Selected Essays of Plutarch, Vol. II. · Plutarch
THE SPEAKERS
LAMPRIAS, Plutarch’s brother. CLEOMBROTUS, of Lacedaemon, a scientific traveller, and a theologian, who had been up the Red Sea, and, lately, to Ammon. DIDYMUS, a Cynic philosopher. PHILIPPUS, an historian. DEMETRIUS, a ‘grammarian’ of Tarsus, now returning from Britain. AMMONIUS, the philosopher. HERACLEON, of Megara, a young man. TIME: A little before the Pythian games of Callistratus’ year, perhaps A. D. 83-4. 1 and 2. CLEOMBROTUS mentions the undying lamp flame at Ammon, said to require less oil each year, a proof that the years are growing shorter. 3. DEMETRIUS thinks the cause inadequate and CLEOMBROTUS mentions other instances of important phenomena due to insignificant causes. 4. AMMONIUS points out that all the heavenly bodies are involved in the hypothesis, and suggests other causes, as changes in temperature or in the quality of the oil. 5. LAMPRIAS invites Cleombrotus to tell the company about the oracle of Ammon. DEMETRIUS suggests, as a subject nearer home, the failure of the oracles in Boeotia (except those in the neighbourhood of Lebadeia). 6. We were passing out of the temple, and were near the Hall of the Cnidians, where HERACLEON and our other friends were waiting for us, in silence. On a request from DEMETRIUS they agree to join in our discussion. 7. DIDYMUS the Cynic (‘Planetiades’) makes an angry protest: the wonder being that Providence itself had not deserted this bad world long ago. Heracleon and LAMPRIAS humour him, and he leaves the place quietly.
17. And quotes stories to prove that daemons may be faulty, and one as to the death of Pan to prove that they may be mortal. 18. DEMETRIUS confirms this from his experiences in and about Britain. 19. CLEOMBROTUS compares the Stoic view of Gods who are perishable with the Epicurean ‘Infinity’. 20. AMMONIUS defends Empedocles’ view of faulty daemons against the Epicureans, who held that, if faulty, they must be short-lived. As the Epicureans are not represented, he calls on Cleombrotus to continue his argument for the migration of daemons. 21. CLEOMBROTUS, first referring to Plato, has a story of an oriental recluse, whom he had met about the Red Sea. He knew all the Delphi legend, and referred it to the struggles of daemons, who took on the names of the Gods to whom they were severally attached. 22. ‘But how does Plato come in?’ asked HERACLEON. ‘Because’, replied CLEOMBROTUS, ‘Plato allowed a possibility of more worlds than one, up to five; the recluse asserted (giving no proof) that there were exactly one hundred and eighty-three worlds.’ 23. ‘The impostor!’ says LAMPRIAS; ‘that view is purely Greek, and was put into a book by one Petron of Himera long ago.’ HERACLEON and DEMETRIUS exchange remarks about Plato’s views on a plurality of worlds, and agree to refer the matter to LAMPRIAS, who offers to give a cursory account, the discussion then to revert to the original question.
The solid figures may be used to construct five different worlds, or omitting (_d_) for the four ‘elements’ (fire, &c.). 33. AMMONIUS criticizes; he points out that the difficulty about the figure (_d_) has been ignored. 34. LAMPRIAS drops the subject for the present, and turns to the five categories of being in the _Sophistes_ and _Philebus_. It is reasonable to assume that the physical universe may correspond. 35. Consider the Pythagorean first principles of number and the origin of the number five out of the first odd and the first even. 36. Five senses, five fingers, five planets (the sun with the two inner planets taken as one). 37. The relation of the five solid figures to Plato’s theory of creation further considered. But we are on slippery ground here. 38. LAMPRIAS is invited to return to the original question, as to the oracles and the migration of daemons. 39. LAMPRIAS resumes: Why should the prophetic gift be associated with daemons, i.e. souls which have left the body, rather than with those still in the flesh, though it may be more energetic after death? Compare the processes of Memory. 40. Divination touches on the future through bodily conditions assisted by emanations and the like. 41. The special virtues of certain vapours or streams, as the Cydnus at Tarsus. 42. The story of the first discovery of the Adytum of Delphi by the shepherd Coretas. There must be sympathy of soul with prophecy, as of the eye with light. The identification of Apollo with the sun.
43. The local prophetic currents may shift their place about, as rivers and lakes are known to do. 44. Physical commotions, especially earthquakes, may be expected to cause such shiftings. 45. DEMETRIUS has been too long away from home to answer as to the Cydnus, but he tells a story about the oracle of Mopsus, which had convinced a sceptical magistrate. 46. AMMONIUS and PHILIPPUS have points to raise. That of the latter is as to the identity of the sun with Apollo, and is allowed to stand over. AMMONIUS protests against the ascription of all prophecy to material causes, but wishes to hear the view of LAMPRIAS. 47. LAMPRIAS observes that Plato had made a similar protest against Anaxagoras. _Both_ sets of causes must be recognized. 48. And so in the case of prophetic utterances. 49. The actual procedure of Delphi, and the tests applied to the victim, justified. 50. The influences to which the prophetess is subject. 51. Story of a prophetess who was wrongly pressed when the conditions were adverse. The force of the exhalation affects different persons differently. It is essentially daemonic, but not exempt from change or decay. 52. The subject is difficult, and must remain open to discussion, as also the question raised by Philippus about Apollo and the sun.
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.