Plutarch De Defectu Oraculorum 47

[47] Then I, addressing myself to him, said, Not only has it set me thinking, Philip, but it has filled me with confusion, if, in the presence of so many men such as you all are, I seem, in contradiction to my years, to give myself airs over the plausibility of my argument and to upset or disturb any of the beliefs regarding the Deity which have been conceived in truth and in piety. I shall defend myself by citing Plato as my witness and advocate in one. That philosopher ¹ found fault with Anaxagoras, the one of early times, because he was too much wrapped up in the physical causes and was always following up and pursuing the law of necessity as it was worked out in the behaviour of bodies, and left out of account the purpose and the agent, which are better causes and origins. Plato himself was the first of the philosophers, or the one most prominently engaged in prosecuting investigations of both sorts, to assign to God, on the one hand, the origin of all things that are in keeping with reason, and on the other hand, not to divest matter of the causes necessary for whatever comes into being, but to realize that the perceptible universe, even when arranged in some such orderly way as this, is not pure and unalloyed, but that it takes its origin from matter when matter comes into conjunction with reason. Observe first how it is with the artists. Take as our first example the far-famed stand and base for the mixing-bowl here which Herodotus ² has styled the bowl-holder; it came to have as its material causes fire and steel and softening by means of fire and tempering by means of water, without which there is no expedient by which this work could be produced; but art and reason supplied for it the more dominant principle which set all these in motion and operated through them. And, indeed, the author and creator of these likenesses and portraits here stands recorded in the inscription ³ :

Thasian by race and descent, Aglaophon’s son Polygnotus

Painted the taking of Troy, showing her citadel’s sack;

so that it may be seen that he painted them. But without pigments ground together, losing their own colour in the process, nothing could achieve such a composition and sight. Does he, then, who is desirous of getting hold of the material cause, as he investigates and explains the behaviour of the red earth of Sinopê and the changes to which it is subject when mixed with yellow ochre, or of the light-coloured earth of Melos when mixed with lamp-black, take away the repute of the artist? And he that goes into the details of the hardening and the softening of steel, how it is relaxed by the fire, and becomes pliant and yielding for those who forge and fashion it, and then, plunged anew into clear water, is contracted and compacted by the coldness because of the softness and looseness of texture previously engendered by the fire, and acquires a tenseness and firmness which Homer ⁴ has called the brawn of steel — does such an investigator any the less preserve intact for the artist the credit for the creation of the work? I think not. In fact there are some who question the properties of medicinal agents, but they do not do away with medical science. And thus when Plato ⁵ declared that we see by the commingling of the irradiation from our eyes with the light of the sun, and that we hear by the vibration of the air, he certainly did not mean by this to abrogate the fundamenta! fact that it is according to the design of Reason and Providence that we have been endowed with sight and hearing.

[47] And, as to my part, quoth I, O Philippus! I am not only much moved, but also ashamed, considering my youth, in the presence of so many wise and grave personages, to appear as if I endeavored by sophistry to impose upon them, and to destroy and evacuate what sage and holy men have determined concerning the divine nature and power. But though I am young, yet Plato was old and wise as you are, and he shall be my example and advocate in this case. He reprehended Anaxagoras for applying himself too much to natural causes, always following and pursuing the necessary and material cause of the passions and affections incident to bodies, and omitting the final and efficient, which are much better and more considerable principles than the other. But Plato either first, or most of all the philosophers, hath joined both of these principles together, attributing to God the causality of all things that are according to reason, and yet not depriving matter of a necessary or passive concurrence; but acknowledging that the adorning and disposing of all this sensible world does not depend on one single and simple cause, but took its being from the conjunction and fellowship of matter with reason. This may be illustrated by the works of art; as, for example, without going any further, the foot of the famous cup which is amongst the treasure of this temple, which Herodotus calls a Hypocrateridion, that has for the material causes fire and iron, and pliableness by means of fire, and the tincture in water, without which such a piece of work could not be wrought. But the principal cause, and that which is most properly so called, which wrought by all these, was art and reason. And we see the name of the artist set on all such pieces, according to that, But yet, without colors mixed and confounded with one another, it had been impossible to have done a piece so pleasing to the eye. Should one come then and enquire into the material cause, searching into and discoursing concerning the alterations and mutations which the vermilion receives mixed with ochre, or the ceruse with black, would he thereby lessen the credit of the painter Polygnotus? And so he that shall discourse how iron is both hardened and mollified, and how, being softened in the fire, it becomes obedient to them who by beating it drive it out in length and breadth; and afterwards, being plunged into fresh water, by the coldness of it becomes hardened and condensed after it was softened and rarefied by the fire, and acquires a firmness and temper which Homer calls the strength of the iron,—does he, because of this, e’er the less attribute the cause of the work to the workman? I do not think he does; for those who examine the virtues and properties of medicinal drugs do not thereby condemn the art of physic. Just as when Plato says that we see because the light of the eye is mixed with the clearness of the sun, and that we hear by the percussion of the air, yet this does not hinder but that we have the faculty of seeing and hearing from Divine Providence.