¹ This has been shown in a previous article: New Light on Galen's Moral Philosophy (from a recently discovered Arabic source). Classical Quarterly 1949, pp. 82–96; cf. p. 84 n. 3 and n. 5.

² Cf., e.g., De moribus p. 31. 10 Kraus: “I should put down the distinguishing marks (ʻalāmāt) of the ἤθη.” Follows the discussion of ὀργή and θυμός and the very interesting description of ἀνδρεία which contains some very unusual features.

^2a Cf. now Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, Halbband, 43, 1953, col. 768 f.

³ Cf. Class. Quart, (above n. 1), p. 91 f. and p. 84 n. 4. The further development of the Φιλανθρωπία (cf. S. TROMP DE RUYTER, De vocis quae est Φιλανθρωπία significatione atque usu, Mnemosyne 59, 1932, p. 271 ff.) into a general love of mankind on philosophical grounds deserves a special inquiry. It comes, surprisingly, to the surface in an Arabic work on moral philosophy, based entirely on a lost Greek treatise and written by the Christian Arabic philosopher Yaḥyā ibn ʻAdī (cf. G. Graf, Geschichte der christlichen-arabischen Litteratur II p. 233ff.), the pupil of Al-Fārābī (d. A.D. 950) who naturalized the platonic philosopher-king in Arabian lands: Kitāb tahdhīb al-akhlāq, Rasā᾽il al-Bulaghā, 3rd edition, Cairo 1946, p. 517.

⁴ Cf., e.g., Galen, Quod an. virt. 3 (Scripta Minora II p. 36. 12): ὅτι δ᾽ἐκ τούτων τῶν εἰδῶν τε καὶ μερῶν τῆς ὅλης ψυχῆς τὸ λογιστικὸν ἀθάνατόν ἐστι, Πλάτων μὲν φαἰνεται πεπεισμένος, ἐγὼ δ᾽οὔθ᾽ὡς ἔστιν οὔθ᾽ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν ἔχω διατεἰνεσθαι πρὸς αὐτόν (“Plato seems to be convinced that the rational part of the whole soul is immortal, but with respect to his view I am unable to maintain either that it is or that it is not”) and Περὶ τῶν ἑαυτὦ δοκούντων, vol. IV p. 761, 2 ff., Kuehn (Cf. Plato Arabus I., London 1951, p. 15 and n. 4).

⁵ P. 59.10–60.5 of the Arabic text, vol. I p. 123 of the translation (Second edition: London 1910). Al-Bīrūnī completed his work on India about A.D. 1030 at the court of Maḥmūd of Ghazna.

⁶ This was certainly to be read in the Greek original. The Arabic translator has ‘angels’ malā᾽ika instead. Cf. below n. 14.

⁷ ‘Angels’: Arabic version.

⁸ ‘Angel’: Arabic version.

⁹ ‘Angel’: Arabic version.

¹⁰ ‘Angels’: Arabic version.

¹¹ ‘Star’: Arabic version and Al-Bīrūnī. Cf. below n. 15.

¹² ‘Mercury, ‘uṭārid’: Al-Bīrūnī (i.e. the name of the star, cf., e.g., Plato Arabus I, Ch. IVe).

¹³ ‘God’: Also in the Arabic version. This way of expression was not objectionable to a Muslim mind. Cf., e.g., Al-Kindi's (d. after A.D. 870) reference to the Platonic ὁμοίωσις θεῷ as tashabbuh bi-l-bāriʻ ‘assimilation to the Creator’ (Rasā᾿il p. 274.14 Abū Rīda); Miskawaih, Tahdhīb (cf. below n. 27) p. 30.14.

¹⁴ Notes 6–10. Cf. Plato Arabus I (London 1951) pp. 24 f. 48. Cf. Gregory of Nyssa, De instit. Christ. p. 70.29 Jaeger: τὸν τῶν ἀγγέλων ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ζήσεσθε βίον and his Christianization of Platonism: χριστιανισμός ἐστι τῆς θείας φύσεως μίμησις (Cf. Ernst H. Kantorowicz, Harvard Theological Review 45, 1952, p. 276 n. 70). Cf. also Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica N.S. 14, 1937, p. 128 f.; Chalcidius cap. 132–134 (p. 195ff. Wrobel). Proclus, Ad Plat. Tim. 90a (ed. Pfaff, Corpus Medicorum Graecorum Suppl. 3, 1941, p. 57 l.15 and note i. Al-Fārābī, Siyāsa, p. 3.11. — F. Cumont, Lux Perpetua, Paris 1949, p. 231 and n. 3–8.

¹⁵ The Christian Jacobite translator of the so-called “Theology of Aristotle” can translate the plotinian θεοί by ‘stars,’ ‘planets,’ ‘masters,’ ‘masters of the stars,’ cf. Plato Arabus I p. 48. For the identification of the pagan gods with stars cf. Al-Bīrūnī (below p. 254) and, e.g., E. Levi della Vida, La traduzione araba delle storie die Orosio, Miscellanea Galbiati III, Milano 1951, p. 188f. n. 4: “La religione dei Romani prima del Christianesimo consisteva nel culto degli astri. Cosὶ racconta Orosio (!)” (Cf. Ibn-al Qifṭī p. 10.1 ff. Lippert).

¹⁶ Ἑρμῆς or Ἑρμείας can mean both the herm pillar and the god.

¹⁷ Γλύψας ἐπώλει λυγδινόν τις Ἑρμείην

τὸν δ᾽ ἠγόραζον ἄνδρες, δς μὲν εὶς στήλην

(υἱὸς γὰρ αὐτῷ προσϕάτως ἐτεθνήκει)

ὸ δὲ χειροτέχνης ὡς θεὸν καθιδρύσων.

5 ἦν δ᾽ὸψέ, χὡ λιθουργὸς οὸς οὐκ ἐπεπράκει

συνθέμενος αὐτοῖς εἰς τὸν ὄρθρον αὖ δεῖξαι

ἐλθοῦσιν.ὸ δὲ λιθουργὸς εἶδεν πὑνώσας

αὐτὸν τὸν Ἑρμῆν ἐν πύλαις ὀνειρείαις,

《εἶεν》 λέγοντα, 《τἀμὰ νῦν ταλαντεύῃ

10 ἓν γάρ με, νεκρὸν ἢ θεόν, σύ ποιήσεις.》

1.4 χειροτέχνης has not yet been satisfactorily explained. If one believes a Greek author of the 2nd century A.D. to be capable of such a clumsy way of expressing himself — and the present writer can certainly not claim to be an expert in Babrius' style—, the second buyer would be an artisan who intends to dedicate a statue of the patron of the artisans, Hermes. But C. Lachmann's and O. Schneider's slight alteration of χειροτέχνης to χειροτέχνημ᾿, as E. Panofsky rightly insists, gives a good sense: “a work of human hands representing a god” and fits in very well with the general character of the fable.

¹⁸ Cf. Johansen, K. Friis, The Attic Grave Reliefs of the Classical Period (Copenhagen 1951), p. 71 ffGoogle Scholar. and p. 72 n. 1 and the literature quoted by him.

¹⁹ Cf., e.g., Richter, Gisela M.. The Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks, 3rd edition (New Haven 1950) p. 238Google Scholar and fig. 628/9 or Lippold, G., Die griechische Plastik, Handbuch der Archaeologie, Fünfte Lieferung (München 1950), p. 186Google Scholar and Tafel 67.3.

²⁰ A strange variation of obviously the same motif Apuleius, Apol. 43: “non enim ex omni ligno, ut Pythagoras dicebat, debet Mercurius exculpi.” Iamblichus, Life of Pythagoras 34.245.

²¹ Cf. K. Friis Johansen, op. cit., p. 70 and p. 148 n. 1. Cf. also Curtius, L., Interpretationen von sechs griechischen Bildwerken, Bern 1947, p. 11 fGoogle Scholar.

²² De Is. et Osir. 67. 377 f.

²³ II 10, p. 29.9 Hobein: “If a Greek is stirred to the remembrance of God (πρὸς τὴν μνήμην τοῦ θεοῦ) by the art of Phidias, an Egyptian by paying worship to animals, another man by a river, another by fire — I have no anger for their divergences; only let them know, let them love, let them remember (μνημονευέτωσαν)” Cf. L. Friedlaender, Sittengeschichte Roms, vol. IV, p. 221. Julian Orat. IV (V Hertlein) p. 170 A f. For a completely different attitude (Iamblichus) cf. P. Kraus, Jābir ibn Hayyan II (Cairo 1942), p. 123 ff. and John Philoponus' refutation of Iamblichus, Photius Bibl. Cod. 215.

²⁴ ʼΑν οὖν τις αὐτῷ ἀνάγκη γέκηται ἂ ἐκεῖ ὸρᾷ μελετῆσαι εὶς ἀνθρώπων ἤθη καὶἰδίᾳ καὶ δημοσίᾳ τιθέναι καὶ μὴ μόνον ἑαυτὸν πλάττειν, ἆρα κακὸν δημιουρϒὸν αὔτὸν οἴει ϒενήσεσθαι σωϕροσύνης τε καὶ δικαιοσύνης καὶ δυμπάσης τῆς δημοτικῆς ἀρετῆς;

²⁵ Plut. ᾿Eκ τῶν Περὶ ἡσυχίας (vol. VII p. 119 Bern. = Stob. Flor. IV, cap. XVI 18): ἡ δὲ ἠρεμία σοφίας οὖσα γυμνάσιον ἠθοποιὸς ἀγαθὴ καὶ πλάττει καὶ μετευθύνει τῶν ἀνδρῶν τὰς ψυχάς. Gregory of Nyssa, De professione Christiana p. 133.5 Jaeger: τὴν φύσιν ἑαυτῶν τῆ πίστει μορφώσαντες. [Socrates] ap. Stob. Flor. III, cap. I, no. 89: τοῦ βίου καθάπερ ἀγάλματος πάντα τὰ μέρη καλὰ εῖναι δεῖ. Dio-togenes ap. Stob. IV p. 265.10 Hense = L. Delatte, Traités de la Royauté etc. p. 39.10: ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς ἀρχὰν ἔχων άνυπεύθυνον καὶ αὐτὸς ὢν νόμος ἔμψυχος θεὸς ἐν ἀνθρώποις παρεσχημάτισται.

²⁶ Cf Dodds, E.R., Select Passages Illustrating Neo-Platonism, LondonS. P. C. K. 1923, p. 113Google Scholar.

²⁷ I think it is not out of the way to mention here one other interesting feature from Galen's work De moribus which seems not to be mentioned in other Greek works on moral philosophy. In the third book (p. 45 Kraus) Galen did not compare the interplay of the three Platonic ‘souls’ to a charioteer and two winged horses as Plato does in the Phaedrus (246 E ff.), but likened them to a hunter, a dog and an unspecified greedy animal who almost form a single whole, so closely are they knitted together. Sometimes the animal succeeds in forcibly carrying the hunter and dog with it. The hunter wants to ascend to a high and very beautiful spot, whereas the animal tries to use his help for the satisfaction of its own greed. The hunter soon realizes that only by resorting to a trick will he increase his own and his dog's strength and permanently keep down the animal. He waits until the animal falls asleep and then starts deceiving it by removing everything which might rouse its appetite. When it wakes up again, it finds only scanty food, just sufficient to relieve it of its hunger. Thus the animal which represents the vegetative or appetitive soul will be definitely weakened, and the hunter and dog, having time to increase their concerted strength, will keep it in its place. There appears to be no parallel to this ‘parable’ (mithāl) in extant Greek or Latin texts but the Arabic writer Miskawaih (died A.D. 1030) knows a better version of it, in which the ‘animal’ is the riding beast of the hunter (Tahdhīb al-Akhlāq. cap. 2, p. 18, 20 ff. of the Cairo edition of 1322/1904). He does not ascribe it to Galen, although he knows his De moribus very well (cf. Class. Quart. 1949, pp. 83 n. 2 and 93 f.), but to the ἀρχαῖοι (qudamā) in general. Miskawaih's immediate source may well have been Porphyry or some otherwise unknown author of a manual which depended on him. But the comparison itself must be older than Galen and have been invented by some representative Hellenistic philosopher.— In the first book (p. 21 f. and p. 27. 19 ff. Kraus) Galen likens the relation to be established between the rational and the spirited soul to the relation of a rider to his horse or of a hunter to his dog. There is again an Arabic parallel. Al-Kindi (died after A.D. 870) compares the spirited soul to a dog and ascribes the comparison to Plato (Rasā᾿il p. 274.15 ff. Abū Rīda: the rational soul is likened to a king, the appetitive soul to a pig. Cf. De moribus p. 34.2, 37.1 Kraus and also Al-Ghazaii, Das Elixier der Glückseligkeit, transl. by H. Ritter, Jena 1923, p. 31 f.); in another passage of the same psychological treatise he compares the spirited soul to a horse (op. cit. p. 273.11). Al-Kindi's ultimate source in this essay is almost certainly Porphyry (Cf. Un frammento nuovo di Aristotele, Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica N. S. 14, 1937, p. 125 ff. and Proclus, In Remp. II p. 96.10 Kroll). There are no traces of Galen's De moribus in Al-Kindī's work, and we are thus again thrown back to the same predecessor of Galen.

Galen, De placibis Hipp. et Pl. p. 455.6 Mueller (vol. V p. 475 K.), cf. K. Reinhardt, Poseidonios. col. 738 (Pauly-Wissowa),

Wensinck, A. F., La pensée de Ghazzātī (Paris 1940), p. 62 and n. 3Google Scholar.

²⁸ Cf. above n. 5. Cf. also A. Jeffery, Al-Bīrūnī's Contribution to Comparative Religion, Al-Biruni's Commemoration Volume, Calcutta 1951, pp. 126–160 passim.

²⁹ Cf. Class. Quart. 1949, p. 83 and n. 10.

³⁰ I like to refer, in this context, to some remarks by H. Ritter, to be found in Studies in Islamic Cultural History ed. G. E. van Grünebaum (The American Anthropologist 56 Memoir no. 76, 1954), p. 22: “Mr. R. drew attention to the almost complete lack of sculpture among the Arabs and their acustic rather than visual talent, which possibly is a common Semitic characteristic. The Arab resents the idea of representing God in human shape but not of his talking like a human being. As in the Old Testament, the faculty of hearing precedes that of seeing; it is always ‘God is hearing and seeing (samīʻun wa-baṣīrun).’

³¹ Cf. St. John Damascene, Orationes tres adversus eos qui sacras imagines abiciunt, passim. Prof. Milton Anastos draws my attention to a passage from the Acts of the Second Oecumenical Council of Nicaea (A.D. 787) to be found in J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 13 (Florence 1767), 44 E–45A: καὶ ὥδπερ παῖδες ϒνἠσιοι πατρός τινὸς ἀποδημἠσαντος πρὸς καιρὸν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν, πολλῇ τῇ στορϒῆ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐκ ψυχῆς διακείμενοι, κἂν τὴν ῥάβδον αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ θεάσωνται κἂν τὴν χλαμύδα, ταῦτα μετὰ δακρύων καταϕιλοῦντες ἀσπάζονται καὶ οὐκ ἐκεῖνα τιμῶντες ἀλλὰ τὸν πατέρα ποθοῦντες καὶ τιμῶντες οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς οἱ πιστοὶ ἄπαντες ὼς μὲν ῥάβδον χριστοῦ τὸν σταυρὸν προσκυνοῦ〈μεν〉. There are many similar passages in the same context.

Well known is St. Bonaventure's defense of religious images. They are admissible “propter simplicium ruditatem propter affectuum tarditatem propter memoriae labilitatem” — In Lib. III Sent. dist. 9, art. 1, qu. 2, quoted by E. Panofsky, Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism, Latrobe 1951, p. 31 f.

Avicenna considers formal prayers and other acts of religious observance as reminders, as necessary to “keep people's thought fixed firmly upon the recollection of God … without these reminders they will be apt to forget all about it one or two generations after the prophets' death.” — Najāt (Cairo edition 1938) P. 306.11 ff. 307.6 ff. English translation by Arberry, A. J., Avicenna On Theology, London 1951, p. 45 ffGoogle Scholar.

³² Cf. Sachau's translation, vol. I, p. 115, and note 30.

³³ Cf. above n. 15.

³⁴ Cf. Sachau's translation, vol. I, p. 123.