Hence it is not unreasonable to say that the statement of each person individually is not right, but that the statement of all collectively is right; for it is not drought nor wind nor sea nor darkness,Cf. 364 a, supra, and 376 f, infra. but everything harmful and destructive that Nature contains, which is to be set down as a part of Typhon. The origins of the universe are not to be placed in inanimate bodies, according to the doctrine of Democritus and Epicurus, nor yet is the Artificer of undifferentiated matter, according to the Stoic doctrine,Cf. von Arnim, , ii. p. 1108, and Diogenes Laertius, vii. 134. one Reason, and one Providence which gains the upper hand and prevails over all things. The fact is that it is impossible for anything bad whatsoever to be engendered where God is the Author of all, or anything good where God is the Author of nothing; for the concord of the universe, like that of a lyre or bow, according to Heracleitus,Cf. Diels, , i. p. 87, no. b 51. Plutarch quotes this again in , 473 f and 1026 b. is resilient if disturbed; and according to Euripides,Nauck, , Euripides, no. 21, from the ; quoted again in , 25 c and 474 a. The good and bad cannot be kept apart, But there is some commingling, which is well.

Wherefore this very ancient opinion comes dowTn from writers on religion and from lawgivers to poets and philosophers; it can be traced to no source, but it carried a strong and almost indelible conviction, and is in circulation in many places among barbarians and Greeks alike, not only in story and tradition but also in rites and sacrifices, to the effect that the Universe is not of itself suspended aloft without sense or reason or guidance, nor is there one Reason which rules and guides it by rudders, as it were, or by controlling reins,The language is reminiscent of a fragment of Sophocles quoted by Plutarch in , 767 e, and , chap. vii. (668 b). Cf. Nauck, , Sophocles, no. 785. A task for many reins and rudders too (πολλῶν χαλινῶν ἔργον οἰάκων θ’ ἅμα). but, inasmuch as Nature brings, in this life of ours, many experiences in which both evil and good are commingled, or better, to put it very simply, Nature brings nothing which is not combined with something else, we may assert that it is not one keeper of two great vasesThe reference is to Homer, xxiv. 527-528, as misquoted in Plato, , 379 d. Cf. also , 24 a (and the note), 105 c (and the ntoe), and 473 b. , 600 c, is helpful in understanding the present passage. who, after the manner of a barmaid, deals out to us our failures and successes in mixture, but it has come about, as the result of two opposed principles and two antagonistic forces, one of which guides us along a straight course to the right, while the other turns us aside and backward, that our life is complex, and so also is the universe; and if this is not true of the whole of it, yet it is true that this terrestrial universe, including its moon as well, is irregular and variable and subject to all manner of changes. For if it is the law of Nature that nothing comes into being without a cause, and if the good cannot provide a cause for evil, then it follows that Nature must have in herself the source and origin of evil, just as she contains the source and origin of good.

The great majority and the wisest of men hold this opinion: they believe that there are two gods, rivals as it were, the one the Artificer of good and the other of evil. There are also those who call the better one a god and the other a daemon, as, for example, ZoroasterThe casual reader will gain a better understanding of chapters 46 and 47 if he will consult some brief book or article on Zoroaster (Zarathustra) and the Persian religion. the sage,That is, one of the Persian Magi or Wise Men. who, they record, lived five thousand years before the time of the Trojan War. He called the one Oromazes and the other AreimaniusCf., 1026 b, and Diogenes Laertius, , 2.; and he further declared that among all the things perceptible to the senses, Oromazes may best be compared to light, and Areimanius, conversely, to darkness and ignorance, and midway between the two is Mithras; for this reason the Persians give to Mithras the name, of Mediator. Zoroaster has also taught that men should make votive offerings and thank-offerings to Oromazes, and averting and mourning offerings to Areimanius. They pound up in a mortar a certain plant called omomi, at the same time invoking HadesCf. Diogenes Laertius, , 8. and Darkness; then they mix it with the blood of a wolf that has been sacrificed, and carry it out and cast it into a place where the sun never shines. In fact, they believe that some of the plants belong to the good god and others to the evil daemon; so also of the animals they think that dogs, fowls, and hedgehogs, for example, belong to the good god, but that water-ratsCf., 537 a and 670 d. belong to the evil one; therefore the man who has killed the most of these they hold to be fortunate.

However, they also tell many fabulous stories about their gods, such, for example, as the following: Oromazes, born from the purest light,and Areimanius. born from the darkness, are constantly at Avar with each other; and Oromazes created six gods, the first of Good Thought, the second of Truth, the third of Order, and, of the rest, one of Wisdom, one of Wealth, and one the Artificer of Pleasure in what is Honourable. But Areimanius created rivals, as it were, equal to these in number. Then Oromazes enlarged himself to thrice his former size, and removed himself as far distant from the Sun as the Sun is distant from the Earth, and adorned the heavens with stars. One star he set there before all others as a guardian and watchman, the Dog-star. Twenty-four other gods he created and placed in an egg. But those created by Areimanius, who were equal in number to the others, pierced through the egg and made their way insideIt is plain that the two sets of gods became intermingled, but whether the bad gods got in or the good gods got out is not clear from the text.; hence evils are now combined with good. But a destined time shall come when it is decreed that Areimanius, engaged in bringing on pestilence and famine, shall by these be utterly annihilated and shall disappear; and then shall the earth become a level plain, and there shall be one manner of life and one form of government for a blessed people who shall all speak o ne tongue. TheopompusJacoby, , Theopompus, no. 65. says that, according to the sages, one god is to overpower, and the other to be overpowered, each in turn for the space of three thousand years, and afterward for another three thousand years they shall fight and war, and the one shall undo the works of the other, and finally Hades shall pass away; then shall the people be happy, and neither shall they need to have food nor shall they cast any shadow. And the god, who has contrived to bring about all these things, shall then have quiet and shall repose for a time,The meaning of the text is clear enough, but the wording of it is uncertain. no long time indeed, but for the god as much as would be a moderate time for a man to sleep.

Such, then, is the character of the mythology of the sages.

The Chaldeans declare that of the planets, which they call tutelary gods,The translation is based on an emendation of Wyttenbach’s, which makes the words refer to Chaldean astrology (i.e. the planet under which one is born). Cf. Sextus Empiricus, , v. 29. two are beneficent, two maleficent, and the other three are median and partake of both qualities. The beliefs of the Greeks are well known to all; they make the good part to belong to Olympian Zeus and the abominated part to Hades, and they rehearse a legend that Concord is sprung from Aphroditê and Ares,That is, from Love and War. the one of whom is harsh and contentious, and the other mild and tutelary. Observe also that the philosophers are in agreement with these; for HeracleitusDiels, , i. p. 88, no. b 53. without reservation styles War the Father and King and Lord of All, and he says that when Homer xviii. 107, but Plutarch modifies the line to suit his context. prays that Strife may vanish away from the ranks of the gods and of mortals, he fails to note that he is invoking a curse on the origin of all things, since all things originate from strife and antagonism; also Heracleitus says that the Sun will not transgress his appropriate bounds, otherwise the stern-eyed maidens, ministers of Justice, will find him out.Cf., 604 a; Origen, , vi. 42; Diels, , i. p. 96, no. b 94.

EmpedoclesIbid. p. 232, Empedocles, no. 18; p. 239, no. 17, 1. 19; and p. 269, no. 122 (=, 474 b). calls the beneficent principle friendship or friendliness, and oftentimes he calls Concord sedate of countenance; the worse principle he calls accursed quarrelling and blood-stained strife.

The adherents of PythagorasCf., 881 e, and Aristotle, , i. 5 (986 a 22). include a variety of terms under these categories: under the good they set Unity, the Determinate, the Permanent, the Straight, the Odd, the Square, the Equal, the Righthanded, the Bright; under the bad they set Duality, the Indeterminate, the Moving, the Curved, the Even, the Oblong, the Unequal, the Left-handed, the Dark, on the supposition that these are the underlying principles of creation. For these, however, Anaxagoras postulates Mind and Infinitude, AristotleCf. Aristotle, , i. 9 (990 b). Form and Privation, and Plato,, 35 a; Cf., 441 f. in many passages, as though obscuring and veiling his opinion, names the one of the opposing principles Identity and the other Difference; but in his Laws,Plato, , 896 d ff. when he had grown considerably older, he asserts, not in circumlocution or symbolically, but. in specific words, that the movement of the Universe is actuated not by one soul, but perhaps by several, and certainly by not less than two, and of these the one is beneficent, and the other is opposed to it and the artificer of things opposed. Between these he leaves a certain third nature, not inanimate nor irrational nor without the power to move of itself,Cf. 374 e, infra. as some think, but with dependence on both those others, and desiring the better always and yearning after it and pursuing it, as the succeeding portion of the treatise will make clear, in the endeavour to reconcile the religious beliefs of the Egyptians with this philosophy.Cf. 372 e and 377 a, infra.

The fact is that the creation and constitution of this world is complex, resulting, as it does, from opposing influences, which, however, are not of equal strength, but the predominance rests with the better. Yet it is impossible for the bad to be completely eradicated, since it is innate, in large amount, in the body and likewise in the soul of the Universe, and is always fighting a hard fight against the better. So in the soul Intelligence and Reason, the Ruler and Lord of all that is good, is Osiris, and in earth and wind and water and the heavens and stars that which is ordered, established, and healthy, as evidenced by seasons, temperatures, and cycles of revolution, is the efflux of OsirisSee the note on 365 b, supra. and his reflected image. But Typhon is that part of the soul which is impressionable, impulsive, irrational and truculent, and of the bodily part the destructible, diseased and disorderly as evidenced by abnormal seasons and temperatures, and by obscurations of the sun and disappearances of the moon,Cf. 368 f, supra. outbursts, as it were, and unruly actions on the part of Typhon. And the name Seth, Cf. 367 d, supra, and 376 a, infra. by which they call Typhon, denotes this; it means the overmastering and overpowering, So also in the Egyptian papyri. and it means in very many instances turning back, Cf. 376 b, infra. and again overpassing. Some say that one of the companions of Typhon was Bebon,Cf. 376 a, infra. but Manetho says that Bebon was still another name by which Typhon was called. The name signifies restraint or hindrance, as much as to say that, when things are going along in a proper way and making rapid progress towards the right end, the power of Typhon obstructs them.