ΙΟΥΛΙΑΝΟΥ ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΟΡΟΣ

(Julian, Caesar)

ΕΙΣ ΤΗΝ ΜΗΤΕΡΑ ΤΩΝ ΘΕΩΝ

(Hymn to the Mother of the Gods)

Ἆρά γε χρὴ φάναι καὶ ὑπὲρ τούτων; καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀρρήτων γράψομεν καὶ τὰ ἀνέξοιστα ἐξοίσομεν788 καὶ τὰ ἀνεκλάλητα ἐκλαλήσομεν; [159] τίς μὲν ὁ Ἄττις ἤτοι Γάλλος, τίς δὲ ἡ τῶν θεῶν Μήτηρ, καὶ ὁ τῆς ἁγνείας ταυτησί τρόπος ὁποῖος, καὶ προσέτι τοῦ χάριν οὑτοσὶ789 τοιοῦτος ἡμῖν ἐξ ἀρχῆς κατεδείχθη, παραδοθεὶς μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχαιοτάτων Φρυγῶν, παραδεχθεὶς δὲ πρῶτον ὑφ᾽ Ἑλλήνων, καὶ τούτων οὐ τῶν τυχόντων, ἀλλ᾽ Ἀθηναίων, ἔργοις διδαχθέντων, ὅτι μὴ καλῶς ἐτώθασαν ἐπὶ τῷ τελοῦντι τὰ ὄργια τῆς Μητρός; λέγονται γὰρ οὗτοι περιυβρίσαι [B] καὶ ἀπελάσαι τὸν Γάλλον ὡς τὰ θεῖα καινοτομοῦντα, οὐ ξυνέντες ὁποῖόν τι τῆς θεοῦ τὸ χρῆμα καὶ ὡς ἡ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς τιμωμένη Δηὼ καὶ Ῥέα καὶ Δημήτηρ. εἶτα μῆνις τὸ ἐντεῦθεν τῆς θεοῦ καὶ θεραπεία τῆς μήνιδος. ἡ γὰρ [pg 444] ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς καλοῖς ἡγεμὼν γενομένη τοῖς Ἕλλησιν, ἡ τοῦ Πυθίου πρόμαντις θεοῦ, τὴν τῆς Μητρὸς τῶν θεῶν μῆνιν ἐκέλευσεν ἱλάσκεσθαι· καὶ ἀνέστη, φασίν, ἐπὶ τούτῳ τὸ μητρῷον, οὗ τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις δημοσίᾳ πάντα ἐφυλάττετο τὰ γραμματεῖα. μετὰ δὴ [C] τοὺς Ἕλληνας αὐτα Ῥωμαῖοι παρεδέξαντο, συμβουλεύσαντος καὶ αὐτοῖς τοῦ Πυθίου ἐπὶ τὸν πρὸς Καρχηδονίους πόλεμον ἄγειν ἐκ Φρυγίας τὴν θεὸν σύμμαχον. καὶ οὐδὲν ἴσως κωλύει προσθεῖναι μικρὰν790 ἱστορίαν ἐνταῦθα. μαθόντες γὰρ τὸν χρησμὸν στέλλουσιν οἱ τῆς θεοφιλοῦς οἰκήτορες Ῥώμης πρεσβείαν αἰτήσουσαν παρὰ τῶν Περγάμου βασιλέων, οἳ τότε ἐκράτουν τῆς Φρυγίας, καὶ παρ᾽ αὐτῶν δὲ τῶν Φρυγῶν τῆς θεοῦ [D] τὸ ἁγιώτατον ἄγαλμα. λαβόντες δὲ ἦγον τὸν ἱερὸν φόρτον ἐνθέντες εὐρείᾳ φορτίδι πλεῖν εὐπετῶς δυναμένῃ τὰ τοσαῦτα πελάγη. περαιωθεῖσα δὲ Αἴγαιόν τε καὶ Ἰόνιον, εἶτα περιπλεύσασα Σικελίαν τε καὶ τὸ Τυρρηνὸν πέλαγος ἐπὶ τὰς ἐκβολὰς τοῦ Τύβριδος κατήγετο· καὶ δῆμος ἐξεχεῖτο τῆς πόλεως σὺν τῇ γερουσίᾳ, ὑπήντων γε μὴν πρὸ τῶν ἄλλων ἱερεῖς τε καὶ ἱέρειαι πᾶσαι καὶ πάντες ἐν κόσμῳ τῷ πρέποντι κατὰ τὰ πάτρια, [160] μετέωροι πρὸς τὴν ναῦν οὐριοδρομοῦσαν ἀποβλέποντες, καὶ περὶ τὴν τρόπιν [pg 446] ἀπεσκόπουν τὸ ῥόθιον σχιζομένων τῶν κυμάτων· εἶτα εἰσπλέουσαν ἐδεξιοῦντο τὴν ναῦν προσκυνοῦντες ἕκαστος ὡς ἔτυχε προσεστὼς πόρρωθεν. ἡ δὲ ὥσπερ ἐνδείξασθαι τῷ Ῥωμαίων ἐθέλουσα δήμῳ, ὅτι μὴ ξόανον ἄγουσιν ἀπὸ τῆς Φρυγίας ἄψυχον, ἔχει δὲ ἄρα δύναμίν τινα μείζω καὶ θειοτέραν ὃ δὴ παρὰ τῶν Φρυγῶν λαβόντες ἔφερον, ἐπειδὴ τοῦ Τύβριδος ἥψατο, [B] τὴν ναῦν ἵστησιν ὥσπερ ῥιζωθεῖσαν ἐξαίφνης κατὰ τοῦ Τύβριδος. εἷλκον δὴ οὖν πρὸς ἀντίον τὸν ῥοῦν, ἡ δὲ οὐχ εἵπετο. ὡς791 βραχέσι δὲ ἐντετυχηκότες ὠθεῖν ἐπειρῶντο τὴν ναῦν, ἡ δὲ οὐκ εἶκεν ὠθούντων. πᾶσα δὲ μηχανὴ προσήγετο τὸ ἐντεῦθεν, ἡ δὲ οὐχ ἧττον ἀμετακίνητος ἦν· ὥστε ἐμπίπτει κατὰ τῆς ἱερωμένης τὴν παναγεστάτην ἱερωσύνην παρθένου δεινὴ καὶ ἄδικος ὑποψία, καὶ τὴν Κλωδίαν ᾐτιῶντο· [C] τοῦτο γὰρ ὄνομα ἦν τῇ σεμνῇ παρθένῳ· μὴ παντάπασιν ἄχραντον μηδὲ καθαρὰν φυλάττειν ἑαυτὴν τῷ θεῷ· ὀργίζεσθαι οὖν αὐτὴν καὶ μηνίειν ἐμφανῶς· ἐδόκει γὰρ ἤδη τοῖς πᾶσιν εἶναι τὸ χρῆμα δαιμονιώτερον. ἡ δὲ τὸ μὲν πρῶτον αἰδοῦς ὑπεπίμηπλατο πρός τε τὸ ὄνομα καὶ τὴν ὑποψίαν· οὕτω πάνυ πόρρω ἐτύγχανε τῆς αἰσχρᾶς καὶ παρανόμου πράξεως. ἐπεὶ δὲ ἑώρα τὴν αἰτίαν ἤδη καθ᾽ ἑαυτῆς ἐξισχύουσαν, περιελοῦσα τὴν ζώνην [D] καὶ περιθεῖσα τῆς νεὼς τοῖς ἄκροις, ὥσπερ ἐξ ἐπιπνοίας τινὸς ἀποχωρεῖν ἐκέλευεν ἅπαντας, εἶτα ἐδεῖτο τῆς θεοῦ μὴ περιιδεῖν αὐτὴν792 ἀδίκοις ἐνεχομένην βλασφημίας. [pg 448] βοῶσα δὲ ὥσπερ τι κέλευσμα, φασί, ναυτικόν, Δέσποινα Μῆτερ εἴπερ εἰμὶ σώφρων, ἕπου μοι, ἔφη. καὶ δὴ τὴν ναῦν οὐκ ἐκίνησε μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἵλκυσεν ἐπὶ πολὺ πρὸς τὸν ῥοῦν· καὶ δύο ταῦτα Ῥωμαίοις ἔδειξεν ἡ θεὸς οἶμαι κατ᾽ ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν. [161] ὡς οὔτε μικροῦ τινος τίμιον ἀπὸ τῆς Φρυγίας ἐπήγοντο793 φόρτον, ἀλλὰ τοῦ παντὸς ἄξιον, οὔτε ὡς ἀνθρώπινον τοῦτον, ἀλλὰ ὄντως θεῖον, οὔτε ἄψυχον γῆν, ἀλλὰ ἔμπνουν τι χρῆμα καὶ δαιμόνιον. ἓν μὲν δὴ τοιοῦτον ἔδειξεν αὐτοῖς ἡ θεός· ἕτερον δέ, ὡς τῶν πολιτῶν οὐδὲ εἶς λάθοι ἂν αὐτὴν χρηστὸς ἢ φαῦλος ὤν. κατωρθώθη μέντοι καὶ ὁ πόλεμος αὐτίκα Ῥωμαίοις πρὸς Καρχηδονίους, ὥστε τὸν τρίτον ὑπὲρ τῶν τειχῶν αὐτῆς μόνον Καρχηδόνος γενέσθαι.

(Ought I to say something on this subject also? And shall I write about things not to be spoken of and divulge what ought not to be divulged? Shall I utter the unutterable? Who is Attis794 or Gallus,795 who is the Mother of the Gods,796 and what is the manner of their ritual of purification? And further why was it introduced in the beginning among us Romans? It was handed down by the Phrygians in very ancient times, and was first taken over by the Greeks, and not by any ordinary Greeks but by Athenians who had learned by experience that they did wrong to jeer at one who was celebrating the Mysteries of the Mother. For it is said that they wantonly insulted and drove out Gallus, on the ground that he was introducing a new cult, because they did not understand what sort of goddess they had to do with, and that she was that very Deo whom they worship, and Rhea and Demeter too. Then followed the wrath of the goddess and the propitiation of her wrath. For the priestess of the Pythian god who guided the Greeks in all noble conduct, bade them propitiate the wrath of the Mother of the Gods. And so, we are told, the Metroum was built, where the Athenians used to keep all their state records.797 After the Greeks the Romans took over the cult, when the Pythian god had advised them in their turn to bring the goddess from Phrygia as an ally for their war against the Carthaginians.798 And perhaps there is no reason why I should not insert here a brief account of what happened. When they learned the response of the oracle, the inhabitants of Rome, that city beloved of the gods, sent an embassy to ask from the kings of Pergamon799 who then ruled over Phrygia and from the Phrygians themselves the most holy statue800 of the goddess. And when they had received it they brought back their most sacred freight, putting it on a broad cargo-boat which could sail smoothly over those wide seas. Thus she crossed the Aegean and Ionian Seas, and sailed round Sicily and over the Etruscan Sea, and so entered the mouth of the Tiber. And the people and the Senate with them poured out of the city, and in front of all the others there came to meet her all the priests and priestesses in suitable attire according to their ancestral custom. And in excited suspense they gazed at the ship as she ran before a fair wind, and about her keel they could discern the foaming wake as she cleft the waves. And they greeted the ship as she sailed in and adored her from afar, everyone where he happened to be standing. But the goddess, as though she desired to show the Roman people that they were not bringing a lifeless image from Phrygia, but that what they had received from the Phrygians and were now bringing home possessed greater and more divine powers than an image, stayed the ship directly she touched the Tiber, and she was suddenly as though rooted in mid-stream. So they tried to tow her against the current, but she did not follow. Then they tried to push her off, thinking they had grounded on a shoal, but for all their efforts she did not move. Next every possible device was brought to bear, but in spite of all she remained immovable. Thereupon a terrible and unjust suspicion fell on the maiden who had been consecrated to the most sacred office of priestess, and they began to accuse Claudia801—for that was the name of that noble maiden802—of not having kept herself stainless and pure for the goddess; wherefore they said that the goddess was angry and was plainly declaring her wrath. For by this time the thing seemed to all to be supernatural. Now at first she was filled with shame at the mere name of the thing and the suspicion; so very far was she from such shameless and lawless behaviour. But when she saw that the charge against her was gaining strength, she took off her girdle and fastened it about the prow of the ship, and, like one divinely inspired, bade all stand aside: and then she besought the goddess not to suffer her to be thus implicated in unjust slanders. Next, as the story goes, she cried aloud as though it were some nautical word of command, “O Goddess Mother, if I am pure follow me!” And lo, she not only made the ship move, but even towed her for some distance up stream. Two things, I think, the goddess showed the Romans on that day: first that the freight they were bringing from Phrygia had no small value, but was priceless, and that this was no work of men's hands but truly divine, not lifeless clay but a thing possessed of life and divine powers. This, I say, was one thing that the goddess showed them. And the other was that no one of the citizens could be good or bad and she not know thereof. Moreover the war of the Romans against the Carthaginians forthwith took a favourable turn, so that the third war was waged only for the walls of Carthage itself.803)

[B] Τὰ μὲν οὖν τῆς ἱστορίας, εἰ καί τισιν ἀπίθανα δόξει καὶ φιλοσόφῳ προσήκειν οὐδὲν οὐδὲ θεολόγῳ, λεγέσθω μὴ μεῖον, κοινῇ μὲν ὑπὸ πλείστων ἱστοριογράφων ἀναγραφόμενα, σωζόμενα δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ χαλκῶν εἰκόνων ἐν τῇ κρατίστῃ καὶ θεοφιλεῖ Ῥώμῃ. καίτοι με οὐ λέληθεν ὅτι φήσουσιν αὐτά τινες τῶν λίαν σοφῶν ὕθλους εἶναι γρᾳδίων οὐκ ἀνεκτούς. ἐμοὶ δὲ δοκεῖ ταῖς πόλεσι πιστεύειν μᾶλλον τὰ τοιαῦτα ἢ τουτοισὶ τοῖς κομψοῖς, ὧν τὸ ψυχάριον δριμὺ μέν, ὑγιὲς δὲ οὐδὲ ἓν βλέπει.804

(As for this narrative, though some will think it incredible and wholly unworthy of a philosopher or a theologian, nevertheless let it here be related. For besides the fact that it is commonly recorded by most historians, it has been preserved too on bronze statues in mighty Rome, beloved of the gods.805 And yet I am well aware that some over-wise persons will call it an old wives' tale, not to be credited. But for my part I would rather trust the traditions of cities than those too clever people, whose puny souls are keen-sighted enough, but never do they see aught that is sound.)

Ὕπὲρ δὲ ὧν εἰπεῖν ἐπῆλθέ μοι παρ᾽ αὐτὸν ἄρτι [pg 450] τὸν τῆς ἁγιστείας καιρόν, ἀκούω μὲν ἔγωγε καὶ Πορφυρίῳ τινὰ πεφιλοσοφῆσθαι περὶ αὐτῶν, οὐ μὴν οἶδά γε, οὐ γὰρ ἐνέτυχον, εἰ καὶ συνενεχθῆναί που συμβαίη τῷ λόγῳ. τὸν Γάλλον δὲ ἐγὼ τουτονὶ καὶ τὸν Ἄττιν αὐτὸς οἴκοθεν ἐπινοῶ τοῦ γονίμου καὶ δημιουργικοῦ νοῦ τὴν ἄχρι τῆς ἐσχάτης ὕλης ἅπαντα γεννῶσαν οὐσίαν εἶναι, ἔχουσάν τε ἐν ἑαυτῇ πάντας τοὺς λόγους καὶ τὰς αἰτίας τῶν ἐνύλων εἰδῶν· [D] οὐ γὰρ δὴ πάντων ἐν πᾶσι τὰ εἴδη, οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς ἀνωτάτω καὶ πρώτοις αἰτίοις τὰ τῶν ἐσχάτων καὶ τελευταίων, μεθ᾽ ἃ οὐδέν ἐστιν ἣ τὸ τῆς στερῆσεως ὄνομα μετὰ ἀμυδρᾶς ἐπινοίας. οὐσῶν δὴ πολλῶν οὐσιῶν καὶ πολλῶν πάνυ δημιουργῶν τοῦ τρίτου δημιουργοῦ, ὃς τῶν ἐνύλων εἰδῶν τοὺς λόγους ἐξῃρημένους ἔχει καὶ συνεχεῖς τὰς αἰτίας, ἡ τελευταία καὶ μέχρι γῆς ὑπὸ περιουσίας τοῦ γονίμου [162] διὰ τῆς ἄνωθεν παρὰ τῶν ἄστρων καθήκουσα φύσις ὁ ζητούμενός ἐστιν Ἀττις. ἴσως δὲ ὑπὲρ οὗ λέγω χρὴ διαλαβεῖν σαφέστερον. εἶναί τι λέγομεν ὕλην, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἔνυλον εἶδος. ἀλλὰ τούτων εἰ μή τις αἰτία προτέτακται, λανθάνοιμεν ἂν ἑαυτοὺς εἰσάγοντες τὴν Ἐπικούρειον δόξαν. ἀρχαῖν γὰρ δυοῖν εἰ μηδέν ἐστι πρεσβύτερον, αὐτόματός τις αὐτὰς φορὰ καὶ τύχη συνεκλήρωσεν. ἀλλ᾽ ὁρῶμεν, [pg 452] φησὶ Περιπατητικός [B] τις ἀγχίνους ὥσπερ ὁ Ξέναρχος, τούτων αἴτιον ὂν τὸ πέμπτον καὶ κυκλικὸν σῶμα. γελοῖος δὲ καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης ὑπὲρ τούτων ζητῶν τε καὶ πολυπραγμονῶν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Θεόφραστος· ἠγνόησε γοῦν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φωνήν. ὥσπερ γὰρ εἰς τὴν ἀσώματον οὐσίαν ἐλθὼν καὶ νοητὴν ἔστη μὴ πολυπραγμονῶν τὴν αἰτίαν, ἀλλὰ φὰς οὕτω ταῦτα πεφυκέναι· χρῆν δὲ δήπουθεν καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ πέμπτου σώματος τὸ πεφυκέναι ταῦτῃ λαμβάνοντα μηκέτι ζητεῖν τὰς αἰτίας, ἵστασθαι δὲ ἐπὶ αὐτῶν καὶ μὴ πρὸς τὸ νοητὸν ἐκπίπτειν ὂν μὲν οὐδὲν [C] φύσει καθ᾽ ἑαυτό, ἔχον δὲ ἄλλως κενὴν ὑπόνοιαν. τοιαῦτα γὰρ ἐγὼ μέμνημαι τοῦ Ξενάρχου λέγοντος ἀκηκοώς. εἰ μὲν οὖν ὀρθῶς ἢ μὴ ταῦτα ἐκεῖνος ἔφη, τοῖς ἄγαν ἐφείσθω Περιπατητικοῖς ὀνυχίζειν, ὅτι δὲ οὐ προσηνῶς ἐμοὶ παντί που δῆλον, ὅπου γε καὶ τὰς Ἀριστοτελικὰς ὑποθέσεις ἐνδεεστέρως ἔχειν ὑπολαμβάνω, εἰ μή τις αὐτὰς ἐς ταὐτὸ τοῖς Πλάτωνος ἄγοι, [D] μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ταῦτα ταῖς ἐκ θεῶν δεδομέναις προφητείαις.

(I am told that on this same subject of which I am impelled to speak at the very season of these sacred rites, Porphyry too has written a philosophic treatise. But since I have never met with it I do not know whether at any point it may chance to agree with my discourse. But him whom I call Gallus or Attis I discern of my own knowledge to be the substance of generative and creative Mind which engenders all things down to the lowest plane of matter,806 and comprehends in itself all the concepts and causes of the forms that are embodied in matter. For truly the forms of all things are not in all things, and in the highest and first causes we do not find the forms of the lowest and last, after which there is nothing save privation807 coupled with a dim idea. Now there are many substances and very many creative gods, but the nature of the third creator,808 who contains in himself the separate concepts of the forms that are embodied in matter and also the connected chain of causes, I mean that nature which is last in order, and through its superabundance of generative power descends even unto our earth through the upper region from the stars,—this is he whom we seek, even Attis. But perhaps I ought to distinguish more clearly what I mean. We assert that matter exists and also form embodied in matter. But if no cause be assigned prior to these two, we should be introducing, unconsciously, the Epicurean doctrine. For if there be nothing of higher order than these two principles, then a spontaneous motion and chance brought them together. “But,” says some acute Peripatetic like Xenarchus, “we see that the cause of these is the fifth or cyclic substance. Aristotle is absurd when he investigates and discusses these matters, and Theophrastus likewise. At any rate he overlooked the implications of a well-known utterance of his. For just as when he came to incorporeal and intelligible substance he stopped short and did not inquire into its cause, and merely asserted that this is what it is by nature; surely in the case of the fifth substance also he ought to have assumed that its nature is to be thus; and he ought not to have gone on to search for causes, but should have stopped at these, and not fallen back on the intelligible, which has no independent existence by itself, and in any case represents a bare supposition.” This is the sort of thing that Xenarchus says, as I remember to have heard. Now whether what he says is correct or not, let us leave to the extreme Peripatetics to refine upon. But that his view is not agreeable to me is, I think, clear to everyone. For I hold that the theories of Aristotle himself are incomplete unless they are brought into harmony with those of Plato809; or rather we must make these also agree with the oracles that have been vouchsafed to us by the gods.)

Ἐκεῖνο δὲ ἴσως ἄξιον πυθέσθαι, πῶς τὸ κυκλικὸν σῶμα δύναται τὰς ἀσωμάτους ἔχειν αἰτίας τῶν ἐνύλων εἰδῶν. ὅτι μὲν γὰρ δίχα τούτων [pg 454] ὑποστῆναι τὴν γένεσιν οὐκ ἐνδέχεται, πρόδηλόν ἐστί που καὶ σαφές. τοῦ χάριν γάρ ἐστι τοσαῦτα τὰ γιγνόμενα; πόθεν δὲ ἄρρεν καὶ θῆλυ; πόθεν δὲ ἡ κατὰ γένος τῶν ὄντων ἐν ὡρισμένοις εἴδεσι διαφορά, [163] εἰ μή τινες εἶεν προϋπάρχοντες καὶ προϋφεστῶτες810 λόγοι αἰτίαι τε ἐν παραδείγματος λόγῳ προϋφεστῶσαι; πρὸς ἃς εἴπερ ἀμβλυώττομεν, ἔτι καθαιρώμεθα τὰ ὄμματα τῆς ψυχῆς. κάθαρσις δὲ ὀρθὴ στραφῆναι πρὸς ἑαυτὸν καὶ κατανοῆσαι, πῶς μὲν ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ ὁ ἔνυλος νοῦς ὥσπερ ἐκμαγεῖόν τι τῶν ἐνύλων εἰδῶν καὶ εἰκών ἐστιν. ἓν γὰρ οὐδέν ἐστι τῶν σωμάτων ἢ τῶν [B] περὶ τὰ σώματα γινομένων τε καὶ θεωρουμένων ἀσωμάτων, οὗ τὴν φαντασίαν ὁ νοῦς οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν ἀσωμάτως, ὅπερ οὔποτ᾽ ἂν ἐποίησεν, εἰ μή τι ξυγγενὲς εἶχεν αὐτοῖς φύσει. ταῦτά τοι καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης τὴν ψυχὴν τόπον εἰδῶν ἔφη, πλὴν οὐκ ἐνεργείᾳ, ἀλλὰ δυνάμει. τὴν μὲν οὖν τοιαύτην ψυχὴν καὶ τὴν ἐπεστραμμένην πρὸς τὸ σῶμα δυνάμει ταῦτα ἔχειν ἀναγκαῖον· εἰ δέ τις ἄσχετος εἴη καὶ ἀμιγὴς ταύτῃ, τοὺς λόγους οὐκέτι δυνάμει, [C] πάντας δὲ [pg 456] ὑπάρχειν ἐνεργείᾳ νομιστέον. λάβωμεν δὲ αὐτὰ σαφέστερον διὰ τοῦ παραδείγματος, ᾧ καὶ Πλάτων ἐν τῷ Σοφιστῇ811 πρὸς ἕτερον μὲν λόγον, ἐχρήσατο δ᾽ οὖν ὅμως. τὸ παράδειγμα δὲ οὐκ εἰς ἀπόδειξιν φέρω τοῦ λόγου· καὶ γὰρ οὐδὲ ἀποδείξει χρὴ λαβεῖν αὐτόν,812 ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιβολῇ μόνῃ, περὶ γὰρ τῶν πρώτων αἰτιῶν ἐστιν ἢ τῶν γε ὁμοστοίχων τοῖς πρώτοις, εἴπερ ἡμῖν ἐστιν, ὥσπερ οὖν ἄξιον νομίζειν, [D] καὶ ὁ Ἄττις θεός. τί δὲ καὶ ποῖόν ἐστι τὸ παράδειγμα; φησί813 που Πλάτων, τῶν περὶ τὴν μίμησιν διατριβόντων εἰ μὲν ἐθέλοι τις μιμεῖσθαι, ὥστε καθυφεστάναι τὰ μιμητά, ἐργώδη τε εἶναι καὶ χαλεπὴν καὶ νὴ Δία γε τοῦ ἀδυνάτου πλησίον μᾶλλον, εὔκολον δὲ καὶ ῥᾳδίαν καὶ σφόδρα δυνατὴν τὴν διὰ τοῦ δοκεῖν τὰ ὄντα μιμουμένην. ὅταν οὖν τὸ κάτοπτρον λαβόντες περιφέρωμεν ἐκ πάντων τῶν ὄντων ῥᾳδίως ἀπομαξάμενοι, [164] δείκνυμεν ἑκάστου τοὺς τύπους. ἐκ τούτου τοῦ παραδείγματος ἐπὶ τὸ εἰρημένον μεταβιβάσωμεν τὸ ὁμοίωμα, ἵν᾽ ᾖ τὸ μὲν κάτοπτρον ὁ λεγόμενος ὑπὸ Ἀριστοτέλους δυνάμει τόπος εἰδῶν.

(But this it is perhaps worth while to inquire, how the cyclic substance814 can contain the incorporeal causes of the forms that are embodied in matter. For that, apart from these causes, it is not possible for generation to take place is, I think, clear and manifest. For why are there so many kinds of generated things? Whence arise masculine and feminine? Whence the distinguishing characteristics of things according to their species in well-defined types, if there are not pre-existing and pre-established concepts, and causes which existed beforehand to serve as a pattern?815 And if we discern these causes but dimly, let us still further purify the eyes of the soul. And the right kind of purification is to turn our gaze inwards and to observe how the soul and embodied Mind are a sort of mould816 and likeness of the forms that are embodied in matter. For in the case of the corporeal, or of things that though incorporeal come into being and are to be studied in connection with the corporeal, there is no single thing whose mental image the mind cannot grasp independently of the corporeal. But this it could not have done if it did not possess something naturally akin to the incorporeal forms. Indeed it is for this reason that Aristotle himself called the soul the “place of the forms,”817 only he said that the forms are there not actually but potentially. Now a soul of this sort, that is allied with matter, must needs possess these forms potentially only, but a soul that should be independent and unmixed in this way we must believe would contain all the concepts, not potentially but actually. Let us make this clearer by means of the example which Plato himself employed in the Sophist, with reference certainly to another theory, but still he did employ it. And I bring forward the illustration, not to prove my argument; for one must not try to grasp it by demonstration, but only by apprehension. For it deals with the first causes, or at least those that rank with the first, if indeed, as it is right to believe, we must regard Attis also as a god. What then, and of what sort is this illustration? Plato says that, if any man whose profession is imitation desire to imitate in such a way that the original is exactly reproduced, this method of imitation is troublesome and difficult, and, by Zeus, borders on the impossible; but pleasant and easy and quite possible is the method which only seems to imitate real things. For instance, when we take up a mirror and turn it round we easily get an impression of all objects, and show the general outline of every single thing. From this example let us go back to the analogy I spoke of, and let the mirror stand for what Aristotle calls the “place of the forms” potentially.)

Αὐτὰ δὲ χρὴ τὰ εἴδη πρότερον ὑφεστάναι πάντως ἐνεργείᾳ τοῦ δυνάμει. τῆς τοίνυν ἐν ἡμῖν ψυχῆς, ὡς καὶ Ἀριστοτέλει δοκεῖ, δυνάμει τῶν ὄντων ἐχούσης τὰ εἴδη, ποῦ πρῶτον ἐνεργείᾳ θησόμεθα ταῦτα; πότερον ἐν τοῖς ἐνύλοις; [B] ἀλλ᾽ ἔστι γε ταῦτα φανερῶς τὰ τελευταῖα. λείπεται [pg 458] δὴ λοιπὸν ἀύλους αἰτίας ζητεῖν ἐνεργείᾳ προτεταγμένας τῶν ἐνύλων, αἷς παρυποστᾶσαν καὶ συμπροελθοῦσαν ἡμῶν τὴν ψυχὴν δέχεσθαι μὲν ἐκεῖθεν, ὥσπερ ἐξ ὄντων τινῶν τὰ ἔσοπτρα, τοὺς τῶν εἰδῶν ἀναγκαῖον λόγους, ἐνδιδόναι δὲ διὰ τῆς φύσεως τῇ τε ὕλῃ καὶ τοῖς ἐνύλοις τουτοισὶ σώμασιν. ὅτι μὲν γὰρ ἡ φύσις ἐστὶ δημιουργὸς τῶν σωμάτων ἴσμεν, ὡς ὅλη τις οὖσα τοῦ παντός, ἡ δὲ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον [C] ἑνὸς ἑκάστου τῶν ἐν μέρει, πρόδηλόν ἐστί που καὶ σαφές, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ φύσις ἐνεργείᾳ δίχα φαντασίας ἐν ἡμῖν, ἡ δὲ ὑπὲρ ταύτης ψυχὴ καὶ τὴν φαντασίαν προσείληφεν. εἰ τοίνυν ἡ φύσις καὶ ὧν οὐκ ἔχει τὴν φαντασίαν ἔχειν ὅμως ὁμολογεῖται τὴν αἰτίαν, ἀνθ᾽ ὅτου πρὸς θεῶν οὐχὶ τοῦτο αὐτὸ μᾶλλον ἔτι καὶ πρεσβύτερον τῇ ψυχῇ δώσομεν, ὅπου καὶ φανταστικῶς αὐτὸ γιγνώσκομεν ἤδη [D] καὶ λόγῳ καταλαμβάνομεν; εἶτα τίς οὕτως ἐστὶ φιλόνεικος, ὡς τῇ φύσει μὲν ὑπάρχειν ὁμολογεῖν τοὺς ἐνύλους λόγους, εἰ καὶ μὴ πάντας καὶ κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ ἐνεργείᾳ, ἀλλὰ δυνάμει γε πάντας, τῇ ψυχῇ δὲ μὴ δοῦναι τοῦτο αὐτό; οὐκοῦν εἰ δυνάμει μὲν ἐν τῇ φύσει καὶ οὐκ ἐνεργείᾳ τὰ εἴδη, δυνάμει δὲ ἔτι καὶ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ καθαρώτερον καὶ δικεκριμένως [pg 460] μᾶλλον, ὥστε δὴ καὶ καταλαμβάνεσθαι καὶ γινώσκεσθαι, ἐνεργείᾳ δὲ οὐδαμοῦ· πόθεν ἀναρτήσομεν τῆς ἀειγενεσίας τὰ πείσματα; ποῦ δὲ ἑδράσομεν [165] τοὺς ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀιδιότητος κόσμου λόγους; τὸ γὰρ τοι κυκλικὸν σῶμα ἐξ ὑποκειμένου καὶ εἴδους ἐστίν. ἀνάγκη δὴ οὖν, εἰ καὶ μήποτε ἐνεργείᾳ ταῦτα δίχα ἀλλήλων, ἀλλὰ ταῖς γε ἐπινοίαις ἐκεῖνα πρῶτα ὑπάρχοντα εἶναί τε καὶ νομίζεσθαι πρεσβύτερα. οὐκοῦν ἐπειδὴ δέδοταί τις καὶ τῶν ἐνύλων εἰδῶν αἰτία προηγουμένη παντελῶς ἄυλος ὑπὸ τὸν τρίτον δημιουργόν, ὃς ἡμῖν οὐ τούτων μόνον ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ φαινομένου καὶ πέμπτου σώματος πατὴρ καὶ δεσπότης· [B] ἀποδιελόντες ἐκείνου τὸν Ἄττιν, τὴν ἄχρι τῆς ὕλης καταβαίνουσαν αἰτίαν, καὶ θεὸν γόνιμον Ἄττιν εἶναι καὶ Γάλλον πεπιστεύκαμεν, ὃν δή φησιν ὁ μῦθος ἀνθῆσαι μὲν ἐκτεθέντα παρὰ Γάλλου ποταμοῦ ταῖς δίναις, εἶτα καλὸν φανέντα καὶ μέγαν ἀγαπηθῆναι παρὰ τῆς Μητρὸς τῶν θεῶν. τὴν δὲ τά τε ἄλλα πάντα ἐπιτρέψαι αὐτῷ καὶ τὸν ἀστερωτὸν περιθεῖναι818 πῖλον. [C] ἀλλ᾽ εἰ τὴν κορυφὴν σκέπει τοῦ Ἄττιδος ὁ φαινόμενος οὐρανὸς οὑτοσί, τὸν Γάλλον ποταμὸν ἄρα μή ποτε χρὴ τὸν γαλαξίαν αἰνίττεσθαι819 κύκλον; ἐνταῦθα γάρ φασι μίγνυσθαι τὸ παθητὸν σῶμα πρὸς τὴν ἀπαθῆ τοῦ [pg 462] πέμπτου κυκλοφορίαν. ἄχρι τοι τούτων ἐπέτρεψεν ἡ Μήτηρ τῶν θεῶν σκιρτᾶν τε καὶ χορεύειν τῷ καλῷ τούτῳ καὶ ταῖς ἡλιακαῖς ἀκτῖσιν ἐμφερεῖ τῷ νοερῷ θεῷ, τῷ Ἄττιδι. ὁ δὲ ἐπειδὴ προïὼν ἦλθεν ἄχρι τῶν ἐσχάτων, ὁ μῦθος αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ ἄντρον820 κατελθεῖν ἔφη καὶ συγγενέσθαι τῇ νύμφῃ, [D] τὸ δίυγρον αἰνιττόμενος τῆς ὕλης· καὶ οὐδὲ τὴν ὕλην αὐτὴν νῦν ἔφη, τὴν τελευταίαν δὲ αἰτίαν ἀσώματον, ἣ τῆς ὕλης προüφέστηκε.821 λέγεταί τοι καὶ πρὸς Ἡρακλείτου822

(Now the forms themselves must certainly subsist actually before they subsist potentially. If, therefore, the soul in us, as Aristotle himself believed, contains potentially the forms of existing things, where shall we place the forms in that previous state of actuality? Shall it be in material things? No, for the forms that are in them are evidently the last and lowest. Therefore it only remains to search for immaterial causes which exist in actuality prior to and of a higher order than the causes that are embodied in matter. And our souls must subsist in dependence on these and come forth together with them, and so receive from them the concepts of the forms, as mirrors show the reflections of things; and then with the aid of nature it bestows them on matter and on these material bodies of our world. For we know that nature is the creator of bodies, universal nature in some sort of the All; while that the individual nature of each is the creator of particulars is plainly evident. But nature exists in us in actuality without a mental image, whereas the soul, which is superior to nature, possesses a mental image besides. If therefore we admit that nature contains in herself the cause of things of which she has however no mental image, why, in heaven's name, are we not to assign to the soul these same forms, only in a still higher degree, and with priority over nature, seeing that it is in the soul that we recognise the forms by means of mental images, and comprehend them by means of the concept? Who then is so contentious as to admit on the one hand that the concepts embodied in matter exist in nature—even though not all and equally in actuality, yet all potentially—while on the other hand he refuses to recognise that the same is true of the soul? If therefore the forms exist in nature potentially, but not actually, and if also they exist potentially in the soul,823 only in a still purer sense and more completely separated, so that they can be comprehended and recognised; but yet exist in actuality nowhere at all; to what, I ask, shall we hang the chain of perpetual generation, and on what shall we base our theories of the imperishability of the universe? For the cyclic substance824 itself is composed of matter and form. It must therefore follow that, even though in actuality these two, matter and form, are never separate from one another, yet for our intelligence the forms must have prior existence and be regarded as of a higher order. Accordingly, since for the forms embodied in matter a wholly immaterial cause has been assigned, which leads these forms under the hand of the third creator825—who for us is the lord and father not only of these forms but also of the visible fifth substance—from that creator we distinguish Attis, the cause which descends even unto matter, and we believe that Attis or Gallus is a god of generative powers. Of him the myth relates that, after being exposed at birth near the eddying stream of the river Gallus, he grew up like a flower, and when he had grown to be fair and tall, he was beloved by the Mother of the Gods. And she entrusted all things to him, and moreover set on his head the starry cap.826 But if our visible sky covers the crown of Attis, must one not interpret the river Gallus as the Milky Way?827 For it is there, they say, that the substance which is subject to change mingles with the passionless revolving sphere of the fifth substance. Only as far as this did the Mother of the Gods permit this fair intellectual god Attis, who resembles the sun's rays, to leap and dance. But when he passed beyond this limit and came even to the lowest region, the myth said that he had descended into the cave, and had wedded the nymph. And the nymph is to be interpreted as the dampness of matter; though the myth does not here mean matter itself, but the lowest immaterial cause which subsists prior to matter. Indeed Heracleitus also says:)