Eusebius of Caesarea, Against Hierocles

a sorcerer of the locals and that they were his leaders. And yet it is worth being perplexed, setting beside it the words at the beginning of Philostratus, in which being perplexed, that indeed they have supposed him a sorcerer, he marvels at these very things, saying that Empedocles and Pythagoras and Democritus, having associated with the same magi, were not yet seduced by the art, and that Plato, having received many things from the priests and prophets in Egypt and having mixed these things with his own discourses, in no way seemed to some to practice magic, but that this man was not yet known among men, that indeed he was impelled by true wisdom, but that he was considered a magus both of old and even now, because he had associated with the magi of the Babylonians, and the Brahmans of the Indians, and the Gymnosophists of the Egyptians. What then shall be said to him? O you, what such thing was attempted by this man, that he alone was considered a sorcerer both of old and even now, compared to such great men, who, having experienced the same teachers as he, as you say, were distinguished both in the times in which they were known and also for later times have left behind the famed excellence of their philosophy, unless perhaps by attempting things beyond what is proper he had become manifest to those who think rightly, for there are some now who say they have found curious contrivances dedicated to the name of the man. But it is not for me to pay attention to these things. But indeed, also concerning the end of the man, composing things consistent with the former, he revealed that he knew nothing true, for some relate 408 that he died in Ephesus, others in Lindos, having entered the temple of Athena, and others in Crete, and having scattered so much ignorance about his end, he wants him to have gone to heaven with his body itself. For he says that when he ran into a temple the gates were closed and a certain unexpected song of maidens broke forth, and the song was: “Go, go to heaven, go.” And he says that he has not yet chanced upon either a tomb or a cenotaph of the man, although he says he has traversed the earth, as much as it is (a very great amount), and his thought wants the man not to have been touched by death at all, for at first, being in doubt about the manner in which he died, he says “if indeed he died,” but later he expressly asserts that he also went to heaven. Wherefore, as being such a one, both in the preface of the whole work and throughout the whole work, he says that he approached philosophy in a more divine manner than Pythagoras and Empedocles. But as the account is being outlined in these things, let us now discuss a few things concerning the Fates and destiny, proclaiming what the account might mean for him throughout the whole hypothesis, by doing away with what is in our power, but introducing necessity and destiny and the Fates, for in this way for us also the man's false opinion in his doctrines will be completely set straight. If then, according to the principle of true philosophy, every soul is immortal, for that which is ever-moving is immortal, but that which moves another and is moved by another, having a pause from motion has a pause from life, and the cause is of the one who chooses, God is without cause, what reason chooses, that the ever-moving nature is led hither 409 and thither unwillingly, and not according to choice, like a soulless body moved from somewhere outside and as if pulled by strings, acting in no way at all from its own impulse and motion, nor referring to itself the cause of the things done, and in this way happens to be neither praiseworthy for philosophizing nor again blameworthy, being full of vice and wickedness? Why then, my good sir, do you find fault while reviling Euphrates, if, not from himself, but from destiny having given himself over to profit, as you yourself deem, he was neglectful of philosophy? And why do you insult sorcerers, calling them false philosophers, being dragged down, as you think, by the Fates to a wretched life? And why do you simply name vice, and is not some wicked man among men judged unjustly by you, fulfilling the destined boundary out of necessity? And conversely, with what reason, speaking solemnly of Pythagoras, do you style him a wonderful teacher, and a plaything of the Fates, but not

ἐπιχωρίων γόητα καὶ τούτων ἡγουμένων αὐτόν. καίτοι ἄξιον ἀπορῆσαι παραθέμενον τὰς ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ Φιλοστράτου λέξεις, ἐν αἷς ἀπορῶν, ὅτι δὴ γόητα αὐτὸν ὑπειλήφασιν αὐτὰ δὴ ταῦτα θαυμάζει λέγων Ἐμπεδοκλέα μὲν καὶ Πυθαγόραν καὶ ∆ημόκριτον τοῖς αὐτοῖς μάγοις ὡμιληκότας οὔπω ὑπῆχθαι τέχνῃ, Πλάτωνά τε παρὰ τῶν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ ἱερέων τε καὶ προφητῶν πολλὰ παρειληφότα καὶ ταῦτα τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀναμίξαντα λόγοις οὐδαμῶς δόξαι τισὶ μαγεύειν, τουτονὶ δὲ οὔπω γιγνώσκεσθαι παρ' ἀνθρώποις, ὅτι δὴ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθινῆς ὁρμῷτο σοφίας, μάγον δὲ αὐτὸν πάλαι τε καὶ εἰσέτι νῦν νενομίσθαι τῷ μάγοις Βαβυλωνίων Ἰνδῶν τε Βραχμᾶσι καὶ τοῖς Αἰγυπτίων Γυμνοῖς ὡμιληκέναι. τί δῆτα οὖν εἰρήσεται πρὸς αὐτόν; ὦ οὗτος, τῷδε τῷ ἀνδρὶ τί τοιοῦτο ἐπεχειρεῖτο, ὡς μόνον γόητα πάλαι τε καὶ εἰσέτι νῦν νενομίσθαι παρὰ τοὺς τηλικούτους ἄνδρας, οἳ τῶν αὐτῶν αὐτῷ, ὡς φῄς, διδασκάλων πεπειραμένοι διέπρεψαν μὲν καὶ καθ' οὓς ἐγνωρίζοντο χρόνους καὶ εἰς τοὺς μετέπειτα δὲ τῆς σφῶν φιλοσοφίας ἀοίδιμον καταλελοίπασι τὴν ἀρετήν, εἰ μὴ ἄρα πέρα τῶν προσηκόντων ἐγχειρῶν τοῖς εὖ φρονοῦσι φανερὸς καθειστήκει, αὐτίκα τῶν νῦν εἰσιν, οἳ περιέργους μηχανὰς τῇ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἀνακειμένας προσηγορίᾳ κατειληφέναι λέγουσιν. ἀλλ' οὐκ ἔμοιγε τούτοις φίλον προσέχειν τὸν νοῦν. ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ περὶ τῆς τελευτῆς τἀνδρὸς ἀκόλουθα τοῖς προτέροις συντάττων οὐδὲν ἀληθὲς ἐξέφηνεν εἰδέναι, τοὺς μὲν 408 γὰρ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ τελευτῆσαι αὐτὸν ἱστορεῖν, τοὺς δὲ ἐν Λίνδῳ παρελθόντα ἐς τὸ ἱερὸν τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς, ἄλλους δὲ ἐν Κρήτῃ, καὶ τοσαύτην ἄγνοιαν τοῦ περὶ αὐτὸν τέλους κατασκεδάσας βούλεται αὐτὸν ἐς οὐρανὸν αὐτῷ σώματι χωρῆσαι. ἐσδραμόντος γὰρ ἐς ἱερόν φησι κλεισθῆναι τὰς πύλας καὶ τινὰ ᾠδὴν ἀδόκητον παρθένων ἐκπεσεῖν, τὸ δὲ ᾆσμα εἶναι· «στεῖχε, στεῖχε ἐς οὐρανόν, στεῖχε.» λέγει δέ, ὡς μήτε τάφῳ μήτε κενοταφίῳ τοῦ ἀνδρός πω περιτύχοι, καίτοι τῆς γῆς, ὁπόση ἐστίν, φήσας ἐπελθεῖν (πλείστην), καὶ βούλεται αὐτῷ ἡ διάνοια μηδὲ ὅλως θανάτου τὸν ἄνδρα θιγεῖν, πρότερον μὲν γὰρ ἀμφιβάλλων περὶ τοῦ τρόπου, καθ' ὃν ἐτελεύτα, φησὶν «εἴγε ἐτελεύτα,» ὕστερον δὲ διαρρήδην καὶ ἐς οὐρανὸν αὐτὸν χωρῆσαι φάσκει. ὅθεν ὡς δὴ τοιοῦτον ὄντα καὶ κατὰ τὸ προοίμιον τῆς ὅλης γραφῆς καὶ καθ' ὅλην τὴν γραφὴν Πυθαγόρου καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλέους θειότερόν φησι προσεληλυθέναι φιλοσοφίᾳ. Ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἐν τούτοις περιγραφομένου τοῦ λόγου βραχέ' ἄττα περὶ Μοιρῶν καὶ εἱμαρμένης φέρε διαλάβωμεν, ὅ τι καὶ βούλοιτο δι' ὅλης αὐτῷ τῆς ὑποθέσεως ὁ λόγος τὸ μὲν ἐφ' ἡμῖν ἀναιρῶν, ἀνάγκην δὲ εἰσάγων καὶ εἱμαρμένην καὶ Μοίρας, διαθροῦντες, ταύτῃ γὰρ ἡμῖν ἐντελῶς καὶ ἡ ἐν δόγμασι ψευδοδοξία τἀνδρὸς διευθυνθήσεται. εἰ δὴ οὖν κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἀληθοῦς φιλοσοφίας λόγον ψυχὴ πᾶσα ἀθάνατος, τὸ γὰρ ἀεικίνητον ἀθάνατον, τὸ δ' ἄλλο κινοῦν καὶ ὑφ' ἑτέρου κινούμενον παῦλαν ἔχον κινήσεως παῦλαν ἔχει ζῳῆς, καὶ αἰτία ἑλομένου, θεὸς ἀναίτιος, τίς αἱρεῖ λόγος, ἄκουσαν, οὐχὶ δὲ κατὰ προαίρεσιν, ἀψύχου δίκην σώματος ἔξωθέν ποθεν κινουμένην καὶ ὡσπερεὶ νευροσπαστουμένην ὧδε 409 κἀκεῖσε τὴν ἀεικίνητον ἄγεσθαι φύσιν μηδὲν μηδαμῶς ἐξ ἰδίας ὁρμῆς καὶ κινήσεως ἐνεργοῦσαν, μηδὲ εἰς ἑαυτὴν τὴν τῶν δρωμένων ἀναφέρουσαν αἰτίαν ταύτῃ τε μήτε φιλοσοφοῦσαν ἐπαινετέαν τυγχάνειν μήτ' αὖ ψεκτὴν κακίας ἔμπλεων καὶ πονηρίας; τί δῆτα οὖν Εὐφράτῃ λοιδορούμενος καταμέμφῃ, ὦ τᾶν, εἰ μὴ παρ' ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλ' ἐξ εἱμαρμένης ἐπὶ τὸ κέρδος ἐκδούς, ὡς αὐτὸς ἀξιοῖς, ὠλιγώρει φιλοσοφίας; τί δὲ καὶ γόησιν ἐνυβρίζεις ψευδοσόφους ἀποκαλῶν ὑπὸ Μοιρῶν, ὡς ἡγῇ, καθελκομένους ἐπὶ τὸν κακοδαίμονα βίον; τί δὲ κακίαν ἁπλῶς ὀνομάζεις, καὶ πονηρός τις ἀνθρώπων οὐκ ἐν δίκῃ κρίνεται παρὰ σοὶ τὸν ἐξ ἀνάγκης εἱμαρμένον ἀποπληρῶν ὅρον; καὶ ἔμπαλιν τίνι λόγῳ Πυθαγόραν σεμνολογῶν θαυμαστὸν ἐπιγράφῃ διδάσκαλον, καὶ Μοιρῶν παίγνιον, ἀλλ' οὐκ