Tertullian — On the Soul 28
AGAINST PLATO: THAT THE LIVING ARE NOT MADE FROM THE DEAD. What is that old speech in Plato's memory of souls' reciprocal course — that going hence they are there and again come here and become, and from then on living are again made from the dead? Pythagorean, some will have it; Albinus thinks it divine, perhaps of Egyptian Hermes. But no speech is divine except of the one God, by whom the prophets, the apostles, Christ himself thundered. Moses is far older even than Saturn — about nine hundred years — and much more divine, who set out the course of the human race from the world's beginning also through single births by name and time, well enough proved divine in the work by the foretelling of the voice.
But if the Samian sophist is Plato's author for the soul's revolving return always from the alternate supplying of dead and living, certainly that Pythagoras, though good otherwise, yet to build this opinion leaned on a lie not only base but also rash. He feigns death, hides underground, condemns himself to seven years' patience there; meanwhile he learns from his only conscious helper — his mother — what of later dead he would report for belief. Then he emerges from the shrines of deceit as if returned from the lower places. So that living are made from the dead is an older tale. How shall I believe Pythagoras does not lie, who lies that I may believe? How will he persuade me he was Aethalides and Euphorbus and Pyrrhus the fisherman and Hermotimus before Pythagoras, to persuade that living are made from the dead — when he again perjured himself as Pythagoras? Even if he recognized Euphorbus's shield at Delphi, look to his underground chamber and, if you can, believe. For he who invented such a turn — with injury to health, with fraud of a life tortured seven years under earth — what rashness will he not have approached to reach knowledge of that shield? Or magic exploring secrets through familiar spirits? Finally, he who proved himself Euphorbus by the shield's mark — why did he recognize none of the Trojan comrades alike? For they too would already have lived again, if living were made from the dead.
Latin
ADVERSVS PLATONEM, NON EX MORTVIS FIERI VIVOS. [1] Quis ille nunc uetus sermo apud memoriam Platonis de animarum reciproco discursu, quod hinc abeuntes sint illuc et rursus huc ueniant et fiant et dehinc ita habeat rursus ex mortuis effici uiuos? Pythagoricus, ut uolunt quidam; diuinum Albinus existimat, Mercurii forsitan Aegyptii. Sed nullus sermo diuinus nisi dei unius, quo prophetae, quo apostoli, quo ipse Christus intonuit. Multo antiquior Moyses etiam Saturno, nongentis circiter annis, nedum pronepotibus eius, certe diuinior multo, qui decursus generis humani ab exordio mundi quoque per singulas natiuitates nominatim temporatimque digessit, satis probatus diuinitatem operis ex diuinatione uocis. [2] Si uero Samius sophista Platoni auctor est de animarum recidiuatu reuolubili semper ex alterna mortuorum atque uiuentium suffectione, certe ille Pythagoras, etsi bonus cetera, tamen ut hanc sententiam exstrueret, non turpi modo, uerum etiam temerario mendacio incubuit. Cognosce, qui nescis, et crede nobiscum. Mortem simulat, subterraneo latitat, septennio illic patientiam damnat; interea quae de posteris defunctis ad fidem rerum esset relaturus ab unica conscia et ministra matre cognoscit. Vt satis sibi uisus est corpulentiam interpolasse ad omnem mortui ueteris horrorem, de adytis fallaciae emergit ut ab inferis redditus.
[3] Quis non crederet reuixisse quem crediderat obisse, audiens praesertim ab eo, quae de posteris mortuis nisi apud inferos non uideretur cognoscere potuisse? Sic ex mortuis uiuos effici senior sermo est. Quid enim, si et iunior? Neque ueritas desiderat uetustatem neque mendacium deuitat nouellitatem. Teneo plane falsum, antiquitate generosum; quidni falsum, cuius testimonium quoque ex falso est? Quomodo credam non mentiri Pythagoran, qui mentitur, ut credam? Quomodo mihi persuadebit Aethalidem et Euphorbum et Pyrrhum piscatorem et Hermotimum se retro ante Pythagoran fuisse, ut persuadeat uiuos ex mortuis effici, qui iterum se Pythagoran peierauit? Quanto enim credibilius ipse ex semetipso semel redisset in uitam quam totiens alius atque alius, tanto et in durioribus fefellit, qui molliora mentitus est. [4] 'Sed clipeum Euphorbi olim Delphis consecratum recognouit et suum dixit et de signis uulgo ignotis probauit'. Respice ad hypogeum eius et, si capit, crede. Nam qui talem commentus est stropham, cum iniuria bonae ualetudinis, cum fraude uitae septennio excruciatae infra terram inedia ignauia umbra, cui tanti fuit fastidium caeli, quam non accesserit temeritatem, quam non temptauerit curiositatem, ut ad notam clipei illius perueniret? [5] Quid autem, si in historiis aliquibus occultioribus repperit? Quid, si defectae iam traditionis superstites aliquas famae aurulas hausit? Quid, si ab aedituo redempta clam inspectione cognouit? Scimus etiam magiae licere explorandis occultis per catabolicos et paredros et pythonicos spiritus. Non enim et Pherecydes, Pythagorae magister, his forsitan artibus diuinabat, ne dicam somniabat? Quid, si idem daemon in illo fuit qui et in Euphorbo res sanguinis gessit? Denique qui se Euphorbum ex argumento clipei probarat, cur neminem Troianorum commilitonum aeque recognouit? Nam et illi iam reuixissent, si uiui ex mortuis fierent.