilence and war were the causes that introduced the necessity of eating them. Since, therefore, we are supplied with fruits, what occa- sion is there to use the sacrifice of necessity? In the next place, the remunerations of, and thanks for benefits, are to be given differently, to different persons, according to the worth of the benefit conferred; so that the greatest remunerations, and from things of the most honourable nature, are to be given to those who have benefited us in the greatest degree, and especially if they are the causes of these gifts. But the most beautiful and: honour- able of those things, by which the Gods benefit us, are the fruits of the earth. For through these they preserve eus, and enable.us to live legitimately; so that, from ANIMAL FOOD.—BOOK II. 53 these we ought to venerate them. Besides, it is requisite to sacrifice those things by the sacrifice of which we shall not injure any one. For nothing ought to be so innoxious to all things as sacrifice. But if some one should say, that God gave animals for our use, no less. than the fruits of the earth, yet it does not follow that. they are, therefore, to be sacrificed, because in so doing they are injured, through being deprived of life. For. sacrifice is, as the name implies, something foly*. But: no one is holy who requites a benefit from things which are the property of another, whether he takes fruits or ‘plants from one who is unwilling to be deprived of them.. For how can this be holy, when those are injured from. whom they are taken? If, however, he who takes away: fruits from others does not sacrifice with sanctity, it cannot be holy to sacrifice things taken from others, which are in every respect more honourable than the fruits of the earth. For a more dire deed is thus perpe-. trated. But soul is much more honourable than the vegetable productions of the earth, which it is not fit, by sacrificing animals, that we should take away.. | 13. Some one, however, perhaps may say, that we also take away something from plants. [when we eat, and sacrifice them to the Gods]. But the ablation is not. similar; since we.do not take this away from those who are unwilling that we should.. For, if we omitted to gather them, they would spontaneously drop their fruits.. The gathering of the fruits, also, is not attended with the. destruction of the plants, as it is when animals lose their. animating principle. And, with respect to the fruit which we receive from bees, since this is obtained by our. labour, it is fit that we should derive a common benefit. from it. For bees collect their honey from plants; but we carefully attend to them. On which account it is. requisite that such a division.should be made [of our attention and their labour] that they may suffer no injury.
- © Inthe original, » yag θυσία, ὁσια τις στιν κατὰ roves.
- ~ 84 ON ABSTINENCE FROM But that which is useless to them, and beneficial to us, will be the reward which we receive from them [of our attention to their concerns]. In sacrifices, theréfore, we should abstain from animals. For, though all things are in reality the property of the Gods, yet plants appear to be our property; since we sow and cultivate them, and nourish them by other attentions which we pay to them. We ought to sacrifice, therefore, from out own property, and not from the property of others; since that which may be procured at a small expense, and which may easily be obtained, is more holy, mote acceptable to the Gods, and better adapted to the purposes of sactifice, and to the exercise of continual piety. Hence, that ᾿ς which is neither holy, nor to be obtained at ἃ small expense, is not to be offered in sacrifice, even though it should be present.
14, But that animals do nét rank athong things which may be procured: easily, and at ἃ small expense, may be seen by directing our view to the preater part of oar - pace: for we are not now ὁ consider that séme men _ abound in sheep, and others i oxen. In the first place, therefore, there are many nations that do not possess any of those animals which are offered m sacrifice, some ignoble animals, perhaps, excepted. And, in the second place, most of those that dwell in cities themselves, possess these but rarely. But if some one should say that the inhabitants of cities have not mild fruits in abundance; yet, though this should be admitted, they are not in want of the other vegetable productions of the earth; nor 15 it so difficult to procure fruits as it is to procure animals. Hence an abundance of fruits, and other vegetables, is more easily obfained than that of anizaals. But that which is obtained with facility, and at a small expense, contributes to incessant and universal diety.
15. Experience also testifies that the Gods rejoice in this more than in sumptuous offerings. For when that Thessalian sacrificed to the Pythian deity oxen with gilt horns, and heoatombs, Apollo said, that the offering of Hermigneus was more pratifying to him, though he had only sacrificed as much meal as he could take with hie three fingers out of a sack. But when the Thessglian, on hearing this, placed all the rest of his offerings on the altar, the God again said, that by sq doing his present was doubly more unacceptable to him than his former offering. Hence the sacrifice which is attended with 8 small expense is pleasing to the Gods, and divinity Jookg more to the disposition and manners of those that sgcti- © fice, than to the multitude of the things which are, sacrificed.
10. Theopompus likewise narrates things similar to these, viz. that a certain Megnesian came from Asia to Delphi; a man very rich, and abounding ig cattle, and that he was accustomed every year to make many and magnificent sacrifices to the Gods, partly through the ebundance of his possessions, and partly through pjety and wishing to please the Gods, But being thus dig- posed, he came to the divinity at Delphi, bringing with him ἃ hecatomb for the God, and magnificently honouring Apollo, he consulted his oracle. Conceiving also that he worshipped the Gods in a manner more beautifal thaa that of all other men, he asked the Pythian deity who the | soan was that, with the greatest promptitude, and in the dest manner, venerated divinity, and made the most acceptable sacrifices, conceiving that on this ocrasion the God would deem him to be pre-eminent. The Pythien deity however answered, that Clearchus, whe dwelt in “Methydrium, a town of Arcadia, worshipped the Gods ig @ way surpassing that of all.other men. But the Magne- sian being astonished, was desirous of seeing ‘Clearghus, and of learning from him the manner in which he per- formed his sacrifices. Swiftly, therefore, betaking him- self to Methydrium, in the first place, indeed, he despised the smailness and vileness of the town, conceiving that neither any private person, nor even the whole city, could δ6; ON ABSTINENCE FROM: honour the Gods more magnificently and more beauti- fully than he did. Meeting, however, with the man, he thought fit to ask him after what manner he reverenced the Gods. But Clearchus answered him, that he dili- gently sacrificed to them at proper times in every month at the new moon, crowning and adorning the statues of Hermes and Hecate, and the other sacred images which were left to us by our ancestors, and that he also honoured the Gods with frankincense, and sacred wafers and cakes. He likewise said, that he performed public sacri- fices annually, omitting no festive day; and that in these festivals he worshipped the Gods, not by slaying oxen, nor by cutting victims into fragments,. but that he sacri- ficed whatever he might casually meet with, sedulously offering the first-fruits to the Gods of all the vegetable productions of the seasons, and of all the fruits with which he was supplied. He added, that some of these he placed before the [statues of the] Gods‘, but that. he burnt-others on their altars; and that, being studious of frugality, he avoided the sacrificing of oxen.
17, By some writers, also, it is related, that certain tyrants, after the Carthaginians were conquered, having, with great strife among themselves, placed hetacombs ~ before Apollo, afterwards inquired of the God with which of the offerings he was most delighted; and that he answered, contrary to all their expectation, that he was. most pleased with the cakes of Docimus. But. this Docimus was an inhabitant of Delphi, and cultivated some rugged and stony land. Docimus, therefore, com- ing on that day from.the place which he cultivated, took ‘from a bag which was fastened round him a few handfuls of meal, and sacrificed them to the God, who was more delighted with his offering than with the magnificent.
~~ € In the original, xa: τὰ μὲν παρατιθεναι, which Felicianus very errone- ously renders, * ulius siquidem mihi ad vescendem sunio;” but Valen- tinus rightly, “ et horum aliqua coram illis apponere.”
ANIMAL FOOD.— BOOK II. 57 + sacrifices of the tyrants. Hence, also, a certain poet, because the affair was known, appears to have asserted things of a similar kind, as we are informed by Antiphanes in his Mystics: In simple offerings most the Gods delight: For though before them hecatombs are placed, Yet frankincense is burnt the last of all.
An indication this that all the rest, Preceding, was a vain expense, bestowed Through ostentation, for the sake of men;.
But a small offering gratifies the Gods.
Menander likewise, in the comedy called the Morose, says,: Pious th’ oblation which with frankincense And popanum® is made; for in the fire Both these, when placed, divinity accepts.
18. On this account also, earthen, wooden, and wicker vessels were formerly used, and especially in public sacri- fices, the ancients being persuaded that divinity is de- lighted with things of this kind. Whence,.even now, the most ancient vessels, and which are made of wood, are thought to be more divine, both on account of the matter and the simplicity of the art by which they were fashioned. It is said, therefore, that AXschylus, on his. brother’s asking him to write a Pean in honour of Apollo, replied, that the. best Pan was written by Tynni- chus"; and that if his composition were to be compared with that of Tynnichus, the same thing would take place as if new were compared with ancient statues. For the latter, though they are simple in their formation, are conceived to be divine; but the former, though they are most accurately elaborated, produce indeed admiration, but are not believed to possess so much of a divine ΕΑ round, broad, and thin cake, which was offered in sacrifice to the Guds.
* Tynnichus, thc Chalcidensian, is mentioned by Plato in his Io.
58 ON ABSTINENCE FROM nature. Hence Hesiod, praising the law of ancient saeri-. fices, very properly says, Your country’s rites in sacrifice observe: [In pious works] the ancient law is best!.
19. But those who have written concerning sacred operations and sacrifices, admonish us to be accurate in preserving what pertains to the popana, because these are more acceptable to the Gods than the sacrifice ‘which is performed through the mactation of animals. Sophocles also, in describing a sacrifice which is pleasing to divinity, says in his Polyidus: The skins of sheep in sacrifice were used, _ Libations too of wine, grapes well preserved, And fruits collected in a heap of every kind; The olive’s pinguid juice, and waxen work Most variegated, of the yellow bee.
Formerly, also, there were venerable monuments in Delos of those who came from the Hyperboreans, bearing handfuls fof fruits]. It is necessary, therefore, that, being purified in our manners, we should make oblations, offer- ‘ing to the Gods those sacrifices which are pleasing te them, and not such as are attended with great expense. Now, however, if a man’s body is not pure and invested with a splendid garment, he does not think it 1s qualified for the sanctity of sacrifice. But when he has rendered his body splendid, together with his garment, though his soul at the same time is not purified from vice, yet he betakes himself to sacrifice, and thinks that it is a thing of no consequence; as if divinity did not especially rejoice in that which is most. divine in our nature, when it is in a pure condition, as being allied to his essence. In Epidaurus, therefore, there was the following inscrip- tion on the doors of the temple: Into an odorous temple, he who goes Should pure and holy be; but to be wise In what to sanctity pertains, ἰδ to be pure.
Vid. Hesiod. Fragm. v. 169.
ANIMAL FOOD.+—-BOOK II. 59 20. But that God 15 not delighted with the amplitude ’ of sacrifices, but with any casual offering, is evident from this, that of our daily food, whatever it may be that is placed before us, we all of us make an offering to the Gods, before we have tasted it ourselves; this offering being ‘small indeed, but the greatest testimony of honour to divinity. Moreover, Theophrastus shows, by enume- rating many of the rites of different countries, that the sacrifices of the ancients were from fruite, and he narrates what pertains to libations in the following manner: “ An- cient sacrifices were for the most part performed with sobriety. But those sacrifices are sober in which the libations are made with water. Afterwards, however, libations were made with honey. For we first receive this liquid fruit prepared for us by the bees. In the third place, libations were made with oil; and in the fourth and last place with wine.”
21. These things, however, are testified not only by the pillars which are preserved in Cyrbe*, and which con-. tain, as it were, certain true descriptions of the Cretan sacred rites of the Corybantes; but also by Empedocles, who, in discussing what pertains to sacrifices and theo- gony, or the generation of the Gods, says: With them nor Mars nor tumult dire was found, Nor Saturn, Neptune, or the sovereign Jove, | But Venus [beauty’s] queen. And Venus is friendship. Afterwards he adds, With painted animals, and statues once Of sacred form, with unguents sweet of smell, The fume of frankincense and genuine myrrh, And with libations poured upon the ground Of yellow honey, Venus was propitious made.
Which ancient custom is still even now preserved by some persons as a certain vestige of the truth. And in the last place, Empedocles says, Nor then were altars wet with blood of bulls Irrationally slain..
k A city of Crete.
id 600 ON ABSTINENCE FROM 22. For, as it appears to me, when friendship and a proper sense of the duties’ pertaining to kindred natures, was possessed by all men, no o1e slaughtered any living being, in consequence of thinking that other animals were allied to him. But when strife and tumult, every kind of contention, and the principle of war, invaded mankind, then, for the first time, no one in reality spared any one of his kindred natures. The following parti- culars, likewise, ought to be considered: For, as though ἢ there is an affinity between us and noxious men, who, as it were, by a certain impetus of their own nature and depravity, are incited to injure any one they may happen to meet, yet we think it requisite that all of them should be punished and destroyed; thus also, with respect to those irrational animals that are naturally malefic and unjust, and who are impelled to injure those that approach them, it is perhaps fit that they should be destroyed. But with respect to other animals who do not at all act unjustly, and are not naturally impelled to injure us, it is certainly unjust to destroy and murder them, no otherwise than it would be to slay men who are not iniquitous. | And this seems to evince, that the justice between us and other animals does not arise from some of them being naturally noxious and malefic, but others not, as is also the case with respect to men.
23. Are therefore those animals to be sacrificed to the Gods which are thought to be deserving of death? But how can this be possible, if they are naturally depraved? For it is no more proper to sacrifice such as these, than it would be to sacrifice mutilated animals. For thus, indeed, we shall offer the first-fruits of things of an evil nature, but we shall not sacrifice for the sake of honour- ing the Gods. Hence, if animals are to be sacrificed to the Gods, we. should sacrifice those that are perfectly innoxious. It is however acknowledged,. that those animals are not to be destroyed who do not at all injure us, 80 that neither are they to be sacrificed to the Gods. If, therefore, neither these, nor those that are noxious, ANIMAL FOOD.— ΒΟΟΚ II. ' 6} are to be sacrificed, is it not evident that we should abstain from them more than from any thing else, and that we should not sacrifice any one of them, though it is fit that some of them should be destroyed?
24. To which may be added, that we should sacrifice to the Gods for the sake of three things, viz. either for the sake of honouring them, or of testifying our grati- tude, or through our want of good. For, as we offer first- fruits to good men, thus also we think it is necessary that we should offer them to the Gods. But we honour the Gods, either exploring the means of averting evils and obtaining good, or when we have been previously benefited, or in order that we may obtain some present advantage and assistance, or merely for the purpose of venerating the goodness of their nature. So that if the - first-fruits of animals are to be offered to the Gods, some of them for the sake of this are to be sacrificed. For whatever we sacrifice, we sacrifice for the sake of some one of the. above-mentioned particulars. Is it therefore to be thought that Ged is honoured by us, when we are directly seen to act unjustly through the first-fruits which we offer to him? Or will he not rather think that he is dishonoured by such a sacrifice, in which, by imimo- lating animals that have not at all injured us, we acknow- ledge that we have acted unjustly. So that no one of other animals is to be sacrificed for the sake of honouring divinity. Nor yet are they to be sacrificed for tle pur- pose of testifying our gratitude to the Gods. For he who makes a just retribution for the benefits he has received, ought not to make it by doing an injury to certain other animals. For he will no more appear to make a retribu- tion than he who, plundering his neighbour of his pro- perty, should bestow it on another person for the sake of honour. Neither are animals to be sacrificed for the sake of obtaining a certain good of which we are in want. For he who endeavours to be benefited by acting. unjustly, is to be suspected as one who would not be grateful even '-when he is benefited.. So that animals are not to be 62 ΟΝ ABSTINENCE FROM sacrificed to the Gods through the expectation of deriving advantage from the sacrifice. For he who does this, may perhaps elude men, but it is impossible that he can elude divinity. If, therefore, we ought to sacrifice for the sake of a certain thing, but this is not to be done for the sake of any of the before mentioned particulars, it is evi- dent that animals ought not to be sacrificed.