TRANSLATIONS OF CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

             GENERAL EDITORS: W. J. SPARROW-SIMPSON, D.D.,
                      W. K. LOWTHER CLARKE, B.D.

                               SERIES I
                              GREEK TEXTS

                            PHILOSOPHUMENA
                                OR THE
                      REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES




                            PHILOSOPHUMENA
                                OR THE
                      REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES

                  FORMERLY ATTRIBUTED TO ORIGEN, BUT
                     NOW TO HIPPOLYTUS, BISHOP AND
                        MARTYR, WHO FLOURISHED
                            ABOUT 220 A.D.

                  TRANSLATED FROM THE TEXT OF CRUICE
                                  BY
                           F. LEGGE, F.S.A.

                                VOL. I.

                                LONDON
                         SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING
                          CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE
                    NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
                                 1921




                      PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY
                     RICHARD CLAY & SONS, LIMITED,
                  PARIS GARDEN, STAMFORD ST., S.E. 1,
                         AND BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.




                               CONTENTS


                                                PAGE
  INTRODUCTION                                  1-30

  1. THE TEXT, ITS DISCOVERY, PUBLICATION AND
  EDITIONS                                         1

  2. THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORK                    5

  3. THE CREDIBILITY OF HIPPOLYTUS                 8

  4. THE COMPOSITION OF THE WORK                  11

  5. THE STYLE OF THE WORK                        23

  6. THE VALUE OF THE WORK                        28


  BOOK I: THE PHILOSOPHERS                     31-64

  PROÆMIUM                                        32

  THALES                                          35

  PYTHAGORAS                                      36

  EMPEDOCLES                                      40

  HERACLITUS                                      41

  ANAXIMANDER                                     42

  ANAXIMENES                                      43

  ANAXAGORAS                                      44

  ARCHELAUS                                       46

  PARMENIDES                                      47

  LEUCIPPUS                                       48

  DEMOCRITUS                                      48

  XENOPHANES                                      49

  ECPHANTUS                                       50

  HIPPO                                           50

  SOCRATES                                        51

  PLATO                                           51

  ARISTOTLE                                       55

  THE STOICS                                      57

  EPICURUS                                        58

  THE ACADEMICS                                   59

  THE BRACHMANS AMONG THE INDIANS                 60

  THE DRUIDS AMONG THE CELTS                      61

  HESIOD                                          62


  BOOK II ?                                       65


  BOOK III ?                                      65


  BOOK IV: THE DIVINERS AND MAGICIANS         67-117

  1. OF ASTROLOGERS                               67

  2. OF MATHEMATICIANS                            83

  3. OF DIVINATION BY METOPOSCOPY                 87

  4. THE MAGICIANS                                92

  5. RECAPITULATION                              103

  6. OF DIVINATION BY ASTRONOMY                  107

  7. OF THE ARITHMETICAL ART                     114


  BOOK V: THE OPHITE HERESIES                118-180

  1. NAASSENES                                   118

  2. PERATÆ                                      146

  3. THE SETHIANI                                160

  4. JUSTINUS                                    169




                            PHILOSOPHUMENA




                             INTRODUCTION


         1. THE TEXT, ITS DISCOVERY, PUBLICATION AND EDITIONS

The story of the discovery of the book here translated so resembles
a romance as to appear like a flower in the dry and dusty field
of patristic lore. A short treatise called _Philosophumena_, or
“Philosophizings,” had long been known, four early copies of it being
in existence in the Papal and other libraries of Rome, Florence and
Turin. The superscriptions of these texts and a note in the margin of
one of them caused the treatise to be attributed to Origen, and its
_Edito princeps_ is that published in 1701 at Leipzig by Fabricius
with notes by the learned Gronovius. As will be seen later, it is by
itself of no great importance to modern scholars, as it throws no new
light on the history or nature of Greek philosophy, while it is mainly
compiled from some of those epitomes of philosophic opinion current in
the early centuries of our era, of which the works of Diogenes Laertius
and Aetius are the best known. In the year 1840, however, Mynoïdes
Mynas, a learned Greek, was sent by Abel Villemain, then Minister of
Public Instruction in the Government of Louis Philippe, on a voyage of
discovery to the monasteries of Mt. Athos, whence he returned with,
among other things, the MS. of the last seven books contained in these
volumes. This proved on investigation to be Books IV to X inclusive of
the original work of which the text published by Fabricius was Book
I, and therefore left only Books II and III to be accounted for. The
pagination of the MS. shows that the two missing books never formed
part of it; but the author’s remarks at the end of Books I and IX,
and the beginning of Books V and X[1] lead one to conclude that if
they ever existed they must have dealt with the Mysteries and secret
rites of the Egyptians, or rather of the Alexandrian Greeks,[2]
with the theologies and cosmogonies of the Persians and Chaldæans,
and with the magical practices and incantations of the Babylonians.
Deeply interesting as these would have been from the archæological and
anthropological standpoint, we perhaps need not deplore their loss
overmuch. The few references made to them in the remainder of the work
go to show that here too the author had no very profound acquaintance
with, or first-hand knowledge of, his subject, and that the scanty
information that he had succeeded in collecting regarding it was only
thrown in by him as an additional support for his main thesis. This
last, which is steadily kept in view throughout the book, is that the
peculiar tenets and practices of the Gnostics and other heretics of his
time were not derived from any misinterpretation of the Scriptures,
but were a sort of amalgam of those current among the heathen with the
opinions held by the philosophers[3] as to the origin of all things.

The same reproach of scanty information cannot be brought against the
books discovered by Mynas. Book IV, four pages at the beginning of
which have perished, deals with the arts of divination as practised by
the arithmomancers, astrologers, magicians and other charlatans who
infested Rome in the first three centuries of our era; and the author’s
account, which the corruption of the text makes rather difficult to
follow, yet gives us a new and unexpected insight into the impostures
and juggleries by which they managed to bewilder their dupes. Books V
to IX deal in detail with the opinions of the heretics themselves, and
differ from the accounts of earlier heresiologists by quoting at some
length from the once extensive Gnostic literature, of which well-nigh
the whole has been lost to us.[4] Thus, our author gives us excerpts
from a work called the _Great Announcement_, attributed by him to Simon
Magus, from another called _Proastii_ used by the sect of the Peratæ,
from the _Paraphrase of Seth_ in favour with the Sethiani, from the
_Baruch_ of one Justinus, a heresiarch hitherto unknown to us, and from
a work by an anonymous writer belonging to the Naassenes or Ophites,
which is mainly a Gnostic explanation of the hymns used in the worship
of Cybele.[5] Besides these, there are long extracts from Basilidian
and Valentinian works which may be by the founders of those sects, and
which certainly give us a more extended insight into their doctrines
than we before possessed; while Book X contains what purports to be a
summary of the whole work.

This, however, does not exhaust the new information put at our disposal
by Mynas’ discovery. In the course of an account of the heresy of
Noetus, who refused to admit any difference between the First and
Second Persons of the Trinity, our author suddenly develops a violent
attack on one Callistus, a high officer of the Church, whom he
describes as a runaway slave who had made away with his master’s money,
had stolen that deposited with him by widows and others belonging to
the Church, and had been condemned to the mines by the Prefect of
the City, to be released only by the grace of Commodus’ concubine,
Marcia.[6] He further accuses Callistus of leaning towards the heresy
of Noetus, and of encouraging laxity of manners in the Church by
permitting the marriage and re-marriage of bishops and priests, and
concubinage among the unmarried women. The heaviness of this charge
lies in the fact that this Callistus can hardly be any other than
the Saint and Martyr of that name, who succeeded Zephyrinus in the
Chair of St. Peter about the year 218, and whose name is familiar
to all visitors to modern Rome from the cemetery which still bears
it, and over which the work before us says he had been set by his
predecessor.[7] The explanation of these charges will be discussed when
we consider the authorship of the book, but for the present it may be
noticed that they throw an entirely unexpected light upon the inner
history of the Primitive Church.

These facts, however, were not immediately patent. The MS., written as
appears from the colophon by one Michael in an extremely crabbed hand
of the fourteenth century, is full of erasures and interlineations,
and has several serious lacunæ.[8] Hence it would probably have
remained unnoticed in the Bibliothèque Royale of Paris to which it was
consigned, had it not there met the eye of Bénigne Emmanuel Miller, a
French scholar and archæologist who had devoted his life to the study
and decipherment of ancient Greek MSS. By his care and the generosity
of the University Press, the MS. was transcribed and published in
1851 at Oxford, but without either Introduction or explanatory notes,
although the suggested emendations in the text were all carefully
noted at the foot of every page.[9] These omissions were repaired
by the German scholars F. G. Schneidewin and Ludwig Duncker, who in
1856-1859 published at Göttingen an amended text with full critical
and explanatory notes, and a Latin version.[10] The completion of this
publication was delayed by the death of Schneidewin, which occurred
before he had time to go further than Book VII, and was followed by the
appearance at Paris in 1860 of a similar text and translation by the
Abbé Cruice, then Rector of a college at Rome, who had given, as he
tells us in his _Prolegomena_, many years to the study of the work.[11]
As his edition embodies all the best features of that of Duncker and
Schneidewin, together with the fruits of much good and careful work of
his own, and a Latin version incomparably superior in clearness and
terseness to the German editors’, it is the one mainly used in the
following pages. An English translation by the Rev. J. H. Macmahon, the
translator for Bohn’s series of a great part of the works of Aristotle,
also appeared in 1868 in Messrs. Clark’s _Ante-Nicene Library_. Little
fault can be found with it on the score of verbal accuracy; but fifty
years ago the relics of Gnosticism had not received the attention that
has since been bestowed upon them, and the translator, perhaps in
consequence, did little to help the general reader to an understanding
of the author’s meaning.


                     2. THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORK

Even before Mynas’ discovery, doubts had been cast on the attribution
of the _Philosophumena_ to Origen. The fact that the author in his
_Proæmium_ speaks of himself as a successor of the Apostles, a sharer
in the grace of high priesthood, and a guardian of the Church,[12] had
already led several learned writers in the eighteenth century to point
out that Origen, who was never even a bishop, could not possibly be the
author, and Epiphanius, Didymus of Alexandria, and Aetius were among
the names to which it was assigned. Immediately upon the publication
of Miller’s text, this controversy was revived, and naturally became
coloured by the religious and political opinions of its protagonists.
Jacobi in a German theological journal was the first to declare that it
must have been written by Hippolytus, a contemporary of Callistus,[13]
and this proved to be like the letting out of waters. The dogma of
Papal Infallibility was already in the air, and the opportunity was at
once seized by the Baron von Bunsen, then Prussian Ambassador at the
Court of St. James’, to do what he could to defeat its promulgation. In
his _Hippolytus and his Age_ (1852), he asserted his belief in Jacobi’s
theory, and drew from the abuse of Callistus in Book IX of the newly
discovered text, the conclusion that even in the third century the
Primacy of the Bishops of Rome was effectively denied. The celebrated
Christopher Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln, followed with a scholarly
study in which, while rejecting von Bunsen’s conclusion, he admitted
his main premises; and Dr. Döllinger, who was later to prove the chief
opponent of Papal claims, appeared a little later with a work on the
same side. Against these were to be found none who ventured to defend
the supposed authorship of Origen, but many who did not believe that
the work was rightly attributed to Hippolytus. Among the Germans,
Fessler and Baur pronounced for Caius, a presbyter to whom Photius
in the ninth century gave the curious title of “Bishop of Gentiles,”
as author; of the Italians, de Rossi assigned it to Tertullian
and Armellini to Novatian; of the French, the Abbé Jallabert in a
doctoral thesis voted for Tertullian; while Cruice, who was afterwards
to translate the work, thought its author must be either Caius or
Tertullian.[14] Fortunately there is now no reason to re-open the
controversy, which one may conclude has come to an end by the death of
Lipsius, the last serious opponent of the Hippolytan authorship. Mgr.
Duchesne, who may in such a matter be supposed to speak with the voice
of the majority of the learned of his own communion, in his _Histoire
Ancienne de l’Église_[15] accepts the view that Hippolytus was the
author of the _Philosophumena_, and thinks that he became reconciled
to the Church under the persecution of Maximin.[16] We may, therefore,
take it that Hippolytus’ authorship is now admitted on all sides.

A few words must be said as to what is known of this Hippolytus. A
Saint and Martyr of that name appears in the Roman Calendar, and a
seated statue of him was discovered in Rome in the sixteenth century
inscribed on the back of the chair with a list of works, one of which
is claimed in our text as written by its author.[17] He is first
mentioned by Eusebius, who describes him as the “Bishop of another
Church” than that of Bostra, of which he has been speaking;[18]
then by Theodoret, who calls him the “holy Hippolytus, bishop and
martyr”;[19] and finally by Prudentius, who says that he became a
Novatianist, but on his way to martyrdom returned to the bosom of
the Church and entreated his followers to do the same.[20] We have
many writings, mostly fragmentary, attributed to him, including among
others one on the Paschal cycle which is referred to on the statue
just mentioned, a tract against Noetus used later by Epiphanius, and
others on Antichrist, Daniel, and the Apocalypse, all of which show
a markedly chiliastic tendency. In the MSS. in which some of these
occur, he is spoken of as “Bishop of Rome,” and this seems to have been
his usual title among Greek writers, although he is in other places
called “Archbishop,” and by other titles. From these and other facts,
Döllinger comes to the conclusion that he was really an anti-pope
or schismatic bishop who set himself up against the authority of
Callistus, and this, too, is accepted by Mgr. Duchesne, who agrees
with Döllinger that the schism created by him lasted through the
primacies of Callistus’ successors, Urbanus and Pontianus, and only
ceased when this last was exiled together with Hippolytus to the mines
of Sardinia.[21] Though the evidence on which this is based is not
very strong, it is a very reasonable account of the whole matter;
and it becomes more probable if we choose to believe--for which,
however, there is no distinct evidence--that Hippolytus was the head
of the Greek-speaking community of Christians at Rome, while his enemy
Callistus presided over the more numerous Latins. In that case, the
schism would be more likely to be forgotten in time of persecution,
and would have less chance of survival than the more serious ones of
a later age; while it would satisfactorily account for the conduct of
the Imperial authorities in sending the heads of both communities into
penal servitude at the same time. By doing so, Maximin or his pagan
advisers doubtless considered they were dealing the yet adolescent
Church a double blow.


                   3. THE CREDIBILITY OF HIPPOLYTUS

Assuming, then, that our author was Hippolytus, schismatic Bishop
of Rome from about 218 to 235, we must next see what faith is to be
attached to his statements. This question was first raised by the
late Dr. George Salmon, Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, who was
throughout his life a zealous student of Gnosticism and of the history
of the Church during the early centuries. While working through
our text he was so struck by the repetition in the account of four
different sects of the simile about the magnet drawing iron to itself
and the amber the straws, as to excogitate a theory that Hippolytus
must have been imposed upon by a forger who had sold him a number of
documents purporting to be the secret books of the heretics, but in
reality written by the forger himself.[22] This theory was afterwards
adopted by the late Heinrich Stähelin, who published a treatise
in which he attempted to show in the laborious German way, by a
comparison of nearly all the different passages in it which present
any similarity of diction, that the whole document was suspect.[23]
The different passages on which he relies will be dealt with in the
notes as they occur, and it may be sufficient to mention here the
opinion of M. Eugène de Faye, the latest writer on the point, that the
theory of Salmon and Stähelin goes a long way beyond the facts.[24]
As M. de Faye points out, the different documents quoted in the work
differ so greatly from one another both in style and contents, that
to have invented or concocted them would have required a forger of
almost superhuman skill and learning. To which it may be added that
the mere repetition of the phrases that Stähelin has collated with
such diligence would be the very thing that the least skilful forger
would most studiously avoid, and that it could hardly fail to put
the most credulous purchaser on his guard. It is also the case that
some at least of the phrases of whose repetition Salmon and Stähelin
complain can be shown to have come, not from the Gnostic author quoted,
but from Hippolytus himself, and that others are to be found in the
Gnostic works which have come down to us in Coptic dress.[25] These
Coptic documents, as the present writer has shown elsewhere,[26] are
so intimately linked together that all must be taken to have issued
from the same school. They could not have been known to Hippolytus or
he would certainly have quoted them in the work before us; nor to the
supposed forger, or he would have made greater use of them. We must,
therefore, suppose that, in the passages which they and our text have
in common, both they and it are drawing from a common source which can
hardly be anything else than the genuine writings of earlier heretics.
We must, therefore, agree with M. de Faye that the Salmon-Stähelin
theory of forgery must be rejected.

If, however, we turn from this to such statements of Hippolytus as
we can check from other sources, we find many reasons for doubting
not indeed the good faith of him or his informants, but the accuracy
of one or other of them. Thus, in his account of the tenets of the
philosophers, he repeatedly alters or misunderstands his authorities,
as when he says that Thales supposed water to be the end as it had
been the beginning of the Universe,[27] or that “Zaratas,” as he calls
Zoroaster, said that light was the father and darkness the mother of
beings,[28] which statements are directly at variance with what we
know otherwise of the opinions of these teachers. So, too, in Book I,
he makes Empedocles say that all things consist of fire, and will be
resolved into fire, while in Book VII, he says that Empedocles declared
the elements of the cosmos to be six in number, whereof fire, one
of the two instruments which alter and arrange it, is only one.[29]
Again, in Book IX, he says that he has already expounded the opinions
of Heraclitus, and then sets to work to describe as his a perfectly
different set of tenets from that which he has assigned to him in Book
I; while in Book X he ascribes to Heraclitus yet another opinion.[30]
Or we may take as an example the system of arithmomancy or divination
by the “Pythagorean number” whereby, he says, its professors claim to
predict the winner of a contest by juggling with the numerical values
of the letters in the competitors’ names, and then gives instances,
some of which do and others do not work out according to the rule
he lays down. So, too, in his unacknowledged quotations from Sextus
Empiricus, he so garbles his text as to make it unintelligible to us
were we not able to restore it from Sextus’ own words. So, again, in
his account of the sleight-of-hand and other stage tricks, whereby he
says, no doubt with truth, the magicians used to deceive those who
consulted them, his account is so carelessly written or copied that
it is only by means of much reading between the lines that it can
be understood, and even then it recounts many more marvels than it
explains.[31] Some of this inaccuracy may possibly be due to mistakes
in copying and re-copying by scribes who did not understand what they
were writing; but when all is said there is left a sum of blunders
which can only be attributed to great carelessness on the part of the
author. Yet, as if to show that he could take pains if he liked, the
quotations from Scripture are on the whole correctly transcribed and
show very few variations from the received versions. Consequently when
such variations do occur (they are noted later whenever met with), we
must suppose them to be not the work of Hippolytus, but of the heretics
from whom he quotes, who must, therefore, have taken liberties with
the New Testament similar to those of Marcion. Where, also, he copies
Irenæus with or without acknowledgment, his copy is extremely faithful,
and agrees with the Latin version of the model more closely than the
Greek of Epiphanius. It would seem, therefore, that our author’s
statements, although in no sense unworthy of belief, yet require
in many cases strict examination before they can be unhesitatingly
accepted.[32]


                    4. THE COMPOSITION OF THE WORK

In these circumstances, and in view of the manifest discrepancies
between statements in the earlier part of the text and what purports to
be their repetition in the later, the question has naturally arisen as
to whether the document before us was written for publication in its
present form. It is never referred to or quoted by name by any later
author, and although the argument from silence has generally proved
a broken reed in such cases, there are here some circumstances which
seem to give it unusual strength. It was certainly no reluctance to
call in evidence the work of a schismatic or heretical writer which
led to the work being ignored, for Epiphanius, a century and a half
later, classes Hippolytus with Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria as one
from whose writings he has obtained information,[33] and Theodoret,
while making use still later of certain passages which coincide with
great closeness with some in Book X of our text,[34] admits, as has
been said, Hippolytus’ claim to both episcopacy and martyrdom. But the
passages in Theodoret which seem to show borrowing from Hippolytus,
although possibly, are not necessarily from the work before us. The
author of this tells us in Book I that he has “aforetime”[35] expounded
the tenets of the heretics “within measure,” and without revealing all
their mysteries, and it might, therefore, be from some such earlier
work that both Epiphanius and Theodoret have borrowed. Some writers,
including Salmon,[36] have thought that this earlier work of our author
is to be found in the anonymous tractate _Adversus Omnes Hæreses_
usually appended to Tertullian’s works.[37] Yet this tractate, which is
extremely short, contains nothing that can be twisted into the words
common to our text and to Theodoret, and we might, therefore, assert
with confidence that it was from our text that Theodoret copied them
but for the fact that he nowhere indicates their origin. This might be
only another case of the unacknowledged borrowing much in fashion in
his time, were it not that Theodoret has already spoken of Hippolytus
in the eulogistic terms quoted above, and would therefore, one would
think, have been glad to give as his informant such respectable
authority. As he did not do so, we may perhaps accept the conclusion
drawn by Cruice with much skill in a study published shortly after the
appearance of Miller’s text,[38] and say with him that Theodoret did
not know that the passages in question were to be found in any work of
Hippolytus. In this case, as the statements in Book IX forbid us to
suppose that our text was published anonymously or pseudonymously, the
natural inference is that both Hippolytus and Theodoret drew from a
common source.

What this source was likely to have been there can be little doubt.
Our author speaks more than once of “the blessed elder Irenæus,” who
has, he says, refuted the heretic Marcus with much vigour, and he
implies that the energy and power displayed by Irenæus in such matters
have shortened his own work with regard to the Valentinian school
generally.[39] Photius, also, writing as has been said in the ninth
century, mentions a work of Hippolytus against heresies admittedly
owing much to Irenæus’ instruction. The passage runs thus:--

 “A booklet of Hippolytus has been read. Now Hippolytus was a
 disciple of Irenæus. But it (i. e. the booklet) was the compilation
 against 32 heresies making (the) Dositheans the beginning (of them)
 and comprising (those) up to Noetus and the Noetians. And he says
 that these heresies were subjected to refutations by Irenæus in
 conversation[40] (or in lectures). Of which refutations making also
 a synopsis, he says he compiled this book. The phrasing however is
 clear, reverent and unaffected, although he does not observe the Attic
 style. But he says some other things lacking in accuracy, and that the
 Epistle to the Hebrews was not by the Apostle Paul.”

These words have been held by Salmon and others to describe the
tractate _Adversus Omnes Hæreses_. Yet this tractate contains not
thirty-two heresies, but twenty-seven, and begins with Simon Magus to
end with the Praxeas against whom Tertullian wrote. It also notices
another heretic named Blastus, who, like Praxeas, is mentioned neither
by Irenæus nor by our author, nor does it say anything about Noetus or
the Apostle Paul. It does indeed mention at the outset “Dositheus the
Samaritan,” but only to say that the author proposes to keep silence
concerning both him and the Jews, and “to turn to those who have wished
to make heresy from the Gospel,” the very first of whom, he says, is
Simon Magus.[41] As for refutations, the tractate contains nothing
resembling one, which has forced the supporters of the theory to assume
that they were omitted for brevity’s sake. Nor does it in the least
agree with our text in its description of the tenets and practices of
heresies which the two documents treat of in common, such as Simon,
Basilides, the Sethiani and others, and the differences are too great
to be accounted for by supposing that the author of the later text was
merely incorporating in it newer information.[42]

On the other hand, Photius’ description agrees fairly well with our
text, which contains thirty-one heresies all told, or thirty-two if we
include, as the author asks us to do, that imputed by him to Callistus.
Of these, that of Noetus is the twenty-eighth, and is followed by those
of the Elchesaites, Essenes, Pharisees and Sadducees only. These four
last are all much earlier in date than any mentioned in the rest of the
work, and three of them appeared to the author of the tractate last
quoted as not heresies at all, while the fourth is not described by
him, and there is no reason immediately apparent why in any case they
should be put after and not before the post-Christian ones. The early
part of the summary of Jewish beliefs in Book X is torn away, and may
have contained a notice of Dositheus, whose name occurs in Eusebius and
other writers,[43] as a predecessor of Simon Magus and one who did not
believe in the inspiration of the Jewish Prophets. The natural place
in chronological order for these Jewish and Samaritan sects would,
therefore, be at the head rather than at the tail of the list, and if
we may venture to put them there and to restore to the catalogue the
name of Dositheus, we should have our thirty-two heresies, beginning
with Dositheus and ending with Noetus. We will return later to the
reason why Photius should call our text a Biblidarion or “booklet.”

Are there now any reasons for thinking that our text is founded on
such a synopsis of lectures as Photius says Hippolytus made? A fairly
cogent one is the inconvenient and awkward division of the books, which
often seem as if they had been arranged to occupy equal periods of time
in delivery. Another is the unnecessary and tedious introductions and
recapitulations with which the descriptions of particular philosophies,
charlatanic practices, and heresies begin and end, and which seem as
if they were only put in for the sake of arresting or holding the
attention of an audience addressed verbally. Thus, in the account of
Simon Magus’ heresy, our author begins with a long-winded story of
a Libyan who taught parrots to proclaim his own divinity, the only
bearing of which upon the story of Simon is that Hippolytus asserts,
like Justin Martyr, that Simon wished his followers to take him for
the Supreme Being.[44] So, too, he begins the succeeding book with the
age-worn tale of Ulysses and the Sirens[45] by way of introduction to
the tenets of Basilides, with which it has no connection whatever.
This was evidently intended to attract the attention of an audience so
as to induce them to give more heed to the somewhat intricate details
which follow. In other cases, he puts at the beginning or end of a
book a more or less detailed summary of those which preceded it, lest,
as he states in one instance, his hearers should have forgotten what
he has before said.[46] These are the usual artifices of a lecturer,
but a more salient example is perhaps those ends of chapters giving
indications of what is to follow immediately, which can hardly be
anything else than announcements in advance of the subject of the next
lecture. Thus, at the end of Book I, he promises to explain the mystic
rites[47]--a promise which is for us unfulfilled in the absence of
Books II and III; at the end of Book IV, he tells us that he will deal
with the disciples of Simon and Valentinus[48]; at that of Book VII,
that he will do the same with the Docetæ[49]; and at that of Book VIII
that he will “pass on” to the heresy of Noetus.[50] In none of these
cases does he more than mention the first of the heresies to be treated
of in the succeeding book, which the reader could find out for himself
by turning over the page, or rather by casting his eye a little further
down the roll.

Again, there are repetitions in our text excusable in a lecturer who
does not, if he is wise, expect his hearers to have at their fingers’
ends all that he has said in former lectures, and who may even find
that he can best root things in their memory by saying them over and
over again; but quite unpardonable in a writer who can refer his
readers more profitably to his former statements. Yet, we find our
author in Book I giving us the supposed teaching of Pythagoras as to
the monad being a male member, the dyad a female and so on up to the
decad, which is supposed to be perfect.[51] This is gone through all
over again in Book IV with reference to the art of arithmetic[52]
and again in Book VI where it is made a sort of shoeing-horn to the
Valentinian heresy[53]. The same may be said of the “Categories” or
accidents of substance which Hippolytus in one place attributes to
Pythagoras, but which are identical with those set out by Aristotle
in the _Organon_. He gives them rightly to Aristotle in Book I, but
makes them the invention of the Pythagoreans in Book VI only to return
them to Aristotle in Book VII.[54] Here again is a mistake such as a
lecturer might make by a slip of the tongue, but not a writer with any
pretensions to care or seriousness.

Beyond this, there is some little direct evidence of a lecture origin
for our text. In his comments on the system of Justinus, which he
connects with the Ophites, our author says: “Though I have met with
many heresies, O beloved, I have met with none viler in evil than
this.” The word “beloved” is here in the plural, and would be the
phrase used by a Greek-speaking person in a lecture to a class or group
of disciples or catechumens.[55] I do not think there is any instance
of its use in a _book_. In another place he says that his “discourse”
has proved useful, not only for refuting heretics, but for combating
the prevalent belief in astrology;[56] and although the word might be
employed by other authors with regard to writings, yet it is not likely
to have been used in that sense by Hippolytus, who everywhere possible
refers to his former “books.” There is, therefore, a good deal of
reason for supposing that some part of this work first saw the light as
spoken and not as written words.

What this part is may be difficult to define with great exactness;
but there are abundant signs that the work as we have it was not
written all at one time. In Book I, the author expresses his intention
of assigning every heresy to the speculations of some particular
philosopher or philosophic school.[57] So far from doing so, however,
he only compares Valentinus with Pythagoras and Plato, Basilides
with Aristotle, Cerdo and Marcion with Empedocles, Hermogenes with
Socrates, and Noetus with Heraclitus, leaving all the Ophite teachers,
Satornilus, Carpocrates, Cerinthus and other founders of schools
without a single philosopher attached to them. At the end of Book
IV, moreover, he draws attention more than once to certain supposed
resemblances in the views linked with the name of Pythagoras, to those
underlying the nomenclature of the Simonian and Valentinian heresies,
and concludes with the words that he must proceed to the doctrines of
these last.[58] Before he does so, however, Book V is interposed and
is entirely taken up with the Ophites, or worshippers of the Serpent,
to whom he does not attempt to assign a philosophic origin. In Book
VI he carries out his promise in Book IV by going at length into the
doctrines of Simon, Valentinus and the followers of this last, and
in Book VII he takes us in like manner through those of Basilides,
Menander, Marcion and his successors, Carpocrates, Cerinthus and many
others of the less-known heresiarchs. Book VIII deals in the same way
with a sect that he calls the Docetæ, Monoimus the Arabian, Tatian,
Hermogenes and some others. In the case of the Ophite teachers, Simon,
and Basilides, he gives us, as has been said, extracts from documents
which are entirely new to us, and were certainly not used by Irenæus,
while he adds to the list of heresies described by his predecessor,
the sects of the Docetæ, Monoimus and the Quartodecimans. In all the
other heresies so far, he follows Irenæus’ account almost word for
word, and with such closeness as enables us to restore in great part
the missing Greek text of that Father. With Book IX, however, there
comes a change. Mindful of the intention expressed in Book I, he here
begins with a summary of the teaching of Heraclitus the Obscure, which
no one has yet professed to understand, and then sets to work to
deduce from it the heresy of Noetus. This gives him the opportunity
for the virulent attack on his rival Callistus, to whom he ascribes a
modification of Noetus’ heresy, and he next, as has been said, plunges
into a description of the sect of the Elchesaites, then only lately
come to Rome, and quotes from Josephus without acknowledgment and with
some garbling the account by this last of the division of the Jews into
the three sects of Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes. Noetus’ heresy
was what was known as Patripassian, from its involving the admission
that the Father suffered upon the Cross, and although he manages to see
Gnostic elements in that of the Elchesaites, there can be little doubt
that these last-named “heretics,” whose main tenet was the prescription
of frequent baptism for all sins and diseases, were connected with the
pre-Christian sect of Hemerobaptists, Mogtasilah or “Washers” who are
at once pre-Christian, and still to be found near the Tigris between
Baghdad and Basra. Why he should have added to these the doctrines of
the Jews is uncertain, as the obvious place for this would have been,
as has been said, at the beginning of the volume:[59] but a possible
explanation is that he was here resuming a course of instruction by
lectures that he had before abandoned, and was therefore in some sort
obliged to spin it out to a certain length.

Book X seems at first sight likely to solve many of the questions
which every reader who has got so far is compelled to ask. It begins,
in accordance with the habit just noted, with the statement that the
author has now worked through “the Labyrinth of Heresies” and that the
teachings of truth are to be found neither in the philosophies of the
Greeks, the secret mysteries of the Egyptians, the formulas of the
Chaldæans or astrologers, nor the ravings of Babylonian magic.[60]
This links it with fair closeness to the reference in Book IV to the
ideas of the Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians and Chaldæans, only the
first-named nation being here omitted from the text. It then goes on
to say that “having brought together the opinions[61] of all the wise
men among the _Greeks_ in four books and those of the heresiarchs in
five,” he will make a summary of them. It will be noted that this
is in complete contradiction to the supposition that the missing
Books II and III contained the doctrines of the Babylonians, as he
now says that they comprised those of the Greeks only. The summary
which follows might have been expected to make this confusion clear,
but unfortunately it does nothing of the kind. It does indeed give
so good an abstract of what has been said in Books V to IX inclusive
regarding the chief heresiarchs, that in one or two places it enables
us to correct doubtful phrases and to fill in gaps left in earlier
books. There is omitted from the summary, however, all mention of the
heresies of Marcus, Satornilus, Menander, Carpocrates, the Nicolaitans,
Docetæ, Quartodecimans, Encratites and the Jewish sects, and the list
of omissions will probably be thought too long to be accounted for
on the ground of mere carelessness. But when the summarizer deals
with the earlier books, the discrepancy between the summary and the
documents summarized is much more startling. Among the philosophers, he
omits to summarize the opinions of Pythagoras, Empedocles, Ecphantus,
Hippo, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, Academics, Brachmans,
or Druids, while he does mention those of Hippasus, Ocellus Lucanus,
Heraclides of Pontus and Asclepiades, who were not named in any of
the texts of Book I which have come down to us. As for the tenets
and practices of the Persians, Egyptians and others, supposed on the
strength of the statement at the beginning of Book V to have been
narrated in Books II and III, nothing further is here said concerning
them, and, by the little table of contents with which Book X like the
others is prefaced, it will appear that nothing was intended to be
said. For this last omission it might be possible to assign plausible
reasons if it stood alone; but when it is coupled with the variations
between summary and original as regards Book I, the only inference that
meets all the facts is that the summarizer did not have the first four
books under his eyes.

This has led some critics to conclude that the summary is by another
hand. There is nothing in the literary manners of the age to compel us
to reject this supposition, and similar cases have been quoted. The
evidence of style is, however, against it, and it is unlikely that
if the summarizer were any other person than Hippolytus, he would
have taken up Hippolytus’ personal quarrel against Callistus. Yet in
the text of Book X before us the charge of heresy against Callistus
is repeated, although perhaps with less asperity than in Book IX,
the accusations against his morals being omitted. Nor is it easy to
dissociate from Hippolytus the really eloquent appeal to men of all
nations to escape the terrors of Tartarus and gain an immortality of
bliss by becoming converted to the Doctrine of Truth with which the
Book ends, after an excursion into Hebrew Chronology, a subject which
always had great fascination for Hippolytus. Although the matter is not
beyond doubt, it would appear, therefore, that the summary, like the
rest of the book, is by Hippolytus’ own hand.

In these circumstances there is but one theory that in the opinion
of the present writer will reconcile all the conflicting facts. This
is that the foundation of our text _is_ the synopsis that Hippolytus
made, as Photius tells us, after receiving instruction from Irenæus;
that those notes were, as Hippolytus himself says, “set forth” by him
possibly in the form of lectures, equally possibly in writing, but in
any case a long time before our text was compiled; and that when his
rivalry with Callistus became acute, he thought of republishing these
discourses and bringing them up to date by adding to them the Noetian
and other non-Gnostic heresies which were then making headway among the
Christian community, together with the facts about the divinatory and
magical tricks which had come to his knowledge during his long stay in
Rome. We may next conjecture that, after the greater part of his book
was written, chance threw in his way the documents belonging to the
Naassene and other Ophite sects, which went back to the earliest days
of Christianity and were probably in Hippolytus’ time on the verge
of extinction.[62] He had before determined to omit these sects as
of slight importance,[63] but now perceiving the interest of the new
documents, he hastily incorporated them in his book immediately after
his account of the magicians, so that they might appear as what he with
some truth said they were, to wit, the fount and source of all later
Gnosticism. To do this, he had to displace the account of the Jewish
and Samaritan sects with which all the heresiologists of the time
thought it necessary to begin their histories. He probably felt the
less reluctance in doing so, because the usual mention of these sects
as “heresies” in some sort contradicted his pet theory, which was that
the Gnostic tenets were not a mere perversion of Christian teaching,
but were derived from philosophic theories of the creation of things,
and from the mystic rites.

Next let us suppose that at the close of his life, when he was perhaps
hiding from Maximin’s inquisitors, or even when he was at the Sardinian
mines, he thought of preserving his work for posterity by re-writing
it--such copies as he had left behind him in Rome having been doubtless
seized by the Imperial authorities.[64] Not having the material that he
had before used then at his disposal, he had to make the best summary
that he could from memory, and in the course of this found that the
contents of the Books I, II, and III--the material for which he had
drawn in the first instance from Irenæus--had more or less escaped
him. He was probably able to recall some part of Book I by the help of
heathen works like those of Diogenes Laertius, Aetius, or perhaps that
Alcinous whose summary of Plato’s doctrines seem to have been formerly
used by him.[65] The Ophite and other Gnostic heresies he remembers
sufficiently to make his summary of their doctrines more easy,
although he omits from the list heresiarchs like Marcus, Satornilus
and Menander, about whom he had never had any exclusive information,
and he now puts Justinus after instead of before Basilides. Finally,
he remembered the Jewish sects which he had once intended to include,
and being perhaps able to command, even in the mines, the work of a
Romanized but unconverted Jew like Josephus, took from it such facts as
seemed useful for his purpose as an introduction to the chronological
speculation which had once formed his favourite study. With this
summary as his guide he continued, it may be, to warn the companions in
adversity to whom he tells us he had “become an adviser,” against the
perils of heresy, and to appeal to his unconverted listeners with what
his former translator calls not unfitly “a noble specimen of patristic
eloquence.” That he died in the mines is most probable, not only from
his advanced age at the time of exile and the consequent unlikelihood
that he would be able to withstand the pestilential climate, but also
from the record of his body having been “deposited” in the Catacombs
on the same day with that of his fellow-Pope and martyr Pontianus.[66]
Yet the persecution of Maximin, though sharp, was short, and on the
death of the tyrant after a reign of barely three years, there is no
reason why the transcript of Book X should not have reached Rome, where
there is some reason to think it was known from its opening words as
“the Labyrinth.” Later it was probably appended to Books IV to IX of
Hippolytus’ better known work, and the whole copied for the use of
those officials who had to enquire into heresy. To them, Books II and
III would be useless, and they probably thought it inexpedient to
perpetuate any greater knowledge than was necessary for their better
suppression, of the unclean mysteries of either pagan or Gnostic. As
for Book I, besides being harmless, it had possibly by that time become
too firmly connected with the name of Origen for its attribution to
this other sufferer in the Maximinian persecution to be disturbed in
later times.

It only remains to see how this theory fits in with the remarks of
Photius given above. It is fairly evident that Photius is speaking
from recollection only, and that the words do not suggest that
he had Hippolytus’ actual work before him when writing, while he
throughout speaks of it in the past tense as one might speak of a
document which has long since perished, although some memory of its
contents have been preserved. If this were so, we might be prepared
to take Photius’ description as not necessarily accurate in every
detail; yet, as we have it, it is almost a perfect description of
our text. The 32 heresies, as we have shown above, appear in our
text as in Photius’ document. Our text contains not only the large
excerpts from Irenæus which we might expect from Photius’ account
of its inception, but also the “refutations” which do not appear in
the _Adversus Omnes Hæreses_. It extends “up to,” as Photius says,
Noetus and the Noetians, and although it does not contain any mention
of Dositheus or the Dositheans, this may have been given in the part
which has been cut out of Book X.[67] If that were the case, or if
Photius has made any mistake in the matter, as one might easily do
when we consider that all the early heresiologies begin with Jewish
and Samaritan sects, the only real discrepancy between our text and
Photius’ description of Hippolytus’ work is in the matter of length.
But it is by no means certain that Photius ever saw the whole work
put together, and it is plain that he had never seen or had forgotten
the first four books dealing with the philosophers, the mysteries and
the charlatans. Without these, and without the summary, Books V to IX
do not work out to more than 70,000 words in all, and this might well
seem a mere “booklet” to a man then engaged in the compilation of his
huge _Bibliotheca_. Whether, then, Hippolytus did or did not reduce
to writing the exposition of heresies which he made in his youth, it
seems probable that all certain trace of this exposition is lost. It is
certainly not to be recognized in pseudo-Tertullian’s _Adversus Omnes
Hæreses_, and the work of Hippolytus recorded by Photius was probably a
copy of our text in a more or less complete form.


                       5. THE STYLE OF THE WORK

Photius’ remark that Hippolytus did not keep to the Attic style is an
understatement of the case with regard to our text. Jacobi, its first
critic, was so struck by the number of “Latinisms” that he found in it
as to conjecture that it is nothing but a Greek translation of a Latin
original.[68] This is so unlikely as to be well-nigh impossible if
Hippolytus were indeed the author; and no motive for such translation
can be imagined unless it were made at a fairly late period. In that
case, we should expect to find it full of words and expressions used
only in Byzantine times when the Greek language had become debased by
Slav and Oriental admixtures. This, however, is not the case with our
text, and only one distinctly Byzantine phrase has rewarded a careful
search.[69] On the other hand neologisms are not rare, especially in
Book X,[70] and everything goes to show the truth of Cruice’s remark
that the author was evidently not a trained writer. This is by no means
inconsistent with the theory that the whole work is by Hippolytus,
and is the more probable if we conclude that it was originally spoken
instead of written.

This is confirmed when we look into the construction of the author’s
sentences. They are drawn out by a succession of relative clauses
to an extent very rare among even late Greek writers, more than one
sentence covering 20 or 30 lines of the printed page without a full
stop, while the usual rules as to the place and order of the words
are often neglected. Another peculiarity of style is the constant
piling up of several similes or tropes where only one would suffice,
which is very distinctly marked in the passages whenever the author
is speaking for long in his own person and without quoting the words
of another. In all these we seem to be listening to the words of a
fluent but rather laborious orator. Thus in Book I he compares the
joy that he expects to find in his work to that of an athlete gaining
the crown, of a merchant selling his goods after a long voyage, of a
husbandsman with his hardly won crops, and of a despised prophet seeing
his predictions fulfilled.[71] So in Book V, after mentioning a book
by Orpheus called _Bacchica_ otherwise unknown, he goes on to speak of
“the mystic rite of Celeus and Triptolemus and Demeter and Core and
Dionysus in Eleusis,”[72] when any practised writer would have said the
Eleusinian mysteries simply. A similar piling up of imagery is found in
Book VIII, where he speaks of the seed of the fig-tree as “a refuge for
the terror-stricken, a shelter for the naked, a veil for modesty, and
the sought-for produce to which the Lord came in search of fruit three
times and found none.”[73] But it is naturally in the phrases of the
pastoral address with which Book X ends that the most salient examples
occur. Thus, the unconverted are told that by being instructed in the
knowledge of the true God, they will escape the imminent menace of the
judgment fire, and the unillumined vision of gloomy Tartarus, and the
burning of the everlasting shore of the Gehenna of fire, and the eye of
the Tartaruchian angels in eternal punishment, and the worm that ever
coils as if for food round the body whence it was bred,[74]--or, as he
might have said in one word, the horrors of hell.

Less distinctive than this, although equally noticeable, is the play
of words which is here frequently employed. This is not unknown among
other ecclesiastical writers of the time, and seems to have struck
Charles Kingsley when, fresh from a perusal of St. Augustine, he
describes him as “by a sheer mistranslation” twisting one of the Psalms
to mean what it never meant in the writer’s mind, and what it never
could mean, and then punning on the Latin version.[75] Hippolytus
when writing in his own person makes but moderate use of this figure.
Sometimes he does so legitimately enough, as when he speaks of the
Gnostics initiating a convert into their systems and delivering to him
“the perfection of wickedness”--the word used for perfection having the
mystic or technical meaning of initiation as well as the more ordinary
one of completion[76]; or when he says that the measurements of stellar
distances by Ptolemy have led to the construction of measureless
“heresies.”[77] At others he consciously puns on the double meaning of
a word, as when he says that those who venture upon orgies are not far
from the wrath (ὀργή) of God.[78] Sometimes, again, he is led away by
a merely accidental similarity of sounds as when he tries to connect
the name of the Docetæ, which he knows is taken from δοκεῖν, “to seem,”
with “the _beam_ (δοκός) in the eye” of the Sermon on the Mount.[79] He
makes a second and more obvious pun on the same word later when he says
that the Docetæ do more than _seem_ to be mad; but he is most shameless
when he derives “prophet” from προφαίνειν instead of πρόφημι[80]--a
perversion which one can hardly imagine entering into the head of any
one with the most modest acquaintance with Greek grammar.

But these puns, bad as they are, are venial compared with some of
the authors from whom he quotes. None can equal in this respect the
efforts of the Naassene author, whose plays upon words and audacious
derivations might put to the blush those in the _Cratylus_. Adamas and
Adam, Corybas and κορυφή (the head), Geryon and Γηρυόνην (“flowing
from earth”), Mesopotamia and “a river from the middle,” Papas and
παῦε, παῦε (“Cease! cease!”), Αἰπόλος (“goat herd”) and ἀεὶ πολῶν
(“ever turning”), _naas_ (“serpent”) and ναός (“temple”), Euphrates
and εὐφραίνει (“he rejoices”) are but a few of the terrible puns he
perpetrates.[81] The Peratic author is more sober in this respect,
and yet he, or perhaps Hippolytus for him, derives the name of the
sect from περᾶν (“to pass beyond”),[82] although Theodoret with
more plausibility would take it from the nationality of its teacher
Euphrates the Peratic or Mede; and the chapter on the Sethians does
not contain a single pun. Yet that on Justinus makes up for this by
deriving the name of the god Priapus from πριοποιέω, a word made
up for the occasion.[83] “The great Gnostics of Hadrian’s time,”
viz.:--Basilides, Marcion and Valentinus, seem to have had souls above
such puerilities; but the Docetic author resumes the habit with a
specially daring parallel between Βάτος (“a bush”) and βάτος (Hera’s
robe or “mist”)[84] and Monoimus the Arab follows suit with a sort
of jingle between the Decalogue and the δεκάπληγος or ten plagues
of Egypt, which would hardly have occurred to any one without the
Semitic taste for assonance.[85] Of the less-quoted writers there is
no occasion to speak, because there are either no extracts from their
works given in our text or they are too short for us to judge from them
whether they, too, were given to punning.

Apart from such comparatively small matters, however, the difference in
style between the several Gnostic writers here quoted is well marked.
Nothing can be more singular at first sight than the way in which the
Naassene author expresses himself. It seems to the reader on the first
perusal of his lucubrations as if the writer had made up his mind to
follow no train of thought beyond the limits of a single sentence.
Beginning with the idea of the First Man, which we find running like
a thread through so many Eastern creeds, from that of the Cabalists
among the Jews to the Manichæans who perhaps took it directly from
its primitive source in Babylon,[86] he immediately turns from this
to declare the tripartite division of the universe and everything it
contains, including the souls and natures of men, and to inculcate the
strictest asceticism. Yet all this is written round, so to speak, a
hymn to Attis which he declares relates to the Mysteries of the Mother
with several allusions to the most secret rites of the Eleusinian
Demeter and, as it would appear, of those of the Greek Isis. The
Peratic author, on the other hand, also teaches a tripartite division
of things and souls, but draws his proofs not from the same mystic
sources as the Naassene but from what Hippolytus declares to be the
system of the astrologers. This system, which is not even hinted at in
any avowedly astrological work, is that the stars are the cause of all
that happens here below, and that we can only escape from their sway
into one of the two worlds lying above ours by the help of Christ, here
called the Perfect Serpent, existing as an intermediary between the
Father of All and Matter. Yet this doctrine, which we can also read
without much forcing of the text into the rhapsody of the Naassene, is
stated with all the precision and sobriety of a scientific proposition,
and is as entirely free from the fervour and breathlessness of the
last-named writer as it is from his perpetual allusions to the Greek
and especially to the Alexandrian and Anatolian mythology.[87] Both
these again are perfectly different in style from the “Sethian” author
from whom Hippolytus gives us long extracts, and who seems to have
trusted mainly to an imagery which is entirely opposed to all Western
conventions of modesty.[88] Yet all three aver the strongest belief
in the Divinity and Divine Mission of Jesus, whom they identify with
the Good Serpent, which was according to many modern authors the chief
material object of adoration in every heathen temple in Asia Minor.[89]
They are, therefore, rightly numbered by Hippolytus among the Ophite
heresies, and seem to be founded upon traditions current throughout
Western Asia which even now are not perhaps quite extinct. Yet each of
the three authors quoted in our text writes in a perfectly different
style from his two fellow heresiarchs, and this alone is sufficient to
remove all doubt as to the genuineness of the document.

These three Ophite chapters are taken first because in our text they
begin the heresiology strictly so called.[90] As has been said, the
present writer believes them to be an interpolation made at the last
moment by the author, and by no means the most valuable, though they
are perhaps the most curious part of the book. They resemble much,
however, in thought the quotations in our text attributed to Simon
Magus, and although the ideas apparent in them differ in material
points, yet there seems to be between the two sets of documents a
kind of family likeness in the occasional use of bombastic language
and unclean imagery. But when we turn from these to the extracts from
the works attributed to Valentinus and Basilides which Hippolytus
gives us, a change is immediately apparent. Here we have dignity of
language corresponding to dignity of thought, and in the case of
Valentinus especially the diction is quite equal to the passages from
the discourses of that most eloquent heretic quoted by Clement of
Alexandria. We feel on reading them that we have indeed travelled from
the Orontes to the Tiber, and the difference in style should by itself
convince the most sceptical critic at once of the good faith of our
careless author and of the authenticity of the sources from which he
has collected his information.


                       6. THE VALUE OF THE WORK

What interest has a work such as this of Hippolytus for us at the
present day? In the first place it preserves for us many precious
relics of a literature which before its discovery seemed lost for ever.
The pagan hymn to Attis and the Gnostic one on the Divine Mission
of Jesus, both appearing in Book V, are finds of the highest value
for the study of the religious beliefs of the early centuries of our
Era, and with these go many fragments of hardly less importance,
including the Pindaric ode in the same book. Not less useful or less
unexpected are the revelations in the same book of the true meaning
of the syncretistic worship of Attis and Cybele, and the disclosure
here made of the supreme mystery of the Eleusinian rites, which we now
know for the first time culminated in the representation of a divine
marriage and of the subsequent birth of an infant god, coupled with the
symbolical display of an “ear of corn reaped in silence.” For the study
of classical antiquity as well as for the science of religions such
facts are of the highest value.

But all this will for most of us yield in interest to the picture
which our text gives us of the struggles of Christianity against its
external and internal foes during the first three centuries. So far
from this period having been one of quiet growth and development for
the infant Church, we see her in Hippolytus’ pages exposed not only to
fierce if sporadic persecution from pagan emperors, but also to the
steady and persistent rivalry of scores of competing schools led by
some of the greatest minds of the age, and all combining some of the
main tenets of Christianity with the relics of heathenism. We now know,
too, that she was not always able to present an unbroken front to these
violent or insidious assailants. In the highest seats of the Church,
as we now learn for the first time, there were divisions on matters of
faith which anticipated in some measure those which nearly rent her
in twain after the promulgation of the Creed of Nicæa. Such a schism
as that between the churches of Hippolytus and Callistus must have
given many an opportunity to those foes who were in some sort of her
own household; while round the contest, like the irregular auxiliaries
of a regular army, swarmed a crowd of wonder-workers, diviners, and
other exploiters of the public credulity, of whose doings we have
before gained some insight from writers like Lucian and Apuleius, but
whose methods and practices are for the first time fully described by
Hippolytus.

The conversion of the whole Empire under Constantine broke once for all
the power of these enemies of the Church. Schisms were still to occur,
but grievous as they were, they happily proved impotent to destroy the
essential unity of Christendom. The heathen faiths and the Gnostic
sects derived from them were soon to wither like plants that had no
root, and both they and the charlatans whose doings our author details
were relentlessly hunted down by the State which had once given them
shelter: while if the means used for this purpose were not such as the
purer Christian ethics would now approve, we must remember that these
means would probably have proved ineffective had not Christian teaching
already destroyed the hold of these older beliefs on the seething
populations of the Empire. That the adolescent Church should thus have
been enabled to triumph over all her enemies may seem to many a better
proof of her divine guidance than the miraculous powers once attributed
to her. We may not all of us be able to believe that a rainstorm put
out the fire on which Thekla was to be burned alive, or that the
crocodiles in the tank in the arena into which she was cast were struck
by lightning and floated to the surface dead.[91] Still less can we
credit that the portraits of St. Theodore and other military saints
left their place in the palace of the Queen of Persia and walked about
in human form.[92] Such stories are for the most of us either pious
fables composed for edification or half-forgotten records of natural
events seen through the mist of exaggeration and misrepresentation
common in the Oriental mind. But that the Church which began like a
grain of mustard seed should in so short a time come to overshadow the
whole civilized world may well seem when we consider the difficulties
in her way a greater miracle than any of those recorded in the
Apocryphal Gospels and Acts; and the full extent of these difficulties
we should not have known save for Mynas’ discovery of our text.


                               FOOTNOTES

[Footnote 1: pp. 63, 117, 119; Vol. II, 148, 150 _infra_.]

[Footnote 2: Hippolytus, like all Greek writers of his age, must have
been entirely ignorant of the Egyptian religion of Pharaonic times,
which was then extinct. The only “Egyptian” Mysteries of which he could
have known anything were those of the Alexandrian Triad, Osiris, Isis,
and Horus, for which see the translator’s _Forerunners and Rivals of
Christianity_, Cambridge, 1915, I, c. 2.]

[Footnote 3: The pre-Christian origins of Gnosticism and its relations
with Christianity are fully dealt with in the work quoted in the last
note.]

[Footnote 4: Save for a few sentences quoted in patristic writings,
the only extant Gnostic works are the Coptic collection in the British
Museum and the Bodleian at Oxford, known as the _Pistis Sophia_ and the
Bruce Papyrus respectively. There are said to be some other fragments
of Coptic MSS. of Gnostic origin in Berlin which have not yet been
published.]

[Footnote 5: An account by the present writer of this worship in Roman
times is given in the _Journal_ of the Royal Asiatic Society for
October 1917, pp. 695 ff.]

[Footnote 6: II, pp. 125 ff. _infra_.]

[Footnote 7: II, p. 124 _infra_.]

[Footnote 8: The facsimile of a page of the MS. is given in Bishop
Wordsworth’s _Hippolytus and the Church of Rome_, London, 1880.]

[Footnote 9: B. E. Miller, _Origenis Philosophumena sive Omnium
Hæresium Refutatio_, Oxford, 1851.]

[Footnote 10: L. Duncker and F. G. Schneidewin, _Philosophumena_, etc.
Göttingen, 1856-1859.]

[Footnote 11: P. M. Cruice, _Philosophumena_, etc. Paris, 1860.]

[Footnote 12: p. 34 _infra_.]

[Footnote 13: _Deutsche Zeitschrift für Christliche Wissenschaft und
Christliches Leben_, 1852.]

[Footnote 14: References to nearly all the contributions to this
controversy are correctly given in the Prolegomena to Cruice’s edition,
pp. x ff. An English translation of Dr. Döllinger’s _Hippolytus und
Kallistus_ was published by Plummer, Edinburgh, 1876, and brings the
controversy up to date. Cf. also the Bibliography in Salmon’s article
“Hippolytus Romanus” in Smith and Wace’s _Dictionary of Christian
Biography_ (hereafter quoted as _D.C.B._).]

[Footnote 15: See the English translation: _Early History of the
Christian Church_, London, 1909, I, pp. 227 ff.]

[Footnote 16: This is confirmed by Dom. Chapman in the _Catholic
Encyclopedia_, _s. vv._ “Hippolytus,” “Callistus.”]

[Footnote 17: The statue and its inscription are also reproduced by
Bishop Wordsworth in the work above quoted.]

[Footnote 18: _Hist. Eccles._, VI, c. 20.]

[Footnote 19: _Haer. Fab._, III, 1.]

[Footnote 20: _Peristeph II._ For the chronological difficulty that
this involves see Salmon, _D.C.B._, _s.v._ “Hippolytus Romanus.”]

[Footnote 21: Duchesne, _op. cit._, p. 233.]

[Footnote 22: “The Cross-references in the Philosophumena,”
_Hermathena_, Dublin, No. XI, 1885, pp. 389 ff.]

[Footnote 23: “Die Gnostischen Quellen Hippolyts” in Gebhardt and
Harnack’s _Texte und Untersuchungen_, VI, (1890).]

[Footnote 24: _Introduction à l’Étude du Gnosticisme_, Paris, 1903, p.
68; _Gnostiques et Gnosticisme_, Paris, 1913, p. 167.]

[Footnote 25: The theory that all existing things come from an
“indivisible point” which our text gives as that of Simon Magus and
of Basilides reappears in the Bruce Papyrus. Basilides’ remark about
only 1 in 1000 and 2 in 10,000 being fit for the higher mysteries
is repeated _verbatim_ in the _Pistis Sophia_, p. 354, Copt. Cf.
_Forerunners_, II, 172, 292, n. 1.]

[Footnote 26: _Scottish Review_, Vol. XXII, No. 43 (July 1893).]

[Footnote 27: p. 35 _infra_.]

[Footnote 28: p. 39 _infra_.]

[Footnote 29: p. 41; II, p. 83 _infra_.]

[Footnote 30: II, pp. 119, 151 _infra_.]

[Footnote 31: For the arithmomancy see p. 83 ff. _infra_; the
borrowings from Sextus begin on p. 70, the tricks of the magicians on
p. 92. For other mistakes, see the quotation about the Furies in II,
p. 23, which he ascribes to Pythagoras, but which is certainly from
Heraclitus (as Plutarch tells us), and the Categories of Aristotle
which a few pages earlier are also assigned to Pythagoras. His
treatment of Josephus will be dealt with in its place.]

[Footnote 32: This is especially the case with the story of Callistus,
as to which see II, pp. 124 ff. _infra_.]

[Footnote 33: _Haer._ xxxi., p. 205, Oehler.]

[Footnote 34: _Haeret. fab._ I, 17-24.]

[Footnote 35: πάλαι.]

[Footnote 36: In _D.C.B._, _art. cit. supra_.]

[Footnote 37: See Oehler’s edition of Tertullian’s works, II, 751
ff. The parallel passages are set out in convenient form in Bishop
Wordsworth’s book before quoted.]

[Footnote 38: _Études sur de nouveaux documents historiques empruntés à
l’ouvrage récemment découvert des Philosophumena_, Paris, 1853.]

[Footnote 39: II, pp. 43, 47 _infra_.]

[Footnote 40: ὁμιλοῦντος Εἰρηναίου. For the whole quotation, see
Photius, _Bibliotheca_, 121 (Bekker’s ed.).]

[Footnote 41: Tertullian (Oehler’s ed.), II, 751. St. Jerome in quoting
this passage says the heretics have mangled the Gospel.]

[Footnote 42: Thus the tractate makes Simon Magus call his Helena
Sophia, and says that Basilides named his Supreme God Abraxas. It knows
nothing of the God-who-is-not and the three Sonhoods of our text:
and it gives an entirely different account of the Sethians, whom it
calls Sethitæ, and says that they identified Christ with Seth. In this
heresy, too, it introduces Sophia, and makes her the author of the
Flood.]

[Footnote 43: Euseb., _Hist. Eccles._ IV, c. 22. He is quoting
Hegesippus. See also Origen _contra Celsum_, VI, c. 11.]

[Footnote 44: II, p. 3 _infra_.]

[Footnote 45: II, pp. 61 ff. _infra_.]

[Footnote 46: pp. 103, 119; II, pp. 1, 57, 148, 149 _infra_.]

[Footnote 47: p. 66 _infra_.]

[Footnote 48: p. 117 _infra_.]

[Footnote 49: II, p. 97 _infra_.]

[Footnote 50: II, p. 116 _infra_.]

[Footnote 51: p. 37 _infra_.]

[Footnote 52: p. 115 _infra_.]

[Footnote 53: II, p. 20. In II, p. 49, it is mentioned in connection
with the heresy of Marcus, and on p. 104 the same theory is attributed
to the “Egyptians.”]

[Footnote 54: p. 66; II, pp. 21, 64 _infra_.]

[Footnote 55: ἀγαπητοί, p. 113 and p. 180 _infra_. It also occurs on p.
125 of Vol. II in the same connection.]

[Footnote 56: λόγος, pp. 107 and 120 _infra_. He uses the word in the
same sense on p. 113.]

[Footnote 57: p. 35 _infra_.]

[Footnote 58: p. 117 _infra_.]

[Footnote 59: Pseudo-Hieronymus, Isidorus Hispalensis, and Honorius
Augustodunensis, like Epiphanius, begin their catalogues of heresies
with the Jewish and Samaritan sects. Philastrius leads off with the
Ophites and Sethians whom he declares to be pre-Christian, and then
goes on to Dositheus, and the Jewish “heresies” before coming to Simon
Magus. Pseudo-Augustine and Prædestinatus begin with Simon Magus and
include no pre-Christian sects. See Oehler, _Corpus Hæreseologicus_,
Berlin, 1866, t. i.]

[Footnote 60: II, p. 150 _infra_.]

[Footnote 61: δόγματα, p. _cit_.]

[Footnote 62: So Origen, _Cont. Cels._, VI, 24, speaks of “the very
insignificant sect called Ophites.”]

[Footnote 63: II, p. 116 _infra_, where he says that he did not think
them worth refuting.]

[Footnote 64: For the search made both by pagan and Christian
inquisitors for their opponents’ books, see _Forerunners_, II, 12.]

[Footnote 65: See n. on p. 51 _infra_.]

[Footnote 66: Cf. Salmon in _D.C.B._, s.v. “Hippolytus Romanus.”]

[Footnote 67: Hippolytus’ denial of the Pauline authorship of the
Epistle to the Hebrews probably appeared in some work other than
our text. Or it may have been cut out by the scribe as offensive to
orthodoxy.]

[Footnote 68: A flagrant case is to be found in p. 81 Cr. where Π (P)
has, according to Schneidewin, been written for R, a mistake that
could only be made by one used to Roman letters. Cf. _Serpens_ and
_serviens_, p. 487 Cr.]

[Footnote 69: ἀφότε for ἀφ’ οὗ, p. 453 Cr.]

[Footnote 70: _e. g._ φυσιογονική (p. 9 Cr.), κοπιαταὶ (p. 86),
ἰχθυοκόλλα (p. 103), ἀρχανθρώπος (p. 153), ἀπρονοήτος (p. 176),
κλεψιλόγος (p. 370), πρωτογενέτειρα (p. 489), κατιδιοποιούμενος (p.
500), ἀδίστακτος (p. 511), ταρταρούχος (p. 523).]

[Footnote 71: p. 35 _infra_.]

[Footnote 72: p. 166 _infra_.]

[Footnote 73: II, p. 99 _infra_.]

[Footnote 74: II, pp. 177 ff.]

[Footnote 75: See Augustine’s sermon in _Hypatia_.]

[Footnote 76: p. 33 _infra_.]

[Footnote 77: p. 83 _infra_.]

[Footnote 78: II, p. 2 _infra_.]

[Footnote 79: II, p. 99 _infra_.]

[Footnote 80: II, p. 175 _infra_.]

[Footnote 81: See pp. 122, 133, 134, 135, 137, 142, 143 _infra_.]

[Footnote 82: p. 154 _infra_.]

[Footnote 83: p. 178 _infra_.]

[Footnote 84: II, p. 102.]

[Footnote 85: II, p. 109.]

[Footnote 86: See _Forerunners_, I, lxi ff.]

[Footnote 87: This applies to the chief Peratic author quoted. The long
catalogue connecting personages in the Greek mythology with particular
stars is, as is said later, by another hand, and is introduced by a
bombastic utterance like that attributed to Simon Magus.]

[Footnote 88: Hippolytus attributes it to the Orphics; but see de Faye
for another explanation.]

[Footnote 89: _Forerunners_, II, 49.]

[Footnote 90: Justinus is left out of the account because he does
not seem to have been an Ophite at all. The Serpent in his system is
entirely evil, and therefore not an object of worship, and his sect is
probably much later than the other three in the same book.]

[Footnote 91: _Acts of Paul and Thekla_, _passim_.]

[Footnote 92: E. A. T. Wallis Budge, _Miscellaneous Coptic Texts in
Dialect of Upper Egypt_, London, 1915, pp. 579 ff.]




                               BOOK I[1]

                           THE PHILOSOPHERS


[Sidenote: p. 1, Cruice.] These are the contents[2] of the First Part[3]
of the Refutation of all Heresies;

What were the tenets of the natural philosophers and who these were;
and what those of the ethicists and who these were; and what those of
the dialecticians and who the dialecticians were.

Now the natural philosophers mentioned are Thales, Pythagoras,
Empedocles, Heraclitus, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Archelaus,
Parmenides, Leucippus, Democritus, Xenophanes, Ecphantus, and
[Sidenote: p. 2.] Hippo. The ethicists are Socrates, pupil of Archelaus
the physicist and Plato, pupil of Socrates. These mingled together the
three kinds of philosophy. The dialecticians are Aristotle, pupil of
Plato and the founder of dialectics, and the Stoics Chrysippus and Zeno.

Epicurus, however, maintained an opinion almost exactly contrary
to all these. So did Pyrrho the Academic[4] who asserts the
incomprehensibility of all things. There are also the Brachmans[5]
among the Indians, the Druids among the Celts, and Hesiod.


                              (PROÆMIUM)

No fable made famous by the Greeks is to be neglected. For even those
opinions of theirs which lack consistency are believed through the
extravagant madness of the heretics, who, from hiding in silence their
own unspeakable mysteries, are supposed by many to worship God. Whose
opinions also we aforetime set forth within measure, not displaying
them in detail but refuting them in the rough,[6] as we did not hold it
fit to bring their unspeakable deeds [Sidenote: p. 3.] to light. This
we did that, as we set forth their tenets by hints only, they, becoming
ashamed lest by telling outright their secrets we should prove them
to be godless, might abate somewhat from their unreasoned purpose and
unlawful enterprise.[7] But since I see that they have not been put to
shame by our clemency, and have not considered God’s long-suffering
under their blasphemies, I am forced, in order that they may either
be shamed into repentance, or remaining as they are may be rightly
judged, to proceed to show their ineffable mysteries which they impart
to those candidates for initiation who are thoroughly trustworthy.
Yet they do not previously avow them, unless they have enslaved such
a one by keeping him long in suspense and preparing him by blasphemy
against the true God,[8] and they see him longing for the jugglery of
the disclosure. And then, when they have proved him to be bound fast
by iniquity,[9] they initiate him and impart to him the perfection
of evil things,[10] first binding him by oath neither to tell nor to
impart them to any one unless he too has been enslaved in the same
way. Yet from him to whom they have been only communicated, no oath is
[Sidenote: p. 4.] longer necessary. For whoso has submitted to learn
and to receive their final mysteries will by the act itself and by
his own conscience be bound not to utter them to others. For were he
to declare to any man such an offence, he would neither be reckoned
longer among men, nor thought worthy any more to behold the light.
Which things also are such an offence that even the dumb animals do not
attempt them, as we shall say in its place.[11] But since the argument
compels us to enter into the case very deeply, we do not think fit to
hold our peace, but setting forth in detail the opinions of all, we
shall keep silence on none. And it seems good to us to spare no labour
even if thereby the tale be lengthened. For we shall leave behind us
no small help to the life of men against further error, when all see
clearly the hidden and unspeakable orgies of which the heretics are
the stewards and which they impart only to the initiated. But none
other will refute these things than the Holy Spirit handed down in the
Church which the Apostles having first received did distribute to those
who rightly believed. Whose successors we chance to be and partakers
of the same grace of high priesthood[12] and of [Sidenote: p. 5.]
teaching and accounted guardians of the Church. Wherefore we close not
our eyes nor abstain from straight speech; but neither do we tire in
working with our whole soul and body worthily to return worthy service
to the beneficent God. Nor do we make full return save that we slacken
not in that which is entrusted to us; but we fill full the measures
of our opportunity and without envy communicate to all whatsoever the
Holy Spirit shall provide. Thus we not only bring into the open by
refutation the affairs of the enemy;[13] but also whatever the truth
has received by the Father’s grace and ministered to men. These things
we preach[14] as one who is not ashamed, both interpreting them by
discourse and making them to bear witness by writings.

In order then, as we have said by anticipation, that we may show these
men to be godless alike in purpose, character and deed, and from what
source their schemes have come--and because they have in their attempts
taken nothing from the Holy Scriptures, nor is it from guarding the
succession of any saint that they have been hurried into [Sidenote: p.
6.] these things, but their theories[15] take their origin from the
wisdom of the Greeks, from philosophizing opinions,[16] from would-be
mysteries and from wandering astrologers--it seems then proper that we
first set forth the tenets of the philosophers of the Greeks and point
out to our readers[17] which of them are the oldest and most reverent
towards the Divinity.[18] Then, that we should match[19] each heresy
with a particular opinion so as to show how the protagonist of the
heresy, meeting with these schemes, gained advantage by seizing their
principles and being driven on from them to worse things constructed
his own system.[20] Now the undertaking is full of toil and requires
much research. But we shall not be found wanting. For at the last
it will give us much joy, as with the athlete who has won the crown
with much labour, or the merchant who has gained profit after great
tossing of the sea, or the husbandman who gets the benefit of his
crops from the sweat of his brow, or the prophet who after reproaches
and insults sees his predictions come to pass.[21] We will therefore
begin by declaring which of the Greeks first made demonstration of
natural philosophy. For of them especially have the protagonists of
the heretics become the plagiarists, as we [Sidenote: p. 7.] shall
afterwards show by setting them side by side. And when we have restored
to each of these pioneers his own, we shall put the heresiarchs beside
them naked and unseemly.[22]


                             1. _Thales._

It is said that Thales the Milesian, one of the seven sages, was
the first to take in hand natural philosophy.[23] He said that the
beginning and end of the universe was water;[24] for that from its
solidification and redissolution all things have been constructed and
that all are borne about by it. And that from it also come earthquakes
and the turnings about of the stars and the motions of the winds.[25]
And that all things are formed and flow in accordance with the nature
of the first cause of generation; but that the Divinity is that which
has neither beginning nor end.[26] Thales, having devoted himself to
the system of the stars and to an enquiry into them, became for the
Greeks the first who was responsible for this branch of learning.
And he, gazing upon the heavens and saying that he was apprehending
[Sidenote: p. 8.] with care the things above, fell into a well;
whereupon a certain servant maid of the name of Thratta[27] laughed at
him and said: “While intent on beholding things in heaven, he does not
see what is at his feet.” And he lived about the time of Crœsus.


                           2. _Pythagoras._

And not far from this time there flourished another philosophy founded
by Pythagoras, who some say was a Samian. They call it the Italic
because Pythagoras, fleeing from Polycrates, the tyrant of Samos,
took up his abode in a city of Italy and there spent his life. Whose
successors in the school did not differ much from him in judgment. And
he, after having enquired into physics, combined with it astronomy,
geometry and music.[28] And thus he showed that unity is God,[29] and
after curiously studying the nature of number, he said that the cosmos
makes melody and was put together by harmony, and he first reduced
the movement of the seven stars[30] to rhythm and melody. Wondering,
however, at the arrangement of the universals,[31] he [Sidenote: p. 9.]
expected his disciples to keep silence as to the first things learned
by them, as if they were mystæ of the universe coming into the cosmos.
Thereafter when it seemed that they had partaken sufficiently of the
schooling of the discourses, and could themselves philosophize about
stars and Nature, he, having judged them purified, bade them speak.
He divided the disciples into two classes, and called these Esoterics
and those Exoterics. To the first-named he entrusted the more complete
teaching, to the others the more restricted. He applied himself[32]
to magic[33] also, as they say, and himself invented a philosophy of
the origin of Nature,[34] based upon certain numbers and measures,
saying that the origin of the arithmetical philosophy comprised this
method by synthesis. The first number became a principle which is
one, illimitable, incomprehensible, and contains within itself all
the numbers that can come to infinity by multiplication.[35] But the
first unit was by hypothesis the origin of numbers, the which is a
male monad begetting like a father all the other numbers. In the
second place is the dyad, a female number, and the same is called even
by [Sidenote: p. 10.] the arithmeticians. In the third place is the
triad, a male number, and it has been called odd by the arithmeticians’
decree. After all these is the tetrad, a female number, and this is
also called even, because it is female. Therefore all the numbers
derived from the genus[36] (now the illimitable genus is “number”)
are four, from which was constructed, according to them, the perfect
number, the decad. For the 1, 2, 3, 4 become 10 if for each number
its appropriate name be substantially kept.[37] This decad Pythagoras
said was a sacred Tetractys, a source of everlasting Nature containing
roots within itself, and that from the same number all the numbers have
their beginning. For the 11 and the 12 and the rest share the beginning
of their being from the 10. The four divisions of the same decad, the
perfect number, are called number, monad,[38] square[39] and cube. The
conjunctions and minglings of [Sidenote: p. 11.] which make for the
birth of increase and complete naturally the fruitful number. For when
the square is multiplied[40] by itself, it becomes a square squared;
when into the cube, the square cubed; when the cube is multiplied by
the cube, it becomes a cube cubed. So that all the numbers from which
comes the birth of things which are, are seven; to wit: number, monad,
square, cube, square of square, cube of square and cube of cube.

He declared also that the soul is immortal and that there is a change
from one body to another.[41] Wherefore he said that he himself had
been before Trojan times Aethalides,[42] and that in the Trojan era
he was Euphorbus, and after that Hermotimus the Samian, after which
Pyrrho of Delos, and fifthly Pythagoras. But Diodorus the Eretrian
and Aristoxenus the writer on music[43] say that Pythagoras went to
visit Zaratas[44] the Chaldæan; and Zaratas explained to him that
there are from the beginning two causes of things that are, a father
and mother: and that the father is light and the mother, darkness: and
the divisions of the light are hot, dry, light (in weight) and swift;
but those of the darkness cold, moist, heavy and slow. From these the
[Sidenote: p. 12.] whole cosmos was constructed, to wit: from a female
and a male; and that the nature of the cosmos[45] is according to
musical harmony, wherefore the sun makes his journey rhythmically. And
about the things which come into being from the earth and cosmos, they
say Zaratas spoke thus: there are two demons,[46] a heavenly one and
an earthly. Of these the earthly one sent on high a thing born from
the earth which is water; but that the heavenly fire partook of the
air, hot and cold. Wherefore, he says, none of these things destroys
or pollutes the soul, for the same are the substance of all. And it is
said that Pythagoras ordered that beans should not be eaten, because
Zaratas said that at the beginning and formation of all things when
the earth was still being constructed and put together, the bean was
produced. And he says that a proof of this is, that if one chews a bean
to pulp and puts it in the sun for some time (for this plays a direct
part in the matter), it will give out the smell of human seed. And he
says that another proof is even clearer. If when the bean is in flower,
we take the bean [Sidenote: p. 13.] and its blossom, put it into a jar,
anoint this, bury it in earth, and in a few days dig it up, we shall
see it at first having the form of a woman’s _pudenda_ and afterwards
on close examination a child’s head growing with it.

Pythagoras perished at Crotona in Italy having been burned along with
his disciples. And he had this custom that when any one came to him
as a disciple, he had to sell his possessions and deposit the money
under seal with Pythagoras, and remain silent sometimes for three and
sometimes for five years while he was learning. But on being again set
free, he mixed with the others and remained a disciple and took his
meals along with them. But if he did not, he took back what belonged to
him and was cast out. Now the Esoterics were called Pythagoreans and
the others Pythagorists. And of his disciples who escaped the burning
were Lysis and Archippus and Zamolxis, Pythagoras’ house-slave, who
is said to have taught the Druids among the Celts to cultivate the
Pythagorean philosophy. And they say that Pythagoras learned numbers
and measures from the Egyptians, and being struck with the plausible,
imposing and with difficulty disclosed wisdom of the priests,
[Sidenote: p. 14.] he imitated them also in enjoining silence and,
lodging his disciples in cells, made them lead a solitary life.[47]


                        3. _About Empedocles._

But Empedocles, born after these men, also said many things about the
nature of demons, and how they being very many go about managing things
upon the earth. He said that the beginning of the universe was Strife
and Friendship and that the intellectual fire of the monad is God,
and that all things were constructed from fire and will be resolved
into fire.[48] In which opinion the Stoics also nearly agree, since
they expect an ecpyrosis. But most of all he accepted the change into
different bodies, saying:

    “For truly a boy I became, and a maiden,
    And bush, and bird of prey, and fish,
    A wanderer from the salt sea.”[49]

[Sidenote: p. 15.] He declared that all souls transmigrated into all
living things.[50] For Pythagoras the teacher of these men said
he himself had been Euphorbus who fought at Ilion, and claimed to
recognize the shield.[51] This of Empedocles.


                        4. _About Heraclitus._

But Heraclitus of Ephesus, a physicist, bewailed all things,
accusing the ignorance of all life and of all men, and pitying the
life of mortals. For he claimed that he knew all things and other
men nothing.[52] And he also made statements nearly in accord with
Empedocles, as he said that Discord and Friendship were the beginning
of all things, and that the intellectual fire was God and that all
things were borne in upon one another and did not stand still. And
like Empedocles he said that every place of ours was filled with evil
things, and that these come as far as the moon extending from the
place surrounding the earth, but go no further, since the whole place
above the moon is very pure.[53] Thus, too, it seemed to Heraclitus.
[Sidenote: p. 16.] And after these came other physicists whose opinions
we do not think it needful to declare as they are in no way incongruous
with those aforesaid. But since the school was by no means small,
and many physicists afterwards sprang from these, all discoursing in
different fashion on the nature of the universe, it seems also fit to
us, now that we have set forth the philosophy derived from Pythagoras,
to return in order of succession to the opinions of those who adhered
to Thales, and after recounting the same to come to the ethical
and logical philosophies, whereof Socrates founded the ethical and
Aristotle the dialectic.


                        5. _About Anaximander._

Now Anaximander was a hearer of Thales. He was Anaximander of Miletus,
son of Praxiades.[54] He said that the beginning of the things that are
was a certain nature of the Boundless from which came into being the
heavens and the ordered worlds[55] within them. And that this principle
is eternal and grows not old and encompasses all the ordered worlds.
And he says time is limited by birth, [Sidenote: p. 17.] substance,[56]
and death. He said that the Boundless is a principle and element of the
things that are and was the first to call it by the name of principle.
But that there is an eternal movement towards Him wherein it happens
that the heavens are born. And that the earth is a heavenly body[57]
supported by nothing, but remaining in its place by reason of its equal
distance from everything. And that its form is a watery cylinder[58]
like a stone pillar; and that we tread on one of its surfaces, but that
there is another opposite to it. And that the stars are a circle of
fire distinct from the fire in the cosmos, but surrounded by air. And
that certain fiery exhalations exist in those places where the stars
appear, and by the obstruction of these exhalations come the eclipses.
And that the moon appears sometimes waxing and sometimes waning through
the obstruction or closing of her paths. And that the circle of the sun
is 27 times greater than that of the moon and that the sun is in the
highest place in the heavens and the circles of the fixed [Sidenote:
p. 18.] stars in the lowest. And that the animals came into being in
moisture evaporated by the sun. And that mankind was at the beginning
very like another animal, to wit, a fish. And that winds come from the
separation and condensation of the subtler atoms of the air[59] and
rain from the earth giving back under the sun’s heat what it gets from
the clouds,[60] and lightnings from the severance of the clouds by
the winds falling upon them. He was born in the 3rd year of the 42nd
Olympiad.[61]


                        6. _About Anaximenes._

Anaximenes, who was also a Milesian, the son of Eurystratus, said that
the beginning was a boundless air from which what was, is, and shall
be and gods and divine things came into being, while the rest came
from their descendants. But that the condition of the air is such that
when it is all over alike[62] it is invisible to the eye, but it is
made perceptible by cold and heat, by damp and by motion. And that
it is ever-moving, for whatever is changeable[63] changes not unless
it be moved. For it appears different when condensed and rarefied.
For when it diffuses into greater rarity fire is produced; but when
again halfway [Sidenote: p. 19.] condensed into air, a cloud is formed
from the air’s compression; and when still further condensed, water,
and when condensed to the full, earth; and when to the very highest
degree, stones. And that consequently the great rulers of formation
are contraries, to wit, heat and cold. And that the earth is a flat
surface borne up on the air in the same way as the sun and moon and
the other stars.[64] For all fiery things are carried through the air
laterally.[65] And that the stars are produced from the earth by reason
of the mist which rises from it and which when rarefied becomes fire,
and from this ascending fire[66] the stars are constructed. And that
there are earth-like natures in the stars’ place carried about with
them. But he says that the stars do not move under the earth, as others
assume, but round the earth[67] as a cap is turned on one’s head, and
that the sun is hidden, not because it is under the earth, but because
it is hidden by the earth’s higher parts, and by reason of its greater
distance from us. And because of their great distance, the stars give
out no heat. And that [Sidenote: p. 20.] winds are produced when the
air after condensation escapes rarefied; but that when it collects and
is thus condensed[68] to the full, it becomes clouds and thus changes
into water. Also that hail is produced when the water brought down
from the clouds is frozen; and snow when the same clouds are wetter
when freezing. And lightning come when the clouds are forced apart
by the strength of the winds; for when thus driven apart, there is a
brilliant and fiery flash. Also that a rainbow is produced by the solar
rays falling upon solidified air, and an earthquake from the earth’s
increasing in size by heating and cooling. This then Anaximenes. He
flourished about the 1st year of the 58th Olympiad.[69]


                        7. _About Anaxagoras._

After him was Anaxagoras of Clazomene, son of Hegesibulus. He said
that the beginning of the universe was mind and matter, mind being the
creator and matter that which came unto being.[70] For that when all
things were together, mind came and arranged them. He says, however,
that the material principles are boundless, even the smallest of them.
And that all things partake of movement, being [Sidenote: p. 21.] moved
by mind, and that like things come together. And that the things in
heaven were set in order by their circular motion.[71] That therefore
what was dense and moist and dark and cold and everything heavy came
together in the middle, and from the compacting of this the earth was
established;[72] but that the opposites, to wit, the hot, the brilliant
and the light were drawn off to the distant æther. Also that the earth
is fat in shape and remains suspended[73] through its great size, and
from there being no void and because the air which is strongest bears
(up) the upheld earth. And that the sea exists from the moisture on
the earth and the waters in it evaporating and then condensing in a
hollow place;[74] and that the sea is supposed to have come into being
by this and from the rivers flowing into it. And the rivers, too, are
established by the rains and the waters within the earth; for the earth
is hollow and holds water in its cavities. But that the Nile increases
in summer when the snows from the northern parts are carried down into
it. And that the sun and moon and all the stars are burning stones and
are [Sidenote: p. 22.] carried about by the rotation of the æther.
And that below the stars are the sun and moon and certain bodies not
seen by us whirled round together. And that the heat of the stars is
not felt by us because of their great distance from the earth; but yet
their heat is not like that of the sun from their occupying a colder
region. Also that the moon is below the sun and nearer to us; and that
the size of the sun is greater than that of the Peloponnesus. And that
the moon has no light of her own, but only one from the sun. And that
the revolution of the stars takes place under the earth. Also that the
moon is eclipsed when the earth stands in her way, and sometimes the
stars which are below the moon,[75] and the sun when the moon stands
in his way during new moons. And that both the sun and moon make
turnings (solstices) when driven back by the air; but that the moon
turns often through not being able to master the cold. He was the first
to determine the facts about eclipses and renewals of light.[76] And
he said that the moon was like the earth and had within it plains and
ravines. And that the Milky Way was the reflection of the light of the
stars which are not lighted up by the sun. And that the shooting stars
[Sidenote: p. 23.] are as it were sparks which glance off from the
movement of the pole. And that winds are produced by the rarefaction
of the air by the sun and by their drying up as they get towards the
pole and are borne away from it. And that thunderstorms are produced by
heat falling upon the clouds. And that earthquakes come from the upper
air falling upon that under the earth; for when this last is moved,
the earth upheld by it is shaken. And that animals at the beginning
were produced from water, but thereafter from one another, and that
males are born when the seed secreted from the right parts of the body
adheres to the right parts of the womb and females when the opposite
occurs. He flourished in the 1st year of the 88th Olympiad, about which
time they say Plato was born.[77] They say also that Anaxagoras came to
have a knowledge of the future.


                         8. _About Archelaus._

Archelaus was of Athenian race and the son of Apollodorus. He like
Anaxagoras asserted the mixed nature of matter and agreed with him as
to the beginning of things. But he said that a certain mixture[78]
was directly inherent in mind, and that the source of movement is the
separation from one another of heat and cold and that the [Sidenote: p.
24.] heat is moved and the cold remains undisturbed. Also that water
when heated flows to the middle of the universe wherein heated air
and earth are produced, of which one is borne aloft while the other
remains below. And that the earth remains fixed and exists because of
this and abides in the middle of the universe, of which, so to speak,
it forms no part and which is delivered from the conflagration.[79] The
first result of which burning is the nature of the stars, the greatest
whereof is the sun and the second the moon while of the others some are
greater and some smaller. And he says that the heaven is arched over
us[80] and has made the air transparent and the earth dry. For that
at first it was a pool; since it was lofty at the horizon, but hollow
in the middle. And he brings forward as a proof of this hollowness,
that the sun does not rise and set at the same time for all parts as
must happen if the earth were level. And as to animals, he says that
the earth first became heated in the lower part when the hot and cold
mingled and man[81] and the other animals appeared. And all things were
unlike [Sidenote: p. 25.] one another and had the same diet, being
nourished on mud. And this endured for a little, but at last generation
from one another arose, and man became distinct from the other animals
and set up chiefs, laws, arts, cities and the rest. And he says that
mind is inborn in all animals alike. For that every body is supplied
with[82] mind, some more slowly and some quicker than the others.

Natural philosophy lasted then from Thales up to Archelaus. Of this
last Socrates was a hearer. But there are also many others putting
forward different tenets concerning the Divine and the nature of the
universe, whose opinions if we wished to set them all out would take
a great mass of books. But it would be best, after having recalled by
name those of them who are, so to speak, the chorus-leaders of all who
philosophized in later times and who have furnished starting-points for
systems, to hasten on to what follows.[83]


                        9. _About Parmenides._

[Sidenote: p. 26.] For truly Parmenides also supposed the universe to be
eternal and ungenerated and spherical in form.[84] Nor did he avoid the
common opinion making fire and earth the principles of the universe,
the earth as matter, but the fire as cause and creator. [He said that
the ordered world would be destroyed, but in what way, he did not
say.][85] But he said that the universe was eternal and ungenerated and
spherical in form and all over alike, bearing no impress and immoveable
and with definite limits.


                        10. _About Leucippus._

But Leucippus, a companion of Zeno, did not keep to the same opinion
(as Parmenides), but says that all things are boundless and ever-moving
and that birth and change are unceasing. And he says that fulness and
the void are elements. And he says also that the ordered worlds came
into being thus: when many bodies were crowded together [Sidenote:
p. 27.] and flowed from the ambient[86] into a great void, on coming
into contact with one another, those of like fashion and similar form
coalesced, and from their intertwining yet others were generated
and increased and diminished by a certain necessity. But what that
necessity may be he did not define.


                        11. _About Democritus._

But Democritus was an acquaintance of Leucippus. This was Democritus of
Abdera, son of Damasippus,[87] who met with many Gymnosophists among
the Indians and with priests and astrologers[88] in Egypt and with
Magi in Babylon. But he speaks like Leucippus about elements, to wit,
fulness and void, saying that the full is that which is but the void
that which is not, and he said this because things are ever moving in
the void. He said also that the ordered worlds are boundless and differ
in size, and that in some there is neither sun nor moon, but that in
others both are greater than with us, and in yet others more in number.
[Sidenote: p. 28.] And that the intervals between the ordered worlds
are unequal, here more and there less, and that some increase, others
flourish and others decay, and here they come into being and there they
are eclipsed.[89] But that they are destroyed by colliding with one
another. And that some ordered worlds are bare of animals and plants
and of all water. And that in our cosmos the earth came into being
first of the stars and that the moon is the lowest of the stars, and
then comes the sun and then the fixed stars: but that the planets are
not all at the same height. And he laughed at everything, as if all
things among men deserved laughter.


                        12. _About Xenophanes._

But Xenophanes of Colophon was the son of Orthomenes.[90] He survived
until the time of Cyrus. He first declared the incomprehensibility of
all things,[91] saying thus:

    Although anyone should speak most definitely
    He nevertheless does not know, and it is a guess[92] which occurs
         about all things.

[Sidenote: p. 29.] But he says that nothing is generated, or
perishes or is moved, and that the universe which is one is beyond
change. But he says that God is eternal, and one and alike on every
side, and finite and spherical in form, and conscious[93] in all
His parts. And that the sun is born every day from the gathering
together of small particles of fire and that the earth is boundless
and surrounded neither by air nor by heaven. And that there are
boundless (innumerable) suns and moons and that all things are from
the earth. He said that the sea is salt because of the many compounds
which together flow into it. But Metrodorus said it was thanks to its
trickling through the earth that the sea becomes salt. And Xenophanes
opines that there was once a mixture of earth with the sea, and that
in time it was freed from moisture, asserting in proof of this that
shells are found in the centre of the land and on mountains, and that
in the stone-quarries of Syracuse were found the impress of a fish
and of seals, and in Paros the cast of an anchor below the surface of
the rock[94] and in Malta layers of all sea-things. And he says that
these came when all things were of old time buried in mud, and that the
impress of them dried in the mud; but [Sidenote: p. 30.] that all men
were destroyed when the earth being cast into the sea became mud, and
that it again began to bring forth and that this catastrophe happened
to all the ordered worlds.[95]


                        13. _About Ecphantus._

A certain Ecphantus, a Syracusan, said that a true knowledge of the
things that are could not be got. But he defines, as he thinks,
that the first bodies are indivisible and that there are three
differences[96] between them, to wit, size, shape and power. And the
number of them is limited and not boundless; but that these bodies are
moved neither by weight nor by impact, but by a divine power which he
calls [Sidenote: p. 31.] Nous and Psyche. Now the pattern of this is
the cosmos, wherefore it has become spherical in form by Divine power.
And that the earth in the midst of the cosmos is moved round its own
centre from west to east.[97]


                          14. _About Hippo._

But Hippo of Rhegium[98] said that the principles were cold, like
water, and heat, like fire. And that the fire came from the water, and,
overcoming the power of its parent, constructed the cosmos. But he said
that the soul was sometimes brain and sometimes water; for the seed
also seems to us to be from moisture and from it he says the soul is
born.

These things, then, we seem to have sufficiently set forth. Wherefore,
as we have now separately run through the opinions of the physicists,
it seems fitting that we return to Socrates and Plato, who most
especially preferred (the study of) ethics.


                         15. _About Socrates._

Now Socrates became a hearer of Archelaus the physicist, and giving
great honour to the maxim “Know thyself” and having established a large
school, held Plato to be the most competent of all his disciples.
He left no writings [Sidenote: p. 32.] behind him; but Plato being
impressed with all his wisdom[99] established the teaching combining
physics, ethics and dialectics. But what Plato laid down is this:--


                          16. _About Plato._

Plato makes the principles of the universe to be God, matter and (the)
model. He says that God is the maker and orderer of this universe and
its Providence.[100] That matter is that which underlies all things,
which matter he calls a recipient and a nurse.[101] From which, after
it had been set in order, came the four elements of which the cosmos is
constructed, to wit, fire, air, earth and water,[102] whence in turn
all the other so-called compound things, viz., animals and plants have
been constructed. But the model is the thought of God which Plato also
calls _ideas_, to which giving heed as to an image in the soul,[103]
God fashioned[104] all [Sidenote: p. 33.] things. He said that God was
without body or form and could only be comprehended by wise men; but
that matter is potentially body, but not yet actively. For that being
itself without form or quality, it receives forms and qualities to
become body.[105] That matter, therefore, is a principle and the same
is coeval with God, and the cosmos is unbegotten. For, he says, it
constructed itself out of itself.[106] And in all ways it is like the
unbegotten and is imperishable. But in so far as body[107] is assumed
to be composed of many qualities and ideas, it is so far begotten and
perishable. But some Platonists mixed together the two opinions making
up some such parable as this: to wit, that, as a wagon can remain
undestroyed for ever if repaired part by part, as even though the parts
perish every time, the wagon remains complete; so, the cosmos, although
it perish part by part, is yet reconstructed and compensated for the
parts taken away, and remains eternal.

Some again say that Plato declared God to be one, unbegotten and
imperishable, as he says in the _Laws_:--“God, [Sidenote: p. 34.]
therefore, as the old story goes, holds the beginning and end and
middle of all things that are.”[108] Thus he shows Him to be one
through His containing all things. But others say that Plato thought
that there are many gods without limitation[109] when he said, “God
of gods, of whom I am the fashioner and father.”[110] And yet others
that he thinks them subject to limitation when he says: “Great Zeus,
indeed, driving his winged chariot in heaven;”[111] and when he gives
the pedigree[112] of the children of Uranos and Gê. Others again that
he maintained the gods to be originated and that because they were
originated they ought to perish utterly, but that by the will of God
they remain imperishable as he says in the passage before quoted, “God
of gods, of whom I am the fashioner and father, and who are formed
by my will indissoluble.” So that if He wished them to be dissolved,
dissolved they would easily be. But he accepts the nature of demons,
and says some are good, and some bad.

And some say that he declared the soul to be unoriginated and
imperishable[113] when he says: “All soul is immortal for that which is
ever moving is immortal,” and when he shows that it is self-moving and
the beginning of movement. But others say that he makes it originated
but imperishable[114] through God’s will; and yet others composite and
originated and perishable. For he also supposes that [Sidenote: p.
35.] there is a mixing-bowl for it,[115] and that it has a splendid
body, but that everything originated must of necessity perish. But
those who say that the soul is immortal are partly corroborated by
those words wherein he says that there are judgments after death, and
courts of justice in the house of Hades, and that the good meet with
a good reward and that the wicked are subjected to punishments.[116]
Some therefore say that he also admits a change of bodies and the
transfer of different pre-determined souls into other bodies according
to the merit of each; and that after certain definite peregrinations
they are again sent into this ordered world to give themselves another
trial of their own choice. Others, however, say not, but that they
obtain a place according to each one’s deserts. And they call to
witness that he says some souls are with Zeus, but that others of
good men are going round with other gods, and that others abide in
everlasting punishments, (that is), so many as in this life have
wrought evil and unjust deeds.[117] And they say that he declared
some conditions to be [Sidenote: p. 36.] without intermediates, some
with intermediates and some to be intermediates. Waking and sleep are
without intermediates and so are all states like these. But there are
those with intermediates like good and bad; and intermediates like
grey which is between black and white or some other colour.[118] And
they say that he declares the things concerning the soul to be alone
supremely good, but those of the body or external to it to be no longer
supremely good, but only said to be so. And that these last are very
often named intermediates also; for they can be used both well and
ill. He says therefore that the virtues are extremes as to honour, but
means as to substance.[119] For there is nothing more honourable than
virtue; but that which goes beyond or falls short of these virtues ends
in vice. For instance, he says that these are the four virtues, to wit,
Prudence, Temperance, Justice, and Fortitude, and that there follow on
each of these two vices of excess and deficiency respectively. Thus on
Prudence follow thoughtlessness by deficiency and cunning by excess; on
Temperance, intemperance by deficiency and sluggishness by excess; on
Justice, over-modesty by deficiency and greediness by excess; and on
Fortitude, [Sidenote: p. 37.] cowardice by deficiency and foolhardiness
by excess.[120] And these virtues when inborn in a man operate for
his perfection and give him happiness. But he says that happiness is
likeness to God as far as possible. And that any one is like God when
he becomes holy and just with intention. For this he supposes to be the
aim of the highest wisdom and virtue.[121] But he says that the virtues
follow one another in turn and are of one kind, and never oppose one
another; but that the vices are many-shaped and sometimes follow and
sometimes oppose one another.[122]

He says, again, that there is destiny, not indeed that all things
are according to destiny, but that we have some choice, as he says
in these words: “The blame is on the chooser: God is blameless,” and
again, “This is a law of Adrasteia.” And if he thus affirms the part
of destiny, he knew also that something was in our choice.[123] But he
says that transgressions are involuntary. For to the most beautiful
thing in us, which is the soul, none would admit something evil, that
is, injustice; but that by ignorance and mistaking the good, thinking
to do something fine, they [Sidenote: p. 38.] arrive at the evil.[124]
And his explanation on this is most clear in the _Republic_, where
he says: “And again do you dare to say that vice is disgraceful and
hateful to God? How then does any one choose such an evil? He does
it, you would say, who is overcome by the pleasures (of sense).
Therefore this also is an involuntary action, if to overcome be a
voluntary one. So that from all reasoning, reason proves injustice
to be involuntary.” But some one objects to him about this: “Why
then are men punished if they transgress involuntarily?” He answers:
“So that they may be the more speedily freed from vice by undergoing
correction.”[125] For that to undergo correction is not bad but good,
if thereby comes purification from vices, and that the rest of mankind
hearing of it will not transgress, but will be on their guard against
such error.[126] He says, however, that the nature of evil comes not by
God nor has it any special nature of its own; but it comes into being
by contrariety and by following upon the good, either as excess or
deficiency as we have before said about the virtues.[127] Now Plato,
as [Sidenote: p. 39.] we have said above, bringing together the three
divisions of general philosophy, thus philosophized.


                        17. _About Aristotle._

Aristotle, who was a hearer of this last, turned philosophy into a
science and reasoned more strictly, affirming that the elements of
all things are substance and accident.[128] He said that there is
one substance underlying all things, but nine accidents, which are
Quantity, Quality, Relation, the Where, the When, Possession, Position,
Action and Passion. And that therefore Substance was such as God, man
and every one of the things which can fall under the like definition:
but that as regards the accidents, Quality is seen in expressions like
white or black; Quantity in “2 cubits or 3 cubits long or broad”;
Relation in “father” or “son”; the Where in such as “Athens” or
“Megara”; the When in such as “in the Xth Olympiad”; for Possession
in such as “to have acquired wealth”; Action in such as “to write and
generally to do anything”; and Passion in such as “to be struck.” He
also assumes that some things have means and that others have not, as
we have said also about Plato. [Sidenote: p. 40.] And he is in accord
with Plato about most things save in the opinion about the soul. For
Plato thinks it immortal; but Aristotle that it remains behind after
this life and that it is lost in the fifth Body which is assumed to
exist along with the other four, to wit, fire, earth, water and air,
but is more subtle than they and like a spirit.[129] Again whereas
Plato said that the only good things were those which concerned the
soul and that these sufficed for happiness, Aristotle brings in a triad
of benefits and says that the sage is not perfect unless there are
at his command the good things of the body and those external to it.
Which things are Beauty, Strength, Keenness of Sense and Completeness;
while the externals are Wealth, High Birth, Glory, Power, Peace, and
Friendship; but that the inner things about the soul are, as Plato
thought: Prudence, Temperance, Justice and Fortitude.[130] Also
Aristotle says that evil things exist, and come by contrariety to the
good, and are below the place about the moon, but not above it.

Again, he says that the soul of the whole ordered world is eternal,
but that the soul of man vanishes as we have said [Sidenote: p. 41.]
above. Now, he philosophized while delivering discourses in the Lyceum;
but Zeno in the Painted Porch. And Zeno’s followers got their name
from the place, _i. e._ they were called Stoics from the Stoa; but
those of Aristotle from their mode of study. For their enquiries were
conducted while walking about in the Lyceum, wherefore they were called
Peripatetics. This then Aristotle.[131]


                        18. _About the Stoics._

The Stoics themselves also added to philosophy by the increased use of
syllogisms,[132] and included it nearly all in definitions, Chrysippus
and Zeno being here agreed in opinion. Who also supposed that God
was the beginning of all things, and was the purest body, and that
His providence extends through all things.[133] They say positively,
however, that existence is everywhere according to destiny using some
such simile as this: viz. that, as a dog tied to a cart, if he wishes
to follow it, is both drawn along by it and follows of his own accord,
doing at the same time [Sidenote: p. 42.] what he wills and what he
must by a compulsion like that of destiny.[134] But if he does not wish
to follow he is wholly compelled. And they say that it is the same
indeed with men. For even if they do not wish to follow, they will be
wholly compelled to come to what has been foredoomed. And they say
that the soul remains after death, and that it is a body[135] and is
born from the cooling of the air of the ambient, whence it is called
Psyche.[136] But they admit that there is a change of bodies for Souls
which have been marked out for it.[137] And they expect that there will
be a conflagration and purification of this cosmos, some saying that
it will be total but others partial, and that it will be purified part
by part. And they call this approximate destruction and the birth of
another cosmos therefrom, _catharsis_.[138] And they suppose that all
things are bodies, and that one body passes through another; but that
there is a resurrection[139] and that all things are filled full and
that there is no void. Thus also the Stoics.


                         19. _About Epicurus._

[Sidenote: p. 43.] But Epicurus held an opinion almost the opposite
of all others. He supposed that the beginnings of the universals
were atoms and a void; that the void was as it were the place of the
things that will be; but that the atoms were matter, from which all
things are. And that from the concourse of the atoms both God and all
the elements came into being and that in them were all animals and
other things, so that nothing is produced or constructed unless it be
from the atoms. And he said that the atoms were the most subtle of
things, and that in them there could be no point, nor mark nor any
division whatever; wherefore he called them atoms.[140] And although
he admits God to be eternal and imperishable, he says that he cares
for no one and that in short there is no providence nor destiny, but
all things come into being automatically. For God is seated in the
metacosmic spaces, as he calls them. For he held that there was a
certain dwelling-place of God outside the cosmos called the metacosmia,
and that He [Sidenote: p. 44] took His pleasure and rested in supreme
delight; and that He neither had anything to do Himself nor provided
for others. In consequence of which Epicurus made a theory about wise
men, saying that the end of all wisdom is pleasure. But different
people take the name of pleasure differently. For some understood by it
the desires, but others the pleasure that comes by virtue. But he held
that the souls of men were destroyed with their bodies as they are born
with them. For that these souls are blood, which having come forth or
being changed, the whole man is destroyed. Whence it follows that there
are no judgments nor courts of justice in the House of Hades, so that
whatever any one may do in this life and escapes notice, he is in no
way called to account for it.[141] Thus then Epicurus.


                     20. _About (the) Academics._

But another sect of philosophers was called Academic, [Sidenote: p.
45.] from their holding their discussions in the Academy, whose founder
was Pyrrho, after whom they were called Pyrrhonian philosophers. He
first introduced the dogma of the incomprehensibility of all things, so
that he might argue on either side of the question, but assert nothing
dogmatically. For he said that there is nothing grasped by the mind
or perceived by the senses which is true, but that it only appears to
men to be so. And that all substance is flowing and changing and never
remains in the same state. Now some of the Academics say that we ought
not to make dogmatic assertions about the principle of anything, but
simply argue about it and let it be; while others favoured more the
“no preference”[142] adage, saying that fire was not fire rather than
anything else. For they did not assert what it is, but only what sort
of a thing it is.[143]


            21. _About (the) Brachmans among the Indians._

The Indians have also a sect of philosophizers in the Brachmans[144]
who propose to themselves an independent life and abstain from all
things which have had life and from [Sidenote: p. 46.] meats prepared
by fire. They are content with fruits[145] but do not gather even
these, but live on those fallen on the earth and drink the water of the
river Tagabena.[146] But they spend their lives naked, saying that the
body has been made by God as a garment to the soul. They say that God
is light; not such light as one sees, nor like the sun and fire, but
that it is to them the Divine Word, not that which is articulated, but
that which comes from knowledge, whereby the hidden mysteries of nature
are seen by the wise. But this light which they say is (the) Word, the
God, they declare that they themselves as Brachmans alone know, because
they alone put away vain thinking which is the last tunic of the soul.
They scorn death; but are ever naming God in their own tongue, as we
have said above, and send up hymns to Him. But neither are there women
among them, nor do they beget children.[147] Those, however, who have
desired a life like theirs, after they [Sidenote: p. 47.] have crossed
over to the opposite bank of the river,[148] remain there always and
never return; but they also are called Brachmans. Yet they do not
pass their life in the same way; for there are women in the country,
from whom those dwelling there are begotten and beget. But they say
that this Word, which they style God, is corporeal, girt with the
body outside Himself, as if one should wear a garment of sheepskins;
but that the body which is worn, when taken off, appears visible to
the eye.[149] But the Brachmans declare that there is war in the body
worn by them [and they consider their body full of warring elements]
against which body as if arrayed against foes, they fight as we have
before made plain. And they say that all men are captives to their own
congenital enemies, to wit, the belly and genitals, greediness, wrath,
joy, grief, desire and the like. But that he alone goes to God who has
triumphed[150] over these. Wherefore the Brachmans make Dandamis, to
whom Alexander of Macedon paid a visit, divine[151] as one who had won
the war in the body. But they accuse Calanus of having impiously fallen
away from their philosophy. But the Brachmans putting away the body,
like [Sidenote: p. 48.] fish who have leaped from the water into pure
air, behold the Sun.[152]


                22. _About the Druids among the Celts._

The Druids among the Celts enquired with the greatest minuteness into
the Pythagorean philosophy, Zamolxis, Pythagoras’ slave, a Thracian
by race, being for them the author of this discipline. He after
Pythagoras’ death travelled into their country and became as far as
they were concerned the founder of this philosophy.[153] The Celts
glorify the Druids as prophets and as knowing the future because
they foretell to them some things by the ciphers and numbers of the
Pythagoric art. On the principles of which same art we shall not be
silent, since some men have ventured to introduce heresies constructed
from them. Druids, however, also make use of magic arts.


              [Sidenote: p. 49.] 23. _About Hesiod._[154]

But Hesiod the poet says that he, too, heard thus from the Muses about
Nature. The Muses, however, are the daughters of Zeus. For Zeus having
from excess of desire companied with Mnemosyne for nine days and nights
consecutively, she conceived these nine in her single womb, receiving
one every night. Now Hesiod invokes the nine Muses from Pieria, that is
from Olympus, and prays them to teach him:[155]

            “How first the gods and earth became;
    The rivers and th’ immeasureable sea
    High-raging in its foam: the glittering stars;
    The wide-impending heaven; ...
    Say how their treasures,[156] how their honours each
    Allotted shared: how first they held abode
    On many-caved Olympus:--this declare
    [Sidenote: p. 50.] Ye Muses! dwellers of the heavenly mount
    From the beginning; say who first arose?

            “First Chaos was, next ample-bosomed Earth,
    The seat eternal and immoveable
    Of deathless gods, who still the Olympian height
    Snow-topt inhabit. Third in hollow depth
    Of the vast ground, expanded wide above
    The gloomy Tartarus, Love then arose
    Most beauteous of immortals: he at once
    Of every god and every mortal man
    Unnerves the limbs; dissolves the wiser breast
    By reason steel’d, and quells the very soul.

            “From Chaos, Erebus and sable Night...
    From Night arose the Sunshine and the Day[157]
    Whom she with dark embrace of Erebus
    Commingling bore.

            “Her first-born Earth produced
    Of like immensity,[158] the starry Heaven:
    That he might sheltering compass her around
    On every side, and be for evermore
    To the blest gods a mansion unremoved.

            “Next the high hills arose, the pleasant haunts
    Of goddess-nymphs, who dwell among the glens
    Of mountains. With no aid of tender love
    [Sidenote: p. 51.] Gave she to birth the sterile Sea, high-swol’n
    In raging foam; and Heaven-embraced, anon
    She teemed with Ocean, rolling in deep whirls
    His vast abyss of waters

                        “Crœus then,
    Cœus, Hyperion and Iäpetus,
    Themis and Thea rose; Mnemosyne
    And Rhea; Phœbe diademed with gold,
    And love-inspiring Tethys; and of these,
    Youngest in birth, the wily Kronos came,
    The sternest of her sons; and he abhorred
    The sire that gave him life

            “Then brought she forth
    The Cyclops haughty of spirit.”

And he enumerates all the other Giants descended from Kronos. But last
he tells how Zeus was born from Rhea.

All these men, then, declared, as we have set forth, their opinions
about the nature and birth of the universe. But they all, departing
from the Divine for lower things, busied themselves about the substance
of the things that are. So that when struck with the grandeurs of
creation and thinking that these were the Divine, each of them
preferred before the rest a different part of what was created. But
they discovered not the God and fashioner of them.

The opinions therefore of those among the Greeks who [Sidenote: p. 52.]
have undertaken to philosophize, I think I have sufficiently set forth.
Starting from which opinions the heretics have made the attempts we
shall shortly narrate. It seems fitting, however, that we, first making
public the mystic rites,[159] should also declare whatever things
certain men have superfluously fancied about stars or magnitudes; for
truly those who have taken their starting-points from these notions are
deemed by the many to speak prodigies. Thereafter, we shall make plain
consecutively the vain opinions[160] invented by them.[161]


                             END OF BOOK I


                               FOOTNOTES

[Footnote 1: As has been said in the Introduction (p. 1 _supra_) four
early codices of the First Book exist, the texts being known from the
libraries where they are to be found as the Medicean, the Turin, the
Ottobonian and the Barberine respectively. That published by Miller
was a copy of the Medicean codex already put into print by Fabricius,
but was carefully worked over by Roeper, Scott and others who like
Gronovius, Wolf and Delarue, collated it with the other three codices.
The different readings are, I think, all noted by Cruice in his edition
of 1860, but are not of great importance, and I have only noticed them
here when they make any serious change in the meaning of the passage.
Hermann Diels has again revised the text in his _Doxographi Græci_,
Berlin, 1879, with a result that Salmon (_D.C.B._ s. v. “Hippolytus
Romanus”) declares to be “thoroughly satisfactory,” and the reading
of this part of our text may now, perhaps, be regarded as settled.
Only the opening and concluding paragraphs are of much value for our
present purpose, the account of philosophic opinions which lies between
being, as has been already said, a compilation of compilations, and
not distinguished by any special insight into the ideas of the authors
summarized, with the works of most of whom Hippolytus had probably but
slight acquaintance. An exception should perhaps be made in the case
of Aristotle, as it is probable that Hippolytus, like other students
of his time, was trained in Aristotle’s dialectic and analytic system
for the purpose of disputation. But this will be better discussed in
connection with Book VII.]

[Footnote 2: τάδε ἔνεστιν ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ τοῦ κατὰ πασῶν αἰρέσεων ἐλέγχου.
This formula is repeated at the head of Books V-X with the alteration
of the number only.]

[Footnote 3: The word missing after πρώτῃ was probably μερίδι, the
only likely word which would agree with the feminine adjective. It
would be appropriate enough if the theory of the division of the work
into spoken lectures be correct. The French and German editors alike
translate _in libro primo_.]

[Footnote 4: There seems no reason for numbering Pyrrho of Elis among
the members of the Academy, Old or New. Diogenes Laertius, from whose
account of his doctrines Hippolytus seems to have derived the dogma of
incomprehensibility which he here attributes to Pyrrho, makes him the
founder of the Sceptics. He was a contemporary of Alexander the Great,
and probably died before Arcesilaus founded the New Academy in 280 B.C.]

[Footnote 5: Mr. Macmahon here reads “Brahmins.” Their habits appear
more like those of Yogis or Sanyasis.]

[Footnote 6: ἁδρομερῶς: in contradistinction to κατὰ λεπτὸν just above.]

[Footnote 7: ἀλογίστου γνώμης καὶ ἀθεμίτου ἐπιχειρήσεως. The Turin MS.
transposes the adjectives.]

[Footnote 8: πρὸς το͂ν ὄντως Θεὸν. The phrase is used frequently
hereafter, particularly in Book X.]

[Footnote 9: Cf. the “bond of iniquity” in St. Peter’s speech to Simon
Magus, Acts viii. 23.]

[Footnote 10: τὸ τέλειον τῶν κακῶν. τέλειον being a mystic word for
final or complete initiation.]

[Footnote 11: ἃ καὶ τὰ ἄλογα κ. τ. λ. Schneidewin and Cruice both read
εἰ καὶ, Roeper εἰ simply, others εἰ ὅτι. The first seems the best
reading; but none of the suggestions is quite satisfactory. The promise
to say what it was that even the dumb animals would not have done is
unfulfilled. It cannot have involved any theological question, but
probably refers to the obscene sacrament of the _Pistis Sophia_, the
Bruce Papyrus and Huysmans’ _Là-Bas_. Yet Hippolytus does not again
refer to it, and of all the heretics in our text, the Simonians are the
only ones accused of celebrating it, even by Epiphanius.]

[Footnote 12: Ἀρχιερατεία. A neologism. This is the passage relied upon
to show that our author was a bishop].

[Footnote 13: ἀλλότρια = foreign. Cruice has _aliena_. But it is
here evidently contrasted with the “things of the truth” in the next
sentence.]

[Footnote 14: κηρύσσομεν.]

[Footnote 15: τὰ δοξαζόμενα, lit., “matters of opinion.”]

[Footnote 16: ἐκ δογμάτων φιλοσοφουμένων. The context shows that here,
and probably elsewhere in the book, the phrase is used contemptuously.]

[Footnote 17: τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσιν. As in Polybius, the word can be
translated in this sense throughout. Yet as meaning “those who fall in
with this” it is as applicable to spoken as to written words.]

[Footnote 18: τὸ θεῖον. Both here and in Book X our author shows a
preference for this phrase instead of the more usual ὁ Θεός.]

[Footnote 19: συμβάλλω.]

[Footnote 20: δόγμα.]

[Footnote 21: τὰ λαληθέντα ἀποβαίνοντα. Note the piling up of similes
natural in a _spoken_ peroration.]

[Footnote 22: γυμνοὺς καὶ ἀσχήμονας, _nudos et turpes_, Cr. Stripped of
originality seems to be the threat intended.]

[Footnote 23: φιλοσοφίαν φυσικήν. What we should now call Physics.]

[Footnote 24: τὸ πᾶν is the phrase here and elsewhere used for the
universe or “whole” of Nature, and includes Chaos or unformed Matter.
The κόσμος or ordered world is only part of the universe. Diog. Laert.,
I, _vit. Thales_, c. 6, says merely that Thales thought water to be
the ἀρχή or beginning of all things. As this is confirmed by all other
Greek writers who have quoted him, we may take the further statement
here attributed to him as the mistake of Hippolytus or of the compiler
he is copying.]

[Footnote 25: ἀέρων in text. Roeper suggests ἄστρων, “stars.”]

[Footnote 26: So Clement of Alexandria, _Stromateis_, V, c. 14, and
Diog. Laert., I. _vit. cit._, c. 9.]

[Footnote 27: Diog. Laert., I, _vit. cit._, c. 8, makes his derider an
old woman. Θρᾶττα is not a proper name, but means a Thracian woman, as
Hippolytus should have known.]

[Footnote 28: Roeper adds καὶ ἀριθμετικήν, apparently in view of the
speculations about the monad.]

[Footnote 29: Aristotle in his _Metaphysica_, Bk. I, c. 5, attributes
the first use of this dogma to Xenophanes.]

[Footnote 30: By these are meant the planets, including therein the Sun
and Moon. Cf. Sextus Empiricus, _Adversus Astrologos_, p. 343 (Cod.)
_passim_.]

[Footnote 31: τὰ ὅλα = entities which must needs differ from one
another in kind. The phrase is thus used by Plato, Aristotle and all
the neo-Platonic writers.]

[Footnote 32: ἐφήψατο, _attigit_, Cr. Frequent in Pindar.]

[Footnote 33: So Timon in the _Silli_, as quoted by Diog. Laert., VIII,
_vit. Pyth._, c. 20.]

[Footnote 34: φυσιογονικὴν. The Barberine MS. has φυσιογνωμονικὴν,
evidently inserted by some scribe who connected it with the absurd
system of metoposcopy described in Book IV.]

[Footnote 35: κατὰ τὸ πλῆθος, _multitudine_, Cr.]

[Footnote 36: For definitions and examples of this term see Aristot.,
_Metaphys._, IV. c. 28.]

[Footnote 37: I cannot trace Hippolytus’ authority for attributing
these neo-Pythagorean puerilities to Pythagoras himself. Diog. Laert.,
Aristotle and the rest represent him as saying only that the monad
was the beginning of everything, and that from this and the undefined
dyad numbers proceed. The general reader may be recommended to Mr.
Alfred Williams Benn’s statement in _The Philosophy of Greece_ (Lond.,
1898), pp. 78 ff. that “the Greeks did not think of numbers as pure
abstractions, but in the most literal sense as figures, that is to say,
limited portions of space.”]

[Footnote 38: Macmahon thinks “number” and “monad” should here be
transposed, as Pythagoras considered according to him the monad as “the
highest generalization of number and a conception in abstraction.”
Yet the monad was not the highest abstraction of current (Greek)
philosophy. See Edwin Hatch, _Influence of Greek Ideas upon the
Christian Church_ (Hibbert Lectures), Lond., 1890, p. 255.]

[Footnote 39: δύναμις is here used like our own mathematical expression
“power.” Why Hippolytus should associate it especially with the power
of 2 does not appear. By Greek mathematicians it seems rather to be
applied to the square root.]

[Footnote 40: κυβισθῇ, _involvit_, Cr. It cannot here mean “cubed.”
Another mistake occurs in the same sentence, where it is said that the
square multiplied by the cube is a cube. The sentence is fortunately
repeated with the needful correction in Book IV, p. 116 _infra_.
Macmahon gives the proper notation as (a²)² = a⁴, (a²)³ = a⁶,
(a³)³ = a⁹.]

[Footnote 41: μετενσωμάτωσις. The phrase which is here correctly
used throughout, but which has somehow slipped into English as
metempsychosis.]

[Footnote 42: So Diog. Laert., VIII, _vit. Pyth._, c. 4.]

[Footnote 43: Diodorus of Eretria is not otherwise known, Aristoxenus
is mentioned by Cicero, _Quæst. Tusculan._, I, 18, as a writer on music.]

[Footnote 44: That is, of course, Zoroaster. The account here given
of his doctrines does not agree with what we know of them from other
sources. The minimum date for his activity (700 B.C.) makes it
impossible for him to have been a contemporary of Pythagoras. See the
translator’s _Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity_, I, p. 126; II,
p. 232.]

[Footnote 45: Reading with Roeper τὴν κόσμου φύσιν καὶ. Cruice has τὸν
κόσμον φύσιν κατὰ, “that the cosmos is a nature according to,” etc.]

[Footnote 46: δαίμονες, spirits or dæmons in the Greek sense, not
necessarily evil. But Aetius, _de Placit. Philosoph. ap._ Diels
_Doxogr._ 306, makes Pythagoras use the word as equivalent to τὸ κακόν.
Cf. pp. 52, 92 _infra_.]

[Footnote 47: Hippolytus like nearly every other writer of his time
here confuses the Egyptians with the Alexandrian Greeks. It was these
last and not the subjects of the Pharaohs who were given to mathematics
and geometry, of which sciences they laid the foundations on which
we have since built. Certain devotees of the Alexandrian god Serapis
also shut themselves up in cells of the Serapeum, which they could
hardly have done in any temple in Pharaonic times. See _Forerunners_,
I, 79. Hippolytus gives a much more elaborate and detailed account of
Pythagorean teaching in Book VI, II, pp. 20 ff. _infra_.]

[Footnote 48: Diog. Laert., VIII, _vit. Heraclit._, c. 6, attributes
this opinion to Heraclitus.]

[Footnote 49: This verse appears in Diog. Laert., VIII, _vit.
Empedocles_, c. 6.]

[Footnote 50: So Diog. Laert., _ubi. cit._]

[Footnote 51: This sentence seems to have got out of place. It should
probably follow that on Lysis and Archippus, etc., on the last page.
The story of the shield is told by Diog. Laert., VIII, _vit. Pyth._, c.
4, and by Ovid, _Metamorph._, XV, 162 ff. For more about Empedocles see
Book VII, II, pp. 82 ff. _infra_.]

[Footnote 52: Diog. Laert., VIII, _vit. Heraclit._, from whom
Hippolytus is probably quoting, says that in his boyhood, Heraclitus
used to say, he knew nothing, in his manhood everything. Has Hippolytus
garbled this?]

[Footnote 53: There is nothing of this in what Hippolytus, Diogenes
Laertius or any other author extant gives as Empedocles’ opinions. τὰ
κακά seems to be equivalent to δαίμονες, as suggested in n. on p. 39
_supra_. Hippolytus returns to Heraclitus’ opinions in Book IX, II, pp.
119 ff. _infra_.]

[Footnote 54: So Diog. Laert., II, _vit. Anaximander_, c. 1,
_verbatim_.]

[Footnote 55: κόσμοι. He therefore believed in a plurality of worlds.]

[Footnote 56: οὐσία. It may here mean essence or being. A good
discussion of the changes in the meaning of the word and its
successors, ὑπόστασις and πρόσωπον, is to be found in Hatch, _op.
cit._, pp. 275-278.]

[Footnote 57: μετέωρον, a phenomenon in the heavens, but also something
hung up or suspended.]

[Footnote 58: στρογγύλον, used by Theophrastus for logs of timber.]

[Footnote 59: Lit., “from the separation of the finest atoms of the air
and from their movement when crowded together.”]

[Footnote 60: So Roeper. Cruice agrees.]

[Footnote 61: A. W. Benn, _op. cit._, p. 51, gives a readable account
of Anaximander’s speculations in physics. Diels, _op. cit._, pp. 132,
133 shows in an excellently clear conspectus of parallel passages the
different authors from whom Hippolytus took the statements in our text
regarding the Ionians. The majority are to be found in Simplicius’
commentaries on Aristotle, Simplicius’ source being, according to
Diels, the fragments of Theophrastus’ book on physics. Next in order
come Plutarch’s _Stromata_ and Aetius’ _De Placitis Philosophorum_,
many passages being common to both.]

[Footnote 62: ὁμαλώτατος, _aequabilis_, Cr., “homogeneous.”]

[Footnote 63: Lit., “whatever changes.”]

[Footnote 64: Planets. See n. on p. 36 _supra_.]

[Footnote 65: διὰ πλάτος. Cruice translates _ob latitudinem_, Macmahon
“through expanse of space.”]

[Footnote 66: μετεωριζόμενου. See n. on p. 42 _supra_.]

[Footnote 67: So Diog. Laert., II, _vit. Anaxim._, c. 1. This is the
feature of Anaximenes’ teaching which seems to have most impressed the
Greeks.]

[Footnote 68: παχυθέντα.]

[Footnote 69: Diog. Laert., _ubi cit._, puts Anaximander in the 58th
Olympiad (548 B.C.) and Anaximenes in the 63rd. This is more probable
than the dates in our text. For Anaximenes’ sources, mostly Aetius and
Theophrastus, see Diels’ conspectus mentioned in n. on p. 43 _supra_.]

[Footnote 70: τὴν δὲ ὕλην γινομένην, _fieri materiam_, Cr.]

[Footnote 71: τῆς ἐγκυκλίου κινήσεως. Macmahon says “orbicular,” but
it means if anything centripetal and centrifugal, as appears in next
sentence.]

[Footnote 72: ὑποστῆναι. Hippolytus seems most frequently to use the
word in this sense.]

[Footnote 73: μετέωρον. See n. on p. 42 _supra_.]

[Footnote 74: τά τε ἐν αὐτῇ ὕδατα ἐξατμισθέντα ... ὑποστάντα οὕτως
γεγονέναι. I propose to fill the lacuna with καὶ πυκνωθέντα ἐν κοίλῳ.
For a description of this cavity see the _Phædo_ of Plato, c. 138. I do
not understand Roeper’s suggested emendation as given by Cruice.]

[Footnote 75: There must be some mistake here. He has just said that
the sun and moon are below the stars.]

[Footnote 76: φωτισμοί, _illuminationes_, Cr. So Macmahon. It clearly
means here “shinings forth again,” or “lightings up.”]

[Footnote 77: Diog. Laert. quotes from Apollodorus’ _Chronica_ that
Anaxagoras died in the 1st year of the 78th Olympiad, or ten years
before Plato’s birth. For Hippolytus’ sources for his teaching, mainly
Diog. Laert., Aetius and Theophrastus, see Diels, _ubi cit._]

[Footnote 78: μῖγμα, not μῖξις. But of what could the creative mind be
compounded before anything else had come into being?]

[Footnote 79: ἐκ τῆς πυρῶσεως. Does he mean the heated air, and why
should the earth form no part of the universe? Something is probably
omitted here.]

[Footnote 80: Ἐπικλιθῆναι, _de super incumbere_, Cr., “inclined at an
angle,” Macmahon. Evidently Archelaus imagined a concave heaven fitting
over the earth like a dish cover or an upturned boat or coracle. This
was the Babylonian theory. Cf. Maspero, _Hist. anc^{nne} de l’Orient
classique_, Paris, 1895, I, p. 543, and illustration. Many of the
Ionian ideas about physics doubtless come from the same source.]

[Footnote 81: Reading, as Cruice suggests, καὶ ἀνθρώπους for καὶ
ἀνόμοια. So Diog. Laert., II, _vit. Archel._, c. 17.]

[Footnote 82: χρήσασθαι, _uti_, Cr., “employed,” Macmahon.]

[Footnote 83: A fair specimen of Hippolytus’ verbose and inflated
style.]

[Footnote 84: No other philosopher has yet been quoted as saying that
the earth was spherical.]

[Footnote 85: This sentence is said to have been interpolated.]

[Footnote 86: ἐκ τοῦ περιέχοντος, “from the surrounding (æther).” An
expression much used by writers on astrology and generally translated
“ambient.”]

[Footnote 87: Diog. Laert., IX, _vit. Dem._, c. 1, says either
Damasippus or Hegesistratus or Athenocritus.]

[Footnote 88: It is doubtful whether astrology was known in Egypt
before the Alexandrian age. Diog. Laert., _vit. cit._, quotes from
Antisthenes that Democritus studied mathematics there, and astrology
was looked on by the Romans as a branch of mathematics. Cf. Sextus
Empiricus, _ubi cit., supra_.]

[Footnote 89: καὶ τῇ μὲν γένεσθαι, τῇ δὲ ἐκλείπειν.]

[Footnote 90: So Apollodorus. Diog. Laert., IX, _vit. Xenophan._, c. 1,
says of Dexius.]

[Footnote 91: Diog. Laert., _ubi cit._, says Sotion of Alexandria is
the authority for this, but that he was mistaken. Hippolytus says later
in Book I (p. 59 _infra_) that Pyrrho was the first to assert the
incomprehensibility of everything. If, as Sotion asserted, Xenophanes
was a contemporary of Anaximander, he must have died two centuries
before Pyrrho was born.]

[Footnote 92: δόκος δ’ ἐπὶ πᾶσι τέτυκται, _sed in omnibus opinio est_,
Cr. Yet δόκος is surely a “guess.”]

[Footnote 93: αἰσθητικός.]

[Footnote 94: ἐν τῷ βάθει τοῦ λίθου, “deep down in the stone.” Perhaps
the earliest mention of fossils.]

[Footnote 95: Is this a survival of the Babylonian legends of the
Flood?]

[Footnote 96: παραλλαγγάς, _differentias_, Cr. Perhaps “alternations.”]

[Footnote 97: The whole of this section on Ecphantus is corrupt. He is
not alluded to again in the book.]

[Footnote 98: Hippo is mentioned by Iamblichus in his life of
Pythagoras.]

[Footnote 99: ἀπομαξάμενος, “been sealed with,” or “copied.” Cf. Diog.
Laert., II, _vit._ _Socrates_, c. 12.]

[Footnote 100: προνοούμενον αὐτοῦ. The τόδε τὸ πᾶν of the line above
shows that Plato did not mean that the forethought extended to other
worlds than this.]

[Footnote 101: This expression, like many others in this epitome of
Plato’s doctrines, is found in the Εἰς τὰ τοῦ Πλάτωνος Εἰσαγωγή of
Alcinous, who flourished in Roman times. The best edition still seems
to be Bishop Fell’s, Oxford, 1667. Alcinous’ work was, as will appear,
the main source from which Hippolytus drew his account of Plato’s
doctrines.]

[Footnote 102: Alcinous, _op. cit._, c. 12.]

[Footnote 103: _Ibid._, cc. 9, 12.]

[Footnote 104: ἐδημιούργει. Not created _ex nihilo_, but made out of
existing material as an architect makes a house.]

[Footnote 105: Alcinous, _op. cit._, cc. 8, 10.]

[Footnote 106: ἐξ αὐτοῦ συνεστάναι αὐτόν. So Cruice. Macmahon reads
with Roeper αὐτῆς for αὐτοῦ, “the world was made out of it” (_i. e._
matter).]

[Footnote 107: The body of the cosmos is evidently meant. Cf. Alcinous,
c. 12.]

[Footnote 108: _de Legg._, IV, 7.]

[Footnote 109: ἀορίστως.]

[Footnote 110: _Timæus_, c. 16.]

[Footnote 111: _Phædrus_, c. 166.]

[Footnote 112: γενεαλογῇ.]

[Footnote 113: Alcinous, c. 25.]

[Footnote 114: _Phædrus_, cc. 51, 52.]

[Footnote 115: For this see the _Timæus_, c. 17.]

[Footnote 116: This sentence is corrupt throughout, and there are at
least three readings which can be given to it. I have taken that which
makes the smallest alteration in Cruice’s text.]

[Footnote 117: _Phædo_, c. 43.]

[Footnote 118: I do not think this can be found in any writings of
Plato that have come down to us. Hippolytus probably took it from
Aristotle, to whom he also attributes it; but I cannot find it in this
writer either. A passage in Arist., _Nicomachean Ethics_, Book II, c.
6, is the nearest to it.]

[Footnote 119: So Alcinous, c. 29. The other statements in this
sentence seem to be Aristotle’s rather than Plato’s. Cf. Diog. Laert.,
V, _vit. Arist._, c. 13, where he describes the good things of the
soul, the body and of external things respectively.]

[Footnote 120: Alcinous, cc. 28, 29.]

[Footnote 121: _Ibid._, c. 27.]

[Footnote 122: _Ibid._, c. 29.]

[Footnote 123: _Ibid._, c. 26. The passage about the choice [of virtue]
is in the _Republic_, X, 617 C. Hippolytus had evidently not read the
original, which says that according as a man does or does not choose
virtue, so he will have more or less of it.]

[Footnote 124: Alcinous, c. 30.]

[Footnote 125: This passage is not in the _Republic_, but in the
_Clitopho_, as to Plato’s authorship of which there are doubts. Cruice
quotes the Greek text from Roeper in a note on p. 38 of his text.]

[Footnote 126: Alcinous, c. 30.]

[Footnote 127: _Ibid._, c. 29.]

[Footnote 128: “Substance” (οὐσία) and “accident” (συμβεβηκός)
are defined by Aristotle in the _Metaphysica_, Bk. IV, cc. 8, 9
respectively. The definitions in no way bear the interpretation that
Hippolytus here puts on them. In the _Categories_, which, whether by
Aristotle or not, are not referred to by him in any of his extant
works, it is said (c. 4) that “of things in complex enunciated, each
signifies _either_ Substance or Quantity, or Quality or Relation, or
Where or When, or Position, or Possession, or Action, or Passion.” It
is from this that Hippolytus probably took the statement in our text.
The illustrations are in part found in _Metaphysica_, c. 4.]

[Footnote 129: The famous “Quintessence.” So Aetius, _De Plac. Phil._,
Bk. I, c. 1, § 38. But see Diog. Laert. in next note.]

[Footnote 130: This is practically _verbatim_ from Diog. Laert., V,
_vit. Arist._, c. 13.]

[Footnote 131: Hippolytus gives as is usual with him a more detailed
account of Aristotle’s doctrines on these points later. (See Book VII,
II, pp. 62 ff. _infra_.) He there admits that he cannot say exactly
what was Aristotle’s doctrine about the soul. He also refers to books
of Aristotle on Providence and the like which, _teste_ Cruice, no
longer exist. Cf. Macmahon’s note on same page (p. 272 of Clark’s
edition).]

[Footnote 132: ἐπὶ τὸ συλλογιστικώτερον τὴν φιλοσοφίαν ηὔξησαν.
_Syllogisticæ artis expolitione philosophiam locupletarunt._]

[Footnote 133: Prof. Arnold in his lucid book on _Roman Stoicism_
(Cambridge, 1911, p. 219, n. 4) quotes this as a genuine Stoic
doctrine. But Diog. Laert., VII, _vit. Zeno_, c. 68, represents Zeno,
Cleanthes, Chrysippus, Archedemus and Posidonius as agreeing that
principles and elements differ from one another in being respectively
indestructible and destroyed, and because elements are bodies while
principles have none. For the Stoic idea of God, see _op. cit._, c. 70.
So Cicero, _De Natura Deorum_, Bk. I, cc. 8, 18, makes Zeno say that
the cosmos is God, but in the _Academics_, II, 41 that Aether is the
Supreme God, with which doctrine, he says, nearly all Stoics agree.
Perhaps Hippolytus is here quoting Clement of Alexandria, _Stromateis_,
VI, 71, who says that the Stoics dare to make the God of all things
“a corporeal spirit.” For the Stoic doctrine of Providence, see Diog.
Laert., _vit. Zeno_, c. 70.]

[Footnote 134: ποιῶν καὶ τὸ αὐτεξούσιον μετὰ τῆς ἀνάγκης οἷον τῆς
εἱμαρμένης. Τὸ αὐτεξούσιον is the recognized expression for free will.
Note the difference between ἀνάγκη, “compulsion,” and εἱμαρμένη,
“destiny.” For the Stoic doctrine of Fate, see Diog. Laert., _vit.
cit._, c. 74.]

[Footnote 135: Diog. Laert., _ubi cit._, c. 84.]

[Footnote 136: From ψῦξις, “cooling”--a bad pun.]

[Footnote 137: It is extremely doubtful whether the metempsychosis ever
formed part of Stoic doctrine.]

[Footnote 138: Zeno and Cleanthes both accepted the ecpyrosis. See
Diog. Laert., _ubi cit._, c. 70. The same author says that Panætius
said that the cosmos was imperishable.]

[Footnote 139: σῶμα διὰ σώματος μὲν χωρεῖν, _corpusque per corpus
migrare_, Cr. Macmahon inserts a “not” in the sentence, but without
authority. The Stoic resurrection assumed that in the new world created
out of the ashes of the old, individuals would take the same place as
in this last. See Arnold, _op. cit._, p. 193 for authorities.]

[Footnote 140: ἀτόμοι, “that cannot be cut.” The rest of this sentence
is taken from Diog. Laert., X, _vit. Epicur._, c. 24, and is quoted
there from Epicurus’ treatise on Nature.]

[Footnote 141: With the exception of the Deity’s seat in the
intercosmic spaces and the idea that the souls of men consist of blood,
all the above opinions of Epicurus are to be found in Diog. Laert., X,
_vit. Epic._]

[Footnote 142: οὐ μᾶλλον, “not rather.”]

[Footnote 143: See n. on p. 49 _supra_. The doctrines here given are
those of the Sceptics, and are to be found in Diog. Laert., IX, _vit.
Pyrrho_, c. 79 ff. and in Sextus Empiricus, _Hyp. Pyrrho_, I, 209 ff.
Diog. Laert. quotes from Ascanius of Abdera that Pyrrho introduced the
dogma of incomprehensibility, and Hippolytus seems to have copied this
without noticing that he has said the same thing about Xenophanes.]

[Footnote 144: Diog. Laert., I, _Prooem._, c. 1, mentions both
Gymnosophists and Druids, but if he ever gave any account of their
teaching it must be in the part of the book which is lost. Clem. Alex.,
_Stromateis_, I, c. 15, describes the two classes of Gymnosophists
as Sarmanæ and Brachmans. The Sarmanæ or Samanæi (Shamans?) seem the
nearer of the two to the Brachmans of our text.]

[Footnote 145: ἀκροδρύοι, hard-shelled fruit such as acorns or
chestnuts.]

[Footnote 146: Roeper suggests the Ganges.]

[Footnote 147: Megasthenes, for whom see Strabo V, 712, differs from
Hippolytus in making the abstinence of the Gymnosophists endure for
thirty-seven years only.]

[Footnote 148: Nothing has yet been said about any bank.]

[Footnote 149: The whole of this sentence is corrupt. Macmahon
following Roeper would read: “This discourse whom they name God they
affirm to be incorporeal, but enveloped in a body outside himself, just
as if one carried a covering of sheepskin to have it seen; but having
stripped off the body in which he is enveloped, he no longer appears
visibly to the naked eye.”]

[Footnote 150: ἐγείρας τρόπαιον, lit., “raised a trophy.”]

[Footnote 151: θεολογοῦσι. Eusebius, _Præp. Ev._, uses the word in this
sense. For the Dandamis and Calanus stories, see Arrian, _Anabasis_,
Bk. VII, cc. 2, 3.]

[Footnote 152: This is quite unintelligible as it stands. It probably
means that the Brachmans worship the light of which the Sun is the
garment, and that they think they are united with it when temporarily
freed from the body. Is he confusing them on the one hand with the
Yogis, whose burial trick is referred to later in connection with Simon
Magus, and on the other with some Zoroastrian or fire-worshipping sect
of Central Asia?]

[Footnote 153: ὃς ... ἐκεῖ χωρήσας αἴτιος τούτοις ταύτης τῆς φιλοσοφίας
ἐγένετο. Does the ἐκεῖ mean Galatia, whose inhabitants were Celts
by origin? Hippolytus has probably copied the sentence without
understanding it.]

[Footnote 154: Hesiod is treated by Aristotle, _Metaphysica_, Bk.
II, c. 15, as one who philosophizes, which perhaps accounts for the
introduction of his name here.]

[Footnote 155: διδαχθῆναι, _ut se edocerent_, Cr. So Macmahon. The
context, however, plainly requires that it is Hesiod and not the Muse
who is to be taught. The rendering of poetry into prose is seldom
satisfactory, so I have ventured to give here the version of Elton,
which is as close to the original as it is poetic in form.]

[Footnote 156: ὡς στέφανον δάσσαντο.]

[Footnote 157: Αἰθήρ τε καὶ Ἡμέρη. One would prefer to keep the word
“Aether,” which is hardly “sunshine.”]

[Footnote 158: ἶσον ἑαυτῇ.]

[Footnote 159: τὰ μυστικὰ. The expression generally used for Mysteries
such as those of Eleusis. Either he employs it here to include the
tricks of the magicians described in Book IV, or he did not mean to
describe these last when the sentence was written, but to go instead
straight from the astrologers to the heresies. The last alternative
seems the more probable.]

[Footnote 160: ἀδρανῆ, _infirmas_, Cr.]

[Footnote 161: The main question which arises on this First Book of our
text is, What were the sources from which Hippolytus drew the opinions
he here summarizes? Diels, who has taken much pains over the matter,
thinks that his chief source was the epitome that Sotion of Alexandria
made from Heraclides. As we have seen, however, Diogenes Laertius is
responsible for a fair number of Hippolytus’ statements, especially
concerning the opinions of those to whom he gives little space. Certain
phrases seem taken directly from Theophrastus or from whatever author
it was that Simplicius used in his commentaries on Aristotle, and the
likeness between Alcinous’ summary of Plato’s doctrines and those of
our author is too close to be accidental. It therefore seems most
probable that Hippolytus did not confine himself to any one source, but
borrowed from several. This would, after all, be the natural course for
a lecturer as distinguished from a writer to adopt, and goes some way
therefore towards confirming the theory as to the origin of the book
stated in the Introduction.]




                           BOOKS II AND III


(These are entirely missing, no trace of them having been found
attached to any of the four codices of Book I or to the present text of
Books IV to X. We know that such books must have once existed, as at
the end of Book IV (p. 117 _infra_) the author tells us that all the
famous opinions of earthly philosophy have been included by him in the
preceding _four_ books, of which as has been said only Books I and IV
have come down to us.

Our only ground for conjecture as to the contents of Books II and III
is to be found in Hippolytus’ statement at the end of Book I, that he
will _first_ make public the mystic rites[1] and then the fancies of
certain philosophers as to stars and magnitudes. As the promise in the
last words of the sentence seems to be fulfilled in Book IV, where he
gives not only the method of the astrologers of his time, but also the
calculations of the Greek astronomers as to the relative distances of
the heavenly bodies, it may be presumed that this was preceded and not
followed by a description of the Mysteries more elaborate and fuller
than the casual allusions to them which appear in Book V. So, too, in
Chap. 5 of the same Book IV, which he himself describes in the heading
as a “Recapitulation” of what has gone before, he refers to certain
dogmas of the Persians and the Babylonians as to the nature of God,
which have certainly not been mentioned in any other part of the book
which has come down to us. So, again, at the beginning of Book X, which
purports to be a summary of the whole work, he tells us that having now
gone through the “labyrinth of heresies,” it will be shown that the
Truth is not derived from “the wisdom (philosophy) of the Greeks, the
secret mysteries of the Egyptians,[2] the fallacies of the astrologers,
or the demon-inspired ravings of the Babylonians.” The Greek philosophy
and astrological fallacies are dealt with at sufficient length in Books
I and IV respectively, but nothing of importance is said in these or
elsewhere in the work as to the mysteries of the “Egyptians,” by whom
he probably means the worshippers of the Alexandrian divinities, and
nothing at all as to Babylonian demonolatry or magic. It is quite
true that he follows this up immediately by the statement that he
has included the tenets of all the wise men among the _Greeks_ in
four books, and the doctrines of the heretics in five; but it has
been explained in the Introduction (pp. 18 ff. _supra_) that there
are reasons why the summarizer’s recollection of the earlier books
may not be verbally accurate, nor does he say that the description
of the philosophic and heretical teachings exhausted the contents
of the first four books. On the whole, therefore, Cruice appears to
be justified in his conclusion that the missing books contained an
account of the “Egyptian” Mysteries and of “the sacred sciences of the
Babylonians.”)[3]


                               FOOTNOTES

[Footnote 1: τὰ μυστικά.]

[Footnote 2: Αἰγυπτίων δόγματα ... ὡς ἄρρητα διδαχθείς.]

[Footnote 3: M. Adhémar d’Alès in his work _La Théologie de St.
Hippolyte_, Paris, 1906, argues that the existing text of Book
IV contains large fragments of the missing Books II and III. His
argument is chiefly founded on the supposed excessive length of Book
IV, although as a fact Book V is in Cruice’s pagination some 20
pages longer than this and Book VI, 10. Apart from this, it seems
very doubtful if any author would describe the arithmomantic and
arithmetical nonsense in Book IV as either μυστικά or δόγματα ἄρρητα,
and it is certain that he cannot be alluding, when he speaks of the
Βαβυλωνίων ἀλογίστῳ μανίᾳ δι’ ἐν(εργί)ας δαιμόνων καταπλαγείς, to the
jugglery in the same book, which he there attributes not to the agency
of demons but to the tricks of charlatans.]




                                BOOK IV

                        DIVINERS AND MAGICIANS


(The first pages of this book have been torn away from the MS., and we
are therefore deprived of the small Table of Contents which the author
has prefixed to the other seven. From the headings of the various
chapters it may be reproduced in substance thus:--

1. The “Chaldæans” or Astrologers, and the celestial measurements of
the Greek astronomers.

2. The Mathematicians or those who profess to divine by the numerical
equivalents of the letters in proper names.

3. The Metoposcopists or those who connect the form of the body and the
disposition of the mind with the Zodiacal sign rising at birth.

4. The Magicians and the tricks by which they read sealed letters,
perform divinations, produce apparitions of gods and demons, and work
other wonders.

5. Recapitulation of the ideas of Greek and Barbarian on the nature of
God, and the views of the “Egyptians” or neo-Pythagoreans as to the
mysteries of number.

6. The star-diviners or those who find religious meaning in the
grouping of the constellations as described by Aratus.

7. The Pythagorean doctrine of number and its relation to the heresies
of Simon Magus and Valentinus.)


            [Sidenote: p. 53.] [1. _About Astrologers_.[1]]

... (And they (_i. e._ the Chaldæans) declare there are “terms”[2]
of the stars in each zodiacal sign extending from one given part)[3]
to [another given part in which some particular star has most power.
About which there is no mere chance difference] among them [as appears
from their tables]. But they say that the stars are guarded[4] [when
they are midway between two other stars] in zodiacal succession.
For instance, if [a certain star should occupy the first part] of a
zodiacal sign and another [the last parts, and a third those of the
middle, the one in the middle is said to be guarded] by those occupying
the parts at the extremities. [And they say that the stars behold
one another and are in accord with one another] when they appear
triangularly or quadrangularly. Now those form a triangular [Sidenote:
p. 54.] figure[5] and behold one another which have an interval of
three zodiacal signs between them and a square those which have one of
two signs....

([6]Such then seems to be the character of the Chaldæan method. And
in that which has been handed down it remains easy to understand and
follow the contradictions noted. And some indeed try to teach a rougher
way as if earthly things have no sympathy[7] at all with the heavenly
ones. For thus they say, that the ambient[8] is not united as is the
human body, so that according to the condition) of the head the lower
parts [suffer with it and the head with the lower] parts, and earthly
things should suffer along with those above the moon. But there is a
certain difference and want of sympathy between them as they have not
one and [the] same unity.

2. Making use of these statements, Euphrates the Peratic and
Akembes the Carystian[9] and the rest of the band of these people,
miscalling the word of Truth, declare that there is a war of æons and
a falling-away of good powers to the bad, calling them Toparchs and
Proastii[10] and many other names. All which heresy undertaken by them,
I shall set forth and refute when we come to the discussion concerning
them. But now, lest any one should deem trustworthy and unfailing
the rules laid down[11] by the Chaldæans [Sidenote: p. 55.] for the
astrological art, we shall not shrink from briefly setting forth their
refutation and pointing out that their art is vain and rather deceives
and destroys the soul which may hope for vain things than helps it. In
which matters we do not hold out any expertness in the art, but only
that drawn from knowledge of the practical words.[12] Those who, having
been trained in this science, become pupils of the Chaldæans and who
having changed the names only, have imparted mysteries as if they were
strange and wonderful to men, have constructed a heresy out of this.
But since they consider the astrologers’ art a mighty one and making
use of the witness of the Chaldæans wish to get their own systems
believed because of them, we shall now prove that the astrological art
as it appears to-day is unfounded, and then that the Peratic heresy is
to be put aside as a branch growing from a root which does not hold.[13]

3.[14] Now the beginning and as it were the basis of the affair
is the establishment of the horoscope. From this the rest of the
cardinal points, and the cadents and succeedents and the trines and
the squares[15] and the configuration of the stars in them are known,
from all which things the predictions [Sidenote: p. 56.] are made.
Wherefore if the horoscope be taken away, of necessity neither the
midheaven nor the descendant nor the anti-meridian is known. But the
whole Chaldaic system vanishes if these are not disclosed. [And how
the zodiacal sign ascending is to be discovered is taught in divers
ways. For in order that this may be apprehended, it is necessary first
of all that the birth of the child falling under consideration be
carefully taken, and secondly that the signalling of the time[16] be
unerring, and thirdly that the rising in the heaven of the ascending
sign be observed with the greatest care. For at the birth[17] the
rising of the sign ascending in the heaven must be closely watched,
since the Chaldæans determining that which ascends, on its rising make
that disposition of the stars which they call the Theme,[18] from
which they declare their predictions. But neither is it possible to
take the birth of those falling under consideration, as I shall show,
nor is the time established [Sidenote: p. 57.] unerringly, nor is the
ascending sign ascertained with care. How baseless the system of the
Chaldæans is, we will now say. It is necessary before determining
the birth of those falling under consideration, to inquire whether
they take it from the deposition of the seed and its conception or
from the bringing forth. And if we should attempt to take it from the
conception, the accurate account of this is hard to grasp, the time
being short and naturally so. For we cannot say whether conception
takes place simultaneously with the transfer of the seed or not. For
this may happen as quick as thought, as the tallow put into heated
pots sticks fast at once, or it may take place after some time.[19]
For there being a distance from the mouth of the womb to the other
extremity, where conceptions are said by doctors to take place, it
is natural that nature depositing the seed should take some time to
accomplish this distance. Therefore the Chaldæans being ignorant of
the exact length of time will never discover exactly the time of
conception, the seed being sometimes [Sidenote: p. 58.] shot straight
forward and falling in those places of the womb fitted by nature for
conception, and sometimes falling broadcast to be only brought into
place by the power of the womb itself. And it cannot be known when the
first of these things happens and when the second, nor how much time is
spent in one sort of conception and how much in the other. But if we
are ignorant of these things, the accurate discovery of the nature of
the conception vanishes.[20] Nor if, as some physiologists say, seed
being first seethed and altered in the womb then goes forward to its
gaping vessels as the seeds of the earth go to the earth; why then,
those who do not know the length of time taken by this change will not
know either the moment of conception. And again, as women differ from
one another in energy and other causes of action in other parts of the
body, so do they differ in the energy of the womb, some conceiving
quicker and others slower. And this is not unexpected, since if we
compare them, they are seen now to be good conceivers and now not at
all so. This being so, it is impossible to say with exactness when the
seed deposited is secured, so that from this time the Chaldæans may
establish the horoscope[21] of the birth.

[Sidenote: p. 59.] 4. For this reason it is impossible to establish the
horoscope from the conception; nor can it be done from the bringing
forth. For in the first place, it is very hard to say when the bringing
forth is: whether it is when the child begins to incline towards the
fresh air or when it projects a little, or when it is brought down
altogether to the ground. But in none of these cases is it possible
to define the time of birth accurately.[22] For from presence of mind
and suitableness of body, and through preference of places and the
expertness of the midwife and endless other causes, the time is not
always the same when, the membranes being ruptured, the infant inclines
forward, or when [Sidenote: p. 60.] it projects a little, or when it
falls to the ground. But it is different with different women. Which,
again, the Chaldæans being unable to measure definitely and accurately,
they are prevented from determining as they should the hour of the
bringing forth.

That the Chaldæans, therefore, while asserting that they know the
sign ascending at the time of birth, do not know it, is plain from
the facts. And that there is no means either of unerringly observing
the time,[23] is easy to be judged. For when they say that the person
sitting by the woman in labour at the bringing forth signifies the
same to the Chaldæan who is looking upon the stars from a high place
by means of the gong,[24] and that this last gazing upon the heaven
notes down the sign then rising, we shall show that as the bringing
forth happens at no defined time,[25] it is not possible either to
signify the same by the gong. For even if it be granted that the actual
bringing forth can be ascertained, yet the time cannot be signified
accurately. For the sound of the gong, being capable of divisions
by perception into much and more time,[26] it happens that it is
[Sidenote: p. 61.] carried (late) to the high place. And the proof of
this is what is noticed when trees are felled a long way off.[27] For
the sound of the stroke is heard a pretty long time after the fall of
the axe, so as to reach the listener later. And from this cause it
is impossible for the Chaldæans to obtain accurately the time of the
rising sign and that which is in truth on the ascendant.[28] And indeed
not only does more time pass after the birth before he who sits beside
the woman in labour, strikes the gong, and again after the stroke
before it is heard by him upon the high place, but also before he can
look about and see in which sign is the moon and in which is each of
the other stars. It seems inevitable then that there must be a great
change in the disposition of the stars,[29] [from the movement of the
Pole being whirled along with indescribable swiftness] before the
hour of him who has been born as it is seen in heaven can be observed
carefully.[30]

[Sidenote: p. 62.] 5. Thus the art according to the Chaldæans has been
shown to be baseless. But if any one should fancy that by enquiries,
the geniture[31] of the enquirer is to be learned, we may know that
not in this way either can it be arrived at with certainty. For if
such great care in the practice of the art is necessary, and yet as we
have shown they do not arrive at accuracy, how can an unskilled person
take accurately the time of birth, so that the Chaldæan on learning
it may set up the horoscope truthfully?[32] But neither by inspection
of the horizon will the star ascending appear the same everywhere,
but sometimes the cadent sign will be considered the ascendant and
sometimes the succeedent, according as the coming in view of the places
is higher or lower. So that in this respect the prediction will not
appear accurate, many people being born all over the world at the same
hour, while every observer will see the stars differently.

But vain also is the customary taking of the time by water-jars.[33]
For the pierced jar will not give the same flow when full as when
nearly empty, while according to [Sidenote: p. 63.] the theory of these
people the Pole itself is borne along in one impulse with equal speed.
But if they answer to this that they do not take the time accurately
but as it chances in common use,[34] they will be refuted merely by
the starry influences themselves.[35] For those who have been born
at the same time have not lived the same life; but some for example
have reigned as kings while others have grown old in chains. None at
any rate of the many throughout the inhabited world at the same time
as Alexander of Macedon were like unto him, and none to Plato the
philosopher. So that if the Chaldæan observes carefully the time in
common use, he will not be able to say[36] if he who is born at that
time will be fortunate. For many at any rate born at that time, will be
unfortunate, so that the likeness between the genitures is vain.

Having therefore refuted in so many different ways the vain speculation
of the Chaldæans, we shall not omit this, that their prognostications
lead to impossibility. For if he who is born under the point of
Sagittarius’ arrow must be slain, as the astrologers[37] say, how
was it that so many [Sidenote: p. 64.] barbarians who fought against
the Greeks at Marathon or Salamis were killed at the same time? For
there was not at any rate the same horoscope for all. And again, if
he who is born under the urn of Aquarius will be shipwrecked, how was
it that some of the Greeks returning from Troy were sunk together in
the furrows of the Eubœan sea? For it is incredible that all these
differing much from one another in age should all have been born under
Aquarius’ urn. For it cannot be said often that because of one who was
destined to perish by sea, all those in the ship should be destroyed
along with him. For why should the destiny of this one prevail over
that of all, and yet that not all should be saved because of one who
was destined to die on land?

6. But since also they make a theory about the influence of the
zodiacal signs to which they say the things brought forth are likened,
we shall not omit this. For example, they say that he who is born
under Leo will be courageous,[38] and he who is born under Virgo
straight-haired, pale-complexioned, [Sidenote: p. 65.] childless
and bashful. But these things and those like them deserve laughter
rather than serious consideration.[39] For according to them an
Ethiopian can be born under Virgo, and if so they allow he will be
white, straight-haired and the rest. But I imagine that the ancients
gave the names of the lower animals to the stars rather because of
arbitrariness[40] than from natural likeness of shape. For what
likeness to a bear have the seven stars which stand separate from one
another? Or to the head of a dragon those five of which Aratus says:--

    Two hold the temples, two the eyes, and one beneath
    Marks the chin point of the monster dread.--
                     (Aratus, _Phainomena_, vv. 56, 57.)

7. That these things are not worthy of so much labour is thus proved
to the right-thinkers aforesaid, and to those who give no heed to the
inflated talk of the Chaldæans, who with assurance of indemnity make
kings to disappear [Sidenote: p. 66.] and incite private persons to
dare great deeds.[41] But if he who has given way to evil fails, he
who has been deceived does not become a teacher to all whose minds
the Chaldæans wish to lead endlessly astray by their failures. For
they constrain the minds of their pupils when they say that the same
configuration of the stars cannot occur otherwise than by the return
of the Great Year in 7777 years.[42] How then can human observation
agree[43] in so many ages upon one geniture? And this not once but many
times, since the destruction of the cosmos as some say will interrupt
the observation, or its gradual transformation will cause to disappear
entirely the continuity of historical tradition.[44]] The Chaldaic art
must be refuted by more arguments, although we have been recalling
it to memory on account of other matters and not for its own sake.
But since we have before said that we will omit none of the opinions
current among the Gentiles,[45] by reason of the many-voiced craft of
the heresies, let us see what they say also who have [Sidenote: p. 67.]
dared to speculate about magnitudes. Who, recognizing the variety of
the work of most of them, when another has been utterly deceived in a
different manner and has been yet held in high esteem, have dared to
say something yet more grandiose than he, so that they may be yet more
glorified by those who have already glorified their petty frauds. These
men postulate circles and triangular and square measures doubly and
triply.[46] There is much theory about this, but it is not necessary
for what lies before us.

8. I reckon it enough therefore to declare the marvels described by
them. Wherefore I shall employ their epitomes,[47] as they call them,
and then turn to other things. They say this:[48] he who fashioned the
universe, gave rule to the revolution of the Same and Like, for that
alone he left undivided; but the inner motion he divided 6 times and
made 7 unequal circles divided by intervals in ratios of 2 and 3, 3
of each, and bade the circles revolve in directions opposite to one
another--3 of them to revolve at equal pace, and 4 with a velocity
unlike that of the 3, but in [Sidenote: p. 68.] due proportion.[49] And
he says that rule was given to the orbit of the 7, not only because it
embraces the orbit of the Other, _i. e._, the Wanderers; but because
it has so much rule, _i. e._, so much power, that it carries along
with it the Wanderers to the opposite positions, bearing them from
West to East and from East to West by its own strength. And he says
that the same orbit was allowed to be one and undivided, first because
the orbits of all the fixed stars are equal in time and not divided
into greater and lesser times.[50] And next because they all have the
same appearance,[51] which is that of the outermost orbit, while the
Wanderers are divided into more and different kinds of movements and
into unequal distances from the Earth. And he says that the Other orbit
has been cut in 6 places into 7 circles according to ratio.[52] For as
many cuts as there are of each, so many segments are there _plus_ a
monad. For example if one cut be made,[53] there are 2 segments; if 2
cuts, 3 segments; and so, if a thing be cut 6 times there [Sidenote:
p. 69.] will be 7 segments. And he says that the intervals between
them are arranged alternately in ratios of 2 and 3, 3 of each, which
he has proved with regard to the constitution of the soul also, as to
the 7 numbers. For 3 among them, viz., 2, 4, 8, are doubles from the
monad onwards and 3 of them, viz., 3, 9, 27 [triples][54].... But the
diameter of the Earth is 80,008 stadia and its perimeter 250,543.[55]
And the distance from the Earth’s surface to the circle of the Moon,
Aristarchus of Samos writes as ...[56] stadia but Apollonius as
5,000,000 and Archimedes as 5,544,130. And Archimedes says that from
the Moon’s circle to that of the Sun is 50,262,065 stadia; from this
to the circle of Aphrodite 20,272,065; and from this to the circle of
Hermes 50,817,165; and from the same to the circle of [Sidenote: p.
70.] the Fiery One[57] 40,541,108; and from this to the circle of Zeus
20,275,065; but from this to the circle of Kronos, 40,372,065; and from
this to the Zodiac and the last periphery 20,082,005 stadia.

9. The differences from one another of the circles and the spheres
in height are also given by Archimedes. He takes the perimeter of
the Zodiac at 447,310,000 stadia, so that a straight line from the
centre of the Earth to its extreme surface is the sixth part of the
said number, and from the surface of the Earth on which we walk to
the Zodiac is exactly one-sixth of the said number less 40,000 stadia
which is the distance from the centre of the Earth to its surface.
And from the circle of Kronos to the Earth, he says, the interval is
2,226,912,711 stadia; and from the [Sidenote: p. 71.] circle of the
Fiery One to the Earth, 132,418,581; and from the Sun to the Earth,
121,604,454; from the Shining One to the Earth, 526,882,259; and from
Aphrodite to the Earth, 50,815,160.[58]

10. And about the Moon we have before spoken. The distances and
depths[59] of the spheres are thus given by Archimedes, but Hipparchus
speaks differently about them, and Apollonius the mathematician
differently again. But it is enough for us in following the Platonic
theory to think of the intervals between the Wanderers as in ratios
of 2 and 3. For thus is kept alive the theory of the harmonious
construction of the universe in accordant ratios[60] by the same
distances. But the numbers set out by Archimedes and the ratios quoted
by the others concerning the distances, if they are not in accordant
ratios, that is in those called by [Sidenote: p. 72.] Plato twofold
and threefold, but are found to be outside the chords,[61] would not
keep alive the theory of the harmonious construction of the universe.
For it is neither probable nor possible that their distances should
have no ratio to one another, that is, should be outside the chords
and enharmonic scales. Except perhaps the Moon alone, from her waning
and the shadows of the Earth, as to which planet alone you may trust
Archimedes, that is to say for the distance of the Moon from the Earth.
And it will be easy for those who accept this calculation to ascertain
the number and the other distances according to the Platonic method
by doubling and tripling as Plato demands.[62] If then, according to
Archimedes, the Moon is distant from the Earth 5,544,130 stadia, it
will be easy by increasing these numbers in ratios of 2 and 3 to find
her distance from the rest by taking one fraction of the number of
stadia by which the Moon is distant from the Earth.

But since the rest of the numbers stated by Archimedes about the
distance of the Wanderers are not in accordant ratios, it is easy to
know how they stand in regard to one [Sidenote: p. 73.] another and in
what ratios they have been observed to be. But that the same are not in
harmony and accord[63] when they are parts of the cosmos established
by harmony is impossible. So then, as the first number (of stadia)
by which the Moon is distant from the Earth is 5,544,130, the second
number by which the Sun is distant from the Moon being 50,262,065, it
is in ratio more than ninefold; and the number of the interval above
this being 20,272,065 is in ratio less than one-half. And the number of
the interval above this being 50,815,108 is in ratio more than twofold.
And the number of the interval above this being 40,541,108 is in ratio
more than one and a quarter.[64] And the number of the interval above
this being 20,275,065 is in ratio more than half. And the number of
the highest interval above this being 40,372,065 is in ratio less than
twofold.[65]

11. These same ratios indeed--the more than ninefold, [Sidenote: p.
74.] less than half, more than twofold, less than one and a quarter,
more than half, less than half and less than twofold are outside all
harmonies and from them no enharmonic nor accordant system can come to
pass. But the whole cosmos and its parts throughout are put together in
an enharmonic and accordant manner. But the enharmonic and accordant
ratios are kept alive as we have said before by the twofold and
threefold intervals. If then we deem Archimedes worthy of faith on the
distance given above, _i. e._, that from the Moon to the Earth, it is
easy to find the rest by increasing it in the ratios of 2 and 3. Let
the distance from the Earth to the Moon be, according to Archimedes,
5,544,130 stadia. The double of this will be the number of stadia by
which the Sun is distant from the Moon, viz., 11,088,260. But from
the Earth the Sun is distant 16,632,390 stadia and Aphrodite indeed
from the Sun--16,632,390 stadia, but from the Earth 33,264,780. Ares
indeed is distant from Aphrodite 22,176,520 stadia but from the Earth
105,338,470. But Zeus is distant from Ares 44,353,040 stadia, but from
[Sidenote: p. 75] the Earth 149,691,510. Kronos is distant from Zeus
40,691,510 stadia, but from the Earth 293,383,020.[66]

12. Who will not wonder at so much activity of mind produced by so
great labour? It seems that this Ptolemy[67] who busies himself with
these matters is not without his use to me. This only grieves me that
as one but lately born he was not serviceable to the sons of the
giants,[68] who, being ignorant of these measurements, thought they
were near high heaven and began to make a useless tower. Had he been at
hand to explain these measurements to them they would not have ventured
on the foolishness. But if any one thinks he can disbelieve this let
him take the measurements and be convinced; for one cannot have for
the unbelieving a more manifold proof than this. O puffing-up of
vainly-toiling soul and unbelieving belief, when Ptolemy is considered
wise in everything by those trained in the like wisdom![69]

13. Certain men in part intent on these things as judging [Sidenote:
p. 76.] them mighty and worthy of argument have constructed
measureless[70] and boundless heresies. Among whom is one
Colarbasus,[71] who undertakes to set forth religion by measures and
numbers. And there are others whom we shall likewise point out when
we begin to speak of those who give heed to Pythagorean reckoning as
if it were powerful and neglect the true philosophy for numbers and
elements, thus making vain divinations. Collecting whose words, certain
men have led astray the uneducated, pretending to know the future and
when they chance to divine one thing aright are not ashamed of their
many failures, but make a boast of their one success. Nor shall I pass
over their unwise wisdom, but when I have set forth their attempts to
establish a religion from these sources, I shall refute them as being
disciples of a school inconsistent and full of trickery.


                      2. _Of Mathematicians._[72]

[Sidenote: p. 77.] Those then who fancy that they can divine by means
of ciphers[73] and numbers, elements[74] and names, make the foundation
of their attempted system to be this. They pretend that every number
has a root:--in the thousands as many units as there are thousands.
For example, the root of 6000 is 6 units, of 7000, 7 units, of 8000,
8 units, and with the rest in the same way. In the hundreds as many
hundreds as there are, so the same number of units is the root of them.
For example, in 700 there are 7 hundreds: 7 units is their root. In 600
there are 6 hundreds: 6 units is their root. In the same way in the
decads: of 80 the root is 8 units, of 40, 4 units, of 10, 1 unit. In
the units, the units themselves are the root; for instance, the unit
of the 9 is 9, of the 8, 8, of the 7, 7. Thus then must we do with the
component parts [of names]. For each element is arranged according to
some number. For example, the Nu consists of 50 units; but of 50 units
the root is 5, and of the letter [Sidenote: p. 78.] Nu the root is 5.
Let it be granted that from the name we may take certain[75] of its
roots. For example, from the name Agamemnon there comes from the Alpha
one unit, from the Gamma 3 units, from the other Alpha 1 unit, from the
Mu 4 units, from the Epsilon 5 units, from the Mu 4 units, from the Nu
5 units, from the Omega 8 units, from the Nu 5 units, which together in
one row will be 1, 3, 1, 4, 5, 4, 5, 8, 5. These added together make 36
units. Again they take the roots of these and they become 3 for the 30,
but 6 itself for the 6. Then the 3 and the 6 added together make 9, but
the root of 9 is 9. Therefore the name Agamemnon ends in the root 9.

Let the same be done with another name, viz., Hector. The name Hector
contains five elements, Epsilon, Kappa, Tau, Omega and Rho.[76] The
roots of these are 5, 2, 3, 8, 1; these added together make 19 units.
Again, the root of the 10 is 1, of the 9, 9, which added together make
10. The root of the 10 is one unit. Therefore the name of Hector when
counted up[77] has made as its root one unit.

[Sidenote: p. 79.] But it is easier to work this way. Divide by 9 the
roots ascertained from the elements, as we have just found 19 units
from the name Hector, and read the remaining root. For example, if I
divide the 19 by 9, there remains a unit, for twice 9 is 18, and the
remainder is a unit. For if I subtract 18 from the 19, the remainder
is a unit. Again, of the name Patroclus[78] these numbers 8, 1, 3, 1,
7, 2, 3, 7, 2 are the roots; added together they make 34 units. The
remainder of these units is 7, viz., 3 from the 30 and 4 from the 4.
Therefore 7 units are the root of the name Patroclus. Those then who
reckon by the rule of 9 take the 9th part of the number collected from
the roots and describe the remainder as the sum of the roots; but those
who reckon by the rule of 7 take the 7th part. For example, in the name
Patroclus the aggregate of the roots is 34 units. This divided into
sevens makes 4 sevens, which are 28; the [Sidenote: p. 80.] remainder
is 6 units. He says that by the rule of 7, 6 is the root of the name
Patroclus.[79] If, however, it be 43, the 7th part, he says, is 42, for
7 times 6 is 42, and the remainder is 1. Therefore the root from the
43 by the rule of 7 becomes a unit. But we must take notice of what
happens if the given number when divided has no remainder,[80] as for
example, if from one name, after adding together the roots, I find, _e.
g._, 36 units. But 36 divided by 9 is exactly 4 enneads (for 9 times
4 is 36 and nothing over). Thus, he says the 9 itself is plainly the
root. If again we divide the number 45 we find 9 and no remainder (for
9 times 5 is 45 and nothing over), in such cases we say the root is 9.
And in the same way with the rule of 7: if, _e. g._, we divide 28 by
7 we shall have nothing over (for 7 times 4 is 28 and nothing left),
[and] they say the root is 7. Yet when he reckons up the names and
finds the same letter twice, he counts it only once. For example, the
name [Sidenote: p. 81.] Patroclus has the Alpha twice and the Omicron
twice,[81] therefore he counts the Alpha only once and the Omicron only
once. According to this, then, the roots will be 8, 3, 1, 7, 2, 3, 2,
and added together make 27,[82] and the root of the name by the rule of
9 will be the 9 itself and by that of 7, 6.

In the same way Sarpedon, when counted, makes by the rule of 9, 2
units; but Patroclus makes 9: Patroclus conquers. For when one number
is odd and the other even, the odd conquers if it be the greater. But
again if there were an 8, which is even, and a 5, which is odd, the 8
conquers, for it is greater. But if there are two numbers, for example,
both even or both odd, the lesser conquers. But how does Sarpedon by
the rule of 9 make 2 units? The element Omega is omitted; for when
there are in a name the elements Omega and Eta, they omit the Omega
[Sidenote: p. 82.] and use one element. For they say that they both
have the same power, but are not to be counted twice, as has been said
above. Again, Ajax (Αἴας)[83] makes 4 units, and Hector by the rule of
9 only one. But the 4 is even while the unit is odd. And since we have
said that in such cases the greater conquers, Ajax is the victor. Take
again Alexandros[84] and Menelaus. Alexandros has an individual[85]
name [Paris]. The name Paris makes by the rule of 9, 4; Menelaus by the
same rule 9, and the 9 conquers the 4. For it has been said that when
one is odd and the other even, the greater conquers, but when both are
even or both odd, the lesser. Take again Amycus and Polydeuces. Amycus
makes by the rule of 9, 2 units, and Polydeuces 7: Polydeuces conquers.
Ajax and Odysseus contended together in the funereal games. Ajax makes
by the rule of 9, 4 units, and Odysseus by the same rule 8.[86] Is
there not (here) then some epithet of Odysseus and not his individual
name, for he conquered? According to the numbers Ajax conquers, but
tradition says Odysseus. Or take again Achilles and Hector. Achilles by
the rule of 9 makes 4; [Sidenote: p. 83.] Hector 1; Achilles conquers.
Take again Achilles and Asteropæus. Achilles makes 4, Asteropæus 3;[87]
Achilles conquers. Take again Euphorbus and Menelaus. Menelaus has 9
units, Euphorbus 8; Menelaus conquers.

But some say that by the rule of 7, they use only the vowels, and
others that they put the vowels, semi-vowels and consonants by
themselves, and interpret each column separately. But yet others do not
use the usual numbers, but different ones. Thus, for example, they will
not have Pi to have as a root 8 units, but 5 and the element Xi as a
root 4 units; and turning about every way, they discover nothing sane.
When, however, certain competitors contend a second time,[88] they take
away the first element, and when a third, the two first elements of
each, and counting up the rest, they interpret them.

[Sidenote: p. 84.] 2. I should think that the design of the
arithmeticians has been plainly set forth, who deem that by numbers
and names they can judge life. And I notice that, as they have time
to spare and have been trained in counting, they have wished by means
of the art handed down to them by children to proclaim themselves
well-approved diviners, and, measuring the letters topsy-turvy, have
strayed into nonsense. For when they fail to hit the mark, they say in
propounding the difficulty that the name in question is not a family
name but an epithet; as also they plead as a subterfuge in the case
of Ajax and Odysseus. Who that founds his tenets on this wonderful
philosophy and wishes to be called heresiarch, will not be glorified?


                3. _Of Divination by Metoposcopy._[89]

1. But since there is another and more profound art among the all-wise
investigators of the Greeks, whose disciples the heretics profess
themselves because of the use they make of their opinions for their
own designs, as we shall show before long, we shall not keep silence
about this. This is the divination or rather madness by metoposcopy.
[Sidenote: p. 85.] There are those who refer to the stars the forms of
the types and patterns[90] and natures of men, summing them up by their
births under certain stars. This is what they say: Those born under
Aries will be like this, to wit, long-headed, red-haired, with eyebrows
joined together, narrow forehead, sea-green eyes, hanging cheeks, long
nose, expanded nostrils, thin lips, pointed chin, and wide mouth. They
will partake, he says, of such a disposition as this: forethinking,
versatile, cowardly, provident, easy-going, gentle, inquisitive,
concealing their desires, equipped for everything, ruling more by
judgment than by strength, laughing at the present, skilled writers,
faithful, lovers of strife, provoking to controversy, given to desire,
lovers of boys, understanding, turning from their own homes, displeased
[Sidenote: p. 86.] with everything, litigious, madmen in their cups,
contemptuous, casting away somewhat every year, useful in friendship by
their goodness. Most often they die in a foreign land.[91]

2. Those born under Taurus will be of this type: round-headed,
coarse-haired, with broad forehead, oblong eyes and great eyebrows
if dark; if fair, thin veins, sanguine complexion, large and heavy
eyelids, great ears, round mouth, thick nose, widely-open nostrils,
thick lips. They are strong in their upper limbs, but are sluggish from
the hips downwards from their birth. The same are of a disposition
pleasing, understanding, naturally clever, religious, just, rustical,
agreeable, laborious[92] after twelve years old, easily irritated,
leisurely. Their appetite is small, they are quickly satisfied, wishing
for many things, provident, thrifty towards themselves, liberal towards
others; as a class they are sorrowful, useless in friendship, useful
because of their minds, enduring ills.

[Sidenote: p. 87.] 3. The type of these under Gemini: red-faced, not
too tall in stature, even-limbed, eyes black and beady,[93] cheeks
drawn downwards, coarse mouth, eyebrows joined together. They rule
all that they have, are rich at the last, niggardly, thrifty of their
own, profuse in the affairs of Venus, reasonable, musical, cheats. The
same are said (by other writers) to be of this disposition: learned,
understanding, inquisitive, self-assertive, given to desire, thrifty
with their own, liberal, gentle, prudent, crafty, wishing for many
things, calculators, litigious, untimely, not lucky. They are beloved
by women, are traders, but not very useful in friendship.

[Sidenote: p. 88.] 4. The type of those under Cancer: not great in
stature, blue-black hair, reddish complexion, small mouth, round
head, narrow forehead, greenish eyes, sufficiently beautiful, limbs
slightly irregular. Their disposition: evil, crafty, skilled in plots,
insatiable, thrifty, ungraced, servile, unhelpful, forgetful. They
neither give back what is another’s nor demand back their own; useful
in friendship.

5. The type of those under Leo: round head, reddish hair, large
wrinkled forehead, thick ears, stiff-necked, partly bald, fiery
complexion, green-gray eyes, large jaws, coarse mouth, heavy upper
limbs, great breast, lower parts small. Their disposition is:
self-assertive, immoderate, self-pleasers, wrathful, courageous,
scornful, arrogant, never deliberating, no talkers, indolent, addicted
to custom, given up to the things of Venus, fornicators, shameless,
wanting in faith, importunate for favour, audacious, niggardly,
rapacious, celebrated, helpful to the community, useless in friendship.

[Sidenote: p. 89.] 6. The type of those under Virgo: with fair
countenance, eyes not great but charming, with dark eyebrows close
together, vivacious and swimming.[94] But they are slight in body,
fair to see, with hair beautifully thick, large forehead, prominent
nose. Their disposition is: quick at learning, moderate, thoughtful,
playful, erudite, slow of speech, planning many things, importunate for
favour, observing all things and naturally good disciples. They master
what they learn, are moderate, contemptuous, lovers of boys, addicted
to custom, of great soul, scornful, careless of affairs giving heed
to teaching, better in others’ affairs than in their own; useful for
friendship.

7. The type of those under Libra: with thin bristling hair, reddish
and not very long, narrow wrinkled forehead, beautiful eyebrows close
together, fair eyes with black pupils, broad but small ears, bent head,
wide mouth. Their disposition is: understanding, honouring the gods,
talkative to one another, traders, laborious, not keeping [Sidenote: p.
90.] what they get, cheats, not loving to take pains in business,[95]
truthful, free of tongue, doers of good, unlearned, cheats, addicted
to custom, careless, unsafe to treat unjustly.[96] They are scornful,
derisive, sharp, illustrious, eavesdroppers, and nothing succeeds with
them. Useful for friendship.

8. The type of those under Scorpio: with maidenly countenance, well
shaped and pale,[97] dark hair, well-formed eyes, forehead not wide and
pointed nose, ears small and close (to the head), wrinkled forehead,
scanty eyebrows, drawn-in cheeks. Their disposition is: crafty,
sedulous, cheats, imparting their own plans to none, double-souled,
ill-doers, contemptuous, given to fornication, gentle, quick at
learning. Useless for friendship.

9. The type of those under Sagittarius: great in stature, square
forehead, medium eyebrows joined together, hair [Sidenote: p. 91.]
abundant, bristling and reddish. Their disposition is: gracious as
those who have been well brought up, simple, doers of good, lovers
of boys, addicted to custom, laborious, loving and beloved, cheerful
in their cups, clean, passionate, careless, wicked, useless for
friendship, scornful, great-souled, insolent, somewhat servile,[98]
useful to the community.

10. The type of those under Capricorn: with reddish body, bristling,
greyish hair,[99] round mouth, eyes like an eagle, eyebrows close
together, smooth forehead, inclined to baldness, the lower parts of the
body the stronger. Their disposition is: lovers of wisdom, scornful and
laughing at the present, passionate, forgiving, beautiful, doers of
good, lovers of musical practice, angry in their cups, jocose, addicted
to custom, talkers, lovers of boys, cheerful, friendly, beloved,
provokers of strife, useful to the community.

11. The type of those under Aquarius: square in stature, small mouth,
narrow small, fierce eyes. (Their disposition) is: commanding,
ungracious, sharp, seeking the easy path, [Sidenote: p. 92.] useful for
friendship and to the community. Yet they live on chance affairs and
lose their means of gain. Their disposition is:[100] reserved, modest,
addicted to custom, fornicators, niggards, painstaking in business,
turbulent, clean, well-disposed, beautiful, with great eyebrows. Often
they are in small circumstances and work at (several) different trades.
If they do good to any, no one gives them thanks.

12. The type of those under Pisces: medium stature, with narrow
foreheads like fishes, thick hair. They often become grey quickly.
Their disposition is: great-souled, simple, passionate, thrifty,
talkative. They will be sleepy at an early age, they want to do
business by themselves, illustrious, venturesome, envious, litigious,
changing their place of abode, beloved, fond of dancing.[101] Useful
for friendship.

13. Since we have set forth their wonderful wisdom, and have not
concealed their much-laboured art of divination by intelligence,[102]
neither shall we be silent on the folly into [Sidenote: p. 93.] which
their mistakes in these matters lead them. For how feeble are they in
finding a parallel between the names of the stars and the forms and
dispositions of men? For we know that those who at the outset chanced
upon the stars, naming them according to their own fancy, called them
by names for the purpose of easily and clearly recognizing them. For
what likeness is there in these names to the appearance of the Zodiacal
signs, or what similar nature of working and activity, so that any one
born under Leo should be thought courageous,[103] or he who is born
under Virgo moderate, or under Cancer bad, and those under[104]....


                       4. _The Magicians._[105]

(The gap here caused by the mutilation of the MS. was probably filled
by a description of the mode of divination by enquiry of a spirit or
dæmon which was generally made in writing, as Lucian describes in
his account of the imposture of Alexander of Abonoteichos. The MS.
proceeds.)

... And he (_i. e._, the magician) taking some paper, orders the
enquirer to write down what it is he wishes to enquire of the
dæmons.[106] Then he having folded up the paper and given it to the
boy,[107] sends it away to be burned so that the smoke carrying the
letters may go hence to the dæmons. But while the boy is doing what
he is commanded, he first tears off equal parts of the paper, and on
some other parts [Sidenote: p. 94.] of it, he pretends that the dæmons
write in Hebrew letters. Then having offered up the Egyptian magicians’
incense called Cyphi,[108] he scatters these pieces of paper over the
offering. But what the enquirer may have chanced to write having been
put on the coals is burned. Then, seeming to be inspired by a god, the
magician rushes into the inner chamber[109] with a loud and discordant
cry unintelligible to all. But he bids all present to enter and cry
aloud, invoking Phrēn[110] or some other dæmon. When the spectators
have entered and are standing by, he flings the boy on a couch and
reads to him many things, sometimes in the Greek tongue, sometimes
in the Hebrew, which are the incantations usual among magicians. And
having made libation, he begins the sacrifice. And he having put
copperas[111] in the libation bowl[112] and when the drug is dissolved
sprinkling with it the paper which had forsooth been discharged of
writing, he compels the hidden and concealed letters again to come to
light, whereby he learns what the enquirer has written.

[Sidenote: p. 95.] And if one writes with copperas and fumigates it
with a powdered gall-nut, the hidden letters will become clear. Also if
one writes (with milk) and the paper is burned and the ash sprinkled
on the letters written with the milk, they will be manifest.[113] And
urine and garum[114] also and juice of the spurge and of the fig will
have the same effect.

But when he has thus learned the enquiry, he thinks beforehand in what
fashion he need reply. Then he bids the spectators come inside bearing
laurel-branches and shaking them[115] and crying aloud invocations to
the dæmon Phrēn. For truly it is fitting that he should be invoked
by them and worthy that they should demand from dæmons what they do not
wish to provide on their own account, seeing that they have lost their
brains.[116] But the confusion of the noise and the riot prevents them
following what the magician is thought to do in secret. What this is,
it is time to say.

Now it is very dark at this point. For he says that it is impossible
for mortal nature to behold the things of the gods, for it is enough
to talk with them. But having made the boy lie down on his face, with
two of those little writing tablets on which are written in Hebrew
letters [Sidenote: p. 96.] forsooth[117] such things as names of
dæmons, on each side of him, he says (the god) will convey the rest
into the boy’s ears. But this is necessary to him, in order that he
may apply to the boy’s ears a certain implement whereby he can signify
to him all that he wishes. And first he rings[118] (a gong) so that
the boy may be frightened, and secondly he makes a humming noise, and
then thirdly he speaks through the implement what he wishes the boy to
say, and watches carefully the effect of the act. Thereafter he makes
the spectators keep silence, but bids the boy repeat what he has heard
from the dæmons. But the implement which is applied to the ears is a
natural one, to wit, the wind-pipe of the long-necked cranes or storks
or swans. If none of these is at hand, the art has other means at its
disposal. [Sidenote: p. 97.] For certain brass pipes, fitting one into
the other and ending in a point are well suited to the purpose through
which anything the magician wishes may be spoken into the ears. And
these things the boy hearing utters when bidden in a fearful way, as if
they were spoken by dæmons. And if one wraps a wet hide round a rod and
having dried it and bringing the edges together fastens them closely,
and then taking out the rod, makes the hide into the form of a pipe, it
has the same effect. And if none of these things is at hand, he takes a
book and, drawing out from the inside as much as he requires, pulls it
out lengthways and acts in the same way.[119]

But if he knows beforehand that any one present will ask a question,
he is better prepared for everything. And if he has learned the
question beforehand he writes it out with the drug (aforesaid) and
as being prepared is thought more adept for having skilfully written
what was about to be asked. But if he does not know, he guesses at it,
and exhibits some roundabout phrase of double and various meaning,
so that the answer of the oracle being meaningless will do for many
things at the beginning, but at the end of the events will be thought
a prediction of what has happened. [Sidenote: p. 98.] Then having
filled a bowl with water, he puts at the bottom of it the paper with
apparently nothing written on it, but at the same time putting in
the copperas. For thus there floats to the surface the paper bearing
the answer which he has written. To the boy also there often come
fearful fancies; for truly the magician strikes blows in abundance to
terrify him. For, again casting incense into the fire, he acts in this
fashion. Having covered a lump of the so-called quarried salts[120]
with Tyrrhenian wax and cutting in halves the lump of incense, he puts
between them a lump of the salt and again sticking them together throws
them on the burning coals and so leaves them. But when the incense is
burnt, the salts leaping up produce an illusion as if some strange
and wonderful thing were happening. But indigo black[121] put in the
incense produces a blood-red flame as we have before said.[122] And
he makes a liquid like blood by mixing wax with rouge and as I have
said, putting the wax in the incense. And he makes the coals to move by
putting under them stypteria[123] cut in pieces, and when it melts and
swells up like bubbles, the coals are moved.

[Sidenote: p. 99.] 2. And they exhibit eggs different (from natural
ones) in this way. Having bored a hole in the apex at each end and
having extracted the white, and again plunged the egg in boiling water,
put in either red earth from Sinope[124] or writing ink. But stop up
the holes with pounded eggshell made into a paste with the juice of a
fig.

3. This is the way they make sheep cut off their own heads. Secretly
anointing the sheep’s throat with a caustic drug, he fixes near the
beast a sword and leaves it there. But the sheep, being anxious to
scratch himself, leans (heavily) on the knife, rubs himself along it,
kills himself and must needs almost cut off his head. And the drug is
bryony and marsh salt and squills in equal parts mixed together. So
that he may not be seen to have the drug with him, he carries a horn
box made double, the visible part of which holds frankincense and the
invisible the drug. And he also puts quicksilver into the ears of the
animal that is to die. But this is a death-dealing drug.

4. But if one stops up the ears of goats with salve, they say they will
shortly die because prevented from breathing. [Sidenote: p. 100.] For
they say that this is with them the way in which the intaken air is
breathed forth. And they say that a ram dies if one should bend him
backwards against the sun.[125] But they make a house catch fire by
anointing it with the ichor of a certain animal called dactylus;[126]
and this is very useful because of sea-water. And there is a sea-foam
heated in an earthen jar with sweet substances, which if you apply to
it a lighted lamp catches fire and is inflamed, but does not burn at
all if poured on the head. But if you sprinkle it with melted gum, it
catches fire much better; and it does better still if you also add
sulphur to it.

5. Thunder is produced in very many ways. For very many large stones
rolled from a height over wooden planks and falling upon sheets of
brass make a noise very like thunder. And they coil a slender cord
round the thin [Sidenote: p. 101.] board on which the wool-carders
press cloth, and then spin the board by whisking away the string when
the whirring of it makes the sound of thunder. These tricks they play
thus; but there are others which I shall set forth which those who
play them also consider great. Putting a cauldron full of pitch upon
burning coals, when it boils they plunge their hands in it and are not
burned; and further they tread with naked feet upon coals of fire and
are not burned. And also putting a pyramid of stone upon the altar,
they make it burn and from its mouth it pours forth much smoke and
fire. Then laying a linen cloth upon a pan of water and casting upon it
many burning coals, the linen remains unburnt. And having made darkness
in the house, the magician claims to make gods or dæmons enter in,
and if one somehow asks that Esculapius shall be displayed he makes
invocation, saying thus:--

    “Apollo’s son, once dead and again undying!
    I call on thee to come as a helper to my libations.
    [Sidenote: p. 102.] Who erst the myriad tribes of fleeting dead
    In the ever-mournful caves of wide Tartarus
    Swimming the stream hard to cross and the rising tide,
    Fatal to all mortal men alike,
    Or wailing by the shore and bemoaning inexorable things
    These thyself did rescue from gloomy Persephoneia.
    Whether thou dost haunt the seat of holy Thrace
    Or lovely Pergamum or beyond these Ionian Epidaurus
    Hither, O blessed one, the prince of magicians calls thee to be
         present here.”[127]

6. But when he has made an end of this mockery a fiery Esculapius
appears on the floor. Then having put in the midst a bowl of
water,[128] he invokes all the gods and they are at hand. For if the
spectator lean over and gaze into the bowl, he will see all the gods
and Artemis leading on [Sidenote: p. 103.] her baying hounds. But we
shall not hesitate to tell the story of these things and how they
undertake them. For the magician plunges his hands in the cauldron
of pitch which appears to be boiling; but he throws into it vinegar
and soda[129] and moist pitch and heats the cauldron gently. And
the vinegar having mingled with the soda, on getting a little hot,
moves the pitch so as to bring bubbles to the surface and gives the
appearance of boiling only. But the magician has washed his hands
many times in sea-water, thanks to which it does not burn him much if
it be really boiling. And if he has after washing them anointed his
hands with myrtle-juice and soda and myrrh[130] mixed with vinegar
he is not burned (at all). But the feet are not burned if he anoints
them with icthyokolla and salamander.[131] And this is the true cause
of the pyramid flaming like a torch, although it is of stone. A paste
of Cretan earth[132] is moulded into the shape of a pyramid,--but the
colour is like a milk-white stone,--in this fashion. He has soaked
the piece of earth in much oil, has put it on the coals, and when
heated, has again soaked it and heated it a second and third time and
many a time afterwards, whereby he so prepares [Sidenote: p. 104.]
it that it will burn even if plunged in water; for it holds much
oil within itself. But the altar catches fire when the magician is
making libation, because it contains freshly-burned lime instead of
ashes and finely-powdered frankincense and much ... and of ... of
anointed torches and self-flowing and hollow nutshells having fire
within them.[133] But he also sends forth smoke from his mouth after
a brief delay by putting fire into a nutshell and wrapping it in tow
and blowing it in his mouth.[134] The linen cloth laid on the bowl of
water whereon he puts the coals is not burned, because of the sea-water
underneath, and its being itself steeped in sea-water and then anointed
with white of egg and a solution of alum. And if also one mixes with
this the juice of evergreens and vinegar and a long time beforehand
anoint it copiously with these, after being dipped in the drug it
remains altogether incombustible.[135]

7. Since then we have briefly set forth what can be done with the
teachings which they suppose to be secret, we have [Sidenote: p.
105.] displayed their easy system according to Gnosis.[136] Nor do we
wish to keep silence as to this necessary point, that is, how they
unseal letters and again restore them with the same seals (apparently
intact). Melting pitch, resin, sulphur and also bitumen in equal parts,
and moulding it into the form of a seal impression, they keep it by
them. But when the opportunity for unsealing a letter[137] arrives,
they moisten the tongue with oil, lick the seal, and warming the drug
before a slow fire press the seal upon it and leave it there until
it is altogether set, when they use it after the manner of a signet.
But they say also that wax with pine resin has the same effect and
so also 2 parts of mastic with 1 of bitumen. And sulphur alone does
fairly well and powdered gypsum diluted with water and gum.[138] This
certainly does most beautifully for sealing molten lead. And the effect
of [Sidenote: p. 106.] Tyrrhenian wax and shavings of resin and pitch,
bitumen, mastic and powdered marble in equal parts all melted together,
is better than that of the other (compounds) of which I have spoken,
but that of the gypsum is no worse. Thus then they undertake to break
the seals when seeking to learn what is written within them. These
contrivances I shrank from setting out in the book,[139] seeing that
some ill-doer taking hints from them[140] might attempt (to practise)
them. But now the care of many young men capable of salvation has
persuaded me to teach and declare them for the sake of protection
(against them). For as one person will use them for the teaching of
evil, so another by learning them will be protected (against them) and
the very magicians, corruptors of life as they are, will be ashamed
to practise the art. But learning that the same (tricks) have been
taught beforehand, they will perhaps be hindered in their perverse
foolishness. In order, however, that the seal may not be broken in this
way, let any one seal with swine’s fat and mix hairs with the wax.[141]

8. Nor shall I be silent about their lecanomancy[142] which is an
imposture. For having prepared some closed chamber [Sidenote: p. 107.]
and having painted its ceiling with cyanus, they put into it for the
purpose certain utensils of cyanus[143] and fix them upright. But in
the midst a bowl filled with water is set on the earth, which with the
reflection of the cyanus falling upon it shows like the sky. But there
is a certain hidden opening in the floor over which is set the bowl,
the bottom of which is glass, but is itself made of stone. But there is
underneath a secret chamber in which those in the farce[144] assembling
present the dressed-up forms of the gods and dæmons which the magician
wishes to display. Beholding whom from above the deceived person
is confounded by the magicians’ trickery and for the rest believes
everything which (the officiator) tells him. And (this last) makes
(the figure of) the dæmon burn by drawing on the wall the figure he
wishes, and then secretly anointing it with a drug compounded in this
way ...[145] with Laconian and Zacynthian bitumen. Then as if inspired
by Phœbus, he brings the lamp near the wall, and the drug having caught
light is on fire.

But he manages that a fiery Hecate should appear to be flying through
the air thus: Having hidden an accomplice in what place he wills, and
taking the dupes on one side, he prevails on them by saying that he
will show them the [Sidenote: p. 108.] fiery dæmon riding through the
air. To whom he announces that when they see the flame in the air,
they must quickly save their eyes by falling down and hiding their
faces until he shall call them. And having thus instructed them, on a
moonless night, he declaims these verses:--

    Infernal and earthly and heavenly Bombo,[146] come.
    Goddess of waysides, of cross-roads, lightbearer, nightwalker,
    Hater of the light, lover and companion of the night,
    Who rejoicest in the baying of hounds and in purple blood;
    Who dost stalk among corpses and the tombs of the dead
    Thirsty for blood, who bringest fear to mortals
    Gorgo and Mormo and Mene and many-formed one.
    Come thou propitious to our libations![147]

9. While he speaks thus, fire is seen borne through the air, and the
spectators terrified by the strangeness of the sight, cover their eyes
and cast themselves in silence on the earth. But the greatness of the
art contains this device. [Sidenote: p. 109.] The accomplice, hidden as
I have said, when he hears the incantation drawing to a close, holding
a hawk or kite wrapped about with tow, sets fire to it and lets it go.
And the bird scared by the flame is carried into the height and makes
very speedy flight. Seeing which, the fools hide themselves as if they
had beheld something divine. But the winged one whirled about by the
fire, is borne whither it may chance and burns down now houses and now
farm-buildings. Such is the prescience of the magicians.

10. But they show the moon and stars appearing on the ceiling in this
way. Having previously arranged in the centre part of the ceiling a
mirror, and having placed a bowl filled with water in a corresponding
position in the middle of the earthen floor, but a lamp showing
dimly[148] has been placed between them and above the bowl, he thus
produces the appearance of the moon from the reflection by means of the
mirror. But often the magician hangs aloft[149] near the ceiling a drum
on end, the same being kept covered by the accomplice by some cloth so
that it may not show before its time; and a lamp having been put behind
it, when he makes the agreed signal to the accomplice, the last-named
takes away so much of the [Sidenote: p. 110.] covering as will give a
counterfeit of the moon in her form at that time.[150] But he anoints
the transparent parts of the drum with cinnabar and gum....[151] And
having cut off the neck and bottom of a glass flask, he puts a lamp
within and places around it somewhat of the things necessary for the
figures shining through, which one of the accomplices has concealed on
high. After receiving the signal, this last lets fall the contrivances
from the receptacle hung aloft, so that the moon appears to have been
sent down from heaven. And the like effect is produced by means of
jars in glass-like forms.[152] And it is by means of the jar that the
trick is played within doors. For an altar having been set up, the
jar containing a lighted lamp stands behind it; but there being many
more lamps (about), this nowise appears. When therefore the enchanter
invokes the moon, he orders all the lamps to be put out, but one is
left dim and then the light from the jar is reflected on to the ceiling
and gives the illusion of the moon to the spectators, the [Sidenote:
p. 111.] mouth of the jar being kept covered for the time which seems
to be required that the image of the crescent moon may be shown on the
ceiling.

11. But the scales of fishes or of the “hippurus”[153] make stars seem
to be when they are moistened with water and gum and stuck upon the
ceiling here and there.

12. And they create the illusion of an earthquake, so that everything
appears to be moving, ichneumon’s dung being burned upon coal with
magnetic iron ore[154]....

13. But they display a liver appearing to bear an inscription. On his
left hand (the magician) writes what he wishes, adapting it to the
enquiry, and the letters are written with nut-galls and strong vinegar.
Then taking up the liver, which rests in his left hand, he makes some
delay, and it receives the impression and is thought to have been
inscribed.

14. And having placed a skull on the earth, they make it speak in
this fashion. It is made out of the omentum of [Sidenote: p. 112.] an
ox,[155] moulded with Tyrrhenian wax and gypsum and when it is made
and covered with the membrane, it shows the semblance of a skull. The
which seems to speak by the use of the implement and in the way we have
before explained in the case of the boys. Having prepared the wind-pipe
of a crane or some such long-necked bird and putting it secretly into
the skull, the accomplice speaks what (the magician) wishes. And when
he wants it to vanish, he appears to offer incense and putting round it
a quantity of coals the wax receiving the heat of which melts, and thus
the skull is thought to have become invisible.[156]

15. These and ten thousand such are the works of the magicians, which,
by the suitableness of the verses and of the belief-inspiring acts
performed, beguile the fancy of the thoughtless. The heresiarchs struck
with the arts of these (magicians) imitate them, handing down some of
their doctrines in secrecy and darkness, but paraphrasing others as if
they were their own. Thanks to this, as we wish to remind the public,
we have been the more anxious to leave behind us no place for those
who wish to go astray. But we have been led away not without reason
into certain secrets of the magicians which were not [Sidenote: p.
113.] altogether necessary for the subject,[157] but which were thought
useful as a safeguard against the rascally and inconsistent art of
the magicians. Since, now, as far as one can guess,[158] we have set
forth the opinions of all, having bestowed much care on making it clear
that the things which the heresiarchs have introduced into religion as
new are vain and spurious, and probably are not even among themselves
thought worthy of discussion, it seems proper to us to recall briefly
and summarily what has been before said.


                         5. _Recapitulation._

1. Among all the philosophers and theologists[159] who are enquiring
into the matter throughout the inhabited world, there is no agreement
concerning God, as to what He is or whence (He came).[160] For some
say that He is fire, some spirit, some water, others earth. But every
one of these elements contains something inferior and some of them
are defeated by the others. But this has happened to the world’s
sages, which indeed is plain to those who think, [Sidenote: p. 114.]
that in view of the greatness of creation, they are puzzled as to the
substance of the things which are, deeming them too great for it to
be possible for them to have received birth from another. Nor yet do
they represent the universe itself taken collectively[161] to be God.
But in speculation about God every one thought of something which he
preferred among visible things as the Cause. And thus gazing upon the
things produced by God and on those which are least in comparison with
His exceeding greatness, but not being capable of extending their mind
to the real God, they declared these things to be divine.

The Persians, however, deeming that they were further within the truth
(than the rest) said that God was a shining light comprised in air. But
the Babylonians said that darkness was God, which appears to be the
sequence of the other opinion; for day follows night and night day.[162]

2. But the Egyptians, deeming themselves older than all, have subjected
the power of God to ciphers,[163] and calculating the intervals of the
fates by Divine inspiration[164] said that God [Sidenote: p. 115.] was
a monad both indivisible and itself begetting itself, and that from
this (monad) all things were made. For it, they say, being unbegotten,
begets the numbers after it; for example, the monad added to itself
begets the dyad, and added in the like way the triad and tetrad up
to the decad, which is the beginning and the end of the numbers. So
that the monad becomes the first and tenth through the decad being of
equal power and being reckoned as a monad, and the same being decupled
becomes a hecatontad and again is a monad, and the hecatontad when
decupled will make a chiliad, and it again will be a monad. And thus
also the chiliads if decupled will complete the myriad and likewise
will be a monad. But the numbers akin to the monad by indivisible
comparison are ascertained to be 3, 5, 7, 9.[165] There is, however,
also a more natural affinity of another number with the monad which
is that by the operation of the spiral of 6 circles[166] of the dyad
according to the [Sidenote: p. 116.] even placing and separation of
the numbers. But the kindred number is of the 4 and 8. And these
receiving added virtue from numbers of the monad, advanced up to the
four elements, I mean spirit and fire, water and earth. And having
created from these the masculo-feminine cosmos,[167] he prepared and
arranged two elements in the upper hemisphere, (to wit) spirit and
fire, and he called this the beneficent hemisphere of the monad and
the ascending and the masculine. For the monad, being subtle, flies to
the most subtle and purest part of the æther. The two other elements
being denser, he assigns to the dyad (to wit) earth and water, and he
calls this the descending hemisphere and feminine and maleficent. And
again the two upper elements when compounded with themselves have in
themselves the male and the female for the fruitfulness and increase of
the universals. And the fire is masculine, but the spirit feminine: and
again the water is masculine and the earth feminine.[168] And thus from
the beginning the fire lived with the spirit and the water with the
earth. For as the power of the spirit is the fire, so also (the power)
of the earth is the water....

[Sidenote: p. 117.] And the same elements counted and resolved by
subtraction of the enneads,[169] properly end some in the male number,
others in the female. But again the ennead is subtracted for this
cause, because the 360 degrees of the whole circle consist of enneads,
and hence the 4 quarters of the cosmos are (each) circumscribed by
90 complete degrees. But the light is associated with the monad and
the darkness with the dyad, and naturally life with the light and
death with the dyad, and justice with life and injustice with death.
Whence everything engendered among the male numbers is benefic,
and (everything engendered) among the female numbers is malefic.
For example, they reckon that the monad--so that we may begin from
this--becomes 361, which ends in a monad, the ennead(s) being
subtracted. Reckon in the same way: the dyad becomes 605; subtract
the enneads, it ends in a dyad and each is (thus) carried back to its
own.[170]

3. With the monad, then, as it is benefic, there are [Sidenote: p.
118.] associated names which end in the uneven number,[171] and they
say that they are ascending and male and benefic when observed; but
that those which end in an even number are considered descending and
female and malefic. For they say that nature consists of opposites,
to wit, good and bad, as right and left, light and darkness, night
and day, life and death. And they say this besides: that they have
calculated the name of God and that it results in a pentad [or in an
ennead],[172] which is uneven and which written down and wrapped about
the sick works cures. And thus a certain plant (whose name) ends in
this number when tied on in the same way is effective by the like
reckoning of the number. But a doctor also cures the sick by a like
calculation. But if the calculation be contrary, he does not make cures
easily. Those who give heed to these numbers count all numbers like it
which have the same meaning, some [Sidenote: p. 119.] according to the
vowels alone, others according to the total of the numbers.[173] Such
is the wisdom of the Egyptians, whereby, while glorifying the Divine,
they think they understand it.


               6. _Of the Divination by Astronomy._[174]

We seem then to have set forth these things also sufficiently. But
since I consider that not one tenet of this earthy and grovelling
wisdom has been passed over, I perceive that our care with regard to
the same things has not been useless. For we see that our discourse
has been of great use not only for the refutation of heresies, but
also against those who magnify these things.[175] Those who happen to
notice the manifold care taken by us will both wonder at our zeal and
will neither despise our painstaking nor denounce Christians as fools
when they see what themselves have foolishly believed. And besides
this, the discourse will timely instruct those lovers of learning who
give heed to the truth, making them more wise to easily overthrow those
who have dared to mislead them--for they will have learned not only
the principles of the heresies, but also the so-called opinions of the
[Sidenote: p. 120.] sages. Not being unacquainted with which, they
will not be confused by them as are the unlearned, nor misled by some
who exercise a certain power, but will keep a watch upon those who go
astray.

2. Having therefore sufficiently set forth (our) opinions, it remains
for us to proceed to the subject aforesaid, when, after we have
proved what we arranged concerning the heresies, and have forced the
heresiarchs to restore to everyone his own, we shall exhibit (these
heresiarchs) stripped (of all originality) and by denouncing the
folly of their dupes we shall persuade them to return again to the
precious haven of the truth. But in order that what has been said may
appear more clearly to the readers,[176] it seems to us well to state
the conclusions of Aratus as to the disposition of the stars in the
heaven. For there are some who by likening them to the words of the
Scriptures turn them into allegories and seek to divert the minds of
those who listen to them by leading them with persuasive words whither
they wish, and pointing out to them strange marvels like those of the
transfers to the stars[177] alleged by them. They who while gazing upon
the outlandish wonder are caught by their admiration for trifles are
like the bird called the owl,[178] [Sidenote: p. 121.] whose example
it will be well to narrate in view of what follows. Now this animal
presents no very different appearance from that of the eagle whether in
size or shape; but it is caught in this way. The bird-catcher, when he
sees a flock alighting anywhere, claps his hands, pretends to dance,
and thus gradually draws near to the birds; but they, struck by the
unwonted sight, become blind to everything else. Others of the party,
however, who are ready on the ground coming behind the birds easily
capture them while they are staring at the dancer. Wherefore I ask that
no one who is struck by the wonders of whose who interpret the heaven
shall be taken in like the owl. For the dancing and nonsense of such
(interpreters) is trickery and not truth. Now Aratus speaks thus:--

    “Many and like are they, going hither and thither,
    Daily they wheel in heaven always and ever [that is, all the stars]
    Yet none changes his abode[179] ever so little: but with perfect
         exactness
    Ever the Pole is fixed, and holds the earth in the midst of all
    As equipoise of all, and around it leads Heaven itself.”--
                                         (Aratus, _Phæn._, vv. 45, 46.)

[Sidenote: p. 122.] 3. He says that the stars in heaven are πολέας,
that is, turning,[180] because of their going about ceaselessly from
East to West and from West to East in a spherical figure. But he says
there is coiled round the Bears themselves, like the stream of some
river, a great marvel of a terrible dragon, and this it is, he says,
that the Devil in the (Book of) Job says to God: “I have been walking
to and fro under heaven and going round about,”[181] that is, turning
hither and thither and inspecting what is happening. For they consider
that the Dragon is set below the Arctic Pole, from this highest pole
gazing upon all things and beholding all things, so that none of those
that are done shall escape him. For though all the stars in the heaven
can set, this Pole alone never sets, but rising high above the horizon
inspects all things and beholds all things, and nothing of what is
done, he says, can escape him.

                                  “Where (most)
    Settings and risings mingle with one another.”--
                                              (Aratus, _Phæn._, v. 61.)

[Sidenote: p. 123.] he says, indeed, that his head is set. For over
against the rising and setting of the two hemispheres lies the head
of Draco, so that, he says, nothing escapes him immediately either
of things in the West or of things in the East, but the Beast knows
all things at once. And there over against the very head of Draco is
the form of a man made visible by reason of the stars, which Aratus
calls “a wearied image,” and like one in toil; but he names it the
“Kneeler.”[182] Now Aratus says that he does not know what this toil
is and this marvel which turns in heaven. But the heretics, wishing
to found their own tenets on the story of the stars, and giving their
minds very carefully to these things, say that the Kneeler is Adam, as
Moses said, according to the decree of God guarding the head of the
Dragon and the Dragon (guarding) his heel.[183] For thus says Aratus:--

    “Holding the sole of the right foot of winding Draco.”--
                                                  (_Phæn._, vv. 63-65.)

4. But he says there are placed on either side of him (I mean the
Kneeler) Lyra and Corona; but that he bends the knee and stretches
forth both hands as if making confession [Sidenote: p. 124.] of
sin.[184] And that the lyre is a musical instrument fashioned by the
Logos in extreme infancy. But that Hermes is called among the Greeks
Logos. And Aratus says about the fashioning of the lyre:--

              “which, while he was yet in his cradle
    Hermes bored and said it was to be called lyre.”--
                                                     (_Phæn._, v. 268.)

It is seven-stringed, and indicates by its seven strings the entire
harmony and constitution with which the cosmos is suitably provided.
For in six days the earth came into being and there was rest on the
seventh. If, then, he says,[185] Adam making confession and guarding
the head of the Beast according to God’s decree, will imitate the lyre,
that is, will follow the word of God, which is to obey the Law, he will
attain the Crown lying beside it. But if he takes no heed, he will be
carried downwards along with the Beast below him, and will have his
lot, he says, with the Beast. But the Kneeler seems to stretch forth
his hands on either side and here to grasp the Lyre and there the Crown
[and this is to make confession],[186] [Sidenote: p. 125.] as is to be
seen from the very posture. But the Crown is plotted against and at
the same time drawn away by another Beast, Draco the Less, who is the
offspring of the one which is guarded by the foot of the Kneeler. But
(another) man stands firmly grasping with both hands the Serpent, and
draws him backwards from the Crown, and does not permit the Beast to
forcibly seize it. Him Aratus calls Serpent-holder,[187] because he
restrains the rage of the Serpent striving to come at the Crown. But
he, he says, who in the shape of man forbids the Beast to come at the
Crown is Logos, who has mercy upon him who is plotted against by Draco
and his offspring at once.

And these Bears, he says, are two hebdomads, being made up of seven
stars each, and are images of the two creations. For the First
Creation, he says, is that according to Adam in his labours who is seen
as the Kneeler. But the Second Creation is that according to Christ
whereby we are born [Sidenote: p. 126.] again. He is the Serpent-holder
fighting the Beast and preventing him from coming at the Crown prepared
for man. But Helica[188] is the Great Bear, he says, the symbol of the
great creation, whereby Greeks sail, that is by which they are taught,
and borne onwards by the waves of life they follow it, such a creation
being a certain revolution[189] or schooling or wisdom, leading back
again those who follow such (to the point whence they started). For
the name Helica seems to be a certain turning and circling back to the
same position. But there is also another Lesser Bear, as it were an
image of the Second Creation created by God. For few, he says, are they
who travel by this narrow way. For they say that Cynosura is narrow,
by which, Aratus says, the Sidonians navigate.[190] But Aratus in turn
says the Sidonians are Phœnicians on account of the wisdom of the
Phœnicians being wonderful. But they say that the Greeks are Phœnicians
who removed from the Red Sea to the land [Sidenote: p. 127.] where
they now dwell. For thus it seemed to Herodotus.[191] But this Bear he
says is Cynosura, the Second Creation, the small, the narrow way and
not Helica. For she leads not backwards, but guides those who follow
her forwards to the straight way, being the (tail) of the dog. For the
Logos is the Dog (Cyon) who at the same time guards and protects the
sheep against the plans of the wolves, and also chases the wild beasts
from creation and slays them, and who begets all things. For Cyon, they
say, indeed means the begetter.[192] Hence, they say, Aratus, speaking
of the rising of Canis, says thus:--

    “But when the Dog rises, no longer do the crops play false.”--
                                                      (_Phæn._ v. 332.)

This is what he means: Plants that have been planted in the earth up
to the rising of the Dog-star take no root, but yet grow leaves and
appear to beholders as if they will bear fruit and are alive, but have
no life from the root in them. But when the rising of the Dog-star
occurs, the living plants are distinguished by Canis from the dead,
for [Sidenote: p. 128.] he withers entirely those which have not taken
root. This Cyon, he says then, being a certain Divine Logos has been
established judge of quick and dead, and as Cyon is seen to be the star
of the plants, so the Logos, he says, is for the heavenly plants, that
is for men. For some such cause as this, then, the Second Creation
Cynosura stands in heaven as the image of the rational[193] creature.
But between the two creations Draco is extended below, hindering the
things of the great creation from coming to the lesser, and watching
those things which are fixed in the great creation like the Kneeler
lest they see how and in what way every one is fixed in the little
creation. But Draco is himself watched as to the head, he says, by
Ophiuchus. The same, he says, is fixed as an image in heaven, being a
certain philosophy for those who can see.

But if this is not clear, through another image, he says, creation
teaches us to philosophize, about which Aratus speaks thus:--

    “Nor of Ionian[194] Cepheus are we the miserable race.”--
                                                      (_Phæn._ v. 353.)

[Sidenote: p. 129.] But near Draco, he says, are Cepheus and Cassiopeia
and Andromeda and Perseus, great letters of[195] the creation to
those who can see. For he says that Cepheus is Adam, Cassiopeia Eve,
Andromeda the soul of both, Perseus the winged offspring of Zeus and
Cetus the plotting Beast. Not to any other of these comes Perseus the
slayer of the Beast, but to Andromeda alone. From which Beast, he
says, the Logos Perseus, taking her to himself, delivers Andromeda
who had been given in chains to the Beast. But Perseus is the winged
axis which extends to both poles through the middle of the earth and
makes the cosmos revolve. But the spirit which is in the Cosmos is
Cycnus,[196] the bird which is near the Bears, a musical animal, symbol
of the Divine Spirit, because only when it is near the limits of life,
its nature is to sing, and, as one escaping with good hope from this
evil creation it sends up songs of praise to God. But crabs and bulls
and lions and rams and goats and kids [Sidenote: p. 130.] and all the
other animals who are named in heaven on account of the stars are, he
says, images and paradigms whence the changeable nature receives the
patterns[197] and becomes full of such animals.[198]

Making use of these discourses, they think to deceive as many as
give heed to the astrologers, seeking therefrom to set up a religion
which appears very different from their assumptions.[199] Wherefore,
O beloved,[200] let us shun the trifle-admiring way of the owl. For
these things and those like them are dancing and not truth. For the
stars do not reveal these things; but men on their own account and for
the better distinguishing of certain stars (from the rest) gave them
names so that they might be a mark to them. For what likeness have
the stars strewn about the heaven to a bear, or a lion, or kids, or
a water-carrier, or Cepheus, or Andromeda, or to the Shades named in
Hades--for many of these persons and the names of the stars alike came
into existence long after the stars themselves--so that the [Sidenote:
p. 131.] heretics being struck with the wonder should thus labour by
such discourses to establish their own doctrines?[201]


                  7. _Of the Arithmetical Art._[202]

Seeing, however, that nearly all heresy has discovered by the art of
arithmetic measures of hebdomads and certain projections of Æons, each
tearing the art to pieces in different ways and only changing the
names,--but of these (men) Pythagoras came to be teacher who first
transmitted to the Greeks such numbers from Egypt--it seems good not
to pass over this, but after briefly pointing it out to proceed to
the demonstration of the objects of our enquiries. These men were
arithmeticians and geometricians to whom especially it seems Pythagoras
first supplied the principles (of their arts). And they took the first
beginnings (of things), discovered apparently by reason alone, from
the numbers which can always proceed to infinity by multiplication and
the figures (produced by it). For the beginning of geometry, as may
be seen, is an indivisible point; but from that point the generation
of the infinite figures from [Sidenote: p. 132.] the point[203] is
discovered by the art. For the point when extended[204] in length
becomes after extension a line having a point as its limit:[205] and a
line when extended in breadth produces a superficies and the limits of
the superficies are lines: and a superficies extended in depth becomes
a (solid) body:[206] and when this solid is in existence, the nature
of the great body is thus wholly founded from the smallest point. And
this is what Simon says thus: “The little will be great, being as it
were a point; but the great will be boundless,”[207] in imitation of
that geometrical point. But the beginning of arithmetic, which includes
by combination philosophy, is[208] a number which is boundless and
incomprehensible, containing within itself all the numbers capable
of coming to infinity by multitude. But the beginning of the numbers
becomes by hypostasis the first monad, which is a male unit begetting
as does a father all the other numbers. Second comes the dyad, a female
number, and the same is called even by the arithmeticians. Third comes
the triad, a male number; this also has been ordained to be called odd
by the arithmeticians. After all these comes the tetrad, [Sidenote: p.
133.] a female number, and this same is also called even, because it is
female. Therefore all the numbers taken from the genus are four--but
the boundless genus is number--wherefrom is constructed their perfect
number, the decad. For 1, 2, 3, 4 become 10, as has before been shown,
if the name which is proper to each of the numbers be substantially
kept. This is the sacred Tetractys according to Pythagoras which
contains within itself the roots of eternal nature, that is, all the
other numbers. For the 11, 12 and the rest take the principle of birth
from the 10. Of this decad, the perfect number, the four parts are
called: number, monad, square and cube. The conjunctions and minglings
of which are for the birth of increase, they completing naturally the
fruitful number. For when this square is multiplied into itself, it
becomes a square squared; but when a square into a cube, it becomes a
square cubed; but when a cube into a cube, it becomes a cube cubed. So
that all the numbers are seven, in order that the birth of the existing
numbers [Sidenote: p. 134.] may come from a hebdomad, which is number,
monad, square, cube, square of a square, cube of a square, cube of a
cube.

Of this hebdomad Simon and Valentinus, having altered the names,
recount prodigies, hastening to base upon it their own systems.[209]
For Simon calls (it) thus: Mind, Thought, Name, Voice, Reasoning,
Desire and He who has Stood, Stands and will Stand: and Valentinus:
Mind, Truth, Word, Life, Man, Church and the Father who is counted with
them. According to these (ideas) of those trained in the arithmetic
philosophy, which they admired as something unknowable by the crowd,
and in pursuance of them, they constructed the heresies excogitated by
them.

Now there are some also who try to construct hebdomads from the healing
art, being struck by the dissection of the brain, saying that the
substance, power of paternity, and divinity of the universe can be
learned from its constitution. [Sidenote: p. 135.] For the brain, being
the ruling part of the whole body rests calm and unmoved, containing
within itself the breath.[210] Now such a story is not incredible, but
a long way from their attempted theory. For the brain when dissected
has within it what is called the chamber, on each side of which are the
membranes which they call wings, gently moved by the breath, and again
driving the breath into the cerebellum.[211] And the breath, passing
through a certain reed-like vein, travels to the pineal gland.[212]
Near this lies the mouth of the cerebellum which receives the breath
passing through and gives it up to the so-called spinal marrow.[213]
From this the whole body gets a share of pneumatic (force), all the
arteries being dependent like branches on this vein, the extremity of
which finishes in the genital veins. Whence also the seeds proceeding
from the brain through the loins are secreted. But the shape of the
cerebellum is like the head of a dragon; concerning which there is much
talk among those of the Gnosis falsely so called, as we have shown. But
there are other six pairs (of vessels) growing from the brain, which
making their way round the head and finishing within it, connect the
bodies together. But the [Sidenote: p. 136.] seventh (goes) from the
cerebellum to the lower parts of the rest of the body, as we have said.

And about this there is much talk since Simon and Valentinus have found
in it hints which they have taken, although they do not admit it,
being first cheats and then heretics. Since then it seems that we have
sufficiently set out these things, and that all the apparent dogmas
of earthly philosophy have been included in (these) four books,[214]
it seems fitting to proceed to their disciples or rather to their
plagiarists.


                THE FOURTH BOOK OF PHILOSOPHUMENA[215]


                               FOOTNOTES

[Footnote 1: This is the beginning of the Mt. Athos MS., the first
pages having disappeared. With regard to the first chapter περὶ
ἀστρολόγων, Cruice, following therein Miller, points out that nearly
the whole of it has been taken from Book V with the same title of
Sextus Empiricus’ work, Πρὸς Μαθηματικούς, and also that the copying
is so faulty that to make sense it is necessary to restore the text
in many places from that of Sextus. Sextus’ book begins, as did
doubtless that of Hippolytus, with a description of the divisions of
the zodiac, the cardinal points (Ascendant, Mid-heaven, Descendant,
and Anti-Meridian), the cadent and succeedent houses, the use of
the clepsydra or water-clock, the planets and their “dignities,”
“exaltations” and “falls,” and finally, their “terms,” with a
description of which our text begins. It is, perhaps, a pity that
Miller did not restore the whole of the missing part from Sextus
Empiricus; but the last-named author is not very clear, and the reader
who wishes to go further into the matter and to acquire some knowledge
of astrological jargon is recommended to consult also James Wilson’s
_Complete Dictionary of Astrology_, reprinted at Boston, U.S.A., in
1885, or, if he prefers a more learned work, M. Bouché-Leclercq’s
_L’Astrologie Grecque_, Paris, 1899. But it may be said here that
the astrologers of the early centuries made their predictions from a
“theme,” or geniture, which was in effect a map of the heavens at the
moment of birth, and showed the ecliptic or sun’s path through the
zodiacal signs divided into twelve “houses,” to each of which a certain
significance was attached. The foundation of this was the horoscope or
sign rising above the horizon at the birth, from which they were able
to calculate the other three cardinal points given above, the cadent
houses being those four which go just before the cardinal points and
the four succeedents those which follow after them. The places of the
planets, including in that term the sun and moon, in the ecliptic were
then calculated and their symbols placed in the houses indicated. From
this figure the judgment or prediction was made, but a great mass of
absurd and contradictory tradition existed as to the influence of the
planets on the life, fortune, and disposition of the native, which
was supposed to depend largely on their places in the theme both in
relation to the earth and to each other.]

[Footnote 2: Bouché-Leclercq, _op. cit._, p. 206, rightly defines
these terms as fractions of signs separated by internal boundaries
and distributed in each sign among the five planets. Cf. J. Firmicus
Maternus, _Matheseos_, II, 6, and Cicero, _De Divinatione_, 40. Wilson,
_op. cit_., s.h.v., says they are certain degrees in a sign, supposed
to possess the power of altering the nature of a planet to that of the
planet in the term of which it is posited. All the authors quoted say
that the astrologers could not agree upon the extent or position of
the various “terms,” and that in particular the “Chaldæans” and the
“Egyptians” were hopelessly at variance upon the point.]

[Footnote 3: In the translation I have distinguished Miller’s additions
to the text from Sextus Empiricus’ by enclosing them in square
brackets, reserving the round brackets for my own additions from the
same source, which I have purposely made as few as possible. So with
other alterations.]

[Footnote 4: δορυφορεῖσθαι, _lit._, “have spear-bearers.” “Stars” in
Sextus Empiricus nearly always means planets.]

[Footnote 5: This is the famous “trine” figure or aspect of modern
astrologers. Its influence is supposed to be good; that of the square
next described, the reverse.]

[Footnote 6: Hippolytus here omits a long disquisition by Sextus on the
position of the planets and the Chaldæan system. Where the text resumes
the quotation it is in such a way as to alter the sense completely;
wherefore I have restored the sentence preceding from Sextus.]

[Footnote 7: συμπάσχει, “suffer with.”]

[Footnote 8: τὸ περίεχον. The term used by astrologers to denote
the whole æther surrounding the stars or, in other words, the whole
disposition of the heavens. “Ambient” is its equivalent in modern
astrology.]

[Footnote 9: This is an anticipation of the Peratic heresy to which a
chapter in Book V (pp. 146 ff. _infra_) is devoted. Ἀκεμβὴς is there
spelt Κελβὴς, but Ἀκεμβὴς is restored in Book X and is copied by
Theodoret. “Peratic” is thought by Salmon (_D.C.B._, s.h.v.) to mean
“Mede.”]

[Footnote 10: “Toparch” means simply “ruler of a place.” Proastius
(προάστιος) generally the dweller in a suburb. Here it probably means
the powers in some part of the heavens which is near to a place or
constellation without actually forming part of it.]

[Footnote 11: νενομισμένα. Cf. νενομισμένως, “in the established
manner,” Callistratus, _Ecphr._, 897.]

[Footnote 12: τῶς πρακτικῶν λόγων, or, perhaps, “of the systems used.”]

[Footnote 13: ἀσύστατον, _lit._, “not holding together,” punningly used
as epithet for both the art and the heresy.]

[Footnote 14: What follows to the concluding paragraph of Chap. 7 is
taken nearly _verbatim_ from Sextus Empiricus.]

[Footnote 15: For these terms see n. on p. 67 _supra_.]

[Footnote 16: ὡροσκόπιον seems here put for ὡροσκοπεῖον = _horologium_,
or clock.]

[Footnote 17: ἀπότεξις, “the bringing-forth” is the word used by Sextus
throughout. As Sextus was a medical man it is probably the technical
term corresponding to our “parturition.” Miller reads ἀποτάξις which
does not seem appropriate.]

[Footnote 18: διάθεμα. See n. on p. 67 _supra_.]

[Footnote 19: I have here followed Sextus’ division of the sentence.
Cruice translates στέαρ, _farina aqua subacta_, for which I can see no
justification. Macmahon here follows him.]

[Footnote 20: Restoring from Sextus οἴχεται for ἦρται.]

[Footnote 21: ὡροσκόπον, “the ascending sign.” So Sextus.]

[Footnote 22: Restoring from Sextus ἐφ’ ἑκάστου for ἐν ἑκάστῳ; τὸν
ἀκριβῆ for τὸ ἀκριβὲς and omitting καταλαβέσθαι.]

[Footnote 23: See n. on p. 74 _infra_.]

[Footnote 24: Sextus has described earlier (p. 342, Fabricius) the
whole process of warning the astrologer of the moment of birth by
striking a metal disc, which I have called “gong.”]

[Footnote 25: ἀορίστου τυγχανούσης.]

[Footnote 26: ἐν πλείονι χρόνῳ καὶ ἐν συχνῷ πρὸς αἴσθησιν δυνάμενον
μερίζεσθαι, _majori et longiori temporis spatio ad aurium sensum
dividatur_, Cr.; “with proportionate delay,” Macmahon. I do not
understand how either his or Cruice’s construction is arrived at.]

[Footnote 27: Sextus has “on the hills.”]

[Footnote 28: ὡροσκοποῦντος might mean “which marks the hour.”]

[Footnote 29: φαίνεται ... ἀλλοιότερον ... διάθεμα.]

[Footnote 30: _quam diligenter observari possit in coelo nativitas_,
Cr., (before) “the nativity can be carefully observed in the sky.”]

[Footnote 31: γένεσις. The word in Greek astrological works has the
same meaning as “geniture” or “nativity” in modern astrological jargon.
Identical with “theme.”]

[Footnote 32: The whole of this sentence is corrupt, and the scribe
was probably taking down something from Sextus which was read to him
without his understanding it. I have given what seems to be the sense
of the passage.]

[Footnote 33: ὑδρίαι, Sextus (p. 342, Fabr.), has described the
clepsydra or water-clock and its defects as a measurer of time.]

[Footnote 34: ἐν πλάτει.]

[Footnote 35: τὰ ἀποτελέσματα. A technical expression for the results
or influence on sublunary things of the position of the heavenly
bodies. Cf. Bouché-Leclercq, _op. cit._, p. 328, n. 1.]

[Footnote 36: Sextus adds παγίως, “positively.”]

[Footnote 37: οἱ μαθηματικοί. The only passage in our text where
Hippolytus uses the word in this sense. He seems to have taken it from
Sextus’ title κατὰ τὸν μαθηματικὸν λόγον.]

[Footnote 38: A play of words upon Λέω and ἀνδρεῖος.]

[Footnote 39: σπουδῆς. Hippolytus inserts an unnecessary οὐ before the
word. See Sextus, p. 355.]

[Footnote 40: οἰκειώσεως χάριν, _gratia consuetudinis_, Cr.]

[Footnote 41: Does this refer to Otho’s encouragement by the astrologer
Ptolemy to rebel against Galba? See Tacitus, _Hist._, I, 22. The
sentence does not appear in Sextus.]

[Footnote 42: Sextus says 9977 years.]

[Footnote 43: φθάσει συνδραμεῖν, “arrive at concurrence with.” Sextus
answers the question in the negative.]

[Footnote 44: Here the quotations from Sextus end.]

[Footnote 45: παρ’ ἔθνεσι “among the nations.” A curious expression in
the mouth of a Greek, although natural to a Jew.]

[Footnote 46: Is this an allusion to trigonometry? The rest of the
sentence, as will presently be seen, refers to Plato’s _Timæus_. Cf.
also _Timæus the Locrian_, c. 5.]

[Footnote 47: Διὸ τοῖς ἐπιτόμοις χρησάμενος. An indication that
Hippolytus’ knowledge of Plato was not first-hand.]

[Footnote 48: The passage which follows is from the _Timæus_, XII,
where Plato describes how the World-maker set in motion two concentric
circles revolving different ways, the external called the Same and
Like, and the internal the Other, or Different.]

[Footnote 49: This seems to be generally accepted as Plato’s meaning.
Jowett says the three are the orbits of the Sun, Venus and Mercury, the
four those of the Moon, Saturn, Mars and Jupiter. The Wanderers are of
course the planets.]

[Footnote 50: _i. e._, swifter and slower.]

[Footnote 51: ἐπιφανεία.]

[Footnote 52: Perhaps the following extract from the pseudo-Timæus the
Locrian, now generally accepted as a summary of the second century, may
make this clearer. After explaining that the cosmos and its parts are
divided into “the Same” and “the Different,” he says: “The first of
these leads from without all that are within them, along the general
movement from East to West. But the latter, belonging to the Different,
lead from within the parts that are carried along from West to East,
and are self-moved, and they are whirled round and along, as it may
happen, by the movement of the Same which possesses in the Cosmos
a superior power. Now the movement of the Different, being divided
according to a harmonical proportion, takes the form of 7 circles,” and
he then goes on to describe the orbits of the planets.]

[Footnote 53: Lit., “if one section be severed.”]

[Footnote 54: Cf. Plato, _Timæus_, c. 12.]

[Footnote 55: A palpable mistake. As Cruice points out, if the Earth’s
diameter is as said in the text, its perimeter must be 251,768
stadia, which is not far from the 252,000 stadia assigned to it by
Eratosthenes.]

[Footnote 56: Lacunæ in both these sentences.]

[Footnote 57: The common Greek name for the planet Ares or Mars (♂).]

[Footnote 58: All these numbers are hopelessly corrupt in the text and
the scribe varies the notation repeatedly. I have given the figures as
finally settled by Cruice and his predecessors. The Shining One is the
planet Hermes or Mercury (☿).]

[Footnote 59: βάθη, “depths”; rather height if we consider the orbits
of the planets as concentric and fitting into one another like
jugglers’ caps or the skins of an onion.]

[Footnote 60: ἐν λόγοις συμφώνοις. Cruice would read τόνοις for λόγοις
on the strength of what Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, II, 20, says about
Pythagoras having taught that the intervals between the planets’ orbits
were musical tones. He seems to mean the gamut or chromatic scale as
contrasted with the enharmonic.]

[Footnote 61: See last note.]

[Footnote 62: See note on p. 81 _infra_ as to what this doubling and
tripling means.]

[Footnote 63: συμφωνίᾳ.]

[Footnote 64: ἐπιτετάρτῳ, _superquarta_, Cr., 1 + ¼; see Liddell and
Scott, quoting Nicomachus Gerasenus Arithmeticus.]

[Footnote 65: It is not easy to see from this confused statement
whether it is the system of Plato or Archimedes at which Hippolytus
is aiming. The one, however, that it most resembles is that of
the neo-Pythagoreans, of which the following table is given in M.
Bigourdan’s excellent work on _L’Astronomie: Evolution des Idées et des
Méthodes_, Paris 1911, p. 49:--

  Planets                       ♁   ☽   ☿    ♀   ☉   ♂   ♃   ♄  Fixed
                                                                stars
  Interval { in tones           1   ½   ½   1½   1   ½   ½   ½
           { in thousands of } 126 63  63  189 126  63  63  63
           {   stadia        }
         Absolute distances  }
           in thousands      }  0 126 189  252 441 567 630 693   756
           of stadia         }
]

[Footnote 66: The object of all these figures is apparently to prove
that those of Archimedes are wrong and that the Platonic theory--said,
one does not know with what truth, to have been inherited from
Pythagoras, viz., that the intervals between the orbits of the
different bodies of the cosmos are arranged like the notes on a
musical scale--is to be preferred. This was perhaps to be expected
from a Churchman as favouring the doctrine of creation by design. It
is difficult at first sight to see how the figures in the text bear
out Hippolytus’ contention, inasmuch as the distances here given of
the seven planets (including therein the Sun and Moon) from the Earth
proceed in an irregular kind of arithmetical progression ranging from
one to fifty-four, the distance from the Earth to the Moon which
Hippolytus accepts from Archimedes as correct being taken as unity.
Thus, let us call this unit of distance _x_, and we have the table
which follows:--


                       TABLE I (_of distances_)

  Distance of Earth (♁) from ☽ =   5,544,130 stadia or   _x_
      “         ”         “  ☉ =  16,632,390     ”      3_x_
      “         ”         “  ♀ =  33,264,780     ”      6_x_
      “         ”         “  ☿ =  55,441,300     ”     10_x_
      “         ”         “  ♂ = 105,338,470     ”     19_x_
      “         ”         “  ♃ = 149,691,510     ”     27_x_
      “         ”         “  ♄ = 299,383,020     ”     54_x_

But let us take the figures given in the text for the intervals between
the Earth and the seven “planets” arranged in the same order, and again
taking the Earth to Moon distance as unity, we have:--


                       TABLE II (_of intervals_)

  Interval between ♁ and ☽ =   5,554,130 stadia or   _x_
      “       ”    ☽  “  ☉ =  11,088,260     ”      2_x_
      “       ”    ☉  “  ♀ =  16,632,390     ”      3_x_
      “       ”    ♀  “  ☿ =  22,176,520     ”      4_x_(2²)
      “       ”    ☿  “  ♂ =  49,897,170     ”      9_x_(3²)
      “       ”    ♂  “  ♃ =  44,353,040     ”      8_x_(2³)
      “       ”    ♃  “  ♄ = 149,691,510     ”     27_x_(3³)

This agrees almost entirely with the theory which M. Bigourdan in the
work mentioned in the last note has worked out as the Platonic theory
of the distances of the different planets from the Earth, “the supposed
centre of their movements” (p. 228). Thus:--

  Planets    ☽   ☉   ♀   ☿   ♂   ♃   ♄
  Distances  1   2   3   4   8   9  27

which distances are, in his own words, “les termes enchevêtrés de deux
progressions géométriques ayant respectivement pour raison 2 et 3,
savoir 1, 2, 4, 8--1, 3, 9, 27; on voit que l’unité est, comme chez
Pythagore, la distance de la Terre à la Lune.” This conclusion is
amply borne out by Hippolytus’ figures, which, as given in Table II
above, show a regular progression from 2 and 3 to 2² and 3², then
to 2³ and 3³, which explains what our author means by increasing
the Earth to the Moon distance, κατὰ τὰ διπλάσιον καὶ τριπλάσιον. The
only discrepancy between this and M. Bigourdan’s table is that he has
transposed the distances between ☿--♂ and ♂--♄ respectively; but as
I do not know the details of the calculation on which he bases his
figures, I am unable to say whether the mistake is his or Hippolytus’.]

[Footnote 67: Are we to conclude from this that these last calculations
are those of Claudius Ptolemy, the author of the _Almagest_? He has
certainly not been mentioned before, but his fame was so great that
Hippolytus may have been certain that the allusion would be understood
by his audience. Ptolemy lived, perhaps, into the last quarter of the
second century.]

[Footnote 68: Genesis vi. 4. The subject seems to have had irresistible
fascination for Christian converts of Asiatic blood, whether orthodox
or heretic. Manes also wrote a book upon the Giants, cf. Kessler,
_Mani_, Berlin, 1899, pp. 191 ff.]

[Footnote 69: Hippolytus seems to have been entirely ignorant that
the calculations he derides were anything but mere guesswork. They
were not only singularly accurate considering the imperfection of the
observations at the disposal of their author, but have also been of
the greatest use to science as laying the foundation of all future
astronomy.]

[Footnote 70: ἀμέτρους. Another pun on their _measurements_.]

[Footnote 71: Nothing definite is known of this Colarbasus or his
supposed astrological heresy. The accounts given of him by Irenæus
and Epiphanius describe him as holding tenets identical with those of
Marcus. Hort, following Baur, believes that he never existed, and that
his name is simply a Greek corruption of _Qol arba_, “the Voice of the
Four.” See _D.C.B._, s.h.v.]

[Footnote 72: περὶ μαθηματικῶν. The article is omitted; but he
must mean the students and not the study. This is curious, because
Mathematicus in the Rome of Hippolytus must have meant astrologer and
nothing else, and what follows has nothing to do with astrology. Rather
is it what was called in the Renaissance Arithmomancy. Cruice refers
us to Athanasius Kircher’s _Arithmologia_ on the subject. Cornelius
Agrippa, _De vanitate et incertitudine Scientiarum_, writes of it as “The
Pythagorean lot,” and it is described in Gaspar Peucer’s _De præcipuis
Divinationum generibus_, 1604.]

[Footnote 73: ψῆφοι, lit., pebbles, _i. e._ counters.]

[Footnote 74: στοιχεῖα: letters as the component parts or elements of
words.]

[Footnote 75: Reading with the text τινὰς for Cruice’s τινὰ.]

[Footnote 76: In the text the Kappa and Tau are written at full length,
the other numbers in the usual Greek notation, a proof that the scribe
was here writing from dictation and not copying MS.]

[Footnote 77: ψηφισθὲν.]

[Footnote 78: The name is spelt Πάτροκλος.]

[Footnote 79: So that the “root” may be either 7 or 6 according as you
use the “rule of 9” or of 7. A _reductio ad absurdum_.]

[Footnote 80: ἐὰν ἀπαρτίσῃ, “is even or complete.”]

[Footnote 81: I omit the Rho, which in the Codex precedes the Alpha.
Cruice suggests it is put for Π.]

[Footnote 82: They do not, but make 26. Cruice adds an Alpha between
the 8 and the 3: but in any case the rule just enunciated is broken by
the reckoning in of two 2’s.]

[Footnote 83: Αἴας. Α = 1, ι = 10 = 1, α = 1 (omitted), ς = 200 = 2. 1
+ 1 + 2 = 4.]

[Footnote 84: The Homeric name for Paris.]

[Footnote 85: κύριον ὄνομα as opposed to μεταφορὸν ὄνομα, a name
transferred from one to another, or family name.]

[Footnote 86: Not 8 but 4. ο = 70 = 7, δ = 4, υ = 400 = 4, σ = 200 = 2,
ε = 5 (with duplicate omitted) = 22, which divided by 9 leaves 4, or by
7, only 1. The next sentence and a similar remark at the last sentence
but one of the chapter are probably by a commentator or scribe and have
slipped into the text by accident. Oddly enough, nothing is said as to
what happens if the “roots” are equal, as they seem to be in this case.]

[Footnote 87: Another mistake. Α = 1, σ = 200 = 2, τ = 300 = 3, ε =
5, ρ = 100 = 1, ο = 70 = 7, π = 80 = 8, ι = 10 = 1 (with duplicates
omitted) = 28, which divided by 9 leaves 1, or by 7, 0 = 7.]

[Footnote 88: ὅταν μέντοι δευτερόν τινες ἀγωνίζωνται. _Quum vero quidam
iterum decertant de numeris_, Cr. But the allusion is almost certainly
to two charioteers or combatants meeting in successive contests. Half
the divination and magic of the early centuries refers to the affairs
of the circus, and the text has nothing about _de numeris_.]

[Footnote 89: Lit., inspection of the forehead (or face), or what
Lavater called physiognomy. The word was known to Ben Jonson, who uses
it in his _Alchymist_. “By a rule, Captain. In metoposcopy, which I do
work by. A certain star in the forehead which you see not,” etc.]

[Footnote 90: ἰδέας.]

[Footnote 91: I have not thought it worth while to set down the
various readings suggested by the different editors and translators
for these “forms and qualities.” The whole of this chapter is taken
from Ptolemy’s _Tetrabiblos_, and was corrupted by every copyist. The
common type suggested with eyebrows meeting over the nose is plainly
Alexandrian, as we know from the portraits on mummy-cases in Ptolemaic
times.]

[Footnote 92: κοπιαταὶ. The dictionaries give “grave-digger,” which
makes no sense.]

[Footnote 93: ὀφθαλμοῖς μέλασιν ὡς ἠλειμμένοις, “eyes black as if
oiled.” Not a bad description of the eyes of a certain type of
Levantine.]

[Footnote 94: The text has κολυμβῶσιν, which must refer to the eyes.]

[Footnote 95: Yet he twice calls them ψεῦσται, or “cheats.”]

[Footnote 96: Miller thinks this last characteristic interpolated.]

[Footnote 97: Reading λευκῷ for ἀλυκῷ, “salt,” which seems impossible.]

[Footnote 98: Reading ὑποδούλιοι for ὑπόδουλοι.]

[Footnote 99: Is any one born with grey hair?]

[Footnote 100: οἱ αὐτοὶ φύσεως. A similar phrase has just occurred
under the same sign: a proof of the utter corruption of the text.]

[Footnote 101: ὀρχησταί in codex. Probably a mistake for εἰς κοινωνίαν
εὔχρηστοι, “useful to the community.”]

[Footnote 102: δι’ ἐπινοίας; probably a sarcasm.]

[Footnote 103: It is hardly necessary to point out the futility of this
astrology, its base being the theory that the earth is the centre of
the universe. Nearly all the characteristics given above have, however,
less to do with the stars than with those supposed to distinguish the
different animals named. This is really sympathetic magic, or what was
later called “the signatures of things.”]

[Footnote 104: A lacuna in the text here extending to the opening words
of the next chapter.]

[Footnote 105: Richard Ganschinietz, in a study on _Hippolytus’ Capitel
gegen die Magier_ appearing in Gebhardt’s and Harnack’s _Texte und
Untersuchungen_, dritte Reihe Bd. 9, Leipzig, 1913, says it is not
doubtful that Hippolytus took this chapter from Celsus’ book κατὰ
μάγων, which he discovers in Origen’s work against the last-named
author. He assumes that Lucian of Samosata in his Ἀλέξανδρος ἢ
Ψευδόμαντις borrowed from the same source.]

[Footnote 106: τῶν δαιμόνων, _a demonibus_, Cr. But the word δαίμων is
hardly ever used in classic or N.T. Greek for a devil or evil spirit,
generally called δαιμόνιον. Δαίμων here and elsewhere in this chapter
plainly means a god of lesser rank or spirit. Cf. Plutarch _de Is. et
Os._, cc. 25-30.]

[Footnote 107: τῷ παιδὶ, the magician’s assistant necessary in all
operations requiring confederacy or hypnotism.]

[Footnote 108: For the composition of this see Plutarch, _op. cit._, c.
81.]

[Footnote 109: ὁ μυχός. Often used for the women’s chamber or
gynaeceum.]

[Footnote 110: Clearly the Egyptian sun-god Ra or Rê, the Phi in front
being the Coptic definite article. It is a curious instance of the
undying nature of any superstition that in the magical ceremonies of
the extant Parisian sect of Vintrasists, Ammon-Ra, the Theban form of
this god, is invoked apparently with some idea that he is a devil. See
Jules Bois’ _Le Satanisme et la Magie_, Paris, 1895.]

[Footnote 111: χαλκάνθον, sulphate of iron, which, mixed with tincture
or decoction of nut-galls, makes writing ink. Our own word copperas is
an exact translation.]

[Footnote 112: φιάλη. A broad flat pan used for sacrificial purposes.]

[Footnote 113: There is some muddle here, probably due to Hippolytus
not having any practical acquaintance with the tricks described. The
smoke of nut-galls would hardly make the writing visible. On the other
hand, letters written in milk will turn brown if exposed to the fire
without the application of any ash.]

[Footnote 114: A sauce made of brine and small fish.]

[Footnote 115: See the roughly-drawn vignettes usual in magic papyri,
_e. g._ Parthey, _Zwei griechische Zauberpapyri_, Berlin, 1866, p. 155;
Karl Wessely, _Griechische Zauberpapyri von Paris und London_, Vienna,
1888, p. 118.]

[Footnote 116: τὰς φρένας. One of Hippolytus’ puns.]

[Footnote 117: Hebrew was used in these ceremonies, because they were
largely in the hands of the Jews. See _Forerunners and Rivals of
Christianity_, II, pp. 33, 34, for references.]

[Footnote 118: ἠχεῖ. Particularly appropriate to the striking of a
metal disc.]

[Footnote 119: The book of course was a long roll of parchment, the
inner coils of which could be drawn out as described.]

[Footnote 120: ὀρυκτῶν ἁλῶν. Cruice translates fossil salts. Does he
mean rock-salt?]

[Footnote 121: τὸ ἰνδικὸν μέλαν. Either indigo dye or pepper. Cayenne
pepper put in the flame might have a startling effect on the audience.]

[Footnote 122: Where?]

[Footnote 123: Said to be an astringent earth made from rock-alum, and
containing both alum and vitriol. Known to Hippocrates.]

[Footnote 124: Red lead or vermilion? The idea seems to be to frighten
the dupe by the supposed prodigy of a hen laying eggs which have red or
black inside them instead of white.]

[Footnote 125: Pliny, _Nat. Hist._, VIII, c. 75, says the sheep is
compelled when it feeds to turn away from the sun by reason of the
weakness of its head. This is probably the story which Hippolytus or
the author has exaggerated. Something is omitted from the text.]

[Footnote 126: Seal or porpoise oil?]

[Footnote 127: Hymns like these are to be found in the two collections
of magic papyri quoted in n. on p. 93 _supra_.]

[Footnote 128: He tells us how this trick is performed on p. 100
_infra_. Lecanomancy or divination by the bowl was generally performed
by means of a hypnotized boy, as described in Lane’s _Modern
Egyptians_. This, however, is a more elaborate process dependent on
fraud.]

[Footnote 129: Reading νάτρον for νίτρον. It was common in Egypt, and
saltpetre would not have the same effect, which seems to depend on the
expulsion of carbonic acid.]

[Footnote 130: μυρσίνη. Cruice suggests μάλφη, a mixture of wax and
pitch, which hardly seems indicated. Storax is the ointment recommended
by eighteenth-century conjurers. Water is all that is needful.]

[Footnote 131: ἰχθυοκόλλα. Presumably fish-glue. Macmahon suggests
isinglass. The salamander, the use of which is to be sought in
sympathetic magic, was no doubt calcined and used in powder.
σκολοπένδριον, “millipede” and σκολόπενδρον, “hart’s tongue fern” are
the alternative readings suggested. Fern-oil is said to be good for
burns.]

[Footnote 132: Probably chalk or gypsum.]

[Footnote 133: αὐτορρύτων κηκίδων τε κενῶν. Κήκις here evidently means
any sort of nut-shell. But how can it be “self-flowing”? Miller’s
suggested φορυτὸν makes no better sense.]

[Footnote 134: The lion-headed figure of the Mithraic worship is shown
thus setting light to an altar in Cumont’s _Textes et Monuments de
Mithra_, II, p. 196, fig. 22. A similar figure with an opening at the
back of the head to admit the “wind-pipe” described in the text shows
how this was effected. See the same author’s _Les Mystères de Mithra_,
Brussels, 1913, p. 235, figs. 26, 27.]

[Footnote 135: The solution of alum would be effective without any
other ingredients.]

[Footnote 136: That is, not by guesswork. Another pun.]

[Footnote 137: The letter was of course in the form of a writing-tablet
bound about with silk or cord, to which the seal was attached.]

[Footnote 138: This would make something like plaster of Paris.]

[Footnote 139: This book or the former one. Lucian describes the same
process in his _Alexander_, which he dedicates to Celsus; _v._ n. on p.
92 _supra_.]

[Footnote 140: ἀφορμὰς λαβών, “taking them as starting-points.”]

[Footnote 141: Cruice suggests that this sentence has either got out of
place or is an addition by an annotator. Probably an afterthought of
Hippolytus’.]

[Footnote 142: See n. on p. 97 _supra_.]

[Footnote 143: κύανος. A dark-blue substance which some think steel,
others lapis lazuli.]

[Footnote 144: συμπαῖκται, “playfellows.” Here, as elsewhere in the
text, accomplices or confederates.]

[Footnote 145: Several words missing here, perhaps by intention. It
would be interesting to know if the “drug” was any preparation of
phosphorus.]

[Footnote 146: Should be Baubo, a synonym of Hecate in the hymn to that
goddess published by Miller, _Mélanges de Litt. Grecque_, Paris, 1868,
pp. 442 ff.]

[Footnote 147: Most of the epithets and names here used are to be
found in the hymn quoted in the last note. The goddess is there
identified not only with Artemis and Persephone, but with the Sumerian
Eris-ki-gal, lady of hell.]

[Footnote 148: A sort of magic lantern? κάτοπτρον, which I have
translated mirror, _might_ be a lens. One is said to have been found in
Assyria.]

[Footnote 149: πόρρωθεν. Better, perhaps, πόρροτεθεν.]

[Footnote 150: Full moon, or half, or quarter, as the case may be.]

[Footnote 151: Schneidewin seems to be right in suggesting a lacuna
here.]

[Footnote 152: ἐν ὑαλώδεσι τύποις. Schneidewin suggests τόποις
unreasonably. Many alabaster jars are nearly transparent.]

[Footnote 153: Cf. Aristotle, _De Hist. Animal._, V, 10, 2. Said to be
_Coryphæna hippurus_.]

[Footnote 154: The hiatus leaves us in doubt how this operated. Perhaps
it liberated free ammonia.]

[Footnote 155: Reading ἐπίπλοον βοείου instead of, with Cruice,
ἐπίπλεον βώλου, “filled with clay.”]

[Footnote 156: ἀφανὲς, “unapparent.”]

[Footnote 157: ἀπηνέχθημεν. An admission that this chapter was an
afterthought.]

[Footnote 158: ὡς εἰκάσαι, ἐστι, _ut patet_, Cr.]

[Footnote 159: θεολόγοι. It does not mean “theologians” in our sense,
but narrator of stories about the gods. Orpheus is always considered a
θεολόγος.]

[Footnote 160: ποδαπός. Not, as Cruice translates, _quale_, which would
be better expressed by the ποίον of Aristotle.]

[Footnote 161: τὸ σύμπαν αὐτὸ.]

[Footnote 162: It is fairly certain that Hippolytus in this
“Recapitulation” must here be summarizing the missing Books II and III.
He has said nothing in any part of the work that has come down to us
about the Persian theology, and in Book I he calls Zaratas or Zoroaster
a Chaldæan and not a Persian.]

[Footnote 163: ψήφοις ὑπέβαλον καὶ are supplied by Schneidewin in the
place of three words rubbed out.]

[Footnote 164: Reading with Schneidewin μοιρῶν for μυρῶν and ἐπιπνοίας
for ἐπίνοιας.]

[Footnote 165: By indivisible comparison (σύγκρισις) he seems to imply
that these numbers cannot be divided except by 1. Hence Cruice would
omit 9 as being divisible by 3. Perhaps he means “like indivisibility.”]

[Footnote 166: Cruice suggests that this was an astronomical instrument
and quotes Cl. Ptolemy, _Harmon._, I, 2, in support.]

[Footnote 167: Why should the cosmos be masculo-feminine? The
Valentinians said the same thing about their Sophia, who was, as I have
said elsewhere (_Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_, Oct. 1917), a
personification of the Earth. The idea seems to go back to Sumerian
times. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, 45, n. 1, and Mr. S. Langdon, _Tammuz and
Ishtar_, Oxford, 1914, pp. 7, 43 and 115.]

[Footnote 168: The worshippers of the Greek Isis declared Isis to be
the earth and Osiris water. See _Forerunners_, I, 73, for references.
If Hippolytus is here recapitulating Books II and III, it is probable
that the lacuna was occupied with some reference to the Alexandrian
deities and their connection with the arithmetical speculations of the
Neo-Pythagoreans. Could this be substantiated, we should not need to
look further for the origin of the Simonian and Valentinian heresies.]

[Footnote 169: ψηφιζόμενα κὰι ἀναλυόμενα, _supputata et diversa_, Cr.
The process seems to be that called earlier (p. 85 _supra_) the rule of
9.]

[Footnote 170: 361 ÷ 9 = 40 + 1; 605 ÷ 9 = 67 + 2.]

[Footnote 171: ἀπερίζυγον, lit., “unyoked.”]

[Footnote 172: εἰς ἐννάδα here appears in the text apparently as an
alternative reading. Cruice suggests “with an ennead deducted.”]

[Footnote 173: Meaning that some reckon the numerical value of all the
letters in a name, others that of the vowels only.]

[Footnote 174: What follows has nothing to do with divination, but
treats of the celestial map as a symbolical representation of the
Christian scheme of salvation. Hippolytus condemns the notion as a
“heresy,” but if so, its place ought to be in Book V. It is doubtful
from what author or teacher he derived his account of it; but all the
quotations from Aratus’ _Phænomena_ which he gives are to be found in
Cicero, _De Natura Deorum_, 41, where they make, as they do not here, a
connected story.]

[Footnote 175: One of the passages favouring the conjecture that the
book was originally in the form of lectures.]

[Footnote 176: οἱ ἐντυγχάνοντες, _legentibus_, Cr. It may just as
easily mean “those who come across this.”]

[Footnote 177: “Catasterisms” was the technical term for these
transfers, of which the _Coma Berenices_ is the best-known example. Cf.
Bouché-Leclercq, _op. cit._, p. 23.]

[Footnote 178: The long-eared owl (_strix otus_). According to Ælian it
had a reputation for stupidity, and was therefore a type of the easy
dupe, Athenæus, _Deipnosophistæ_, IX, 44, 45, tells a similar story to
that in the text about the bustard.]

[Footnote 179: Reading μετανάσσεται for μετανίσσεται or μετανείσεται.]

[Footnote 180: στρεπτούς, _volventes_, Cr. An attempt to pun on πόλος,
the Pole.]

[Footnote 181: Job i. 7. The Book of Job according to some writers
comes from an Essene school, which may give us some clue to the origin
of these ideas. The Enochian literature to which the same tendency
is assigned is full of speculations about the heavenly bodies. See
_Forerunners_, I, p. 159, for references.]

[Footnote 182: ὁ ἐν γόνασιν. Aratus calls this constellation ὁ ἐν
γόνασι καθήμενος, Cicero _Engonasis_, Ovid _Genunixus_, Vitruvius,
Manilius and J. Firmicus Maternus, _Ingeniculus_.]

[Footnote 183: A perversion of the “it shall bruise thy head and thou
shall bruise his heel,” of Genesis iii. 15.]

[Footnote 184: From his attitude the Kneeler resembles the figure
of Atlas supporting the world, who as Omophorus plays a great part
in Manichæan mythology. Cumont derives this from a Babylonian
original, for which and his connection with Mithraic cosmogony see his
_Recherches sur le Manichéisme_, Brussels, 1908, I, p. 70, figs. 1 and
2. The constellation is now known as Hercules.]

[Footnote 185: Hippolytus here evidently quotes not from Aratus, but
from some unnamed Gnostic or heretic writer, whom Cruice thinks must
have been a Jew. Yet he was plainly a Christian, as appears from his
remarks about the “Second Creation.” An Ebionite writer might have
preserved many Essene superstitions.]

[Footnote 186: Cruice, following Roeper, says these words have slipped
in from an earlier page.]

[Footnote 187: ὀφιοῦχος. The “Ophiuchus huge” of Milton or Anguitenens.]

[Footnote 188: Ἑλίκη. So Aratus and Apollonius Rhodius. Said to be so
called from its perpetually revolving. Cruice remarks on this sentence
that it does not seem to have been written by a Greek, and quotes
Epiphanius as to the addiction of the Pharisees to astrology. But see
last note but one.]

[Footnote 189: ἑλίκη. A pun quite in Hippolytus’ manner.]

[Footnote 190: πρὸς ἣν ... ναυτίλλονται. Cruice and Macmahon alike
translate this “towards which,” but Aratus clearly means “steer by”
both here and earlier.]

[Footnote 191: Herodotus I, 1. He does not say, however, that the
Greeks were Phœnicians.]

[Footnote 192: Rather the conceiver, from κύω, to conceive. γεννάω is
used of the mother by Aristotle, _De Gen. Animal._, 3, 5, 6.]

[Footnote 193: λογικῆς.]

[Footnote 194: Reading Ιάσαδος for Cruice’s Ἰασίδαο. The text is said
to have εἰς ἀΐδαο.]

[Footnote 195: γράμματα, elementa, Cr. But I think the allusion is to
the story they contain for those who can read them.]

[Footnote 196: The Swan.]

[Footnote 197: τὰς ἰδέας.]

[Footnote 198: If Hippolytus’ words are here correctly transcribed, the
“heretic” quoted seems to have two inconsistent ideas about the stars.
One is that the constellations are types or allegories of what takes
place in man’s soul; the other, that they are the patterns after which
the creatures of this world were made. This last is Mithraic rather
than Christian.]

[Footnote 199: τῆς τούτων ὑπολήψεως, _ab horum cogitationibus_, Cr.]

[Footnote 200: ἀγαπητοί. The word generally used in a _sermon_.]

[Footnote 201: This also reads like a peroration.]

[Footnote 202: In this chapter Hippolytus for the first time sets
himself seriously to prove the thesis which he has before asserted, _i.
e._, that all the Gnostic systems are derived from the teachings of the
Greek philosophers. His mode of doing so is to compare the elaborate
systems of Aeons or emanations of deity imagined by heresiarchs
like Simon Magus and Valentinus to the views attributed by him to
Pythagoras which make all nature to spring from one indivisible point.
Whether Pythagoras ever held such views may be doubted and we have no
means of checking Hippolytus’ always loose statements on this point;
but something like them appears in the _Theaetetus_ of Plato where
arithmetic and geometry seem to be connected by talk about oblong as
well as square numbers and the construction of solids from them. If
we imagine with the Greeks (see n. on p. 37 _supra_) that numbers are
not abstract things, but actual portions of space, there is indeed a
strong likeness between the ideas of the later Platonists as to the
construction of the world by means of numbers and those attributed to
the Gnostic teachers as to its emanation from God. Whether these last
really held the views thus attributed to them is another matter. Cf.
_Forerunners_, II, pp. 99, 100.]

[Footnote 203: ἀπὸ τοῦ σημείου seems to be repeated needlessly.]

[Footnote 204: ῥυὲν, “flowing out.”]

[Footnote 205: πέρος ἔχουσα σημεῖον. Surely it has two limits--a point
at each end.]

[Footnote 206: σῶμα. In the next sentence he uses the proper word
στερεόν.]

[Footnote 207: This is, I suppose, quoted from the Ἀποφάσις μεγαλή
attributed to Simon, as he speaks afterwards (II, p. 9 _infra_) of the
small becoming great, “as it is written in the _Apophasis_, if it ...
come into being from the indivisible point. But the great will be in
the boundless æon,” etc.]

[Footnote 208: What follows from this point down to the end of the
paragraph is an almost verbatim transcript of the passage in Book I
(pp. 37 ff. _supra_), where it is given as the teaching of Pythagoras.
The only substantial differences are: that hypostasis is written for
hypothesis in the second sentence of the passage; the Tetractys is no
longer said to be the “source” of eternal nature; and the 11, 12, etc.,
are now said to take, and not “share” their beginning from the 10.]

[Footnote 209: ὑπόθεσιν ἑαυτοῖς ἐντεῦθεν σχεδιάσαντες, _suis dogmatibus
fundamentum posuerunt_, Cr.]

[Footnote 210: τὸ πνεῦμα. Cruice translates this by _spiritum_, and is
followed by Macmahon. I think, however, he means the breath, it being
the idea of the ancients that the arteries were air-vessels.]

[Footnote 211: παρεγκεφαλίς.]

[Footnote 212: κωνάριον.]

[Footnote 213: νωτιαῖον μοελόν.]

[Footnote 214: It is at any rate plain from this that the missing Books
II and III at one time existed.]

[Footnote 215: These words appear in the MS. at the foot of this Book.]




                                BOOK V

                          THE OPHITE HERESIES


[Sidenote: p. 137.] 1. These are the contents of the 5th (book) of the
Refutation of all Heresies.

2. What the Naassenes say who call themselves Gnostics, and that they
profess those opinions which the philosophers of the Greeks and the
transmitters of the Mysteries first laid down, starting wherefrom they
have constructed heresies.

3. And what things the Peratæ imagine, and that their doctrine is not
framed from the Holy Scriptures but from the astrological (art).

4. What is the system according to the Sithians, and that they have
patched together their doctrine by plagiarizing from those wise men
according to the Greeks, (to wit) Musæus and Linus and Orpheus.

5. What Justinus imagined and that his doctrine is not framed from
the Holy Scriptures, but from the marvellous tales of Herodotus the
historiographer.


                          1. _Naassenes._[1]

[Sidenote: p. 138.] 6. I consider that the tenets concerning the Divine
and the fashioning of the cosmos (held by) all those who are deemed
philosophers by Greeks and Barbarians have been very painfully set
forth in the four books before this. Whose curious arts I have not
neglected, so that I have undertaken for the readers no chance labour,
exhorting many to love of learning and certainty of knowledge about the
truth. Now therefore there remains to hasten on to the refutation of
the heresies, with which intent[2] also we have set forth the things
aforesaid. From which philosophers the heresiarchs have taken hints in
common[3] and patching like cobblers the mistakes of the ancients on to
their own thoughts, have offered them as new to those they can deceive,
as we shall prove in (the books) which follow. For the rest, it is time
to approach the subjects laid down before, but to begin with those who
have dared to sing the praises of the Serpent, who is in fact the cause
of the error, through certain systems invented by his action. Therefore
[Sidenote: p. 139.] the priests and chiefs of the doctrine were the
first who were called Naassenes, being thus named in the Hebrew tongue:
for the Serpent is called Naas.[4] Afterwards they called themselves
Gnostics alleging that they alone knew the depths.[5] Separating
themselves from which persons, many men have made the heresy, which is
really one, a much divided affair, describing the same things according
to varying opinions, as this discourse will argue as it proceeds.

These men worship as the beginning of all things, according to
their own statement, a Man and a Son of Man. But this Man is
masculo-feminine[6] and is called by them Adamas;[7] and hymns to him
are many and various. And [Sidenote: p. 140.] the hymns, to cut it
short, are repeated by them somehow like this:--

“From thee a father, and through thee a mother, the two deathless
names, parents of Aeons, O thou citizen of heaven, Man of great
name!”[8]

But they divide him like Geryon into three parts. For there is of
him, they say, the intellectual (part), the psychic and the earthly;
and they consider that the knowledge of him is the beginning of the
capacity to know God, speaking thus: “The beginning of perfection
is the knowledge of man, but the knowledge of God is completed
perfection.” But all these things, he says, the intellectual, and the
psychic and the earthly, proceeded and came down together into one
man, Jesus who was born of Mary;[9] and there spoke together, he says,
in the same way, these three men each of them from his own substance
to his own. For there are three kinds of universals[10] according to
them (to wit) the angelic,[11] the psychic and the earthly; and three
churches, the angelic, the psychic and the earthly; but their names
are: Chosen, Called, Captive.[12]

[Sidenote: p. 141.] 7. These are the heads of the very many discourses
which they say James the brother of the Lord handed down to
Mariamne.[13] So then, that the impious may no longer speak falsely
either of Mariamne, or of James, or of his Saviour, we will come to
the Mysteries, whence comes their fable, both the Barbarian and the
Greek, and we shall see how these men collecting together the hidden
and ineffable mysteries of the nations[14] and speaking falsely of
Christ, lead astray those who have not seen the Gentiles’ secret rites.
For since the Man Adamas is their foundation, and they say there
has been written of him “Who shall declare his [Sidenote: p. 142.]
generation?”[15] learn ye how, taking from the nations in turn the
undiscoverable and distinguished[16] generation of the Man, they apply
this to Christ.

 “For earth, say the Greeks, was the first to give forth man, thus
 bearing a goodly gift. For she wished to be the mother not of plants
 without feeling and wild beasts without sense, but of a gentle and
 God-loving animal. But hard it is, he says, to discover whether
 Alalcomeneus of the Boeotians came forth upon the [Sidenote: p. 143.]
 Cephisian shore as the first of men, or whether (the first men) were
 the Idæan Curetes, a divine race, or the Phrygian Corybantes whom the
 Sun saw first shooting up like trees, or whether Arcadia brought forth
 Pelasgus earlier than the Moon, or Eleusis Diaulus dweller in the
 Rarian field, or Lemnos gave birth to Cabirus, fair child of ineffable
 orgies, or Pallene to Alcyon, eldest of the Giants. But the Libyans
 say Iarbas the first-born crept forth from the parched field to pluck
 Zeus’ sweet acorn. So also, he says that the Nile of the Egyptians,
 making fat the mud which unto this day begets life, gave forth living
 bodies made flesh with moist heat.”[17]

But the Assyrians say that fish-eating[18] Oannes (the first man) was
born among them and the Chaldæans (say the same thing about) Adam; and
they assert that he was the man whom the earth brought forth alone, and
that he lay breathless, motionless (and) unmoved like unto a statue
being the image of him on high who is praised in song as the man
Adamas; but that he was produced by many [Sidenote: p. 144.] powers
about whom in turn there is much talk.[19]

In order then that the Great Man[20] on high, from whom, as they say,
“every fatherhood[21] named on earth and in the heavens” is framed,
might be completely held fast, there was given to him also a soul, so
that through the soul he might suffer, and that the enslaved “image
of the great and most beautiful and Perfect Man”--for thus they call
him--might be punished.[22] Wherefore again they ask what is the soul
and of what kind is its nature that coming to the man and moving[23]
him it should enslave and punish the image of the Perfect Man. But they
ask this, not from the Scriptures, but from the mystic rites. And they
say that the soul is very hard to find and to comprehend, since it does
not stay in the same shape or form, nor is it always in one and the
same state, so that one might describe it by a type or comprehend it in
substance.[24] But these various changes of the soul they hold to be
set down in the Gospel inscribed to the Egyptians.

They doubt then, as do all other men of the nations, whether the
soul is from the pre-existent, or from the self-begotten, [Sidenote:
p. 145.] or from the poured-forth Chaos.[25] And first they betake
themselves to the mysteries of the Assyrians[26] to understand the
triple division of the Man; for the Assyrians were the first to think
the soul tripartite and yet one. For every nature, they say, longs
for the soul, but each in a different way. For soul is the cause of
all things that are, and all things which are nourished and increase,
he says, require soul. For nothing like nurture or increase, he says,
can occur unless soul be present. And even the stones, he says, are
animated,[27] for they have the power of increase, and no increase
can come without nourishment. For by addition increase the things
which increase and the addition is the nourishment of that which is
nourished.[28] Therefore every nature he says, of things in heaven, and
on earth, and below the earth, longs for a soul. But the Assyrians call
such a thing[29] Adonis or Endymion or (Attis); and when it is invoked
as Adonis Aphrodite loves and longs after the soul of such name. And
Aphrodite is generation[30] according to them. But when Persephone
or Core loves Adonis[31] there is a certain mortal soul separated
from Aphrodite [Sidenote: p. 146.] (that is from generation).[32]
And if Selene should come to desire of Endymion[33] and to love of
his beauty, the nature of the sublime ones, he says, also requires
soul. But if, he says, the Mother of the Gods castrate Attis,[34] and
she holds this loved one, the blessed nature of the hypercosmic and
eternal ones on high recalls to her, he says, the masculine power of
the soul.[35] For, says he, the Man is masculo-feminine. According to
this argument of theirs, then, the so-called[36] intercourse of woman
with man is by (the teaching of) their school shown to be an utterly
wicked and defiling thing. For Attis is castrated, he says, that is, he
has changed over from the earthly parts of the lower creation to the
eternal substance on high, where, he says, there is neither male nor
female,[37] but a new creature,[38] a new Man, who is masculo-feminine.
What they mean by “on high” I will show in its appropriate place when
I come to it. But they say it bears witness to what they say that
Rhea is not simply one (goddess) but, so to speak, the [Sidenote: p.
147.] whole creature.[39] And this they say is made quite clear by the
saying:--“For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made by
Him, in truth, His eternal power and godhead, so that they are without
excuse. Since when they knew Him as God, they glorified Him not as
God, neither were thankful, but foolishness deceived their hearts. For
thinking themselves wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of
the incorruptible God into the likenesses of an image of corruptible
man and of birds and of fourfooted and creeping things. Wherefore God
gave them up to passions of dishonour. For even their women changed
their natural use to that which is against nature.”[40] And what the
natural use is according to them, we shall see later. “Likewise, also
the males leaving the natural use of the female burned in their lust
one toward another males among males working unseemliness.”[41] But
unseemliness is according to them the first and blessed and unformed
substance which is the cause of all the forms of [Sidenote: p. 148.]
things which are formed. “And receiving in themselves the recompense
of their error which is meet.”[42] For in these words, which Paul has
spoken, they say is comprised their whole secret and the ineffable
mystery of the blessed pleasure. For the promise of baptism[43] is not
anything else according to them than the leading to unfading pleasure
him who is baptized according to them in living water and anointed with
silent[44] ointment.

And they say that not only do the mysteries of the Assyrians bear
witness to their saying, but also those of the Phrygians concerning the
blessed nature, hitherto hidden and yet at the same time displayed, of
those who were and are and shall be, which, he says, is the kingdom of
the heavens sought for within man.[45] Concerning which nature they
have explicitly made tradition in the Gospel inscribed according to
Thomas,[46] saying thus: “Whoso seeks me shall find me in children from
seven years (upwards). For there in the fourteenth year I who am hidden
[Sidenote: p. 149.] am made manifest.” This, however, is the saying
not of Christ but of Hippocrates, who says: “At seven years old, a boy
is half a father.” Whence they who place the primordial nature of the
universals in the primordial seed having heard the Hippocratian (adage)
that a boy of seven years old is half a father, say that in fourteen
years according to Thomas it will be manifest. This is their ineffable
and mystical saying.[47]

They say then that the Egyptians, who are admitted to be the most
ancient of all men after the Phrygians and the first at once to impart
to all men the initiations and secret rites[48] of the gods, and to
have proclaimed forms and activities, have the holy and august and for
those who are not initiated unutterable mysteries of Isis. And these
are nothing else than the _pudendum_ of Osiris which was snatched away
and sought for by her of the seven stoles and black [Sidenote: p. 150.]
garments.[49] But they say Osiris is water. And the seven-stoled nature
which has about it and is equipped with seven ethereal stoles--for
thus they allegorically call the wandering stars--is like mutable
generation[50] and shows that the creation is transformed by the
Ineffable and Unportrayable[51] and Incomprehensible and Formless One.
And this is what is said in the Scripture: “The just shall fall seven
times and rise again.”[52] For these falls, he says, are the turnings
about of the stars when moved by him who moves all things. They say,
then, about the substance of the seed which is the cause of all things
that are, that it belongs to none of these but begets and creates all
things that are, speaking thus: “I become what I wish, and I am what I
am; wherefore I say that it is the immoveable that moves all things.
For it remains what it is, creating all things and nothing comes into
being from begotten things.”[53] He says that this alone is good and
that it is of this that the Saviour spoke when he said: “Why callest
thou me good? There is one good, my Father who is in the heavens, Who
makes the sun to rise upon the just and the unjust, and [Sidenote: p.
151.] rains upon the holy and the sinners.”[54] And who are the holy
upon whom He rains and who the sinful we shall see with other things
later on. And this is the great secret and the unknowable mystery
concealed and revealed by the Egyptians. For Osiris, he says, is in
the temple in front of Isis, whose _pudendum_ stands exposed looking
upwards from below, and wearing as a crown all its fruits of begotten
things.[55] And they say not only does such a thing stand in the most
holy temples, but is made known to all like a light not set under a
bushel but placed on a candlestick making [Sidenote: p. 152.] its
announcement on the housetops in all the streets and highways and near
all dwellings being set before them as some limit and term.[56] For
they call this the bringer of luck, not knowing what they say.

And this mystery the Greeks who have taken it over from the Egyptians
keep unto this day. For we see, he says, the (images) of Hermes in
such a form honoured among them. And they say that they especially
honour Cyllenius the Eloquent. For Hermes is the Word who, being the
interpreter and fashioner[57] of what has been, is, and will be, stands
honoured among them carved into some such form which is the _pudendum_
of a man straining from the things below to those on high. And that
this--that is, such a Hermes--is, he says, a leader of souls and a
sender forth of them, and a cause of souls, did not escape the poets of
the nations who speak thus:--

    “Cyllenian Hermes called forth the souls
    Of the suitors.”--
                                           (Homer, _Odyssey_, XXIV, 1.)

[Sidenote: p. 153.] Not of the suitors of Penelope, he says, O unhappy
ones, but of those awakened from sleep and recalled to consciousness

    “From such honour and from such enduring bliss.”--
                                              (Empedocles, 355, Stürz.)

that is, from the blessed Man on high or from the arch-man Adamas, as
they think, they have been brought down here into the form of clay that
they may be made slaves to the fashioner of this creation, Jaldabaoth,
a fiery god, a fourth number.[58] For thus they call the demiurge and
father of the world of form.

    “But he holds in his hands the rod
    Fair and golden, wherewith he lulls to sleep the eyes of men,
    Whomso he will, while others he awakens from sleep.”--
                                               (_Odyssey_, XXIV, 3 ff.)

This, he says, is he who has authority over life and death of whom he
says it is written: “Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron.”[59]
But the poet wishing to adorn the incomprehensible [Sidenote: p.
154.] (part)[60] of the blessed nature of the Word, makes his rod
not iron but golden. And he charms to sleep the eyes of the dead, he
says, and again awakens those sleepers who are stirred out of sleep
and become suitors. Of these, he says, the Scripture spoke: “Awake
thou that sleepest, and arise and Christ shall shine upon thee.”[61]
This is the Christ, he says, who in all begotten things is the Son
of Man, impressed (with the image) by the Logos of whom no image can
be made.[62] This, he says, is the great and unspeakable mystery of
the Eleusinians “_Hye Cye_”[63] seeing that all things are set under
him, and this is the saying: “Their sound went forth into all the
earth,”[64] just as

    “Hermes waved the rod and they followed gibbering.”--
                                         (Homer, _Odyssey_, XXIV, 5-7.)

still meaning the souls as the poet shows, saying figuratively:--

    “And even as bats flit gibbering in the secret recesses
    Of a wondrous cave when one has fallen down out of the rock
    From the cluster....”--
                                              (_Ibid._, XXIV, 9 _seq._)

[Sidenote: p. 155.] Out of the rock, he says, is said of Adamas. This,
he says, is Adamas, “the corner-stone which has become the head of the
corner.”[65] For in the head is the impressed brain of the substance
from which every fatherhood is impressed.[66] “Which Adamas,” he says,
“I place at the foundation of Zion.”[67] Allegorically, he says, he
means the image of the Man. But that Adamas is placed within the
teeth, as Homer says, “the hedge of teeth,”[68] that is, the wall and
stockade within which is the inner man, who has fallen from Adamas the
arch-man[69] on high who is (the rock) “cut without cutting hands”[70]
and brought down into the image of oblivion,[71] the earthly and
clayey. And he says that the souls follow him, the Word, gibbering.

    Even so the souls gibbered as they fared together,
    But he went before,

that is, he led them,

    “Gracious Hermes led them adown the dark ways.”--
                                               (_Odyssey_, XXIV, 9 ff.)

[Sidenote: p. 156.] that is, he says, into eternal countries remote
from all evil. For whence, says he, did they come?

    “By Ocean’s flood they came and the Leucadian cliff
    And by the Sun’s gates and the land of dreams.”--
                                                (_Odyssey_, _ubi cit._)

This he says is Ocean, “source of gods and source of men”[72] ever
ebbing and flowing now forth and now back. But when he says Ocean flows
forth there is birth of men, but when back to the wall and stockade
and the Leucadian rock there is birth of gods. This he says is that
which is written: “I have said ye are all gods and sons of the Highest;
if you hasten to flee from Egypt and win across the Red Sea into the
desert,” that is from the mixture below to the Jerusalem above who is
the Mother of (all) living. “But if ye return again to Egypt,” that is
to the mixture below, [Sidenote: p. 157.] “ye shall die as men.”[73]
For deathly, says he, is all birth below, but deathless that which is
born above; for it is born of water alone and the spirit, spiritual
not fleshly. This, he says, is that which is written: “That which
is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit
is spirit.”[74] This is, according to them, the spiritual birth.
This, he says, is the great Jordan which flowing forth prevented the
sons of Israel from coming out of the land of Egypt--or rather, from
the mixture below; for Egypt is the body according to them--until
Joshua[75] turned it and made it flow back towards its source.

8. Following up these and such-like (words) the most wonderful Gnostics
having invented a new art of grammar[76] imagine that their own prophet
Homer unspeakably[77] foreshowed[78] these things and they mock at
those who not being initiated in the Holy Scriptures are led together
into such designs. But they say: whoso says all things were framed from
one, errs; but whoso says from three speaks the truth and gives an
exposition of (the things of) the universe. For one, he says, is the
blessed nature of the Blessed Man above, Adamas, and one is the mortal
(nature), [Sidenote: p. 158.] below, and one is the kingless race
begotten on high, where, he says, is Mariam the sought-for one, and
Jothor the great wise one, and Sephora the seer,[79] and Moses whose
generation was not in Egypt--for there were children born to him in
Midian--and this, he says, was not forgotten by the poets:--

    “In three lots were all things divided and each drew a domain of
         his own.”--(_Iliad_, XV, 169.)

For sublime things, he says, must needs be spoken, but they are spoken
everywhere, lest “hearing they should not hear and seeing they should
see not.”[80] For if, he says, the sublime things were not spoken, the
cosmos could not have been framed. These are the three ponderous words:
Caulacau, Saulasau, Zeesar.[81] Caulacau the one on high, [Sidenote:
p. 159.] Adamas, Saulasau, the mortal nature below, Zeesar the Jordan
which flows back on its source. This is, he says, the masculo-feminine
Man who is in all things, whom the ignorant call the triple-bodied
Geryon--as if Geryon were “flowing from Earth”[82]--and the Greeks
usually “the heavenly horn of Mên”[83] because he has mingled and
compounded all things with all. “For all things, he says, were made
through him and apart from him not one thing was made. That which was
in him is life.”[84] This, he says is the life, the unspeakable family
of perfect men which was not known to the former generation. But the
“nothing” which came into being apart from him is the world of form;
for it came without him by the 3rd and 4th.[85] This, he says, is the
cup Condy in which the king drinking, divineth. This, he says, is that
which was hidden among the fair grains of Benjamin. And the Greeks also
say the same with raving lips:--

    “Bring water, bring wine, O boy
    Intoxicate me, plunge me into sleep.
    The cup tells me
    [Sidenote: p. 160.] What I must become.”[86]--
                                            (_Anacreon_, XXVI, 25, 26.)

It was enough, he says, that only this should be known to men that
Anacreon’s cup spoke mutely an unspeakable mystery. For mute, he says,
was Anacreon’s cup which says Anacreon, tells him with mute speech what
he must become, that is spiritual not fleshly, if he hears the hidden
mystery in silence. And this is the water in those fair nuptials which
Jesus changed by making wine. This, he says, is the mighty and true
beginning of the signs which Jesus did in Cana in Galilee and made
known the kingdom of the heavens. This, he says, is the kingdom of the
heavens within us, as a treasure as the leaven hidden within three
measures of meal.[87]

[Sidenote: p. 161.] This is, he says, the great and unspeakable mystery
of the Samothracians which is allowed to be known to us alone who are
perfect. For the Samothracians explicitly hand down in the mysteries
celebrated by them that Adam is the Arch-man. And in the temple of
the Samothracians stand two statues of naked men having both hands
stretched forth to heaven and their _pudenda_ turned upwards like that
of Hermes on (Mt.) Cyllene. But the aforesaid statues are the images
of the Arch-man and of the re-born spiritual one in all things of one
substance[88] with that man. This, he says, is what was spoken by the
Saviour: “Unless ye drink my blood and eat my flesh, ye shall not
enter into the kingdom of the heavens; but even though, He says, ye
drink the cup which I drink when I go forth you will not be able to
enter there.”[89] For He knew, he says, from which nature each of His
disciples was, and that each of them was compelled to come to his own
special nature. For from the twelve tribes, he says, He chose twelve
[Sidenote: p. 162.] disciples,[90] and by them He spake to every tribe.
Whence, he says, all could not have heard the preachings of the twelve
disciples, nor, had they heard them could they have been received. For
the things which are not according to[91] nature are with them natural.

This, he says, the Thracians who dwell about Mt. Hæmus and like them
the Phrygians call Corybas,[92] because although he takes the beginning
of his descent from the head on high and from the Unportrayable one and
passes through all the sources of underlying things, we know not how
and in what fashion he comes. This, he says, is the saying: “We have
heard his voice, but we have not seen his shape.”[93] For, he says, the
voice of him who is set apart and has been impressed with the image[94]
is heard, but no one has seen what is the shape which has come down
from on high from the Unportrayable One. But it is in the earthly form
and no one is aware of it. This, he says, is the God who dwells in the
flood according to the Psalter and “who speaks aloud and cries from
many waters.”[95] “Many waters,” he says, is the manifold generation of
mortal men, wherefrom he shouts and cries [Sidenote: p. 163.] aloud to
the Unportrayable Man: “Deliver my only begotten from the lions!”[96]
In answer to this, he says, is the saying: “Thou art my son, O Israel.
Fear not. If thou passest through the rivers they shall not overwhelm
thee; if through the fire, it shall not burn thee.”[97] By rivers is
meant, he says, the moist essence of generation, and by fire the rage
and desire for generation. “Thou art mine. Be not afraid.” And again
he speaks: “If a mother forget her children and pities them not nor
gives them suck, yet will I not forget thee.”[98] Adamas, he says,
speaks to his own men: “But although a woman shall forget these things,
yet will I not forget you. I have graven you on my hands.”[99] But
concerning his ascension, that is, the being born again, that he may
be born spiritual, not fleshly, he says, the Scripture speaks: “Lift
up the gates, ye rulers, and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors, and
the [Sidenote: p. 164.] King of Glory shall enter in.”[100] That is
the wonder of wonders. “For who,” he says, “is this King of Glory? A
worm and not a man, a reproach of man and an object of contempt for the
people. This is the King of Glory, he who is mighty in battle.”[101]
But he means the war which is in the body, because the (outward) form
is made from warring elements, he says, as it is written: “Remember the
war which is in the body.”[102] The same entrance and the same gate,
he says, Jacob saw when journeying to Mesopotamia--for Mesopotamia,
he says, is the flow of the great Ocean flowing forth from the middle
part[103] of the Perfect Man--and he wondered at the heavenly gate,
saying: “How terrible is this place! It is none other than the house
of God, and this is the gate of Heaven.”[104] Wherefore, he says, the
saying of Jesus: “I am the true gate.”[105] Now He who says this is,
he says, the Perfect [Sidenote: p. 165.] Man who has been impressed
above (with the image) of the Unportrayable one. Therefore he says, the
perfect man will not be saved unless born again by entering in through
this gate.

But this same one, he says, the Phrygians[106] call also Papas, because
he set at rest that which had been moved irregularly and discordantly
before his coming. For the name of Papa, he says, is (taken from) all
things in heaven, on earth, and below the earth, saying: “Make to
cease! make to cease![107] the discord of the cosmos and make peace for
those that are afar off,”[108] that is, for the material and earthly,
and also “for those that are anigh,” that is, for the spiritual and
understanding perfect men. But the Phrygians say that the same one is
also a “corpse,” having been buried in the body as in a monument or
tomb.[109] This, he says, is the saying: “Ye are whited sepulchres
filled within with dead men’s bones,”[110] that is, there is not within
you the living Man. And again, he says, “the dead shall leap forth
from their graves,”[111] that is, the spiritual man, not the fleshly,
shall be born again from the bodies of the earthly. This, he says, is
the resurrection which comes through the [Sidenote: p. 166.] gate of
the heavens, through which if they do not enter, all remain dead. And
the same Phrygians, he says again, say that this same one is by reason
of the change a god. For he becomes God when he arises from the dead
and enters into heaven through the same gate. This gate, he says, Paul
the Apostle knew, having set it ajar in mystery and declaring that he
“was caught up by an angel and came unto a second and third heaven into
Paradise itself and beheld what he beheld, and heard ineffable words
which it is not lawful for man to utter.”[112] These are, he says,
the mysteries called ineffable by all “which (we also speak) not in
the words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit,
comparing spiritual things with spiritual; but the natural[113] man
receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness
unto him”;[114] and these, he says, are the ineffable mysteries of the
Spirit which we alone behold. Concerning them, he says, the Saviour
spake: “No man shall come unto me unless my heavenly Father draw some
one (unto me).”[115] For very hard it is, he says, to receive and take
this great and ineffable mystery. And [Sidenote: p. 167.] again, he
says, the Saviour spake: “Not every one who sayeth unto me, Lord! Lord!
shall enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but he who doeth the will
of my Father who is in the heavens.”[116] Of which (will) he says, they
must be doers and not hearers only to enter into the kingdom of the
heavens. And again, says he, He spake: “The publicans and the harlots
go before you into the kingdom of the heavens.”[117] For the publicans,
he says, are those who receive the taxes of market-wares, and we are
the tax-gatherers “upon whom the ends of the æons have come down.”[118]
For the “ends,” he says, are the seeds sown in the cosmos by the
Unportrayable One,[119] whereby the whole cosmos is completed;[120]
for by them also it began to be. And this, he says, is the saying:
“The sower went forth to sow, and some (seed) fell on the wayside and
was trodden under foot, and some upon stony (parts) and sprang up;
and because it had no root, he says, it withered and died. But some
fell, he says, upon the fair and goodly earth and brought forth some
a hundredfold, and some sixty and some thirty. [Sidenote: p. 168.] He
that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”[121] This is, he says, that no
one becomes a hearer of these mysteries save only the perfect Gnostics.
This, he says, is the fair and goodly earth of which Moses spake: “I
will bring you to a fair and goodly land, to a land flowing with milk
and honey.”[122] This, he says, is the honey and the milk, tasting
which the perfect become kingless and partakers of the fulness.[123]
The same, he says, is the Pleroma, whereby all things that are begotten
by the unbegotten have come into being and are filled.

But the same one is called by the Phrygians “unfruitful.” For he is
unfruitful when he is fleshly and performs the desire of the flesh.
This, he says, is the saying: “Every tree which bringeth not forth
good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire.”[124] For these fruits,
he says, are only the rational, the living man who enter by the third
gate.[125] They say, indeed: “Ye who eat dead things and make living
ones, what will ye make if ye eat living things?”[126] For they say
that words[127] and thoughts and men are living things cast down by
that Unportrayable One into the form [Sidenote: p. 169.] below. This,
he says, is what he means: “Throw not your holy things to the dogs nor
pearls to the swine,”[128] saying that the intercourse of woman with
man is the work of dogs and swine.

But this same one, he says, the Phrygians call goatherd, not because,
he says, he feeds goats and he-goats, as the psychic man calls
them, but because, he says, he is Aipolos, that is, he who is ever
revolving[129] and turning about and driving the whole cosmos in its
circumvolution. For to revolve is to turn about and to change the
position of things, whence, he says, the two centres of the heaven men
call Poles. And the poet says:--

    “What unerring ancient of the sea turns hither
    The Immortal Egyptian Proteus.”--
                                                  (_Odyssey_, IV, 384.)

He[130] is not betrayed (by Eidothea), he says, but turns himself
about, as it were, and goes to and fro. He says, too, that cities
wherein we dwell are called πόλεις, because [Sidenote: p. 170.] we turn
and go about in them. Thus, he says, the Phrygians call him Aipolos,
who turns everything always in every direction and changes it into
what it should be. But the Phrygians also call the same one “of many
fruits,” because (the Naassene writer) says, “the children of the
desolate are more in number than those of her who has a husband”;[131]
that is, the deathless things which are born again and ever remain are
many, if few are those which are born (once); but all the things of
the flesh, he says, are corruptible, even if those which are born are
many. Wherefore, he says, Rachel mourned for her children and would
not be comforted when mourning over them, for she knew, he says, that
they were not.[132] And Jeremiah wails for the Jerusalem below, not the
city in Phœnicia,[133] but the mortal generation below. For Jeremiah,
he says, also knew the Perfect Man who has been born again of water and
the spirit and is not fleshly. The same Jeremiah indeed said: “He is a
man, and who shall know him?”[134] Thus, he says, the knowledge of the
Perfect Man is very deep and hard to comprehend. For the beginning of
perfection, he says, is the knowledge of man; but the knowledge of God
is completed perfection.

[Sidenote: p. 171.] The Phrygians also say, however, that he is a
“green ear of corn reaped”; and following the Phrygians, the Athenians
when initiating (any one) into the Eleusinian (Mysteries) also show
to those who have been made epopts the mighty and wonderful and most
perfect mystery for an epopt[135] there--a green ear of corn reaped
in silence.[136] And this ear of corn is also for the Athenians the
great and perfect spark of light from the Unportrayable One; just as
the hierophant himself, not indeed castrated like Attis, but rendered a
eunuch by hemlock, and cut off from all fleshly generation, celebrating
by night at Eleusis the great and ineffable mysteries beside a huge
fire, cries aloud and makes proclamation, saying: “August Brimo has
brought forth a holy son, Brimos,” that is, the strong (has given
birth) to the strong.[137] For august is, he says, the generation which
is spiritual or heavenly or sublime, and strong is that which is thus
generated. For the mystery is called Eleusis or Anacterion: “Eleusis,”
he says, because we spiritual ones [Sidenote: p. 172.] came on high
rushing from the Adamas below.[138] For _eleusesthai_, he says is to
come, but _anactoreion_ the return on high. This, he says, is what they
who have been initiated into the mysteries of the Eleusinians say. But
it is a regulation that those who have been initiated into the Lesser
Mysteries should moreover be initiated into the Great. For greater
destinies obtain greater portions.[139] But the Lesser Mysteries, he
says, are those of Persephone below and of the way leading thither,
which is wide and broad and bears the dead to Persephone, and the poet
says:--

    “But under her is a straight and rugged road
    Hollow and muddy, but the best to lead
    To the delightful grove of much-reverenced Aphrodite.”[140]

These, he says, are the Lesser Mysteries, those of fleshly generation,
after being initiated into which men ought to [Sidenote: p. 173.]
cease (from the small) and be initiated into the great and heavenly
ones. For those who have obtained greater destinies, he says, receive
greater portions. For this, he says, is the gate of heaven and this the
house of God where the good God dwells alone,[141] into which will not
enter, he says, any unpurified, any psychic or fleshly one; but it is
kept for the spiritual only, where those who are must cast aside[142]
their garments and all become bridegrooms, having come to maturity
through the virgin spirit.[143] For this is the virgin who bears in her
womb and conceives and gives birth to a son not psychic or corporeal,
but the blessed Aeon of Aeons. Concerning these things, he says, the
Saviour expressly spake: “Narrow and straitened is the way that leads
to life and few are those who enter into it; but wide and broad is the
way leading to destruction and many are they who pass along it.”[144]

9. But the Phrygians further say that the Father of the [Sidenote:
p. 174.] universals is Amygdalus, not a tree, he says, but that
pre-existent almond[145] which containing within itself the perfect
fruit (and) as if pulsating and stirring in the depth, tore asunder
its breasts and gave birth to its own invisible and unnameable and
ineffable boy of whom we are speaking.[146] For “Amyxai” is as if to
burst and cut asunder,[147] as he says, in the case of inflamed bodies
having within them any gathering, the surgeons who cut them open call
them “amychas.” Thus, he says, the Phrygians call the almond from whom
the invisible one proceeded and was born, and through whom all things
came into being and apart from whom nothing came into being.

But the Phrygians say that he who was thence born is a piper, because
that which was born is a melodious spirit. For God, he says, is a
Spirit, wherefore neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall
the true worshippers prostrate themselves, but in spirit.[148] For
spiritual, he says, is the prostration of the perfect, not fleshly. But
the Spirit, he says, (is) there where both the Father and the Son are
named, being [Sidenote: p. 175.] there born from this (Son and from)
the Father.[149] This, he says, is the many-named, myriad-eyed[150]
incomprehensible One for whom every nature yearns, but each in a
different way. This, he says, is the Word[151] of God, which is, he
says, the word of announcement of the great Power. Wherefore it will be
sealed and hidden and concealed, lying in the habitation wherein the
root of the universals[152] is established, that is[153] (the root) of
Aeons, Powers, Thoughts, Gods, Angels, Emissary Spirits, things which
are, things which are not, things begotten, things unbegotten, things
incomprehensible, things comprehensible, years, months, days, hours
(and) of an Indivisible Point,[154] from which what is least begins to
increase successively. The Point, he says, being nothing and consisting
of nothing (and) being indivisible will become of itself a certain
magnitude incomprehensible by thought.[155] It, he says, is the kingdom
of the heavens, the grain of mustard seed, the Indivisible Point
inherent to the body which none knoweth, he says, save the spiritual
alone. This, he says, is the saying: “There are no tongues nor speech
where their voice is not [Sidenote: p. 176.] heard.”[156]

Thus they hastily declare that the things which are said and are
done by all men are to be understood in their way, imagining that
all things become spiritual. Whence they also say that not even they
who exhibit (in the) theatres say or do anything not comprehended in
advance.[157] So for example, he says, when the populace have assembled
in the theatres[158] some one makes entrance clad in a notable robe
bearing a cithara and singing to it. Thus he speaks chanting the Great
Mysteries[159] (but) not knowing what he is saying:--

    “Whether thou art the offspring of Kronos, or of blessed Zeus,
    Or of mighty Rhea, Hail Attis, the sad mutilation of Rhea.[160]
    The Assyrians call thee the much-longed-for Adonis,
    [Sidenote: p. 177.] Egypt names thee Osiris, heavenly horn of
         the Moon.[161]
    The Greeks Sophia,[162] the Samothracians, the revered Adamna,
    The Thessalians, Corybas, and the Phrygians
    Sometimes Papas, now the dead, or a god,
    Or the unfruitful one, or goatherd,
    Or the green ear of corn reaped,
    Or he to whom the flowering almond-tree gave birth
    As a pipe-playing man.”[163]

This, he says, is the many-formed Attis to whom they sing praises,
saying:--

 “I will hymn Attis, son of Rhea, not making quiver with a buzzing
 sound, nor with the cadence of the Idæan Curetes’ flutes, but I will
 mingle (with the hymn) the Phœbun music of the lyre. Evohe, Evan, for
 (thou art) Bacchus, (thou art) Pan, (thou art the) shepherd of white
 stars.”

For such and such-like words they frequent the so-called Mysteries of
the great Mother, thinking especially that by means of what is enacted
there, they perceive the whole mystery. For they get no advantage from
what is acted there except that they are not castrated. They merely
perfect the work of the castrated;[164] for they give most pointed and
careful instructions to abstain as if castrated from intercourse with
women. But the rest of the work as [Sidenote: p. 178.] we have said
many times, they perform like the castrated.

But they worship none other than the Naas, calling themselves
Naassenes. But Naas is the serpent, from whom he says, all temples
under heaven are called _naos_ from the Naas; and that to that Naas
alone is dedicated every holy place and every initiation and every
mystery, and generally that no initiation can be found under heaven
in which there is not a _naos_ and the Naas within it, whence it has
come to be called a _naos_. But they say that the serpent is the watery
substance, as did Thales of Miletos[165] and that no being, in short,
of immortals or mortals, of those with souls or of those without souls,
can be made without him. And that all things are set under him, and
that he is good and contains all things within him as in the horn of
the one-horned bull[166] (so as) to contribute beauty and bloom to all
things according to their own nature and kind, as if he had passed
through all “as if he went forth from Edem and cut himself into four
heads.”[167]

But this Edem, they say, is the brain, as it were bound [Sidenote: p.
179.] and enlaced in the surrounding coverings as in the heavens; and
they consider man as far as the head alone to be Paradise. Therefore
“the river that came forth from Eden”--that is from the brain--they
think “is separated into four heads and the name of the first river is
called Phison; this it is which encompasses all the land of Havilat.
There is gold and the gold of that land is good, and there is bdellium
and the onyx stone.”[168] This, he says, (is the) eye, bearing witness
by its honour (among the other features) and its colours to the
saying: “But the name of the second river is Gihon; this it is which
encompasses all the land of Ethiopia.” This, he says, is the hearing,
being somewhat like a labyrinth. “And the name of the third is Tigris;
this it is which goes about over against the Assyrians.” This, he says,
is the smell which makes use of the swiftest current of the flood.
And it goes about over against the Assyrians because in inspiration
the breath drawn in from the outer air is sharper and stronger than
the respired breath. For this is the nature of respiration. “The
fourth river is Euphrates.” This they say, is the mouth, which is the
seat of prayer and the entrance of food, [Sidenote: p. 180.] which
gladdens[169] and nourishes and characterizes[170] the spiritual
perfect man. This, he says, is the water above the firmament concerning
which, he says, the Saviour spake: “If thou knewest who it is that asks
thou would have asked of him, and he would have given thee to drink
living rushing water.”[171] To this water, he says, comes every nature
to choose its own substances,[172] and from this water goes forth to
every nature that which is proper to it, he says, more (certainly) than
iron to the magnet, gold to the spine of the sea-falcon and husks to
amber.[173] But if anyone, he says, is blind from birth, and has not
beheld the true light which lightens every man who cometh into the
world,[174] let him recover his sight again through us, and behold how
as it were through some Paradise full of all plants and seeds, the
water flows among them. Let him see, too, that from one and the same
water the olive-tree chooses and draws to itself oil, and the vine
wine, and each of the other plants (that which is) according to its
kind.

[Sidenote: p. 181.] But that Man, he says, is without honour in the
world, and much honoured [in heaven, being betrayed] by those who know
not to those who know him not, and accounted like a drop which falleth
from a vessel.[175] But we are, he says, the spiritual who have chosen
out of the living water, the Euphrates flowing through the midst of
Babylon, that which is ours, entering in through the true gate which
is Jesus the blessed. And we alone of all men are Christians, whom the
mystery in the third gate has made perfect, and have been anointed[176]
there with silent ointment from the horn like David and not from the
earthen vessel, he says, like Saul,[177] who abode with the evil spirit
of fleshly desire.

10. These things, then, we have set forth as a few out of many: for
the undertakings of folly which are nonsensical and madlike are
innumerable. But since we have expounded to the best of our ability
their unknowable gnosis, we have thought it right to add this also.
This psalm has been concocted by them, whereby they seem to hymn all
the [Sidenote: p. 182.] mysteries of their error thus:--[178]

    The generic law of the universe was the primordial mind;
    But the second was the poured-forth light[179] of the First-born:
    And the third toiling soul received the Law as its portion.
    Whence clothed in watery shape,
    The loved one subject to toil (and) death,
    [Sidenote: p. 183.] Now having lordship, she beholds the light,
    Now cast forth to piteous state, she weeps.
    Now she weeps (and now) rejoices;
    Now laments (and now) is judged;
    Now is judged (and now) is dying.
    Now no outlet is left or she wandering
    The labyrinth of woes has entered.[180]
    But Jesus said: Father, behold!
    A strife of woes upon Earth
    From thy breath has fallen,
    But she seeks to flee malignant chaos.
    And knows not how to win through it,
    For this cause send me, O Father,
    [Sidenote: p. 184.] Holding seals I will go down,
    Through entire æons I will pass,
    All mysteries I will disclose;
    The forms of the gods I will display;
    The secrets of the holy way
    Called Gnosis, I will hand down.

These things the Naassenes attempt, calling themselves Gnostics.[181]
But since the error is many-headed and truly of diverse shape like
the fabled Hydra, we, having struck off its heads at one blow by
refutation, (and) using the rod of Truth, will utterly destroy the
beast. For the remaining heresies differ little from this, they all
being linked together by one spirit of error. But since they by
changing the words and the names wish the heads of the serpent to be
many, we shall not thus fail to refute them thoroughly as they will.


                 [Sidenote: p. 185.] 2. _Peratæ._[182]

12. There is also indeed a certain other (heresy), the Peratic, the
blasphemy of whose (followers) against Christ has for many years evaded
(us). Whose secret mysteries it now seems fitting for us to bring into
the open. They suppose the cosmos to be one, divided into three parts.
But of this triple division, one part according to them is, as it were,
a single principle like a great source[183] which may be [Sidenote:
p. 186.] cut by the mind into boundless sections. And the first and
chiefest section according to them is the triad and (the one part of
it)[184] is called Perfect Good and Fatherly Greatness.[185] But the
second part of this triad of theirs is, as it were, a certain boundless
multitude of powers which have come into being from themselves, while
the third is (the world of) form. And the first is unbegotten and is
good; and the second is good (and) self-begotten, while the third is
begotten.[186] Whence they say expressly that there are three Gods,
three _logoi_, three minds, and three men. For they assign to each
part of the world of the divided divisibility, gods and _logoi_ and
minds and men and the rest. But they say that from on high, from the
unbegottenness and the first section of the cosmos, when the cosmos
had already been brought to completion, there came down through causes
which we shall declare later[187] in the days of Herod a certain
triple-bodied and triple-powered[188] man called Christ, containing
within Himself all the compounds[189] and powers from [Sidenote: p.
187.] the three parts of the cosmos. And this, he says is the saying:
“The whole Pleroma was pleased to dwell within Him bodily and the whole
godhead” of the Triad thus divided “is in Him.”[190] For, he says that
there were brought down from the two overlying worlds, (to wit) the
unbegotten and the self-begotten, unto this world in which we are,
seeds of all powers. But what is the manner of their descent we shall
see later.[191] Then he says that Christ was brought down from on high
from the unbegottenness so that through His descent all the threefold
divisions should be saved. For the things, he says, brought down below
shall ascend through Him; but those which take counsel together against
those brought down from above shall be banished and after they have
been punished shall be rooted out. This, he says, is the saying: “The
Son of Man came not into the world to destroy the world, but that
the world through Him might be saved.”[192] He calls “the world,” he
says, the two overlying portions, (to wit) the unbegotten and the
self-begotten. When the Scripture says: “Lest ye be judged with the
world,”[193] he says, it means the third part of the cosmos (to wit)
that of form. For the third part [Sidenote: p. 188.] which he calls
the world must be destroyed, but the two overlying ones preserved from
destruction.[194]

13. Let us first learn, then, how they who have taken this teaching
from the astrologers insult Christ, working destruction for those
who follow them in such error. For the astrologers, having declared
the cosmos to be one, divided it[195] into the twelve fixed parts of
the Zodiacal signs, and call the cosmos of the fixed Zodiacal signs
one unwandering world. But the other, they say, is the world of the
planets alike in power and in position and in number which exists as
far as the Moon.[196] And that one world receives from the other a
certain power and communion, and that things below partake of things
above. But so that what is said shall be made plain, I will use in
part the very words of the astrologers,[197] recalling to the readers
what was said before in the place where we set forth the whole art of
astrology. Their doctrines then are these: From the emanation of the
stars the genitures of things below are influenced. For the Chaldæans,
scrutinizing [Sidenote: p. 189.] the heavens with great care, said
that (the seven stars) account for the active causes of everything
which happens to us; but that the degrees of the Zodiacal circle work
with them. (Then they divide the Zodiacal circle into) 12 parts, and
each Zodiacal sign into 30 degrees and each degree into 60 minutes;
for these they call the least and the undivided. And they call some of
the Zodiacal signs male and others female, some bicorporal and others
not, some tropical and others firm. Then there are male or female
according as they have a nature co-operating in the begetting of males
(or females). Moved by which, I think[198] the Pythagoricians[199] call
the monad male, the dyad female, and the triad again male and in like
manner the rest of the odd and even numbers. And some dividing each
sign into dodecatemories employ [Sidenote: p. 190.] nearly the same
plan. For example, in Aries they call the first dodecatemory Aries and
masculine, its second Taurus and feminine, and its third Gemini and
masculine, and so on with the other parts. And they say that Gemini
and Sagittarius which stands opposite to it and Virgo and Pisces are
bicorporal signs, but the others not. And in like manner, those signs
are tropical in which the Sun turns about and makes the turnings of
the ambient, as, for example, the sign Aries and its opposite Libra,
Capricorn and Cancer. For in Aries, the spring turning occurs, in
Capricorn the winter, in Cancer the summer and in Libra the autumn.
These things also and the system concerning them we have briefly set
forth in the book before this, whence the lover of learning can learn
how Euphrates the Peratic and Celbes the Carystian, the founders of
the heresy, altering only the names, have really set down like things,
having also paid immoderate attention to the art. [Sidenote: p. 191.]
For the astrologers also say that there are “terms” of the stars in
which they deem the ruling stars to have greater power. For example
in some (they do evil), but in others good, of which they call these
malefic and those benefic. And they say that (the Planets) behold one
another and are in harmony with one another as they appear in trine
(or square). Now the stars beholding one another are figured in trine
when they have a space of three signs between them, but in square if
they have two. And as in the man the lower parts suffer with the head
and the head suffers with the lower parts, thus do the things on earth
[Sidenote: p. 192.] with those above the Moon. But (yet) there is a
certain difference and want of sympathy between them since they have
not one and the same unity.

This alliance and difference of the stars, although a Chaldæan
(doctrine), those of whom we have spoken before have taken as their
own and have falsified the name of truth. (For they) announce as the
utterance of Christ a strife of aeons and a falling-away of good powers
to the bad, and proclaim reconciliations of good and wicked.[200]
Then they invoke Toparchs and Proastii,[201] making for themselves
also very many other names which are not obvious but systematize
unsystematically the whole idea of the astrologers about the stars. As
they have thus laid the foundation of an enormous error they shall be
completely refuted by our appropriate arrangement. For I shall set side
by side with the aforesaid Chaldaic art of the astrologers some of the
doctrines of the Peratics, from which comparison it will be [Sidenote:
p. 193.] understood how the words of the Peratics are avowedly those of
the astrologers, but not of Christ.

14. It seems well then to use for comparison a certain one of the
books[202] magnified by them wherein it is said: “I am a voice of
awaking from sleep in the aeon of the night, (and) now I begin to
lay bare the power from Chaos. The power is the mud of the abyss,
which raises the mire of the imperishable watery void, the whole
power of the convulsion, pale as water, ever-moving, bearing with
it the stationary, holding back those that tremble, setting free
those that approach, relieving those that sigh, bringing down those
that increase, a faithful steward of the traces of the winds, taking
advantage of the things thrown up by the [Sidenote: p. 194.] twelve
eyes of the Law,[203] showing a seal to the power which arranges by
itself the onrushing unseen water which is called Thalassa.[204]
Ignorance has called this power Kronos guarded with chains since he
bound together the maze of the dense and cloudy and unknown and dark
Tartarus. There are born after the image of this (power) Cepheus,
Prometheus, Iapetus.[205] (The) power to whom Thalassa is entrusted is
masculo-feminine, who traces back the hissing (water) from the twelve
mouths of the twelve pipes and after preparing distributes it. (This
power) is small and reduces the boisterous restraining rising (of the
sea) and seals up the ways of her paths, so that nothing should declare
war or suffer change. The Typhonic daughter of this (power) is the
faithful guard of all sorts of waters. Her name is Chorzar. Ignorance
calls her Poseidôn, after whose likeness came Glaucus, Melicertes,
Iö,[206] Nebroë. He that is encircled with the 12-angled pyramid[207]
and darkens the gate into the pyramid [Sidenote: p. 195.] with divers
colours and perfects the whole blackness[208]--this one is called
Core[209] whose 5 ministers are: first Ou, 2nd Aoai, 3rd Ouô, 4th
Ouöab, 5th ... Other faithful stewards there are of his toparchy of
day and night who rest in their authority. Ignorance has called them
the wandering stars on which hangs perishable birth. Steward of the
rising of the wind[210] is Carphasemocheir (and second) Eccabaccara,
but ignorance calls these Curetes. (The) third ruler of the winds is
Ariel[211] after whose image came Æolus (and) Briares. And ruler of
the 12-houred night (is) Soclas[212] whom ignorance has called Osiris.
After his likeness there were born Admetus, Medea, Hellen, Aethusa.
Ruler of the 12-houred day-time is Euno. He is steward of the rising
of the first-blessed[213] and ætherial (goddess) whom ignorance calls
Isis. The sign of this (ruler) is the Dog-star[214] after whose image
were born Ptolemy son of Arsinoë, Didyme, Cleopatra, Olympias. (The)
right hand power of God is she whom [Sidenote: p. 196.] ignorance
calls Rhea, after whose image were born Attis, Mygdon,[215] Oenone.
The left-hand power has authority over nurture whom ignorance calls
Demeter. Her name is Bena. After the likeness of this (god) were born
Celeus, Triptolemus, Misyr,[216] Praxidice. (The) right-hand power
has authority over seasons. Ignorance calls this (god) Mena after
whose image were born, Bumegas,[217] Ostanes, Hermes Trismegistus,
Curites, Zodarion, Petosiris, Berosos, Astrampsychos, Zoroaster. (The)
left-hand power of fire. Ignorance calls him Hephæstus after whose
image were born Erichthonius, Achilleus, Capaneus, Phæthon, Meleager,
Tydeus, Enceladus, Raphael, Suriel,[218] Omphale. Three middle powers
suspended in air (are) causes of birth. Ignorance calls them Fates,
after whose image were born (the) house of Priam, (the) house of Laius,
Ino, Autonoë, Agave, Athamas, Procne (the) Danaids, the Peliades. A
masculo-feminine power there is ever childlike, who grows not old,
(the) cause of beauty, of pleasure, of prime, of yearning, of desire,
whom ignorance calls Eros, after whose [Sidenote: p. 197.] image were
born Paris, Narcissus, Ganymede, Endymion, Tithonus, Icarius, Leda,
Amymonê, Thetis, (the) Hesperides, Jason, Leander, Hero.” These are the
Proastii up to Aether. For thus he inscribes the book.

15. The heresy of the Peratæ, it has been made easily apparent to
all, has been adapted from the (art) of the astrologers with a change
of names alone. And their other books include the same method, if
any one cared to go through them. For, as I have said, they think
the unbegotten and overlying things to be the causes of birth of the
begotten, and that our world, which they call that of form, came into
being by emanation, and that all those stars together which are beheld
in the heaven become the causes of birth in this world, they changing
their names as is to be seen from a comparison of the Proastii. And
secondly after the same fashion indeed, as they say that the world came
into being from the emanation of her[219] on high, thus they say that
things here have their birth and death and are governed [Sidenote: p.
198.] by the emanation from the stars. Since then the astrologers know
the Ascendant and Mid-heaven and the Descendant and the Anti-meridian,
and as the stars sometimes move differently from the perpetual turning
of the universe, and at other times there are other succeedents to
the cardinal point and (other) cadents from the cardinal points, (the
Peratæ) treating the ordinance of the astrologers as an allegory,
picture the cardinal points as it were God and monad and lord of all
generation, and the succeedent as the left hand and the cadent the
right. When therefore any one reading their writings finds a power
spoken of by them as right or left, let him refer to the centre, the
succeedent and the cadent, and he will clearly perceive that their
whole system of practice has been established on astrological teaching.

16. But they call themselves Peratæ, thinking that nothing which has
its foundations in generation can escape the fate determined from
birth for the begotten. For if anything, he says, is begotten it
also perishes wholly, as it seemed also [Sidenote: p. 199.] to the
Sibyl.[220] But, he says, we alone who know the compulsion of birth and
the paths whereby man enters into the world and have been carefully
instructed--we alone can pass through[221] and escape destruction.
But water, he says, is destruction, and never, he says, did the world
perish quicker than by water. But the water which rolls around the
Proastii is, they say, Kronos. For such a power, he says, is of the
colour of water and this power, that is Kronos, none of those who have
been founded in generation can escape. For Kronos is set as a cause
over every birth so that it shall be subject to destruction[222] and no
birth could occur in which Kronos is not an impediment. This, he says
is what the poets say and the gods (themselves) also fear:--

    Let earth be witness thereto and wide heaven above
    And the water of Styx that flows below.
    The greatest of oaths and most terrible to the blessed gods.--
                                        (Homer, _Odyssey_, vv. 184 ff.)

But not only do the poets say this, he says, but also the wisest of the
Greeks, whereof Heraclitus is one, who says, [Sidenote: p. 200.] “For
water becomes death to souls.”[223]

This death (the Peratic) says seizes the Egyptians in the Red Sea
with their chariots. And all the ignorant, he says, are Egyptians and
this he says is the going out from Egypt (that is) from the body. For
they think the body little Egypt (and) that it crosses over the Red
Sea, that is, the water of destruction which is Kronos, and that it
is beyond the Red Sea, that is birth, and comes into the desert, that
is, outside generation where are together the gods of destruction and
the god of salvation. But the gods of destruction, he says, are the
stars which bring upon those coming into being the necessity of mutable
generation. These, he said, Moses called the serpents of the desert
which bite and cause to perish those who think they have crossed the
Red Sea. Therefore, he says, to those sons of Israel who were bitten
in the desert, Moses displayed the true and perfect serpent, those who
believed on which were not bitten in the desert, [Sidenote: p. 201.]
that is, by the Powers. None then, he says, can save and set free those
brought forth from the land of Egypt, that is, from the body and from
this world, save only the perfect serpent, the full of the full.[224]
He who hopes on this, he says, is not destroyed by the serpents of
the desert, that is, by the gods of generation. It is written, he
says, in a book of Moses.[225] This serpent, he says, is the Power
which followed Moses, the rod which was turned into a serpent. And the
serpents of the magicians who withstood the power of Moses in Egypt
were the gods of destruction; but the rod of Moses overthrew them all
and caused them to perish.

This universal serpent, he says, is the wise word of Eve. This, he
says, is the mystery of Edem, this the river flowing out of Edem,
this the mark which was set on Cain so that all that found him should
not kill him. This, he says, is (that) Cain whose sacrifice was not
accepted by the god of this world; but he accepted the bloody sacrifice
of Abel, for the lord of this world delights in blood.[226] He it is,
he says, who in the last days appeared in man’s shape in the [Sidenote:
p. 202.] time of Herod, born after the image of Joseph who was sold
from the hand of his brethren and to whom alone belonged the coat
of many colours. This, he says, is he after the image of Esau whose
garment was blessed when he was not present, who did not receive,
he says, the blind man’s blessing, but became rich elsewhere taking
nothing from the blind one, whose face Jacob saw as a man might see
the face of God. Concerning whom he says, it is written that: “Nebrod
was a giant hunting before the Lord.”[227] There are, he says, as
many counterparts of him as there were serpents seen in the desert
biting the sons of Israel, from which that perfect one that Moses set
up delivered those that were bitten. This, he says, is the saying:
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of
Man be lifted up.”[228] After his likeness was the brazen serpent in
the desert which Moses set up. The similitude of this alone is always
seen in the heaven in light. This he says is the mighty beginning
about which it is written. About this he says is the saying: “In the
beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and [Sidenote: p.
203.] the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things
were made by Him and without Him nothing was. That which was in Him was
life.”[229] And in Him, he says, Eve came into being (and) Eve is life.
She, he says is Eve, mother of all living[230] (the) nature common (to
all), that is, to gods, angels, immortals, mortals, irrational beings,
and rational ones; for, he says, “to all” speaking collectively. And if
the eyes of any are blessed, he says, he will see when he looks upward
to heaven the fair image of the serpent in the great summit[231] of
heaven turning about and becoming the source of all movement of all
present things. And (the beholder) will know that without Him there is
nothing framed of heavenly or of earthly things or of things below the
earth--neither night, nor moon, nor fruits, nor generation, nor wealth,
nor wayfaring, nor generally is there anything of things which are that
He does not point out. In this, he says, is the great wonder beheld in
the heavens by those who can see.

For against this summit (that is) the head which is the most difficult
of all things to be believed by those who know it not,

    [Sidenote: p. 204.] “The setting and rising mingle with one
         another.”--
                                             (Aratus, _Phain._, v. 62.)

This it is concerning which ignorance speaks:--

    “The Dragon winds, great wonder of dread portent.”--
                                                      (_Ibid._, v. 46.)

and on either side of him Corona and Lyra are ranged and above, by the
very top of his head, a piteous man, the Kneeler, is seen

    “Holding the sole of the right foot of winding Draco.”--
                                                      (_Ibid._, v. 70.)

And in the rear of the Kneeler is the imperfect serpent grasped with
both hands by Ophiuchus and prevented from touching the Crown lying by
the Perfect Serpent.[232]

17. This is the variegated wisdom of the Peratic heresy, which is
difficult to describe completely, it being so tangled through having
been framed from the art of astrology. So far as it was possible,
therefore, we have set forth all its force in few words. But in order
to expound their whole mind in epitome we think it right to add
this: According to them the universe is Father, Son and Matter.[233]
[Sidenote: p. 205.] Of these three every one contains within himself
boundless powers. Now midway between Matter and the Father sits the
Son, the Word, the Serpent, ever moving himself towards the immoveable
Father and towards Matter (which itself) is moved. And sometimes he
turns himself towards the Father and receives the powers in his own
person,[234] and when he has thus received them he turns towards
Matter; and Matter being without quality and formless takes pattern
from the forms[235] which the Son has taken as patterns from the
Father. But the Son takes pattern from the Father unspeakably and
silently and unchangeably, that is, as Moses says the colours of
the (sheep) that longed,[236] flowed from the rods set up in the
drinking-places. In such a way also did the powers flow from the Son
to Matter according to the yearning of the power which (flowed) from
the rods upon the things conceived. But the difference and unlikeness
of the colours which flowed from the rods through the waters into the
sheep is, he says, the difference of corruptible and incorruptible
birth. Or rather, as a painter while taking nothing from the animals
(he paints), yet transfers with his pencil to the drawing-tablet all
their forms, thus the Son by his own power transfers to Matter the
[Sidenote: p. 206.] types[237] of the Father. All things that are here
are therefore the Father’s types and nothing else. For if any one, he
says has strength enough to comprehend from the things here that he
is a type from the Father on high transferred hither and made into a
body, as in the conception from the rod, he becomes white,[238] (and)
wholly of one substance[239] with the Father who is in the heavens,
and returns thither. But if he does not light upon this doctrine, nor
discover the necessity of birth, like an abortion brought forth in a
night he perishes in a night. Therefore, says he, when the Saviour
speaks of “Your Father who is in heaven”[240] He means him from whom
the Son takes the types and transfers them hither. And when He says
“Your father is a manslayer from the beginning”[241] he means the Ruler
and Fashioner of Matter who receiving the types distributed by the
Son has produced children here. Who is a manslayer from the beginning
because his work makes for corruption and death.[242] None therefore,
he says, can be saved nor [Sidenote: p. 207.] return (on high) save by
the Son who is the Serpent. For as he brought from on high the Father’s
types, so he again carries up from here those of them who have been
awakened and have become types of the Father, transferring them thither
from here as hypostatized from the Unhypostatized[243] One. This, he
says, is the saying “I am the Door.” But he transfers them, he says (as
the light of vision)[244] to those whose eyelids are closed, as the
naphtha draws everywhere the fire to itself--or rather as the magnet
the iron but nothing else, or as the sea-hawk’s spine the gold but
nothing else, or as again (as) the chaff is drawn by the amber.[245]
Thus, he says, the perfect and consubstantial race which has been made
the image[246] (of the Father) but nought else is again led from the
world by the Serpent, just as it was sent down here by him.

For the proof of this they bring forward the anatomy of the brain,
likening the cerebrum to the Father from its immobility, and the
cerebellum to the Son from its being moved and existing in serpent
form. Which (last) they imagine ineffably and without giving any sign
to attract [Sidenote: p. 208.] through the pineal gland the spiritual
and life-giving substance emanating from the Blessed One.[247]
Receiving which the cerebellum, as the Son silently transfers the forms
to Matter, spreads abroad the seeds and genera of things born after
the flesh, to the spinal marrow. By the use of this simile, they seem
to introduce cleverly their ineffable mysteries handed down in silence
which it is not lawful for us to utter. Nevertheless they will easily
be comprehended from what I have said.

18. But since I think I have set forth clearly the Peratic heresy
and by many words have made plain what had escaped (notice), and
since it has mixed up everything with everything concealing its own
peculiar poison, it seems right to proceed no further with the charge,
the opinions laid down by them being sufficient accusation against
them.[248]


                          3. _The Sethiani._

[Sidenote: p. 209.] 19. Let us see then what the Sethians say.[249]
They are of opinion[250] that there are three definite principles of
the universals, and that each of the principles contains boundless
powers. But what they mean by powers let him judge who hears them speak
thus: Everything which you understand by your mind or which you pass by
unthought of, is formed by nature to become each of these principles,
as in the soul of man every art which is taught. For example, he says,
that a boy will become a piper if he spend some time with a piper,
or a geometrician if he does so with a geometrician, or a grammarian
with a grammarian, or a carpenter with a carpenter, and to one in
close contact with other trades it will happen in the same way. But
the substance of the principles, he says, are light and darkness; and
between them there is uncontaminated spirit. But the spirit which is
set between the darkness below and the light on high, is not breath
like a gust of wind or some little [Sidenote: p. 210.] breeze which can
be perceived, but resembles some faint perfume of balsam or of incense
artificially compounded, as a power penetrating by force of a fragrance
inconceivable and better than can be said in speech. But since the
light is above and the darkness below and the spirit as has been said
between them, the light naturally shines like a ray of the sun on high
on the underlying darkness, and again the fragrance of the spirit
having the middle place spreads abroad and is borne in all directions,
as we observe the fragrance of the incense burnt in the fire carried
everywhere. And such being the power of the triply divided, the power
of the spirit and of the light together is in the darkness which is
ranged below them. But the darkness is a fearful water, into which the
light with the spirit is drawn down and transformed into such a nature
(as the water).[251] And the darkness is not witless, but prudent
completely, and knows that if the light be taken from the darkness, the
darkness remains desolate, viewless, without light, [Sidenote: p. 211.]
powerless, idle, and strengthless. Wherefore with all its sense and wit
it is forced to detain within itself the brilliance and spark of the
light with the fragrance of the spirit. And an image of their nature
is to be seen in the face of man, (to wit) the pupil of the eye dark
from the underlying fluids, (and) lighted up by (the) spirit. As then
the darkness seeks after the brilliance, that it may hold the spark as
a slave and may see, so do the light and the spirit seek after their
own power, and make haste to raise up and take back to themselves their
powers which have been mingled with the underlying dark and fearful
water.[252] But all the powers of the three principles being everywhere
boundless in number are each of them wise and understanding as regards
its own substance, and the countless multitude of them being wise and
understanding, whenever they remain by themselves are all at rest.
But if one power draws near to another, the unlikeness of (the things
in) juxtaposition effects a certain movement and activity formed from
the movement, by the coming together and juxtaposition of the meeting
[Sidenote: p. 212.] powers. For the coming together of the powers comes
to pass like some impression of a seal struck by close conjunction
for the sealing of the substances brought up (to it).[253] Since then
the powers of the three principles are boundless in number and the
conjunctions of the boundless powers (also) boundless, there must
needs be produced images of boundless seals. Now these images are the
forms[254] of the different animals.

From the first great conjunction then of the three principles came into
being a certain great form of a seal, (to wit) heaven and earth. And
heaven and earth are planned very like a matrix having the navel[255]
in the midst. And if, he says, one wishes to have this design under his
eyes, let him examine with skill the pregnant womb of any animal he
pleases, and he will discover the type of heaven and earth and of all
those things between which lie unchangeably below. And the appearance
of heaven and earth became by the first conjunction such as to be like
a womb. But again between heaven and earth boundless conjunctions of
powers have occurred. And each conjunction wrought and stamped[256]
nothing else than a seal of [Sidenote: p. 213.] heaven and earth like a
womb. But within this (the earth) there grew from the boundless seals
boundless multitudes of different animals. And into all this infinity
which is under heaven there was scattered and distributed among the
different animals, together with the light, the fragrance of the spirit
from on high.

Then there came into being from the water the first-born[257] principle
(to wit) a wind violent and turbulent and the cause of all generation.
For making some agitation in the waters it raises waves in them. But
the motion of the waves as if it were some impregnating impulse is
a beginning of generation of man or beast when it is driven onward
swollen by the impulse of the spirit. But when this wave has been
raised from the water and made pregnant in the natural way, and has
received within itself the feminine power of reproduction, it retains
the light scattered from on high together with the fragrance of the
spirit--that [Sidenote: p. 214.] is mind given shape in the different
species.[258] Which (mind) is a perfect God, who is brought down from
the unbegotten light on high and from the spirit into man’s nature as
into a temple, by the force of nature and the movement of the wind. It
has been engendered from the water (and) commingled and mixed with the
bodies as if it were (the) salt of the things which are and a light
of the darkness struggling to be freed from the bodies and not able
to find deliverance and its way out. For some smallest spark from the
light (has been mingled) with the fragrance from above (_i. e._ from
the spirit), like a ray (making composition of things dissolved and)
solution of things compounded as, he says, is said in a psalm.[259]
Therefore every thought and care of the light on high is how and in
what way the mind may be set free from the death of the wicked and dark
body (and) from the Father of that which is below, who is the wind
which raised the waves in agitation and disorder [Sidenote: p. 215.]
and has begotten Nous his own perfect son, not being his own (son) as
to substance.[260] For he was a ray from on high from that perfect
light overpowered in the dark and fearful bitter and polluted water,
which (ray) is the shining spirit borne above the water. When then the
waves (raised from the) waters [have received within themselves the
feminine power of reproduction, they detain in[261]] the different
species, like some womb, (the light) scattered (from on high), (with
the fragrance of the spirit) as is seen in all animals.

But the wind at once violent and turbulent is borne along like the
hissing of a serpent. First then from the wind, that is from the
serpent, came the principle of generation in the way aforesaid,[262]
all things having received the principle of generation at the same
time. When then the light and the spirit were received into the
unpurified [Sidenote: p. 216.] and much suffering disordered womb,
the serpent, the wind of the darkness, the first-born of the waters
entering in, begets man, and the unpurified womb neither loves nor
recognizes any other form (but the serpent’s).[263] Then the perfect
Word of the light on high, having been made like the beast, the
serpent, entered into the unpurified womb, beguiling it by its likeness
to the beast, so that it might loose the bands which encircle the
Perfect Mind which was begotten in the impurity of the womb by the
first-born of the water, (to wit) the serpent, the beast. This, he
says, is the form of the slave[264] and this the need for the descent
of the Word of God into the womb of a Virgin. But it is not enough,
he says, that the Perfect Man, the Word, has entered into the womb of
a virgin and has loosed the pangs which were in that darkness. But
in truth after entering into the foul mysteries of the womb, He was
washed[265] and drank of the cup of living bubbling water, which he
must needs drink who was about to do off the slave-like form and do on
a heavenly garment.

[Sidenote: p. 217.] 20. This is what the champions of the Sethianian
doctrines say, to put it shortly. But their system is made up of
sayings by physicists and of words spoken in respect of other matters,
which they transfer to their own system and explain as we have said.
And they say that Moses also supported their theory when he said
“Darkness, gloom and whirlwind.” These, he says, are the three words.
Or when he says that there were three born in Paradise, Adam, Eve (and
the) Serpent; or when he says three (others), Cain, Abel (and) Seth;
and yet again three, Shem, Ham (and) Japhet; or when he speaks of three
patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, (and) Jacob; or when he says that there
existed three days before the Sun and Moon; or when he says that there
are three laws (the) prohibitive, (the) permissive and the punitive.
And a prohibitive law is: “From every tree in Paradise thou mayest eat
the fruit, but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, eat not.” But
in this saying: “Go forth from thine own land, and from thy kindred and
(thou shalt come) hither into a land which I shall show thee.” This
law he says is permissive for he who chooses may go forth and he who
chooses may remain. But the law is punitive which says “Thou shalt not
commit adultery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not murder”--for to
each of these sins there is a penalty.[266]

[Sidenote: p. 218.] But the whole teaching of their system is taken
from the ancient theologists Musæus, Linus and he who most especially
makes known the initiations and mysteries (to wit), Orpheus. For their
discourse about the womb is also that of Orpheus; and the phallus,
which is virility, is thus explicitly mentioned in the _Bacchica_ of
Orpheus.[267] And these things were made the subject of initiation
and were handed down to men, before the initiatory rite of Celeus,
Triptolemus, Demeter, Core and Dionysos in Eleusis, at Phlium in
Attica. For earlier than the Eleusinian Mysteries are the secret rites
of the so-called Great (Mother) in Phlium. For there is in that (town)
a porch, and on the porch to this day is engraved the representation
of all the words spoken (in them). [Sidenote: p. 219.] Many things are
engraved on that porch concerning which Plutarch also makes discourse
in his ten books against Empedocles. And on the doors is engraved a
certain old man grey-haired, winged, having his _pudendum_ stretched
forth, pursuing a fleeing woman of a blue colour. And there is written
over the old man “Phaos ruentes” and over the woman “Pereēphicola.”
But “phaos ruentes” seems to be the light according to the theory of
the Sethians and the “phicola” the dark water, while between them is at
an interval the harmony of the spirit. And the name of “Phaos ruentes”
denotes the rushing below of the light as they say from on high. So
that we may reasonably say that the Sethians celebrate among themselves
(rites) in some degree akin to the Phliasian Mysteries of the Great
(Mother).[268] And to the triple division of things the poet seems to
bear witness when he says:--

    “And in three lots were all things divided
    And each drew his own domain.”--
                                          (Homer, _Il._, XV, 189.[269])

that is each of the threefold divisions has taken power. [Sidenote: p.
220.] And, as for the underlying dark water below, that the light has
plunged into it and that the spark borne down (into it) ought to be
restored and taken on high from it, the all-wise Sethians seem to have
here borrowed from Homer when he says:--

    “Let earth be witness and wide heaven above
    And the water of Styx that flows below
    The greatest oath and most terrible to the blessed gods.”[270]--
                                                     (_Il._ XV, 36-38.)

That is, the gods, according to Homer, think water something ill-omened
and frightful, wherefore the theory of the Sethians says it is
frightful to the Nous.

21. This is what they say and other things like it in endless writings.
And they persuade those who are their disciples to read the theory of
Composition and Mixture[271] which is studied by many others and by
Andronicus the Peripatetic. The Sethians then say that the theory about
Composition and Mixture is to be framed after this fashion: The light
ray from on high has been compounded and the [Sidenote: p. 221.] very
small spark has been lightly mingled[272] in the dark waters below, and
(these two) have united and exist in one mass as one odour (results)
from the many kinds of incense on the fire. And the expert who has
as his test an acute sense of smell ought to delicately distinguish
from the sole smell of the incense the different kinds of it set on
the fire; as (for example) if it be storax and myrrh and frankincense
or if anything else be mixed with it. And they make use of other
comparisons, as when they say that if brass has been mixed with gold, a
certain process[273] has been discovered which separates the gold from
the brass. And in like manner if tin or brass or anything of the same
kind be found mixed with silver, these by some better process of alloy
are also separated. But even now any one distinguishes water mixed
with wine. Thus, he says, if all things are mingled together they are
distinguished. And truly, he says, learn from the animals. For when the
animal is dead each (of its parts) is separated (from the rest) and
thus when dissolved, the animal disappears. This he says is the saying:
“I come not to bring peace upon the earth but a sword”[274]--that is
to cut in twain and separate the things [Sidenote: p. 222.] which have
been compounded together. For each of the compounds is cut in twain and
separated when it lights on its proper place. For as there is one place
of composition for all the animals, so there has been set up one place
of dissolution, which no man knoweth, he says, save only we who are
born again, spiritual not fleshly, whose citizenship is in the heavens
above.

With these insinuations they corrupt their hearers, both when they
misuse words, turning good sayings into bad as they wish, and when they
conceal their own iniquity by what comparisons they choose. All things
then, he says, which are compounds have their own peculiar place and
run towards their own kindred things as the iron to the magnet, the
straw to the amber, and the gold to the sea-hawk’s spine.[275] And thus
the (ray) of light which was mingled with the water having received
from teaching and learning (the knowledge of) its own proper place
hastens to the Word come from on high in slave-like form and becomes
with the Word a Word where the Word is, more (quickly) than the iron
(flies) to the magnet.

[Sidenote: p. 223.] And that these things are so, he says, and that
all compounded things are separated at their proper places, learn
(thus):--There is among the Persians in the city Ampa near the Tigris
a well, and near this well and above it has been built a cistern
having three outlets. From which well if one draws, and takes up in a
jar what is drawn from the well whatever it is and pours it into the
cistern hard by; when it comes to the outlets and is received from each
outlet in one vessel, it separates itself. And in the first outlet is
exhibited an incrustation[276] of salt, and in the second bitumen,
and in the third oil. But the oil is black, as he says Herodotus also
recounts,[277] has a heavy odour and the Persians call it _rhadinace_.
This simile of the well, say the Sethians, suffices for the truth of
their proposition better than all that has been said above.

22. The opinion of the Sethians seems to us to have been made tolerably
plain. But if any one wishes to learn the whole of their system let him
read the book inscribed _Paraphrase (of) Seth_; for all their secrets
he will find there enshrined.[278] But since we have set forth the
things of the [Sidenote: p. 224.] Sethians[279] let us see also what
Justinus thinks.


                          4. _Justinus._[280]

23. Justinus, being utterly opposed to every teaching of the Holy
Scriptures, and also to the writing or speech[281] of the blessed
Evangelists, since the Word taught his disciples saying: “Go not into
the way of the Gentiles”[282]--which is plainly: Give no heed to the
vain teaching of the Gentiles--seeks to bring back his hearers to
the marvel-mongering of the Greeks and what is taught by it. He sets
out word for word and in detail the fabulous tales of the Greeks,
but neither teaches first hand[283] nor hands down his own complete
mystery unless he has bound the dupe by an oath. Thereafter he explains
the myth for the purpose of winning souls,[284] so that those who
read the numberless follies of the books shall have the fables as
consolation[285]--as if one tramping along a road and coming across an
inn should see fit to rest--and so that when they have again turned to
the [Sidenote: p. 225.] full study of the things read, they may not
detest them until, being led on by the rush of the crowd, they have
plunged into the offence artfully contrived by him, having first bound
them by fearful oaths neither to utter nor to abandon his teaching and
compelling them to accept it. Thus he delivers to them the mysteries
impiously sought out by him, using as aforesaid the Greek myths and
partly corrupted books according to what they indicate of the aforesaid
heresies. For they all, drawn by one spirit, are led into a deep
pit (of error) but each narrates and mythologizes the same things
differently. But they all call themselves especially Gnostics, as if
they alone had drunk in the knowledge of the perfect and good.

24. But swear, says Justinus, if you wish to know the things “which
eye hath not seen nor ear heard, nor have they entered into the heart
of man,”[286] (that is) Him who is good above all things, the Highest,
to keep the ineffable secrets of the teaching. For our Father also,
when he saw the Good One and was perfected by him, kept silence as
to [Sidenote: p. 226.] the secrets[287] and swore as it is written:
“The Lord sware and will not repent.”[288] Having then thus sealed up
these (secrets), he turns their minds to many myths through a quantity
(of books), and thus leads to the Good One, perfecting the mystæ by
unspoken mysteries. But we shall not travel through more (of his
works). We shall give as a sample the ineffable things from one book
of his, it being one which he clearly thinks of high repute. It is
inscribed _Baruch_.[289] We shall disclose one myth set forth in it by
him out of many, it being also in Herodotus. Having transformed[290]
this, he tells it to his hearers as new, the whole system of his
teaching being made up out of it.

25. Now Herodotus[291] says that Heracles when driving Geryon’s oxen
from Erytheia[292] came to Scythia and being wearied by the way lay
down to sleep in some desert place for a short time. While he was
asleep his horse disappeared, mounted on which he had made his long
journey.[293] On waking he made search over most of the desert in the
attempt to find his horse. He entirely misses the horse, [Sidenote: p.
227.] but finding a certain semi-virgin girl[294] in the desert, he
asks her if she had seen the horse anywhere. The girl said that she had
seen it, but would not at first show it to him unless Heracles would go
with her to have connection with her. But Herodotus says that the upper
part of the girl as far as the groin was that of a virgin, but that the
whole body below the groin had in some sort the frightful appearance of
a viper. But Heracles, being in a hurry to find his horse yielded to
the beast. For he knew her and made her pregnant, and foretold to her
after connection that she had in her womb three sons by him who would
be famous.[295] And he bade her when they were born to give them the
names Agathyrsus, Gelonus, and Scytha. And taking the horse from the
beast-like girl as his reward, he went away with his oxen. But after
this, there is a long story in Herodotus.[296] Let us dismiss it at
present. But we will explain something of what Justinus teaches when
he turns this myth into (one of) the generation of the things of the
universe.

26. This he says: There were three unbegotten principles of the
universals,[297] two male and one female. And [Sidenote: p. 228.] of
the male, one is called the Good One, he alone being thus called, and
he has foreknowledge of the universals. And the second is the Father
of all begotten things, not having foreknowledge and being (unknowable
and)[298] invisible. But the female is without foreknowledge,
passionate, two-minded, two-bodied, in all things resembling Herodotus’
myth, a virgin to the groin and a viper below, as says Justinus.
And this maiden is called Edem and Israel. These, he says, are the
principles of the universals, their roots and sources, by which all
things came into being, beside which nothing was. Then the Father
without foreknowledge, beholding the semi-virgin, who was Edem, came
to desire of her. This Father, he says, is called Elohim.[299] Not
less did Edem desire Elohim, and desire brought them together into
one favour of love. And the Father from such congress begot on Edem
twelve angels of his own. And the names of these angels of the Father
are: Michael, Amen, Baruch, Gabriel, Esaddæus.[300]... And the names
of the angels of the Mother which Edem created are likewise set down.
These are: Babel, Achamoth, Naas, Bel, Belias, [Sidenote: p. 229.]
Satan, Saêl, Adonaios, Kavithan, Pharaoh, Karkamenos, Lathen.[301] Of
these twenty-four angels the paternal ones join with the Father and do
everything in accordance with his will, but the maternal angels (side)
with the Mother, Edem. And he says that Paradise is the multitude of
these angels taken together; concerning which Moses says: “God planted
a Paradise in Edem towards the East,”[302] that is, towards the face
of Edem that Edem might ever behold Paradise, that is, the angels.
And the angels of this Paradise are allegorically called trees,[303]
and Baruch, the third angel of the Father, is the Tree of Life, and
Naas, the third angel of the Mother is the Tree of Knowledge of Good
and Evil.[304] For thus, he says, the (words) of Moses ought to be
interpreted, saying: Moses declared them covertly, because all do not
come to the truth.

But he says also when Paradise was produced from the mutual pleasure of
Elohim and Edem, the angels of Elohim taking (dust) from the fairest
earth, that is, not from the beast-like parts of Edem, but from the
man-like and cultivated regions of the earth above the groin, create
man. But from the beast-like parts, he says, the wild beasts and
[Sidenote: p. 230.] other animals are produced. Now they made man
as a symbol of their[305] unity and good-will and placed in him the
powers of each, Edem (supplying) the soul and Elohim the spirit.[306]
And there thus came into being a certain seal, as it were and actual
memorial of love and an everlasting sign of the marriage of Elohim and
Edem, (to wit) a man who is Adam. And in like manner also, Eve came
into being as Moses has written, an image and a sign and a seal to be
for ever preserved of Edem. And there was likewise placed in Eve the
image, a soul from Edem but a spirit from Elohim. And commands were
given to them, “Increase and multiply and replenish the earth,”[307]
that is Edem, for so he would have it written. For the whole of her own
power Edem brought to Elohim as it were some dowry in marriage. Whence,
he says, in imitation of that first marriage, women unto this day bring
freely to their husbands in obedience to a certain divine and ancestral
law (a dowry) which is that of Edem to Elohim.

But when heaven and earth and the things which were therein had been
created as it is written by Moses, the twelve angels of the Mother were
divided into four authorities and each quarter, he says, is called
a river, (to wit) Phison and Gihon, Tigris and Euphrates, as Moses
says: [Sidenote: p. 231.] These twelve angels visiting the four parts
encompass and arrange the world, having a certain satrapial[308] power
over the world by the authority of Edem. But they abide not always in
their own places, but as it were in a circular dance, they go about
exchanging place for place, and at certain times and intervals giving
up the places assigned to them. When Phison has rule over the places,
famine, distress and affliction come to pass in that part of the world,
for miserly is the array of these angels. And in like manner in each of
the quarters according to the nature and power of each, come evil times
and troops of diseases. And evermore the flow of evil according to the
rule of the quarters, as if they were rivers, by the will of Edem goes
unceasingly about the world.

But from some such cause as this did the necessity of evil come
about.[309] When Elohim had built and fashioned [Sidenote: p. 232.] the
world from mutual pleasure, he wished to go up to the highest parts
of heaven and to see whether any of the things of creation lacked
aught. And he took his own angels with him, for he was (by nature) one
who bears upward, and left below Edem, for she being earth did not
wish to follow her spouse on high. Then Elohim coming to the upper
limit of heaven and beholding a light better than that which himself
had fashioned, said: “Open unto me the gates that I may enter in and
acknowledge the Lord: For I thought that I was the Lord.”[310] And a
voice from the light answered him, saying: “This is the gate of the
Lord (and) the just enter through it.” And straightway the gate was
opened, and the Father entered without his angels into the presence of
the Good One and saw “what eye has not seen nor ear heard, nor has it
entered into the heart of man.” Then the Good One says to him, “Sit
thou on my right hand.”[311] But the Father says to the Good One:
“Suffer me, O Lord, to overturn the world which I have made; for my
spirit is bound in men and I wish to recover it.” Then says the Good
One to him: “While with me thou canst do no evil; for thou and Edem
made the world from mutual pleasure. Let therefore Edem hold creation
[Sidenote: p. 233.] while she will;[312] but do thou abide with me.”
Then Edem knowing that she had been abandoned by Elohim was grieved,
and sat beside her own angels and adorned herself gloriously lest haply
Elohim coming to desire of her should descend to her.

But since Elohim being ruled by the Good One did not come down to Edem,
she gave command to Babel, who is Aphrodite, to bring about fornication
and dissolutions of marriage among men, in order that as she was
separated from Elohim, so also might the (spirit) of Elohim which is in
men be tortured, (and) grieved by such separations and might suffer the
same things as she did on being abandoned. And Edem gave great power to
her third angel Naas,[313] that he might punish with all punishments
the spirit of Elohim which is in men, so that through the spirit Elohim
might be punished for having left his spouse contrary to their vows.
The Father Elohim seeing this sent forth his third angel Baruch to the
help of the spirit which is in men. [Sidenote: p. 234.] Then Baruch
came again and stood in the midst of the angels--for the angels are
Paradise in the midst of which he stood--and gave commandment to the
man: “From every tree which is in Paradise freely eat, but from (the
tree) of Knowledge of Good and Evil eat not,”[314] which tree is Naas.
That is to say: Obey the eleven other angels of Edem for the eleven
have passions, but have no transgression. But Naas had transgression,
for he went in unto Eve and beguiled her and committed adultery with
her, which is a breach of the Law. And he went in also unto Adam and
used him as a boy which is also a breach of the Law.[315] Thence came
adultery and sodomy.

From that time vices bore sway over men, and the good things came from
a single source, the Father. For he, having gone up to the presence
of the Good One showed the way to those who wished to go on high; but
his having withdrawn from Edem made a source of ills to the spirit of
[Sidenote: p. 235.] the Father which is in men. Therefore Baruch was
sent to Moses, and through him spoke to the sons of Israel that he
might turn them towards the Good One. But the third[316] (angel Naas)
by means of the soul which came from Edem to Moses as also to all men,
darkened the commandments of Baruch and made them listen to his own.
Therefore the soul is arrayed against the spirit and the spirit against
the soul.[317] For the soul is Edem and the spirit Elohim, each of
them being in all mankind, both females and males. Again after this,
Baruch was sent to the Prophets, so that by their means the spirit
which dwells in man might hearken and flee from Edem and the device
of wickedness[318] as the Father Elohim had fled. And in like manner
and by the same contrivance, Naas by the soul which inhabits man along
with the spirit of the Father seduced the Prophets, and they were all
led astray and did not follow the words of Baruch which Elohim had
commanded.

[Sidenote: p. 236.] In the sequel, Elohim chose Heracles as a prophet
out of the uncircumcision and sent him that he might fight against the
twelve angels of the creation of the wicked ones. These are the twelve
contests of Heracles which he fought in their order from the first to
the last against the lion, the bear, the wild boar,[319] and the rest.
For these are the names of the nations which have been changed, they
say, by the action of the angels of the Mother. But when he seemed
to have prevailed, Omphale, who is Babel or Aphrodite[320] becomes
connected with him and leads astray Heracles, strips him of his power
(which is) the commands of Baruch which Elohim commanded, and puts
other clothes on him, her own robe, which is the power of Edem who is
below. And thus the power of prophecy[321] of Heracles and his works
become imperfect.

Last of all in the days of Herod the king, Baruch is again sent below
by Elohim and coming to Nazareth finds Jesus, the son of Joseph and
Mary,[322] a boy of twelve years old, feeding sheep, and teaches Him
all things from the beginning which came about from Edem and Elohim and
the things [Sidenote: p. 237.] which shall be hereafter, and he said:
“All the prophets before thee were led astray. Strive, therefore, O
Jesus, Son of Man, that thou be not led astray, but preach this word
unto men. And proclaim to them the things touching the Father and the
Good One, and go on high to the Good One and sit there with Elohim the
Father of us all.” And Jesus hearkened to the angel, saying: “Lord, I
will do all (these) things,” and He preached. Then Naas wished to lead
astray this one also (but Jesus did not wish to hearken to him)[323]
for He remained faithful to Baruch. Then Naas, angered because he could
not lead Him astray, made Him to be crucified. But He, leaving the body
of Edem on the Cross, went on high to the Good One. But He said to
Edem: “Woman, receive thy Son,”[324] that is the natural and earthly
man, and commending[325] the spirit into the hands of the Father went
on high to the presence of the Good One.

But the Good One is Priapus, who before anything was, was created.
Whence he is called Priapus because he previously made[326] all
things. Wherefore he says he is set up before every temple[327] being
honoured by the whole creation and in the streets bears the blossoms
of creation on his head, that is the fruits of creation of which he
is the [Sidenote: p. 238.] cause having first made the creation which
before did not exist. When therefore you hear men say that a swan came
upon Leda and begot children from her, the swan is Elohim and Leda is
Edem. And when men say that an eagle came upon Ganymede, the eagle is
Naas and Ganymede is Adam. And when they say that the gold came upon
Danae and begot children from her, the gold is Elohim and Danae is
Edem. And likewise they making parallels in the same way teach all such
words as bring in myths. When then the Prophets say: “Hear O Heaven and
give ear O Earth, the Lord has spoken,”[328] Heaven means, he says,
the spirit which is in man from Elohim and Earth the soul which is in
man (together) with the spirit, and the Lord means Baruch, and Israel,
Edem. For Edem is also called Israel the spouse of Elohim. “Israel,”
he says, “knew me not; for if she had known that I was with the Good
One, she would not have punished the spirit which is in man through the
Father’s ignorance.”

27. Afterwards ... is written also the oath in the first [Sidenote: p.
239.] book which is inscribed Baruch which those swear who are about to
hear these mysteries and to be perfected[329] by the Good One. Which
oath, he says, our Father Elohim swore when in the presence of the
Good One and having sworn did not repent, touching which, he says, it
is written: “The Lord sware and did not repent.” This is that oath:
“I swear by Him who is above all, the Good One, to preserve these
mysteries and to utter them to none, nor to turn away from the Good
One to creation.” And when he has sworn that oath he enters into the
presence of the Good One and sees “what eye hath not seen nor ear heard
and it has not entered into the heart of man,” and he drinks from the
living water, which is their font, as they think, the well of living,
sparkling water. For there is a distinction, he says, between water and
water; and there is the water below the firmament of the bad creation,
wherein are baptized[330] the earthly and natural men, and there is the
living water [Sidenote: p. 240.] above the firmament of the Good One
in which Elohim was baptized and having been baptized did not repent.
And when the prophet declares, he says, to take unto himself a wife of
whoredom because the earth whoring has committed whoredom from behind
the Lord,[331] that is Edem from Elohim. In these words, he says, the
prophet speaks clearly the whole mystery, but he was not hearkened to
by the wickedness of Naas. In that same fashion also they hand down
other prophetic sayings in many books. But pre-eminent among them is
the book inscribed Baruch in which he who reads will know the whole
management of their myth.

Now, though I have met with many heresies, beloved, I have met with
none worse than this. But truly, as the saying is, we ought, imitating
his Heracles, to cleanse the Augean dunghill or rather trench, having
fallen into which his followers will never be washed clean nor indeed
be able to come up out of it.

28. Since then we have set forth the designs of Justinus the Gnostic
falsely so called, it seems fitting to set forth also [Sidenote: p.
241.] in the succeeding books the tenets of the heresies which follow
him[332] and to leave none of them unrefuted; the things said by them
being quite sufficient when exposed to make an example of them, if and
only their hidden and unspeakable (mysteries) would leap to light into
which the senseless are hardly and with much toil initiated.[333] Let
us see now what Simon says.


                            END OF VOL. I.


                               FOOTNOTES

[Footnote 1: In this chapter, Hippolytus treats of what is probably a
late form of the Ophite heresy, certainly one of the first to enter
into rivalry with the Catholic Church. For its doctrines and practices,
the reader must be referred to the chapter on the Ophites in the
translator’s _Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity_, vol. II; but
it may be said here that it seems to have sprung from a combination
of the corrupt Judaism then practised in Asia Minor with the Pagan
myths or legends prevalent all over Western Asia, which may some day
be traced back to the Sumerians and the earliest civilization of which
we have any record. Yet the Ophites admitted the truth of the Gospel
narrative, and asserted the existence of a Supreme Being endowed with
the attributes of both sexes and manifesting Himself to man by means
of a Deity called His son, who was nevertheless identified with both
the masculine and feminine aspects of his Father. This triad, which the
Ophites called the First Man, the Second Man, and the First Woman or
Holy Spirit, they represented as creating the planetary worlds as well
as the “world of form,” by the intermediary of an inferior power called
Sophia or Wisdom and her son Jaldabaoth, who is expressly stated to be
the God of the Jews.

All this we knew before the discovery of our text from the statements
of heresiologists like St. Irenæus and Epiphanius; but Hippolytus goes
further than any other author by connecting these Ophite theories with
the worship of the Mother of the Gods or Cybele, the form under which
the triune deity of Western Asia was best known in Europe. The unnamed
Naassene or Ophite author from whom he quotes without intermission
throughout the chapter, seems to have got hold of a hymn to Attis used
in the festivals of Cybele, in which Attis is, after the syncretistic
fashion of post-Alexandrian paganism, identified with the Syrian
Adonis, the Egyptian Osiris, the Greek Dionysos and Hermes, and the
Samothracian or Cabiric gods Adamna and Corybas; and the chapter is in
substance a commentary on this hymn, the order of the lines of which
it follows closely. This commentary tries to explain or “interpret”
the different myths there referred to by passages from the Old and New
Testaments and from the Greek poets dragged in against their manifest
sense and in the wildest fashion. Most of these supposed allusions,
indeed, can only be justified by the most outrageous play upon words,
and it may be truly said that not a single one of them when naturally
construed bears the slightest reference to the matter in hand. Yet
they serve not only to elucidate the Ophite beliefs, but give, as it
were accidentally, much information as to the scenes enacted in the
Eleusinian and other heathen mysteries which was before lacking. The
author also quotes two hymns used apparently in the Ophite worship
which are not only the sole relics of a once extensive literature, but
are a great deal better evidence as to Gnostic tenets than his own
loose and equivocal statements.

As the legend of Attis and Cybele may not be familiar to all, it may
be well to give a brief abstract of it as found in Pausanias, Diodorus
Siculus, Ovid, and the Christian writer Arnobius. Cybele, called also
Agdistis, Rhea, Gê, or the Great Mother, was said to have been born
from a rock accidentally fecundated by Zeus. On her first appearance
she was hermaphrodite, but on the gods depriving her of her virility
it passed into an almond-tree. The fruit of this was plucked by the
virgin daughter of the river Sangarios, who, placing it in her bosom,
became by it the mother of Attis, fairest of mankind. Attis at his
birth was exposed on the river-bank, but was rescued, brought up as a
goatherd, and was later chosen as a husband by the king’s daughter. At
the marriage feast, Cybele, fired by jealousy, broke into the palace
and, according to one version of the story, emasculated Attis who died
of the hurt. Then Cybele repented and prayed to Zeus to restore him to
life, which prayer was granted by making him a god. The ceremonies of
the Megalesia celebrating the Death and Resurrection of Attis as held
in Rome during the late Republic and early Empire, and their likeness
to the Easter rites of the Christian Church are described in the
_Journal_ of the Royal Asiatic Society for October 1917.]

[Footnote 2: (οὗ) χάριν, “thanks to which.”]

[Footnote 3: μετέχιο τὰς ἀφορμὰς, a phrase frequent in Plato.]

[Footnote 4: נָחָשׁ]

[Footnote 5: Cf. Rev. ii. 24.]

[Footnote 6: ἀρσενόθηλυς.]

[Footnote 7: Cruice thinks the name derived from the Adam Cadmon of the
Jewish Cabala. But Adamas “the unsubdued” is an epithet of Hades who
was equated with Dionysos, the analogue of Attis. Cf. Irenæus, I, 1.]

[Footnote 8: Salmon and Stähelin in maintaining their theory that
Hippolytus’ documents were contemporary forgeries make the point that
something like this hymn is repeated later in the account of Monoimus
the Arabian’s heresy. The likeness is not very close. Cf. II, p. 107
_infra_.]

[Footnote 9: Origen (_cont. Celsum_, VI, 30) says the Ophites used to
curse the name of Christ. Hence Origen cannot be the author of the
_Philosophumena_.]

[Footnote 10: τὰ ὅλα. I am doubtful whether he is here using the word
in its philosophic or Aristotelian sense as “entities necessarily
differing from one another in kind,” or as “things of the universe.” On
the whole the former construction seems here to be right.]

[Footnote 11: “That which has been sent”?]

[Footnote 12: Doubtless as being still confined in matter.]

[Footnote 13: Both Origen and Celsus knew of this Mariamne, after whom
a sect is said to have been named. See Orig. _cont. Cels._, VI, 30.]

[Footnote 14: τῶν ἐθνῶν. The usual expression for Gentiles or Goyim.]

[Footnote 15: Isa. liii. 8.]

[Footnote 16: διάφορον. Miller reads ἀδιάφορον: “undistinguished.”]

[Footnote 17: This hymn is in metre and is said to be from a lost
Pindaric ode. It has been restored by Bergk, the restoration being
given in the notes to Cruice’s text, p. 142, and it was translated into
English verse by the late Professor Conington. Cf. _Forerunners_, II,
p. 54, n. 6.]

[Footnote 18: ἰχθυοφάγον. Doubtless a mistake for ἰχθυοφόρον. The
Oannes of Berossus’ story wore a fish on his back.]

[Footnote 19: Adam the protoplast according to the Ophites (_Irenæus_,
I, xviii, p. 197, Harvey) and Epiphanius (_Hær._ xxxvii, c. 4, p. 501,
Oehler) was made by Jaldabaoth and his six sons. The same story was
current among the followers of Saturninus (_Irenæus_, I, xviii, p. 197,
Harvey) and other Gnostic sects, who agree with the text as to his
helplessness when first created, and its cause.]

[Footnote 20: So in the Bruce Papyrus, “Jeû,” which name I have
suggested is an abbreviation of Jehovah, is called “the great Man, King
of the great Aeon of light.” See _Forerunners_, II, 193.]

[Footnote 21: Eph. iii. 15. Cf. the address of Jesus to His Father in
the last document of the _Pistis Sophia_, _Forerunners_, II, p. 180, n.
4.]

[Footnote 22: Why is he to be punished? In the Manichæan story (for
which see _Forerunners_, II, pp. 292 ff.) the First Man is taken
prisoner by the powers of darkness. Both this and that in the text are
doubtless survivals of some legend current throughout Western Asia at
a very early date. Cf. Bousset’s _Hauptprobleme der Gnosis_, Leipzig,
1907, c. 4, _Der Urmensch_.]

[Footnote 23: So the cryptogram in the _Pistis Sophia_ professes to
give “the word by which the Perfect Man is moved.” _Forerunners_, II,
188, n. 2.]

[Footnote 24: οὐσία: perhaps “essence” or “being.” It is the word for
which _hypostasis_ was later substituted according to Hatch. See his
_Hibbert Lectures_, pp. 269 ff.]

[Footnote 25: So Miller, Cruice, and Schneidewin. I should be inclined
to read φάος, “light,” as in the Naassene hymn at the end of this
chapter. No Gnostic sect can have taught that the soul came from Chaos.]

[Footnote 26: This, as always at this period, means “Syrians.” See
Maury, _Rev. Archéol._, lviii, p. 242.]

[Footnote 27: ἔμψυχοι. He is punning on the likeness between this and
ψυχή, “soul.”]

[Footnote 28: And between “nourished” and “reared.”]

[Footnote 29: τὸ τοιοῦτον. Not φύσις or ψυχή. At this point the author
begins his commentary on the Hymn of the Mysteries of Cybele, for which
see p. 141 _infra_.]

[Footnote 30: γένεσις, perhaps “birth.”]

[Footnote 31: An allusion to the myth which makes Aphrodite and
Persephone share the company of Adonis between them.]

[Footnote 32: These words are added in the margin.]

[Footnote 33: A prominent feature in the imposture of Alexander of
Abonoteichus. See Lucian’s _Pseudomantis_, _passim_.]

[Footnote 34: In the better-known story Attis castrates himself; but
this version explains the allusion in the hymn on p. 141 _infra_.]

[Footnote 35: _i. e._ restores to her the virility of which they had
deprived her when she was hermaphrodite. See n. on p. 119 _supra_.]

[Footnote 36: λελεγμένη. Miller and Schneidewin read δεδαιγμένη,
“open,” or “displayed.”]

[Footnote 37: Gal. iii. 28. So Clemens Romanus, _Ep._ ii. 12; Clem.
Alex. _Strom._, III, 13. Cf. _Pistis Sophia_, p. 378 (Copt).]

[Footnote 38: 2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi. 15.]

[Footnote 39: _i. e._ masculo-feminine. That Rhea, Cybele and Gê are
but different names of the earth-goddess, see Maury, _Rèl. de la Grèce
Antique_, I, 78 ff. For their androgyne character, see _J.R.A.S._ for
Oct. 1917.]

[Footnote 40: Rom. i. 20 ff. The text omits several sentences to be
found in the A.V.]

[Footnote 41: _Ibid._, v. 27.]

[Footnote 42: _Ibid._, v. 28.]

[Footnote 43: ἐπαγγελία τοῦ λουτροῦ, _pollicetur iis qui lavantur_, Cr.
But “the font” is the regular patristic expression for the rite.]

[Footnote 44: The text has ἄλλῳ, “other,” which makes no sense. Cruice,
following Schneidewin, alters it to ἀλάλῳ on the strength of p. 144
_infra_, and renders it _ineffabilis_; but ἀλάλος cannot mean anything
but “dumb” or “silent.” That baptism in the early heretical sects was
followed by a “chrism” or anointing, see _Forerunners_, II, 129, n. 2;
_ibid._, 192.]

[Footnote 45: Luke xvii. 21.]

[Footnote 46: This does not appear in the severely expurgated fragments
of the Gospel of Thomas which have come down to us. Epiphanius (_Hær._
xxxvii.) includes this gospel in a list of works especially favoured by
the Ophites.]

[Footnote 47: λόγος, Cr. _disciplina_, Macmahon, “Logos.” But see
Arnold, _Roman Stoicism_, p. 161.]

[Footnote 48: ὄργια. In Hippolytus it always has this meaning.]

[Footnote 49: Isis. See _Forerunners_, I, p. 34.]

[Footnote 50: ἡ μεταβλητὴ γένεσις. The expression is repeated in the
account of Simon Magus’ heresy (II, p. 13 _infra_) and refers to the
transmigration of souls.]

[Footnote 51: ἀνεξεικονίστος, “He of whom no image can be made.”]

[Footnote 52: Prov. xxiv. 16.]

[Footnote 53: Some qualification like “originally” or “at the
beginning” seems wanting. Cf. Arnold, _op. cit._, n. on p. 58 _supra_.]

[Footnote 54: Matt. v. 45.]

[Footnote 55: He has apparently mistaken Min of Coptos or Nesi-Amsu
for Osiris who is, I think, never represented thus. At Denderah, he is
supine.]

[Footnote 56: The “terms” of Hermes which Alcibiades and his friends
mutilated.]

[Footnote 57: δημιουργός. Here as always the “architect,” or he who
creates not _ex nihilo_, but from existing material.]

[Footnote 58: For this name which is said by all the early
heresiologists to mean “the God of the Jews,” see _Forerunners_, II,
46, n. 3. He is called a “fiery God” apparently from Deut. iv. 24, and
a fourth number, either because in the Ophite theogony he comes next
after the Supreme Triad of Father, Son, and Mother or, more probably,
from his name covering the Tetragrammaton, or name of God in four
letters.]

[Footnote 59: Ps. ii. 9.]

[Footnote 60: Cr. supplies “virtutem”; but the adjective is in the
neuter.]

[Footnote 61: Eph. v. 14.]

[Footnote 62: κεχαρακτηρισμένος ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀχαρακτηρίστου Λόγου. These
expressions repeated up to the end of the chapter are most difficult
to render in English. The allusion is clearly to a coin stamped
with the image of a king. Afterwards I translate ἀχαρακτηρίστος by
“unportrayable,” for brevity’s sake.]

[Footnote 63: The famous words which tradition assigns to the
Eleusinian Mysteries. One version is “Rain! conceive!” and probably
refers to the fecundation or tillage of the earth. Cf. Plutarch, _de
Is. et Os._, c. xxxiv.]

[Footnote 64: Rom. x. 18.]

[Footnote 65: Ps. cxviii. 22. Cf. Isa. xxviii. 16.]

[Footnote 66: See n. on p. 123 _supra_.]

[Footnote 67: Isa. xxviii. 16.]

[Footnote 68: Something is here omitted before ὀδόντες. Cf. _Iliad_,
IV, 350.]

[Footnote 69: ἀρχανθρώπος, a curious expression meaning evidently First
Man. It appears nowhere but in this chapter of the _Philosophumena_.]

[Footnote 70: Dan. ii. 45, “cut from the mountain without hands.”]

[Footnote 71: The Power called Adonæus or Adon-ai by the Ophites is
also addressed as λήθη, “oblivion,” in the “defence” made to him
by the ascending soul. See Origen, _cont Cels._ VI, c. 30 ff. or
_Forerunners_, II, 72.]

[Footnote 72: A compound of _Iliad_, XIV, 201 and 246.]

[Footnote 73: Ps. lxxxii. 6; Luke vi. 35; John x. 34; Gal. iv. 26.]

[Footnote 74: John iii, 6.]

[Footnote 75: Joshua iii, 16.]

[Footnote 76: So the Cabbalists call one of their word-juggling
processes _gematria_, which is said to be a corruption of γραμματεία.]

[Footnote 77: ἀρρήτως, _i. e._, “by implication,” or “not in words.”]

[Footnote 78: Play upon προφαίνω and προφήτης.]

[Footnote 79: Mariam was Moses’ aunt, Sephora his wife, and Jothor
Sephora’s father, according to some fragments of Ezekiel quoted by
Eusebius. So Cruice.]

[Footnote 80: Matt. xiii. 13.]

[Footnote 81: Isa. xxviii, 10. In A. V., “Precept upon precept; line
upon line; here a little, there a little.” Irenæus (I, xix, 3, I, p.
201, Harvey) says, Caulacau is the name in which the Saviour descended
according to Basilides, and the word seems to have been used in this
sense by other Gnostic sects, See _Forerunners_, II, 94, n. 3.]

[Footnote 82: ἐκ γῆς ῥέοντα!]

[Footnote 83: A direct quotation from the Hymn of the Great Mysteries
given later, p. 141 _infra_. Also a pun between κεράννυμι and κέρας.]

[Footnote 84: John 1. 34.]

[Footnote 85: Sophia, the third person of the Ophite Triad and
Jaldabaoth her son.]

[Footnote 86: Something omitted after “cup.”]

[Footnote 87: τρία σάτα. A Jewish measure equivalent to 1½ _modius_.
Cf. Matt. xiii. 33.]

[Footnote 88: The famous ὁμοούσιος.]

[Footnote 89: A compound of John vi. 53 and Mk. x. 38.]

[Footnote 90: Μαθητὰς, “disciples,” not apostles.]

[Footnote 91: The κατὰ may mean either “against” or “according to”
nature.]

[Footnote 92: For this Corybas and his murder by his two brothers see
Clem. Alex. _Protrept._, II. A pun here follows between Corybas and
κορυφή, “head.”]

[Footnote 93: John v. 3.]

[Footnote 94: κεχαρακτηρισμένος.]

[Footnote 95: Ps. xxix. 3, 10.]

[Footnote 96: Ps. xxii. 20, A. V., “My darling from the power of the
dog.”]

[Footnote 97: Isa. xci. 8; xliii. 1, 2.]

[Footnote 98: _Ibid._, xlix. 15; slightly altered.]

[Footnote 99: _Ibid._, xlix. 16.]

[Footnote 100: Ps. xxiv. 7. A. V. omits “rulers” or archons.]

[Footnote 101: Ps. xxiv. 8; xxii. 6.]

[Footnote 102: Job xl. 2.]

[Footnote 103: A pun like that on Geryon or Corybas.]

[Footnote 104: Gen. xxviii. 17.]

[Footnote 105: John x. 7, 9, “I am the door.”]

[Footnote 106: _i. e._ the worshippers of Cybele. For Attis’ name of
Pappas, see Graillot, _Le Culte de Cybèle_, p. 15. It seems to mean
“Father.”]

[Footnote 107: παῦε, παῦε!!!]

[Footnote 108: Eph. ii. 17.]

[Footnote 109: This was an Orphic doctrine. See _Forerunners_, I, 127,
n. 1 for authorities.]

[Footnote 110: Matt. xxiii. 27.]

[Footnote 111: 1 Cor. xv. 52.]

[Footnote 112: 2 Cor. xii. 3, 4. A. V. omits “second heaven” and the
sights seen.]

[Footnote 113: ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος. The “natural man” of the A. V.]

[Footnote 114: 1 Cor. ii. 13, 14.]

[Footnote 115: John vi. 44, “draw _him_ unto me.”]

[Footnote 116: Matt. vii. 21.]

[Footnote 117: Matt. xxi. 31, “Kingdom of God.”]

[Footnote 118: 1 Cor. x. 11. A pun on τέλη, “taxes,” and τέλη, “ends.”]

[Footnote 119: Cf. the Stoic doctrine of λόγοι σπερματικοί, Arnold,
_Roman Stoicism_, p. 161.]

[Footnote 120: Lit., “brought to an end.”]

[Footnote 121: A condensation of Matt. xiii. 3-9.]

[Footnote 122: Deut. xxxi. 20.]

[Footnote 123: _i. e._ become united with the Godhead. The
newly-baptized were given milk and honey. Cf. Hatch, _Hibbert
Lectures_, above quoted, p. 300.]

[Footnote 124: Matt. iii. 10.]

[Footnote 125: This “third gate” is evidently baptism. For the reason
see _Forerunners_, II, p. 73, n. 2.]

[Footnote 126: This seems to be a quotation from the Naassene author.]

[Footnote 127: Perhaps an allusion to the λόγοι σπερματικοί.]

[Footnote 128: Matt. vii. 6.]

[Footnote 129: The derivation to be tolerable should be *ἀειπόλος!]

[Footnote 130: _i. e._ Proteus.]

[Footnote 131: Gal. iv. 27.]

[Footnote 132: Jerem. xxxi. 15.]

[Footnote 133: The mistake in geography shows that Hippolytus was not a
Jew.]

[Footnote 134: Jerem. xviii. 9.]

[Footnote 135: ἐποπτικὸν ... μυστήριον.]

[Footnote 136: This is in effect the first real information we have as
to the final secret of the Eleusinian Mysteries.]

[Footnote 137: Hesychius also translates Brimos by ἰσχυρός.]

[Footnote 138: Hades or Pluto.]

[Footnote 139: Schleiermacher attributes this saying to Heraclitus.]

[Footnote 140: Meineke (_ap._ Cr.) attributes these lines to
Parmenides.]

[Footnote 141: Cf. Justinus later, p. 175 _infra_.]

[Footnote 142: Schneidewin and Cruice both read λαβεῖν, “receive”
(their vestures) for βαλεῖν.]

[Footnote 143: Cr. translates ἀπηρσενωμένους, _exuta virilitate_; but
it seems to be a participle of ἀπαρρενόω = ἀπανδρόω. The idea that the
Gnostic _pneumatics_ or spirituals would finally be united in marriage
with the angels or λόγοι σπερματικοί was current in Gnosticism. See
_Forerunners_, II, 110. The “virgin spirit” was probably that Barbelo
whom Irenæus, I, 26, 1 f. (pp. 221 ff., Harvey), describes under that
name as reverenced by the “Barbeliotae or Naassenes”; in any case,
probably, some analogue of the earth-goddess, ever bringing forth and
yet ever a virgin.]

[Footnote 144: Matt. vii. 13, 14. The A. V. has εἰσέρχομαι for
διέρχομαι.]

[Footnote 145: See n. on p. 119 _supra_.]

[Footnote 146: _i. e._ Attis.]

[Footnote 147: ἀμύσσω is rather to “scratch,” or “scarify,” than as in
the text.]

[Footnote 148: Cf. John iv. 21.]

[Footnote 149: Cruice’s restoration. Schneidewin’s would read: “The
Spirit is there where also the Father is named, and the Son is there
born from the Father.”]

[Footnote 150: Cf. Ezekiel x. 12.]

[Footnote 151: ῥῆμα, not λόγος.]

[Footnote 152: Here we see the interpretation put by Hippolytus an the
Aristotelian τὰ ὅλα.]

[Footnote 153: θεμελιόω. The whole of this sentence singularly
resembles that in the _Great Announcement_ ascribed to Simon Magus, for
which see II, p. 12 _infra_.]

[Footnote 154: This idea of the Indivisible Point, which recurs in
several Gnostic writings, including those of Simon and Basilides, seems
founded on the mathematical axiom that the line and therefore all solid
bodies spring from the point, which itself has “neither parts nor
magnitude.”]

[Footnote 155: Ἐπινοίᾳ. This also is used by Simon as the equivalent of
Ἔννοια.]

[Footnote 156: Ps. xix. 3.]

[Footnote 157: ἀπρονοήτως, Cr., _sine numine quidquam_; Macmahon,
“without premeditation.”]

[Footnote 158: Performances in the theatres formed part of the
Megalesia or Festival of the Great Mother.]

[Footnote 159: I should be inclined to read τῆς Μεγάλης μυστήρια,
“Mysteries of the Great Mother.”]

[Footnote 160: An allusion to the variant of the Cybele legend which
makes her the emasculator of Attis.]

[Footnote 161: So Conington, who translated the hymns into English
verse, and Schneidewin. Hippolytus, however, evidently gave this
invocation to the Greeks. See p. 132 _supra_.]

[Footnote 162: δ’ ὀφίαν, according to Schneidewin’s restoration (for
which see p. 176 Cr.), seems better sense, if we can suppose that the
Sabazian serpent was so called.]

[Footnote 163: The whole hymn with the next fragment is given as
restored to metrical form where quoted in last note.]

[Footnote 164: That is of the _Galli_, or eunuch-priests of Attis and
Cybele.]

[Footnote 165: Thales only said, so far as we know, that water was the
beginning of all things.]

[Footnote 166: The cornucopia: horn of the goat (not bull) Amalthea
seems to have been intended. I see no likeness between this and the
passage in Deut. xxxiii. 17, to which Macmahon refers it.]

[Footnote 167: Gen. ii. 10.]

[Footnote 168: This and the three following quotations are from Gen.
ii. 10-14 and follow the Septuagint version.]

[Footnote 169: Play upon Euphrates and εὐφραίνει, “rejoices.”]

[Footnote 170: χαρακτηρίζει. “Stamps” would be more correct, but
singularly incongruous with water.]

[Footnote 171: John iv. 10. No substantial difference from A. V.]

[Footnote 172: οὐσίαι, but not in the theological sense.]

[Footnote 173: This simile, repeated often later, has been the chief
support of Salmon and Stähelin’s forgery theory. Yet Clement of
Alexandria (Book VII, c. 2, _Stromateis_) also uses it, and the turning
of swords into ploughshares and spears into pruning-hooks appears in
Micah iv. 3, as well as in Isaiah ii. 4, without arguing a common
origin.]

[Footnote 174: John 1. 9.]

[Footnote 175: Isa. xl. 15.]

[Footnote 176: Play upon χριόμενοι, “anointed,” and χριστιανοί.]

[Footnote 177: 1 Sam. x. 1; xvi. 13, 14.]

[Footnote 178: The hymn which follows is so corrupt that Schneidewin
declared it beyond hope of restoration. Miller shows that the original
metre was anapæstic, the number of feet diminishing regularly from
6 to 4. He likens this to that of the hymns of Synesius and the
_Tragopodagra_ of Lucian.]

[Footnote 179: Reading φάος for χάος.]

[Footnote 180: This seems to correspond with the Ophite description of
Sophia or the third Person of their Triad in Chaos. Cf. Irenæus, I, 28.]

[Footnote 181: The source of this chapter on the Naassenes is so
far undiscoverable. Contrary to his usual practice, Hippolytus here
mentions the name of no heretical author as he does in the following
chapters of this Book. It is probable, therefore, that he may have
taken down his account of “Naassene” doctrines from the lips of some
convert, which would account for the extreme wildness of the quotations
and to the incoherence with which he jumps about from one subject to
another. This would also account for the heresy here described being
far more Christian in tone than the other forms of Ophitism which
follow it in the text, and the quotations from Scripture, especially
the N.T., being more numerous and on the whole more apposite than
in the succeeding chapters. The style, such as it is, is maintained
throughout and its continuity should perhaps forbid us to see in it a
plurality of authors. Little prominence in it is given to the Serpent
which gives its name to the sect, although it is here said that he is
good, and this seems to point to the Naassene being more familiar with
the Western than with the Eastern forms of Cybele-worship.]

[Footnote 182: No mention of this sect is made by Irenæus or
Epiphanius, and Theodoret’s statements concerning it correspond so
closely with those of our text as to make it certain either that
they were drawn from it or that both he and Hippolytus drew from a
common source. Yet Clement of Alexandria knew of the Peratics (see
_Stromateis_ VII, 16), and Origen (_cont. Cels._ VI, 28) speaks of
the Ophites generally as boasting Euphrates as their founder. The
name given to them in our text is said by Clement (_ubi cit._) to
be a place-name, and the better opinion seems to be that it means
“Mede” or one who lives on the further side of the Euphrates. The main
point of their doctrine seems to be the great prominence given in
it to the Serpent, whom they call the Son, and make an intermediate
power between the Father of All and Matter. In this they are perhaps
following the lead of some of the Græco-Oriental worships like that of
Sabazius, one of the many forms of Attis, or that of Dionysos whose
symbol was the serpent. The proof of their doctrines, however, they
sought for not, like the Naassenes, in the mystic rites, but in a kind
of astral theology which looked for religious truths in the grouping
of the stars; and it was in pursuit of this that they identified the
Saviour Serpent with the constellation Draco. Yet they were ostensibly
Christians, being apparently perfectly willing to accept the historical
Christ as their great intermediary. Their attitude to Judaism is
more difficult to grasp because, while they quoted freely from the
Old Testament, they apparently considered its God as an evil, or at
all events, an unnecessarily harsh, power, in which they anticipated
Manes and probably Marcion. Had we more of their writings we should
probably find in them the embodiment of a good deal of early Babylonian
tradition, to which most of these astrological heresies paid great
attention.]

[Footnote 183: πηγή.]

[Footnote 184: τὸ μὲν ἓν μέρος. Cruice thinks these words should be
added here instead of in the description of the “great source” just
above. See Book X, II, p. 481 _infra_.]

[Footnote 185: Probably “Great Father.”]

[Footnote 186: This is entirely contradictory of Hippolytus’ own
statement later of their doctrine that the universe consists of Father,
Son, and Matter. Αὐτογενής, for which αὐτογέννητος is substituted a
page later, is the last epithet to be applied to a _son_. Is it a
mistake for μονογέννητος, “only begotten?” For the three worlds, see
the Naassene author also, p. 121 _supra_.]

[Footnote 187: The cause assigned a little later is the salvation of
the _three_ worlds.]

[Footnote 188: τριδύναμος probably means with powers from all three
worlds. The phrase is frequent in the _Pistis Sophia_.]

[Footnote 189: συγκρίματα, _concretiones_, Cr. and Macmahon. It might
mean “decrees” and is used in the Septuagint version of Daniel for
“interpretations” of dreams.]

[Footnote 190: Coloss. i. 19, and ii. 9.]

[Footnote 191: From the starry influences?]

[Footnote 192: John iii. 17.]

[Footnote 193: 1. Cor. xi. 32.]

[Footnote 194: But see n. 4 on last page and text three sentences
earlier.]

[Footnote 195: It was not the world, but the Zodiac that the
astrologers divided into dodecatemories. See Bouché-Leclercq,
_L’Astrologie Gr._, _passim_.]

[Footnote 196: There must be some mistake here. The planetary world,
according to the astronomy of the time, only began at the Moon.]

[Footnote 197: The words which follow, down to the end of this
paragraph, with the exception of one sentence, are taken, not from the
astrologers, but from the opponent Sextus Empiricus. They correspond
to pp. 339 ff. of the Leipzig edition of Sextus and the restorations
from this are shown by round brackets. The whole passage doubtless once
formed the beginning of Book IV of our text, the opening words of which
they repeat. For the probable cause of this needless repetition see the
Introduction, p. 20 _supra_.]

[Footnote 198: Sextus’ comment, not Hippolytus’.]

[Footnote 199: The personal followers of Pythagoras were called
Pythagorics, those who later gave a general assent to his doctrines
Pythagoreans.]

[Footnote 200: An echo of a tradition which seems widespread in Asia.
In the _Pistis Sophia_ it is said that half the signs of the Zodiac
rebelled against the order to give up “the purity of their light” and
joined the wicked Adamas, while the other half remained faithful under
the rule of Jabraoth. Cf. Rev. xii. 7, and the Babylonian legend of the
assault of the seven evil spirits on the Moon.]

[Footnote 201: “Toparch” = ruler of a place. Proastius, “suburban,” or
a dweller in the environs of a town. It here probably means the ruler
of a part of the heavens near or under the influence of a planet.]

[Footnote 202: The bombastic phrases which follow seem to have been
much corrupted and to have been translated from some language other
than Greek. Νυκτόχροος and ὑδατόχροος are not, I think, met with
elsewhere, and the genders are much confused throughout the whole
quotation, Poseidon being made a female deity and Isis a male one.
The more outlandish names have some likeness to the “Munichuaphor,”
“Chremaor,” etc., of the _Pistis Sophia_. There seems some logical
connection between the name of the powers and those born under them,
the lovers being assigned to Eros, and so on.]

[Footnote 203: Cruice points out that “eyes” are here probably written
for “wells,” the Hebrew for both being the same, and refers us to the
twelve wells of Elim in Exod. xv. 27.]

[Footnote 204: Schneidewin here quotes from Berossos the well-known
passage about the woman Omoroca, Thalatth, or Thalassa, who presided
over the chaos of waters and its monstrous inhabitants. See Cory’s
_Ancient Fragments_, p. 25. The name has been generally taken to cover
that of Tiamat whom Bel-Merodach defeated. See Rogers, _Religion of
Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 107.]

[Footnote 205: All Titans, like Kronos himself.]

[Footnote 206: Macmahon reads here Ino, but this name appears later.]

[Footnote 207: There is some confusion here. The Platonists, following
Philolaos, attributed singular properties to the twelve-angled figure
made out of pentagons and declared it to have been the model after
which the Zodiac was made.]

[Footnote 208: νυκτόχροος. It seems to be a translation of the Latin
_nocticolor_.]

[Footnote 209: So the Codex. Schneidewin and Cruice would read Κρόνος,
but that name has already occurred.]

[Footnote 210: Here again Schneidewin would read ἀστέρος, “star”; but
the next sentence makes it plain that it is the wind which is meant.]

[Footnote 211: Ariel is in one of the later documents of the _Pistis
Sophia_ made one of the torturers in hell.]

[Footnote 212: Probably Saclan or Asaqlan whom the Manichæans made the
Son of the King of Darkness and the husband of the Nebrod or Nebroe
mentioned above.]

[Footnote 213: πρωτοκαμάρον. Macmahon translates it the “star
Protocamarus,” for which I can see no authority. It seems to me to be
an inversion of πρωτομακάρος, “first-best,” very likely to happen in
turning a Semitic language into Greek and back again.]

[Footnote 214: The dogstar, Sothis, or Sirius, was identified with
Isis.]

[Footnote 215: Μύγδων. In a magic spell, Pluto, who has many analogies
with Attis, is saluted as “Huesemigadon,” perhaps “Hye, Cye, Mygdon.”
Has this Mygdon any analogy with _amygdalon_ the almond?]

[Footnote 216: Qy. Mise, the hermaphrodite Dionysos?]

[Footnote 217: Βουμέγας, “great ox”? All the other names which follow
are those of magicians or diviners.]

[Footnote 218: Two of the seven “angels of the presence.” Their
appearance in a list mainly of Greek heroes is inexplicable.]

[Footnote 219: τῆς ἄνω. Perhaps we should insert δυνάμεως, “the Power
on High.”]

[Footnote 220: See _Sibyll. Orac._, III. But the Sibyl says the exact
opposite. Cf. Charles, _Apocrypha and Psuedepigrapha of the O.T._, II,
377.]

[Footnote 221: περᾶσαι. The derivation is too much even for Theodoret,
who says that the name of the sect is taken from “Euphrates the
Peratic” (or Mede).]

[Footnote 222: So modern astrologers make him the “greater malefic.”]

[Footnote 223: A fragment from Heraclitus according to Schleiermacher.]

[Footnote 224: So the _Pistis Sophia_ speaks repeatedly of “the Pleroma
of all Pleromas.”]

[Footnote 225: Many magical books bore the name of Moses. See
_Forerunners_, II, 46, and n.]

[Footnote 226: Is this why one Ophite sect was called the Cainites? The
hostility here shown to the God of the Jews is common to many other
sects such as that of Saturninus, of Marcion and later of Manes. Cf.
_Forerunners_, II, under these names.]

[Footnote 227: Gen. x. 9. Nimrod, who is sometimes identified with the
hero Gilgames, plays a large part in all this Eastern tradition.]

[Footnote 228: John iii. 13, 14.]

[Footnote 229: _Ibid._, i. 1-4.]

[Footnote 230: For this identification of Eve with the Mother of Life
or Great Goddess of Asia, see _Forerunners_, II, 300, and n.]

[Footnote 231: ἄκραν. Cruice and Macmahon both read ἀρχή, “beginning,”
but see ταύτην τὴν ἄκραν later.]

[Footnote 232: All this is, of course, quite different to the meaning
assigned to these stars by the unnamed heretics of Book IV.]

[Footnote 233: If we could be sure that Hippolytus was here summarizing
fairly Ophite doctrines, it would appear that the Ophites rejected the
Platonic theory that matter was essentially evil. What is here said
presents a curious likeness to Stoic doctrines of the universe, as of
man’s being. Hippolytus, however, never quotes a Stoic author and seems
throughout to ignore Stoicism save in Book I.]

[Footnote 234: πρόσωπον. The word used to denote the “character” or
part or a person on the stage.]

[Footnote 235: ἰδέαι. So throughout this passage.]

[Footnote 236: Gen. xxx. 37 ff.]

[Footnote 237: χαρακτῆρες. See n. on p. 143 _supra_.]

[Footnote 238: Not “ring-straked” like Jacob’s sheep.]

[Footnote 239: ὁμοούσιος.]

[Footnote 240: Matt. vii. 11. Note the change of “Your” for “Our.”]

[Footnote 241: John viii. 44.]

[Footnote 242: Here again he dwells upon the supposed evil nature of
the Demiurge.]

[Footnote 243: Or as Macmahon translates, “the substantial from the
Unsubstantial one.”]

[Footnote 244: A lacuna in the text is thus filled by Cruice.]

[Footnote 245: Again this simile is not necessarily by the Peratic
author, but seems to be introduced by Hippolytus. For the supposed
conduct of naphtha in the presence of fire, see Plutarch, _vit Alex._]

[Footnote 246: ἐξεικονισμένον. A different metaphor from the “type.”
We shall meet with this one frequently in the work attributed to Simon
Magus.]

[Footnote 247: The text has ἐκ καμαρίου. Here Schneidewin agrees
that the proper reading is μακαρίου, there being no reason why any
“life-giving substance” should exist in the brain-pan. He thus confirms
the reading in n. on p. 152 _supra_.]

[Footnote 248: This chapter on the Peratæ is evidently drawn from more
sources than one. The author’s first statement of their doctrines,
which occupies pp. 146-149 _supra_, represents probably his first
impression of them and contains at least one glaring contradiction,
duly noted in its place. Then comes a long extract from Sextus
Empiricus which is to all appearance a repetition of the earliest part
of Book IV, only pardonable if it be allowed that the present Book
was delivered in lecture form. There follows a quotation longer and
more sustained than any other in the whole work from a Peratic book
which he says was called _Proastii_, with a bombastic prelude much
resembling the language of Simon Magus’ _Great Announcement_ in Book
VI, followed by a catalogue of starry “influences” which reads much as
if it were taken from some astrological manual. There follows in its
turn a dissertation on the Ophite Serpent showing how this object of
their adoration, identified with the Brazen Serpent of Exodus, was made
to prefigure or typify in the most incongruous manner many personages
in the Old and New Testaments, including Christ Himself. After this he
announces an “epitome” of the Peratic doctrine which turns out to be
perfectly different from anything before said, divides the universe,
which he has previously said the Peratics divided into unbegotten,
self-begotten and begotten, into a new triad of Father, Son (_i. e._
Serpent), and Matter, and gives a fairly consistent statement of the
Peratic scheme of salvation based on this hypothesis. One can only
suppose here that this last is an afterthought added when revising the
book and inspired by some fresh evidence of Peratic beliefs probably
coloured by Stoic or Marcionite doctrine. In those parts of the chapter
which appear to have been taken from genuinely Peratic sources, the
reference to some Western Asiatic tradition concerning cosmogony and
the protoplasts and differing considerably from the narrative of
Genesis, is plainly apparent.]

[Footnote 249: This chapter is the most difficult of the whole book
to account for, with the doubtful exception of the much later one
on the Docetæ. A sect of Sethians is mentioned by Irenæus, who does
not attempt to separate their doctrines from those of the Ophites.
Pseudo-Tertullian in his tractate _Against All Heresies_ also connects
with the Ophites a sect called Sethites or Sethoites, the main dogma he
attributes to them being an attempt to identify Christ with the Seth
of Genesis. Epiphanius follows this last author in this identification
and calls them Sethians, but does not expressly connect them with
the Ophites, makes them an Egyptian sect, and does not attribute to
them serpent-worship. The sectaries of this chapter are called in the
rubric Sithiani, altered to Sēthiani in the Summary of Book X, and
the name is not necessarily connected with that of the Patriarch. In
the Bruce Papyrus, a Power, good but subordinate to the Supreme God,
is mentioned, called “the Sitheus,” which may possibly, by analogy
with the late-Egyptian Si-Osiris and Si-Ammon, be construed “Son of
God.” Of their doctrines little can be made from Hippolytus’ brief but
confused description. Their division of the cosmos into three parts
does not seem to differ much from that of the Peratæ, although they
make a sharper distinction than this last between the world of light
and that of darkness, which has led Salmon (_D.C.B._ s.v., Ophites) to
conjecture for them a Zoroastrian origin. This is unlikely, and more
attention is due to Hippolytus’ own statement that they derived their
doctrines from Musæus, Linus, and Orpheus. In _Forerunners_ it is
sought to show that the Orphic teaching was one of the foundations on
which the fabric of Gnosticism was reared, and the image of the earth
as a matrix was certainly familiar to the Greeks, who made Delphi its
ὀμφαλός or navel. Hence the imagery of the text, offensive as it is
to our ideas, would not have been so to them, and Epiphanius (_Hær._,
XXXVIII, p. 510, Oehl.) knew of several writings, κατὰ τῆς Ὑστέρας, or
the Womb, which he says the sister sect of Cainites called the maker
of heaven and earth. In this case, we need not take the story in the
text about the generation by the bad or good serpent as necessarily
referring to the Incarnation. One of the scenes in the Mysteries of
Attis-Sabazius, and perhaps of those of Eleusis also, seems to have
shown the seduction by Zeus in serpent-form of his virgin daughter
Persephone and the birth therefrom of the Saviour Dionysos who was but
his father re-born. This story of the fecundation of the earth-goddess
by a higher power in serpent shape seems to have been present in all
the religions of Western Asia, and was therefore extremely likely to be
caught hold of by an early form of Gnosticism. In no other respect does
this so-called “Sethian” heresy seem to have anything in common with
Christianity, and it may therefore represent a pre-Christian form of
Ophitism. The serpent in it is, perhaps, neither bad nor good.]

[Footnote 250: τούτοις δοκεῖ, “it seems to them.”]

[Footnote 251: Cruice and Macmahon both translate this “into the same
nature with the spirit.”]

[Footnote 252: This anxiety of the higher powers to redeem from matter
darkness or chaos, the scintilla of their own being which has slipped
into it, is the theme of all Gnosticism from the Ophites to the _Pistis
Sophia_ and the Manichæan writings. See _Forerunners_, II, _passim_.]

[Footnote 253: Or “the substances brought up to the sealer.”]

[Footnote 254: ἰδέαι. And so throughout.]

[Footnote 255: Schneidewin, Cruice, and Macmahon would here and
elsewhere read ὁ φαλλὸς. But see the next sentence about pregnancy.]

[Footnote 256: ἐξετύπωσεν, “struck off.”]

[Footnote 257: πρωτόγονος. The others were “unbegotten” like the
highest world of the Peratæ and Naassenes.]

[Footnote 258: εἴδεσιν.]

[Footnote 259: Is this Ps. xxix. 3, 10 already quoted by the Naassene
author? Cf. p. 133 _supra_.]

[Footnote 260: This idea of a divine son superior to his father is
common to the whole Orphic cosmogony and leads to the dethroning of
Uranus by Kronos, Kronos by Zeus and finally of Zeus by Dionysos. It is
met with again in Basilides (see Book VII _infra_).]

[Footnote 261: A lacuna here which Cruice thus fills.]

[Footnote 262: This has not been previously described. Is the narrative
of the Fall alluded to?]

[Footnote 263: Cruice and Macmahon would translate “any other than
man’s.”]

[Footnote 264: Phil. ii. 7. The only quotation from the N.T. other than
that from Matt. used by the Sethians, if it be not, as I believe it is,
the interpolation of Hippolytus.]

[Footnote 265: ἀπελούσατο. Yet it may refer to baptism which preceded
initiation in nearly all the secret rites of the Pagan gods. Cf.
_Forerunners_, 1, c. 2.]

[Footnote 266: The whole of this paragraph reads like an interpolation,
or rather as something which had got out of its place. The statement
about the physicists is directly at variance with the opening of the
next which attributes the Sethian teaching to the Orphics. The triads
he quotes are all of three “good” powers and therefore would belong
much more appropriately to the system of the Peratæ. The quotation from
Deut. iv. 11, he attributes to several other heresiarchs.]

[Footnote 267: The codex has ὀμφαλός for ὁ φαλλὸς which is
Schneidewin’s emendation. No book attributed to Orpheus called
“Bacchica” has come down to us, but the Rape of Persephone was a
favourite theme with Orphic poets. Cf. Abel’s _Orphica_, pp. 209-219.]

[Footnote 268: This is not improbable; but Hippolytus gives us no
evidence that this is the case, as Plutarch, from whom he quotes,
certainly did not connect the frescoes of Phlium in the Peloponnesus
(not Attica as he says) with the Sethians, nor does the light in their
story _desire_ the water.]

[Footnote 269: This too is a stock quotation which has already done
duty for the Naassene author. Cf. p. 131 _supra_.]

[Footnote 270: So has this with the “Peratic.” Cf. p. 154 _supra_.]

[Footnote 271: κράσις ... μίξις.]

[Footnote 272: καταμεμῖχθαι λεπτῶς.]

[Footnote 273: τέχνη.]

[Footnote 274: Matt. x. 34.]

[Footnote 275: This again seems to be Hippolytus’ own repetition of a
simile which he met with in the Naassene author and which so pleased
him that he made use of it in his account of the Peratic heresy as well
as here. Cf. pp. 144 and 159 _supra_.]

[Footnote 276: ἅλας πηγνύμενον.]

[Footnote 277: Herodotus VI, 20, mentions the City of Ampe, but says
nothing there about the well which is described in c. 119 as at
Ardericca in Cissia.]

[Footnote 278: The title of the book is given in the text as Παράφρασις
Σήθ, which is a well-nigh impossible phrase.]

[Footnote 279: On the whole it may be said that this is the most
suspect of all the chapters in the _Philosophumena_, and that, if ever
Hippolytus was deceived into purchasing forged documents according to
Salmon and Stähelin’s theory, one of them appears here. Much of it
is mere verbiage as when, after having identified Mind or Nous with
the fragrance of the spirit, he again explains that it is a ray of
light sent from the perfect light, or when he explains the difference
between the three different kinds of law. The quotations too are
seldom new, nearly all of them appearing in other chapters and are,
if it were possible, more than usually inapposite, while almost the
only new one is inaccurate. The sentence about the Paraphrase (of)
Seth, if that is the actual title of the book, does not suggest that
Hippolytus is quoting from that work, nor does the phrase, “he says,”
occur with anything like the frequency of its use in _e. g._, the
Naassene chapter. On the whole, then, it seems probable that in this
Hippolytus was not copying or extracting from any written document,
but was writing down, to the best of his recollection the statements
of some convert who professed to be able to reveal its teaching. It is
significant in this respect that when the summary in Book X had to be
made, the summarizer makes no attempt to abbreviate the statement of
the supposed tenets of the Sethians, but merely copies out the part of
the chapter in which they are described, entirely omitting the stories
of the frescoed porch at Phlium and the oil-well at Ampa.]

[Footnote 280: Nothing is known of this Justinus, whose name is not
mentioned by any other patristic writer, and there is no sure means of
fixing his date. Macmahon, relying apparently on the last sentence of
the chapter, would make him a predecessor of Simon Magus, and therefore
contemporary with the Apostles’ first preaching. This is extremely
unlikely, and Salmon on the other hand (_D.C.B._, s.v., “Justinus the
Gnostic”) considers his heresy should be referred to “the latest stage
of Gnosticism” which, if taken literally, would make it long posterior
to Hippolytus. The source of his doctrine is equally obscure; for
although Hippolytus classes him with the Ophites, the serpent in his
system is certainly not good and plays as hostile a part towards man
as the serpent of Genesis, while his supreme Triad of the Good Being,
an intermediate power ignorant of the existence of his superior, and
the Earth, differs in all essential respects from the Ophite Trinity
of the First and Second Man and First Woman. Yet the names of the
world-creating angels and devils here given, bear a singular likeness
to those which Theodore bar Khôni in his _Book of Scholia_ attributes
to the Ophites and also to those mentioned by Origen as appearing on
the Ophite Diagram. On the other hand, there are many likenesses not
only of ideas but of language between the system of Justinus and that
of Marcion, who also taught the existence of a Supreme and Benevolent
God and of a lower one, harsh, but just, who was the unwitting author
of the evil which is in the world. This, indeed, leaves out of the
account the third or female power; but an Armenian account of Marcion’s
doctrines attributes to him belief in a female power also, called
Hyle or Matter and the spouse of the Just God of the Law, with whom
her relations are pretty much as described in the text. Justinus,
however, was not like Marcion a believing Christian; for he makes his
Saviour the son of Joseph and Mary and the mere mouthpiece of the
subaltern angel Baruch, while his account of the Crucifixion differs
materially from that of Marcion. The obscene stories he tells about the
protoplasts also appear in much later Manichæan documents and seem to
be drawn from the Babylonian tradition of which the loves of the angels
in the Book of Enoch are probably also a survival. It is therefore not
improbable that Justinus, the Book of Enoch, the Ophites, and perhaps
Marcion, alike derived their tenets on these points from heathen myths
of the marriage of Heaven and Earth, which may possibly be traced back
to early Babylonian theories of cosmogony. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, cc. 8
and 11, _passim_.]

[Footnote 281: Hippolytus, like the Gnostic writers, seems to know of
an oral as well as a written tradition from the Evangelists.]

[Footnote 282: Matt. x. 5. In the A.V. as here, τὰ ἔθνη, “the nations.”]

[Footnote 283: πρότερον διδάξας or “at first teaches.”]

[Footnote 284: ψυχαγωγίας χάριν. The reader must again be reminded that
while the ψυχή of the Greeks was what we should call “mind,” the πνεῦμα
is spirit, answering more to our word “soul.”]

[Footnote 285: παραμύθιον, a play upon μύθος.]

[Footnote 286: 1 Cor. ii. 9.]

[Footnote 287: Lit., “guarded the secrets of silence.”]

[Footnote 288: Ps. cx. 4.]

[Footnote 289: “The Blessed.”]

[Footnote 290: παραπλάσει, “given it another form.” As a fact,
Justinus’ quotation from Herodotus is singularly accurate, save as
afterwards noted.]

[Footnote 291: Herodotus, IV, 8-10.]

[Footnote 292: An island near Cadiz. The codex has Ἐρυθρᾶς, “the Red
Sea.”]

[Footnote 293: In Herodotus it is mares and a chariot.]

[Footnote 294: μιξοπάρθενος. A neologism.]

[Footnote 295: In Herodotus the prophecy is given by the girl.]

[Footnote 296: To explain the origin of the Scythian nation.]

[Footnote 297: Or perhaps, as above, “the things of the universe.”]

[Footnote 298: Supplied from the summary in Book X. So the _Pistis
Sophia_ has a Power never otherwise described but not benevolent who is
called “the great unseen Forefather,” and seems to rule over material
things.]

[Footnote 299: There is nothing to show that Hippolytus or Justinus
knew this to be a plural.]

[Footnote 300: Seven names are missing from the text. Of the five
given, Michael, Amen and Gabriel are given in the chapter on the
Ophites in Theodore bar Khôni’s _Book of Scholia_ as the first angels
created by God, the name of Baruch being replaced by that of “the
great Yah.” “Esaddæus” is probably El Shaddai, who is said in the same
book to be the angel sent to give the Law to the Jews and to have
treacherously persuaded them to worship himself.]

[Footnote 301: Of these twelve names, Babel is written in bar Khôni
as Babylon and said to be masculo-feminine, Achamoth is the Hebrew
חכמת, Chochmah, Sophia, or Wisdom whom most Gnostics called the Mother
of Life, Naas is the Serpent as is explained in the chapter on the
Naassenes, Bel, Baal or the Chaldæan Bel, for Belias we should probably
read Beliar, the devil of works like the _Ascensio Isaiae_, Kavithan
should probably be Leviathan, Adonaios is the Hebrew Adonai, or the
Lord, while Sael, Karkamenos and Lathen cannot be identified. Pharaoh
and “Samiel,” a homonym of Satan, appear in bar Khôni’s list of angels
who rule one or other of the ten heavens, and Adonaios and Leviathan in
the Ophite Diagram described by Celsus. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, pp. 70
ff.]

[Footnote 302: Gen. ii. 8.]

[Footnote 303: So a Chinese Manichæan treatise lately discovered (see
_Forerunners_, II, p. 352) speaks of demons inhabiting the soul as
“trees.”]

[Footnote 304: ξύλον τοῦ εἰδέναι γνῶσιν κ.τ.λ., “the Tree _of seeing_
Knowledge,” etc.]

[Footnote 305: The context shows that it is the unity, etc., of Elohim
and Edem that is referred to.]

[Footnote 306: Cf. n. on p. 177 _supra_.]

[Footnote 307: Gen. i. 28.]

[Footnote 308: Macmahon, “viceregal”; but the “satrap” shows from which
country the story comes.]

[Footnote 309: Thus the Armenian version of Marcion’s theology (for
which see _Forerunners_, II, p. 217, n. 2) makes the “God of the Law’s”
withdrawal from Hyle or Matter, and his retirement to a higher heaven,
the cause of all man’s woes.]

[Footnote 310: Cf. Ps. cxvii. 19, 20; but the likeness is not exact.]

[Footnote 311: Ps. cx. 1.]

[Footnote 312: Lit., “until she wishes it not.”]

[Footnote 313: “Serpent.” See n. on p. 173 _supra_.]

[Footnote 314: Gen. ii. 16, 17.]

[Footnote 315: That these stories about the protoplasts endured into
Manichæan times, see M. Cumont’s _La Cosmogonie Manichéenne_, Appendix
I.]

[Footnote 316: Here again a power is referred to by its number instead
of its name, as with the Naassene author.]

[Footnote 317: Gal. v. 17.]

[Footnote 318: τὴν πλάσιν τὴν πονηράν, _malam fictionem_, Cr. Yet we
have been told nothing of any deceit by Edem towards her partner.]

[Footnote 319: The Ophite Diagram, and bar Khôni’s authority both
figure the powers hostile to man as taking the shapes of these animals.]

[Footnote 320: So one of the latest documents of the _Pistis Sophia_
calls the planet Aphrodite by a _place_-name, which in that case is
Bubastis.]

[Footnote 321: προφητεία.]

[Footnote 322: If these words are to be taken literally, Justinus
was the only heretic of early date who denied His divinity, and this
would distinguish him finally from Marcion. But the words are not
inconsistent with the Adoptionist view.]

[Footnote 323: These words are Miller’s suggestion.]

[Footnote 324: John xix. 26.]

[Footnote 325: παραθέμενος. So Luke xxiii. 46.]

[Footnote 326: ἐπριοποίησε. The derivation is absurd and the word if
it had any meaning would be something like “made like a saw.” προποιέω
would make the pun at which he seems to have been striving.]

[Footnote 327: This was not the case, the statues of Priapus being
placed in gardens. The whole passage seems to have been interpolated by
some one ignorant of Greek and of Greek customs or mythology.]

[Footnote 328: Isa. i. 2.]

[Footnote 329: τελεῖσθας or “initiated.” In any case a mystical word.]

[Footnote 330: Lit., “washed”; but the context shows that it is baptism
which is in question. It played an important part not only in all these
heretical sects but in heathen “mysteries” like those of Isis and
Mithras.]

[Footnote 331: Hosea i. 2. The A.V. has “_departing_ from the Lord.”
Here we have Edem clearly identified with the Earth goddess which is
the key to the whole of Justinus’ story.]

[Footnote 332: ταῖς ἑξῆς ... τὰς τῶν ἀκολούθων αἱρέσεων. Macmahon,
following Cruice, translates as above. It may well be, however, that
the “heresies which follow” only mean which follow in the book.]

[Footnote 333: There is no reason to doubt Hippolytus’ assertion that
this chapter is compiled from a book called _Baruch_ in which Justinus
set forth his own doctrines. The narrative therein is, unlike that of
the earlier chapters, perfectly coherent and plain, and the author’s
use of the historical present gives it a dramatic form which is lacking
from the _oratio obliqua_ formerly employed. Solecisms like the
omission of the article are also rare, and the very long sentences in
which Hippolytus seems to have delighted do not appear except in those
passages where he is speaking in his own person. Whether from this or
from some other cause, moreover, the transcription of it seems to have
given less difficulty to the scribe Michael than some of the other
chapters, and there is therefore far less need to constantly restore
the text as in the case of the quotations from Sextus Empiricus. On the
whole, therefore, we may assume that, as we have it, it is a genuine
summary of Justinus’ doctrines taken from a work by his own hand.]




                             PUBLICATIONS

                                OF THE

                              S. P. C. K.

                               BOOKS FOR
                               STUDENTS
                                  AND
                                OTHERS

                         SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING
                          CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE

        LONDON: _Central Offices_: 6 ST. MARTIN’S PLACE, W.C. 2
                _Book Shops_: 64 NEW BOND STREET, W. 1
                   43 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, E.C. 4

         BRIGHTON: 129 NORTH STREET.       BATH: 39 GAY STREET

                       _And of all Booksellers._

                   _New York_: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY




                          BOOKS FOR STUDENTS


                   _Translations of Early Documents_

 A Series of texts important for the study of Christian origins. Under
 the Joint Editorship of the Rev. W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D., and the
 Rev. Canon G. H. BOX, M.A.

 _The object of this Series is to provide short, cheap, and handy
 textbooks for students, either working by themselves or in classes.
 The aim is to furnish in translations important texts unencumbered by
 commentary or elaborate notes, which can be had in larger works._


                     EXTRACTS FROM PRESS NOTICES.

=The Times Literary Supplement= says: “These Jewish Apocalypses have a
direct relation to the thought and religious ideals which confronted
primitive Christianity in Palestine, and not only for their own sakes,
but for their influence on the New Testament and Apostolic Christianity
they deserve careful attention. Handbooks at once so scholarly and so
readable will be welcomed by all interested in Christian origins.”

=The Church Quarterly Review= says: “To the theological student who is
anxious to know something of the circumstances and thought of the time
during which Christianity grew up, and of the Jewish environment of the
teaching of our Lord and the Apostles, there is no class of books more
valuable than the later Jewish Apocrypha.”

=The Church Times= says: “The names of the Editors are a guarantee of
trustworthy and expert scholarship, and their work has been admirably
performed.”

=The Tablet= says: “A valuable series ... well brought out and should
prove useful to students.”

=Catholic Book Notes= says: “The S.P.C.K. is to be congratulated on its
various series of cheap and useful books for students.”

=The Journal of the Society of Oriental Research (U.S.A.)= says: “The
S.P.C.K. have again made the whole body of students, interested in
things Jewish and Early Christian, their debtors ... their splendid
work in this series.”

=The Living Church (U.S.A.)= says: “To praise this project too highly
is an impossibility. Everyone has felt the need of such a series of
handy and inexpensive translations of these documents and ... we are
assured of excellent results.”


                   _Translations of Early Documents_


   FIRST SERIES--Palestinian-Jewish and Cognate Texts (Pre-Rabbinic)


1. Jewish Documents of the Time of Ezra

 Translated from the Aramaic by A. E. COWLEY, Litt.D., Sub-Librarian of
 the Bodleian Library, Oxford. 4_s._ 6_d._ net.


2. The Wisdom of Ben-Sira (Ecclesiasticus)

 By the Rev. W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D., Vicar of St. Alban’s, Bedford
 Park, W.; Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of London. 3_s._ 6_d._ net.


3. The Book of Enoch

 By the Rev. R. H. CHARLES, D.D., Canon of Westminster. 3_s._ 6_d._ net.


4. The Book of Jubilees

 By the Rev. Canon CHARLES. 4_s._ 6_d._ net.


5. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

 By the Rev. Canon CHARLES. 3_s._ 6_d._ net.


6. The Odes and Psalms of Solomon

 By the Rev. G. H. BOX, M.A., Rector of Sutton, Beds., Hon. Canon of
 St. Albans.


7. The Ascension of Isaiah

 By the Rev. Canon CHARLES. Together with No. 10 in one volume. 4_s._
 6_d._ net.


8. The Apocalypse of Ezra (ii. Esdras)

 By the Rev. Canon BOX. 3_s._ 6_d._ net.


9. The Apocalypse of Baruch

 By the Rev. Canon CHARLES. Together with No. 12 in one volume. 3_s._
 6_d._ net.


10. The Apocalypse of Abraham

 By the Rev. Canon BOX. Together with No. 7 in one volume. 4_s._ 6_d._
 net.


11. The Testaments of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob

 By the Rev. Canon BOX and S. GASELEE.


12. The Assumption of Moses

 By Rev. W. J. FERRAR, M.A., Vicar of Holy Trinity, East Finchley. With
 No. 9 in one volume. 3_s._ 6_d._ net.


13. The Biblical Antiquities of Philo

 By M. R. JAMES, Litt.D., F.B.A., Hon. Litt.D., Dublin, Hon. LL.D., St.
 Andrews, Provost of King’s College, Cambridge. 8_s._ 6_d._ net.


14. The Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament

 By M. R. JAMES, Litt.D. 5_s._ 6_d._ net.


                SECOND SERIES--Hellenistic-Jewish Texts


1. The Wisdom of Solomon

 By W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D. 3_s._ 6_d._ net.


2. The Sibylline Oracles (Books iii-v)

 By the Rev. H. N. BATE, M.A., Vicar of Christ Church, Lancaster Gate,
 W.; Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of London. 3_s._ 6_d._ net.


3. The Letter of Aristeas

 By H. ST. JOHN THACKERAY, M.A., King’s College, Cambridge. 3_s._ 6_d._
 net.


4. Selections from Philo


5. Selections from Josephus

 By H. ST. J. THACKERAY, M.A. 5_s._ net.


6. The Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees

 By the Rev. C. W. EMMET, B.D., Vicar of West Hendred, Berks. 3_s._
 6_d._ net.


7. The Book of Joseph and Asenath

 Translated from the Greek text by E. W. BROOKS. 3_s._ 6_d._ net.


     THIRD SERIES--Palestinian-Jewish and Cognate Texts (Rabbinic)

 [1]=1. The Sayings of the Jewish Fathers (Pirke Aboth).= Translated
 from the Hebrew by W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D. 5_s._ net.

 [1]=2. Berakhoth.= By the Rev. A. LUKYN WILLIAMS, D.D.

 [1]=3. Yoma.= By the Rev. Canon BOX.

 [1]=4. Shabbath.= By W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D.

 [1]=5. Tractate Sanhedrin. Mishnah and Tosefta.= The Judicial
 procedure of the Jews as codified towards the end of the second
 century A.D. Translated from the Hebrew, with brief Annotations, by
 the Rev. HERBERT DANBY, M.A., Sub-Warden of St. Deiniol’s Library,
 Hawarden. 6_s._ net.

 [The special importance of this consists in the light thrown by it on
 the trial of our Lord.]

 [1]=6. Kimhi’s Commentary on the Psalms (Book I, Selections).= By the
 Rev. R. G. FINCH, B.D. 7_s._ 6_d._ net.

 =7. Tamid=

 =8. Aboda Zara=

 =9. Middoth=

 =10. Sopherim=

 =11. Megilla=

 =12. Sukka=

 =13. Taanith=

 =14. Megillath Taanith=


               Jewish Literature and Christian Origins:

 =Vol.  I. The Apocalyptic Literature.=

 =Vol. II. A Short Survey of the Literature of Rabbinical and Mediæval
 Judaism.=

 By W. O. E. OESTERLEY, M.A., D.D., and G. H. BOX, M.A., D.D. 12_s._
 6_d._ net.


                     The Uncanonical Jewish Books

 A Short Introduction to the Apocrypha and the Jewish Writings 200
 B.C.-A.D. 100. By WILLIAM JOHN FERRAR, M.A., Vicar of East Finchley.
 3_s._ 6_d._ net.

 A popularisation of the work of specialists upon these books, which
 have attracted so much attention.




                _Translations of Christian Literature_

                           General Editors:

        W. J. SPARROW SIMPSON, D.D.; W. K. LOWTHER CLARKE, B.D.

A number of translations from the Fathers have already been published
by the S.P.C.K, under the title “Early Church Classics.” It is now
proposed to enlarge this series to include texts which are neither
“early” nor necessarily “classics.” The divisions at present proposed
are given below. Volumes belonging to the original series are marked
with an asterisk.

 =The Month= says: “The cheap and useful series.”

 =The Church Times= says: “The splendid series.”

 =Studies= says: “For the intelligent student of Church history who
 cannot afford to be a specialist ... such books abound in information
 and suggestion.”


                        SERIES I.--GREEK TEXTS.

 =Dionysius the Areopagite: The Divine Names and the Mystical
 Theology.= By C. E. ROLT. 7_s._ 6_d._ net.

 =The Library of Photius.= By J. H. FREESE, M.A. In 6 Vols. Vol. I.
 10_s._ net.

 =The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes.= By T. W. CRAFER, D.D. 7_s._
 6_d._ net.

 [1]=The Epistle of St. Clement, Bishop of Rome.= By the Rt. Rev. J. A.
 F. GREGG, D.D. 1_s._ 9_d._ net.

 [1]=Clement of Alexandria: Who is the Rich Man that is being saved?=
 By P. M. BARNARD, B.D. 1_s._ 9_d._ net.

 [1]=St. Chrysostom: On the Priesthood.= By T. A. MOXON. 2_s._ 6_d._
 net.

 =The Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles.= By C. BIGG, D.D. Revised by the
 Right Rev. A. J. MACLEAN, D.D.

 [1]=The Epistle to Diognetus.= By the Rt. Rev. L. B. RADFORD, D.D.
 2_s._ 6_d._ net.

 =St. Dionysius of Alexandria.= By C. L. FELTOE, D.D. 4_s._ net.

 [1]=The Epistle of the Gallican Churches: Lugdunum and Vienna.= With
 an Appendix containing Tertullian’s Address to Martyrs and the Passion
 of St. Perpetua. By T. H. BINDLEY, D.D. 1_s._ 9_d._ net.

 [1]=St. Gregory of Nyssa: The Catechetical Oration.= By the Ven. J. H.
 SRAWLEY, D.D. 2_s._ 6_d._ net.

 [1]=St. Gregory of Nyssa: The Life of St. Macrina.= By W. K. LOWTHER
 CLARKE, B.D. 1_s._ 9_d._ net.

 =Gregory Thaumaturgus (Origen the Teacher): the Address of Gregory to
 Origen, with Origen’s Letter to Gregory.= By W. METCALFE, B.D. 3_s._
 6_d._ net. _Re-issue._

 [1]=The Shepherd of Hermas.= By C. TAYLOR, D.D. 2 vols. 2_s._ 6_d._
 each net.

 =Eusebius: The Proof of the Gospel.= By W. J. FERRAR, 2 vols.

 =Hippolytus: Philosophumena.= By F. LEGGE. 2 vols.

 =The Epistles of St. Ignatius.= By the Ven. J. H. SRAWLEY, D.D. 4_s._
 net.

 [1]=St. Irenaeus: Against the Heresies.= By F. R. M. HITCHCOCK, D.D. 2
 vols. 2_s._ 6_d._ each net.

 =Palladius: The Lausiac History.= By W. K. LOWTHER CLARKE, B.D. 5_s._
 net.

 =Palladius: The Life of St. Chrysostom.= By H. MOORE.

 [1]=St. Polycarp.= By B. JACKSON. 1_s._ 9_d._ net.

 =St. Macarius: Fifty Spiritual Homilies.= By A. J. MASON, D.D.


                       SERIES II.--LATIN TEXTS.

 =Tertullian’s Treatises concerning Prayer, concerning Baptism.= By A.
 SOUTER, D.Litt. 3_s._ net.

 =Tertullian against Praxeas.= By A. SOUTER, D.Litt. 5_s._ net.

 =Tertullian concerning the Resurrection of the Flesh.= By A. SOUTER,
 D.Litt.

 =Novatian on the Trinity.= By H. MOORE. 6_s._ net.

 [1]=St. Augustine: The City of God.= By F. R. M. HITCHCOCK, D.D. 2_s._
 net.

 [1]=St. Cyprian: The Lord’s Prayer.= By T. H. BINDLEY, D.D. 2_s._ net.

 =Minucius Felix: The Octavius.= By J. H. FREESE. 3_s._ 6_d._ net.

 [1]=Tertullian: On the Testimony of the Soul and On the Prescription
 of Heretics.= By T. H. BINDLEY, D.D. 2_s._ 6_d._ net.

 [1]=St. Vincent of Lerins: The Commonitory.= By T. H. BINDLEY, D.D.
 2_s._ 6_d._ net.

 =St. Bernard: Concerning Grace and Free Will.= By W. WATKIN WILLIAMS.

 =The Life of Otto: Apostle of Pomerania, 1060-1139.= By CHARLES H.
 ROBINSON, D.D.


                    SERIES III.--LITURGICAL TEXTS.

                     EDITED BY C. L. FELTOE, D.D.

 =St. Ambrose: On the Mysteries and on the Sacraments.= By T. THOMPSON,
 B.D., and J. H. SRAWLEY, D.D. 4_s._ 6_d._ net.

 [1]=The Apostolic Constitution and Cognate Documents, with special
 reference to their Liturgical elements.= By DE LACY O’LEARY, D.D.
 1_s._ 9_d._ net.

 [1]=The Liturgy of the Eighth Book of the Apostolic Constitution,
 commonly called the Clementine Liturgy.= By R. H. CRESSWELL. 2_s._ net.

 =The Pilgrimage of Etheria.= By M. L. MCCLURE. 6_s._ net.

 [1]=Bishop Sarapion’s Prayer-Book.= By the Rt. Rev. J. WORDSWORTH,
 D.D. 2_s._ net.

  =The Swedish Rite.= Vol. I., by E. E. YELVERTON.
                      Vol. II., by J. H. SWINSTEAD, D.D.


                      SERIES IV.--ORIENTAL TEXTS.

 =The Ethiopic Didascalia.= By J. M. HARDEN, B.D. 9_s._ net.

 =The Apostolic Preaching of Irenaeus (Armenian).= By J. A. ROBINSON,
 D.D. 7_s._ 6_d._ net.


                SERIES V.--LIVES OF THE CELTIC SAINTS.

                        EDITED BY ELEANOR HULL.

 =St. Malachy of Armagh (St. Bernard).= By H. J. LAWLOR, D.D. 12_s._
 net.

 =St. Ciaran of Clonmacnois.= By R. A. S. MACALISTER.

 =St. Patrick: Life and Works.= By N. J. D. WHITE, D.D. 6_s._ 6_d._ net.


                     SERIES VI.--SELECT PASSAGES.

 =Documents Illustrative of the History of the Church.= Vol. I. To A.D.
 313. Edited by B. J. KIDD, D.D. 7_s._ 6_d._ net.


                SERIES VII.--MODERN EUROPEAN LANGUAGES.

 =Lives of the Serbian Saints.= By VOYESLAV YANICH, DD., and C. P.
 HANKEY, M.A.


                  _Handbooks of Christian Literature_

 =The Letters of St. Augustine.= By the Rev. Canon W. J. SPARROW
 SIMPSON, D.D. Cloth boards, 10_s._ net.

 =The Early Christian Books. A Short Introduction to Christian
 Literature to the Middle of the Second Century.= By W. JOHN FERRAR,
 M.A., Vicar of East Finchley. Cloth boards, 3_s._ 6_d._ net.

 =The Inspiration and Authority of Holy Scripture. A Study in the
 Literature of the First Five Centuries.= By GEORGE DUNCAN BARRY, B.D.
 Cloth boards, 4_s._ 6_d._ net.

 =The Eucharistic Office of the Book of Common Prayer.= By the Rev.
 LESLIE WRIGHT, M.A., B.D. Cloth boards, 3_s._ 6_d._ net.


                    _Helps for Students of History_

Edited by C. JOHNSON, M.A., H. W. V. TEMPERLEY, M.A. and J. P. WHITNEY,
D.D., D.C.L.

 1. =Episcopal Registers of England and Wales.= By R. C. FOWLER, B.A.,
 F.S.A. 6_d._ net.

 2. =Municipal Records.= By F. J. C. HEARNSHAW, M.A. 6_d._ net.

 3. =Medieval Reckonings of Time.= By REGINALD L. POOLE, LL.D., Litt.D.
 6_d._ net.

 4. =The Public Record Office.= By C. JOHNSON, M.A. 6_d._ net.

 5. =The Care of Documents.= By C. JOHNSON, M.A. 6_d._ net.

 6. =The Logic of History.= By C. G. CRUMP. 8_d._ net.

 7. =Documents in the Public Record Office, Dublin.= By R. H. MURRAY,
 Litt.D. 8_d._ net.

 8. =The French Wars of Religion.= By ARTHUR A. TILLEY, M.A. 6_d._ net.


By Sir A. W. WARD, Litt.D., F.B.A.

 9. =The Period of Congresses--I. Introductory.= 8_d._ net.

 10. =The Period of Congresses--II. Vienna and the Second Peace of
 Paris.= 1_s._ net.

 11. =The Period of Congresses--III. Aix-la-Chapelle to Verona.= 1_s._
 net.

 Nos. 9, 10, and 11 in one volume, cloth, 3_s._ 6_d._ net.

 12. =Securities of Peace: A Retrospect (1848-1914).= Paper, 2_s._ net;
 cloth, 3_s._ net.

       *       *       *       *       *

 13. =The French Renaissance.= By A. A. TILLEY, M.A. 8_d._ net.

 14. =Hints on the Study of English Economic History.= By W. CUNNINGHAM,
 D.D., F.B.A., F.S.A. 8_d._ net.

 15. =Parish History and Records.= By A. HAMILTON THOMPSON, M.A., F.S.A.
 8_d._ net.

 16. =A Short Introduction to the Study of Colonial History.= By A. P.
 NEWTON, M.A., D.Litt. 6_d._ net.

 17. =The Wanderings and Homes of Manuscripts.= By M. R. JAMES, Litt.D.,
 F.B.A. Paper, 2_s._; cloth, 3_s._ net.

 18. =Ecclesiastical Records.= By the Rev. CLAUDE JENKINS, M.A.,
 Librarian of Lambeth Palace. 1_s._ 9_d._ net.

 19. =An Introduction to the History of American Diplomacy.= By
 CARL RUSSELL FISH, Ph.D., Professor of American History, Wisconsin
 University. 1_s._ net.

 20. =Hints on Translation from Latin into English.= By ALEXANDER
 SOUTER, D.Litt. 6_d._ net.

 21. =Hints on the Study of Latin (A.D. 125-750).= By ALEXANDER SOUTER,
 D.Litt. 8_d._ net.

 22. =Report of the Historical MSS. Commission.= By R. A. ROBERTS,
 F.R.Hist.S. 2_s._ 6_d._ net.

 23. =A Guide to Franciscan Studies.= By A. G. LITTLE. 1_s._ 6_d._ net.

 24. =A Guide to the History of Education.= By JOHN WILLIAM ADAMSON,
 Professor of Education in the University of London. 8_d._ net.

 25. =Introduction to the Study of Russian History.= By W. F. REDDAWAY.
 6_d._ net.

 26. =Monuments of English Municipal Life.= By W. CUNNINGHAM, D.D.,
 F.B.A. 1_s._ net.

 27. =La Guyenne Pendant la Domination Anglaise, 1152-1453.= Esquisse
 d’une Bibliographie Méthodique par CHARLES BÉMONT. 1_s._ 4_d._ net.

 28. =The Historical Criticism of Documents.= By R. L. MARSHALL, M.A.,
 LL.D. 1_s._ 3_d._ net.

 29. =The French Revolution.= By G. P. GOOCH. 8_d._ net.

 30. =Seals.= By H. S. KINGSFORD. 1_s._ 3_d._ net.

 31. =A Student’s Guide to the Manuscripts of the British Museum.= By
 JULIUS P. GILSON, M.A. 1_s._ net.

 32. =A Short Guide to some Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity
 College, Dublin.= By ROBERT H. MURRAY, Litt.D. 1_s._ 9_d._

 33. =Ireland, 1494-1603.= By R. H. MURRAY, Litt.D. 1_s._

 34. =Ireland, 1603-1714.= By R. H. MURRAY, Litt.D. 1_s._

 35. =Ireland, 1714-1829.= By R. H. MURRAY, Litt.D. 1_s._

 36. =Coins and Medals.= By G. F. HILL, M.A., F.B.A. 1_s._ 6_d._ net.

 37. =The Latin Orient.= By WILLIAM MILLER, M.A. 1_s._ 6_d._ net.

 38. =The Turkish Restoration in Greece, 1718-1797.= By WILLIAM MILLER,
 M.A. 1_s._ 3_d._ net.


                   _The Story of the English Towns_

Popular but Scholarly Histories of English Towns, for the general
reader, but suitable also for use in schools. With Maps, Plans, and
Illustrations. Cloth boards. 4_s._ net.

  =Birmingham.= By J. H. B. MASTERMAN.
  =Harrogate and Knaresborough.= By J. S. FLETCHER.
  =Leeds.= By J. S. FLETCHER.
  =Nottingham.= By E. L. GUILFORD, M.A.
  =Peterborough.= By K. and R. E. ROBERTS.
  =Plymouth.= By A. L. SALMON.
  =Pontefract.= By J. S. FLETCHER.
  =St. Albans.= By W. PAGE, F.S.A.
  =Sheffield.= By J. S. FLETCHER.
  =Westminster.= By H. F. WESTLAKE, M.A., F.S.A.

                           _In the Press_--

  =The City of London.= By P. H. DITCHFIELD.
  =Bath=      =Halifax=      =Hastings=, =etc.=


                      _Studies in Church History_

 =Some Eighteenth-Century Churchmen: Glimpses of English Church Life
 in the Eighteenth Century.= By G. LACEY MAY, M.A. With several
 Illustrations. Cloth boards. 9_s._ net.

 =Christian Monasticism in Egypt to the Close of the Fourth Century.=
 By W. H. MACKEAN, D.D. Cloth boards. 8_s._ net.

 =The Venerable Bede. His Life and Writings.= By the Right Rev. G. F.
 BROWNE, D.D. With Illustrations. Cloth boards, 10_s._ net.

 =The Reformation in Ireland. A Study of Ecclesiastical Legislation.=
 By HENRY HOLLOWAY, M.A., B.D. Cloth boards, 7_s._ 6_d._ net.

 =The Emperor Julian. An Essay on His Relations with the Christian
 Religion.= By EDWARD J. MARTIN, B.D. Cloth boards, 3_s._ 6_d._ net.

 =The Importance of Women in Anglo-Saxon Times; The Cultus of St. Peter
 and St. Paul, and other Addresses.= By the Right Rev. G. F. BROWNE,
 D.D. With two Illustrations. Cloth boards, 7_s._ 6_d._ net.

 =Essays Liturgical and Historical.= By J. WICKHAM LEGG, D.Litt.,
 F.S.A. Cloth boards, 5_s._ net.

 =French Catholics in the Nineteenth Century.= By the Rev. W. J.
 SPARROW SIMPSON, D.D. Cloth, 5_s._ net.

 =An Abbot of Vézelay.= By ROSE GRAHAM, F.R.Hist.S. With eight
 Illustrations. Cloth boards, 3_s._ 6_d._ net.


                         _Texts for Students_

General Editors: CAROLINE A. J. SKEEL, D.Lit.; H. J. WHITE, D.D.; J. P.
WHITNEY, D.D., D.C.L.

 1. =Select Passages from Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio Cassius=,
 illustrative of Christianity in the First Century. Arranged by H. J.
 WHITE, D.D. 3_d._ net.

 2. =Selections from Matthew Paris.= By C. A. J. SKEEL, D.Lit. Paper
 cover, 9_d._ net.

 3. =Selections from Giraldus Cambrensis.= By C. A. J. SKEEL, D.Lit.
 Paper cover, 9_d._ net.

 4. =Libri Sancti Patricii.= The Latin Writings of St. Patrick, etc.
 Edited by NEWPORT J. D. WHITE, D.D. Paper cover, 6_d._ net.

 5. =A Translation of the Latin Writings of St. Patrick.= By NEWPORT J.
 D. WHITE, D.D. Paper cover, 6_d._ net.

 6. =Selections from the Vulgate.= Paper cover, 9_d._ net.

 7. =The Epistle of St. Clement of Rome.= 6_d._ net.

 8. =Select Extracts from Chronicles and Records relating to English
 Towns in the Middle Ages.= Edited, with Introduction, Notes, and
 Glossary, by F. J. C. HEARNSHAW, M.A., LL.D. Paper cover, 9_d._ net.

 9. =The Inscription on the Stele of Méša.= Commonly called the Moabite
 Stone. The text in Moabite and Hebrew, with translation by the Rev. H.
 F. B. COMPSTON, M.A. Paper cover, 6_d._ net.

 10. =The Epistles of St. Ignatius.= Edited by T. W. CRAFER, D.D. 1_s._
 net.

 11. =Christian Inscriptions.= By H. P. V. NUNN, M.A. With two
 Illustrations. 1_s._ net.

 12. =Selections from the “Historia Rerum Anglicarum” of William of
 Newburgh.= 1_s._ 3_d._ net.

 13. =The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.= By T. W. CRAFER, D.D. 4_d._
 net.

 14. =The Epistle of Barnabas.= Edited by T. W. CRAFER, D.D. 6_d._ net.

 15. =The Code of Hammurabi.= By PERCY HANDCOCK, M.A. 1_s._ net.

 16. =Selections from the Tell El-Amarna Letters.= By PERCY HANDCOCK,
 M.A. 4_d._ net.

 17. =Select Passages Illustrating Commercial and Diplomatic Relations
 between England and Russia.= By A. WEINER, M.A., F.R.Hist.S. 1_s._
 6_d._ net.

 18. =The Early History of the Slavonic Settlements in Dalmatia,
 Croatia and Serbia.= By J. B. BURY, F.B.A. 2_s._ net.

 19. =Select Extracts Illustrating Florentine Life in the Thirteenth
 and Fourteenth Centuries.= By E. G. ROPER, B.A. 1_s._ net.

 20. =Select Extracts Illustrating Florentine Life in the Fifteenth
 Century.= By ESTHER G. ROPER, B.A. 1_s._ net.

 21. =Itinerarium Regis Ricardi.= By M. T. STEAD. 1_s._ 9_d._

 22. =The Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.= Edited by T.
 W. CRAFER, D.D. 6_d._ net.

 23. =Select Extracts Illustrating Sports and Pastimes in the Middle
 Ages.= By E. L. GUILFORD, M.A. 1_s._ 9_d._

 24. =Babylonian Flood Stories.= By P. HANDCOCK, M.A.

 25. =Babylonian Penitential Psalms.= By P. HANDCOCK, M.A.

 =Documents Illustrating Irish History in the Sixteenth Century.= 4
 Vols. By CONSTANTIA MAXWELL.


                        _Pioneers of Progress_

MEN OF SCIENCE: Edited by S. CHAPMAN, M.A., D.Sc. Each with a Portrait.
Paper cover, =1s. 3d.=; cloth, =2s.= net.


 =Galileo.= By W. W. BRYANT, F.R.A.S.

 =Michael Faraday.= By J. A. CROWTHER, D.Sc.

 =Alfred Russel Wallace. The Story of a Great Discoverer.= By LANCELOT
 T. HOGBEN, B.A., B.Sc.

 =Joseph Priestley.= By D. H. PEACOCK, B.A., M.Sc., F.I.C.

 =Joseph Dalton Hooker, O.M., G.C.S.I., C.B., F.R.S., M.D., etc.= By
 Professor F. O. BOWER, Sc.D., F.R.S.

 =Herschel.= By the Rev. HECTOR MACPHERSON, M.A., F.R.A.S., F.R.S.E.

 =Archimedes.= By Sir THOMAS L. HEATH, K.C.B., F.R.S.

 =The Copernicus of Antiquity (Aristarchus of Samos).= By Sir THOMAS L.
 HEATH, K.C.B., F.R.S.

 =John Dalton.= By L. J. NEVILLE-POLLEY, B.Sc.

 =Kepler.= By W. W. BRYANT.


                           EMPIRE BUILDERS:

Edited by A. P. NEWTON, M.A., D.Litt., B.Sc., and W. BASIL WORSFOLD,
M.A.

With Portrait. 7¼ × 5. Paper cover, 1_s._ 3_d._; cloth, 2_s._ net.

  =Sir Francis Drake.= By WALTER J. HARTE, M.A.

  =Sir Robert Sandeman.= By A. L. P. TUCKER.


                   WOMEN: Edited by ETHEL M. BARTON.

With Illustrations. Paper cover, 2_s._ 6_d._; cloth, 3_s._ 6_d._ net.

  =Florence Nightingale.= By E. F. HALL.

  =Dorothea Beale.= By ELIZABETH H. SHILLITO, B.A.

  =Elsie Inglis.= By EVA SHAW MCLAREN.

                                                              [1.10.20.


_Printed in Great Britain by R. Clay & Sons, Ltd., London and Bungay._


                               FOOTNOTES

[Footnote 1: It is proposed to publish these texts first by way of
experiment. If the Series should so far prove successful the others
will follow. Nos. 1, 5 and 6 are now ready.]


                           Transcriber's Notes

The notes in the left and right margins, indicating page numbers in the
original Greek, have been converted to e.g. [Sidenote: p.216] in this
version. Obvious typographical errors and variable spelling were
corrected. The following corrections have been made to the text:

 Page   Original           New
 -------------------------------------------
 5      leben              Leben
 12     recemmet           récemment
 25     δοκείν             δοκεῖν
 33     ἅ                  ἃ
 45     αὐτῆ               αὐτῇ
 45     έξατμισθέντα       ἐξατμισθέντα
 45     πυκνωθὲντα         πυκνωθέντα
 45     κοὶλῳ              κοίλῳ
 57     σολλογιστικώτερον  συλλογιστικώτερον
 62     δασσαντο           δάσσαντο
 63     Λἰθήρ              Αἰθήρ
 63     καἰ                καὶ
 66     δἰ                 δι’
 68     Mathescos          Matheseos
 69     δορυφορεἶσθαι      δορυφορεῖσθαι
 69     σομπάσχει          συμπάσχει
 71     sabacta            subacta
 72     ν                  ἐν
 73     μερἰζεσθαί         μερίζεσθαι
 75     οί                 οἱ
 80     Ideés              Idées
 80     σομφωνίᾳ           συμφωνίᾳ
 82     guess-work         guesswork
 83     Scientarum         Scientiarum
 85     ἀπαρτίσῄ           ἀπαρτίσῃ
 87     ἀγωνίξωνται        ἀγωνίζωνται
 92     Kapital            Capitel
 98     σκολόπενδριον      σκολόπενδρον
 98     ἀμορρύτων          αὐτορρύτων
 99     after-thought      afterthought
 103    windpipe           wind-pipe
 106    ἀπερίξυγον         ἀπερίζυγον
 109    ’εν                ἐν
 110    Manichéisine       Manichéisme
 111    positon            position
 113    Ιασίδαο            Ἰασίδαο
 113    ’ιδέας             ἰδέας
 120    Stähelein          Stähelin
 120    ἀφορμας            ἀφορμὰς
 125    Ibia               Ibid
 125    Ge                 Gê
 128    theogomy           theogony
 133    Μαθητἁς            Μαθητὰς
 143    χαρακτηρίξει       χαρακτηρίζει
 147    begotten.          begotten?
 147    ἕν                 ἓν
 152    Dogstar            Dog-star
 153    Midheaven          Mid-heaven
 163    ἐξετύπωσευ         ἐξετύπωσεν
 166    Musaeus            Musæus
 170    τά                 τὰ
 180    ἑξης               ἑξῆς
 180    τάς                τὰς
 180    ἀκουλούθων         ἀκολούθων
 180    αἱρεσεων           αἱρέσεων