Letters 3.77–3.102

To Isidore the deacon. The divine Paul said that bodies will be spiritual at the resurrection for these two reasons: because they will be light, ethereal and above all suffering and weight, and because they will thenceforth yield to the divine Spirit alone. For now, even if the Spirit is present, the soul has authority over what is done; but then the bodies will rather be vessels of the Spirit. For not only they but the soul too will be spiritual, doing everything according to his laws. And if anyone asks about the bodies of sinners, we shall say either that, according to the first sense, they will be light and ethereal, or that they will be tormented by fire but not consumed, or that even if they wish to sin, they will not be able to.

To the same. [What is meant by "I was king among the single-girdled."] Since you wished to learn what was said by the renowned Job, "I was king among the single-girdled," I think that, since the single-girdled denote either army ranks, or barbarian bands, or gangs of robbers, he said something like this: "I commanded lawfully as over soldiers, or I mastered them bravely as over barbarians, or I struck fear into them as into robbers and prevented them from following their ways; and if they did not obey, I shut them up in the net of the laws."

To Palladius. Since, as I hear, you seem to labour not for the sake of knowing but to lay claim to the glory that comes from knowing, I want you to achieve this too: to aim at truth rather than glory. And if, drunk now with the passion of love of glory, you are vexed, I know well that when you have come to your senses you will be grateful.

To Zosimus the presbyter. Some say that, having made yourself a highway for horses to all shameful and servile passions, you keep yourself wholly impassable to the good and noble ones; and not by deception and false reasoning, welcoming the former and thrusting away the latter, but by judgment and will, and by being unwilling to do anything right. That is why the movement toward the good is difficult for you. For I would not say "return"; for they say that you have never either planned or done anything rightly. Consider, then, that as you drive on into deep old age, death is plainly before you; and, even late in the day, having had your fill, depart from evil.

To the same. I am not surprised if, uneducated in everything else, you have shown your ignorance in this too. I would have been surprised if, stumbling in other things, you had not erred in this. The shameful passions you know from yourself, and there is no need of words. But since you do not know the good and humane ones, I will tell you them. They are mercy, humanity, pity, kindness and the others akin to these. And if it troubles you that these too are called passions, I will furnish trustworthy men as guarantors and witnesses of this. I know that you will not follow what is said, being a nursling of lack of education; nevertheless I will speak. Demosthenes the orator, the chief of Greece, speaking of Philip, when he was asked to give back the Olynthian captives, said: "so that Philip was moved by some passion and granted the favour." Josephus, a man most distinguished for education and knowledge of letters, writing of the rebels who flourished at the capture of Jerusalem, said: "When an untamed and implacable nature takes on training in savagery, it becomes doubly impassable and inaccessible to pity, a good and humane passion." And no good passion had so perished as mercy. And Philo, a man thought to be either a pupil or a teacher of Plato because of the loftiness of his diction (for it was said of them, "Either Plato philonizes or Philo platonizes"), praising Moses as a hater of evil, said: "Being deeply moved and filled with just anger, he denounces certain Egyptians, I mean Pharaoh's taskmasters." For the soul undergoes something when it inclines to mercy, kindness, goodness, or hatred of evil. For unless someone is softened, he would not pity the suppliant; unless he is bent, he would not take pity on the one in need; unless he is moved, he would not do good to his enemy; unless he thinks justice wronged, he would not turn to hatred of evil. This change too they call a passion. For just as one who turns from the better to the worse undergoes something, so too one who turns from the worse to the better undergoes something. For passion is the name of a change. You too, then, even late in life, flee the shameful passions, so that you may not some day praise this advice when praise will be of no use to you.

To Ammonius. That Timothy of blessed memory tamed the impulses of that untamed beast and changed its harshness into harmony, the madness that broke out in the accursed Eusebius after his death has clearly shown.

To Eutonius the deacon. If the beauty of the body is not altered even by shocks, but keeps its beauty even in tears, much more ought the bloom of the soul not to be altered by the trials that befall it, even in misfortunes.

To Agathus the presbyter. [Why the law commanded that linen, wool and purple not be woven together, and in Leviticus also concerns itself with leprosy of garments and stones.] Since you have written asking what Moses intended in legislating that linen and wool not be woven together, that purple not be woven into linen garments, and in concerning himself with leprosy of garments and stones, I could have shown their spiritual meanings too. For they have excellent allegories able to benefit those whose minds are not untrained for contemplation. But since I know that many think those who say such things evade the contest through ignorance, and since you delight in the facts and in the interpretation of the Scriptures alone, I will give you a straight answer, free of circuits. I think, then, that leading his subjects to philosophy and wishing them to be content with need alone, he banished all softness: by not weaving linen and wool together, he banished gaudiness; by not weaving purple into linen garments, extravagance and adornment; and by concerning himself with leprosy of garments and stones, he forbade acquiring and storing up more than need. For this tends to happen to old garments and houses. "Keep to need," he says, "neither acquiring nor storing anything superfluous, nor adorning yourself, but transfer all your care and zeal to the care of the soul." And if you wish to be helped also by those outside (for they say that cultivated fig trees that shed their fruit are firmed up by the wild unripe figs), I would say that Isocrates too, when he sent his hortatory discourse to Demonicus, advised: "Be fond of beauty in dress, but not a dandy. For the fond of beauty aims at magnificence, the dandy at excess." And that this is true is clearly shown by what Diogenes said. For seeing a youth adorned more wantonly than befits a man, he said to him: "If it is for men, you are unfortunate; if for women, you do wrong." If, then, those outside cared for what is fitting, how would that holy and God-loving man, leading to philosophy, not banish all gaudiness, softness and adornment from his subjects and legislate decency and dignity, by which the best life is achieved?

To Martinianus the presbyter. Some say that you are an insatiable grain-dealer, callous, watching for the right moments, trading on shortages and farming misfortunes. But know that you are shutting your heart to them and the divine mercies to yourself. Consider, then, that others do not need you as much as you need God, and respect your kinship with them.

To Zosimus the book-carrier. Make known to our friend accurately the line-count of the books about which I wrote to you, so that forgetfulness creeping in may not bring loss on you and on him a verdict of ingratitude.

To Leontius the bishop. The prelude of friendship, the spark of love, and what wounded both me and the excellent Eutonius into longing for each other, is a character that hates evil. For when I saw him gladly running risks not only for virtue but also for lovers of virtue, I traced from this the rest of the man's philosophy and was wounded into friendship. And when some, mad for sophistry, schemed to corrupt the doctrines of piety, we, fencing ourselves there with their own weapons and striking with syllogisms, did not let go until we had routed them completely and bound on the victory purely. This second thing kindled in us no longer a spark of love but already, conspicuously, a torch, and it has remained. For such is the law of divine love. Bodily love, being earthbound (since it is made up of flowing bodies), flows away and withers like flowers. For neither does fire remain when the material that supplied the flame is consumed, but it departs along with it; nor does longing stand when its kindling withers. But love according to God and chaste, since it belongs to a thing that stands, is for that reason lasting; and the more the beauty of virtue appears to it, the more it binds the lovers of the same things to itself and to one another.

To the same. Even if there are some, as you said, among those who have taken on the leadership of the people, who begin with the pretext of the poor and end in their own money-making, do not look to those who are shipwrecked, but to those who handle the tiller safely and sail with a fair wind.

To Isidore the deacon. [How he interprets the weeks of Daniel.] Since, being industrious and eager to learn, you wished to learn how the sixty-nine weeks of years recorded in Daniel were fulfilled, which are counted from the building of Jerusalem and end at its capture, know that it was not built under Cyrus, but in the twentieth year of the reign of Longimanus. For then, as Ezra relates, Nehemiah came and built the city. "How then," you asked, "were seventy weeks decreed upon your people and upon the holy city?" Because in the sixty-ninth week, that is, in the four hundred and eighty-third year, the war began; and in the next week of years it ended, and with it Jewish affairs also ended. And if you say, "How?", know that after the twentieth year of Longimanus, until the Persian kingdom ended, one hundred and thirteen years passed; after which the Macedonian lasted two hundred and ninety-four years; then the Roman: in the reign of Augustus, forty-three years; of Tiberius, twenty-two; of Gaius, four; of Claudius, seven. For in his eighth year began the unrest among the Jews from which the war against the Romans was kindled that gave birth to the capture. For under Nero, Claudius's successor, they were brilliantly and mightily warred upon by Vespasian, who was then Nero's general and later emperor, and were captured. [Letter 3.90] To Zosimus the presbyter. I learn that you are greatly vexed at things that seem disgraceful, but at those that really are, you not only do not sink in shame but even pride yourself. That you were born of a slave father, which is no reproach of choice, you ought not to take into account at all; but you condemn those who call you to virtue as much as you ought to condemn those who lead you to idleness. If you were one of those under authority, even so you ought certainly not to be despised; rather, to draw you up by counsels and exhortations from the depth of vice would have been both right and most fitting; yet the loss and disgrace to the church would not have been so great. But since you seem to be numbered among the priests (how, I pass over, for I have chosen not to strike you but to heal you), you do not allow even those who wish to keep quiet and be at peace to do so. For many pagans and Jews attack the church with reproaches, bringing forward your life and thinking to damage the doctrine by it. If, then, you do not fear the judgment, at least love a good reputation; if you do not desire crowns, at least be rid of reproaches; if you do not love the kingdom, at least lay claim to the present glory; if you do not care for good report, at least do not court mockery; if you do not shudder at the sleepless Justice, at least fear human laws, lest you be caught in the act and undergo the extreme penalty. [Letter 3.91] To Theophilus the subdeacon. Timothy, who now enjoys the lot that flows with all good things, called the kingdom of heaven, produced such benefit by his virtue in those who saw him that he makes those who remember him chaste even by memory alone. For it was enough for him only to come to mind to bring modesty with him and make those who remembered him undefiled by unseemly passions. [Letter 3.92] To Ophelius the grammarian. Among you grammarians, the homonymous is the same as the synonymous; but among the philosophers it is not. Things are called homonymous whose name alone is common, while the definition of the essence corresponding to the name is different; synonymous, those that agree in thing, manner and name. But since, having no share in such studies and having an untrained mind, you asked that these notions be applied to scriptural sayings, I will try, as far as I can, to open for you a bright door of thoughts. "Searching" is said in the holy Scriptures both of God and of human beings; but of God it shows the exactness of his knowledge, of human beings that what is sought is found with toil and testing. Where, then, this word stands both of God and of man, it is homonymous, not synonymous: for instance, "Search the Scriptures," compared with what is said of God, "He who searches the hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit," is homonymous, not synonymous. But "He who searches the hearts" compared with "The Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God" is synonymous, because in both, of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, the most exact knowledge is shown. I think the idea has been made clear. But if you wish to be exercised on another word as well, I will do this too. "Good" is said of God and of human beings, but it shows homonymy. For "the good man" is homonymous with "How good to Israel." But "How good is God to Israel" is synonymous with "Your good Spirit will lead me on level ground." For here there is a sharing not of the name only but of the thing. And "wrath," said of God and of us, is not synonymous but homonymous. For of God it means the punishment sent without passion upon sinners; of us, the passionate movement and the disturbance of the thoughts. And "Add iniquity to their iniquity" is homonymous. For what it says is this: "Lay punishment upon their sin." And "If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him" is homonymous. For what it says is something like this: "If anyone defiles the temple of God, he will be punished by him."

To the same. God has the good by nature, not involuntarily but by choice, not by compulsion but willingly. We take it up by training and progress, not having it as something that cannot be taken away, as the divine nature has it, but as something that can fall away, if love of ease should dance its dance that is no dance.

To the same. [On the saying "The Lord God will raise up a prophet for you."] Say to the Jew who argued with you, who said nothing noble or vigorous but vomited out mountebanks' tales, and claimed that "God will raise up for you a prophet from your brothers like me" was said of the son of Nun: that you err in many ways, understanding unsoundly, fleeing instruction, and hiding what is greater than in Moses' case. For it is said: "You shall listen to him in everything he commands. And every soul that does not listen to that prophet will be destroyed from its people." First, Moses uttered this under inspiration after Joshua's appointment. Second, if the son of Nun had surpassed Moses, what is said would be plausible, though not true; but if he was far inferior to him, this idea is plainly feeble. Third, he added nothing to the law but lived by Moses' ordinances. Fourth, if the word were about him, it should have said not "will raise up" but "has raised up." Fifth, it should have said, "Every soul that does not listen to this prophet"; but by saying "that one" it excluded this one. Sixth, how did they send to John, born many generations later, to ask whether he was the Prophet, and he said, "I am not"? For he was a prophet, but he was not the Prophet. Seventh, how, when the Saviour had come here, did those who saw his miracles say, "This is truly the Prophet"? Let him see, then, how many things oppose him, and [acknowledge] the true foreknower and king. [Letter 3.95] To Isidore the deacon. [On "according to image and according to likeness."] Since you, most wise and sharp friend, asked that the much-discussed problem be explained to you briefly and clearly and not by any circuits, and the one is opposed to the other (for clarity needs many words, brevity few), I write, as far as I can, mixing clarity with brevity. Those do better who compare the better with the better part of the human being. And if what has been said seems unclear, it will be said more clearly. Those do better who make the divine an image in the better part of man, that is, in the rational soul. For those who think it human in form are utterly foolish, since they get entangled in what is said by condescension and will not bear to think anything more divine. For how is it said, "In the shelter of your wings you will shelter me," and "Seven eyes of the Lord looking upon all the earth," when man has neither wings nor seven eyes? How did Paul declare that the divine is not like even man's thought? How did Isaiah say, "If all the nations are counted as a drop from a bucket and as spittle, and Lebanon is not enough for burning and all the four-footed beasts not enough for a whole burnt offering, to whom will you liken the Lord?" How did Moses, whose wording they try to interpret with malice, say, "And guard your souls carefully, for you saw no likeness on the day he spoke to you"? Yet not even the others, as I think, teach the exact truth. For man is an image of rule and kingship, not of essence; and, if he does well, of virtue too. For even if we define the intelligent soul as immortal, it is not of the same essence as that most divine and beginningless nature, but as far removed as a creature probably is from its Creator. For if the soul is according to the image, plainly the woman's soul is too. Why then did Paul say, "A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man"? For since the woman's soul is immortal and incorruptible, like the man's, why did Paul say this with a distinction? And if against this they object, arming Moses against Paul, "Let us make man according to our image and according to likeness," it would be possible to say that what is said is singular and not said of both; but we shall not say it. And if they bring forward what follows, "and let them rule," what is said will be on our side. For "according to the image" is brilliantly shown to be characterized by ruling. And if they say, "How then did Paul declare him the divine image, but her the man's?", we shall say that from the beginning the woman was of equal honour and was thought worthy of the same rule; but since she stumbled, she was lessened, her rule was cut short, and she came to be under the man. "You did not bear equality of honour," he says; "accept the lessening. Your turning shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you." So the account of the world's making shows the woman's rule before her sin, and the apostolic saying her subjection after the fall. And that "according to the image" is kept by man's having been appointed ruler of all earthly things, hear the Psalmist interpreting the divine tablets and the royal syllables and saying, "You crowned him with glory and honour and set him over all the works of your hands." For as the Godhead reigns over all, so man reigns over the things on earth. His ruling, then, keeps the royal image. "According to likeness," unless some think it said in parallel, as in "I lay down and slept" and "Blessed is he who considers the poor and needy," is to be interpreted thus: God entrusted rule to him so that he might show virtue and keep the likeness. "You have received the honour," he says; "show the virtue," so that the one may be ascribed to the creation and the other to the choice of the one created. And perhaps this is what is shown by its being said at the beginning, "Let us make man according to our image and according to likeness," but later, "And God made man; according to the image of God he made him," without "according to likeness" being added; either because the expression shows the same thing, as I said before, or because virtue was left in suspense, so that what was said, "Let us make man according to our image," means that he may become "according to likeness" by choice. That is why before the creation he said both, and after the creation one. The only-begotten God, indeed, when he came among us, says, "Become like your Father in heaven," as though the creation kept "according to the image" and choice "according to likeness." And if they say, "How then, if man received rule over all things on earth, does he fear the wild beasts?", passing over the defence that some have given, whether true or not, namely that rule over the wild beasts was not in the divine tablets but was added later by certain people, I will make the defence directly. From the beginning, when the image shone in him, all things were subject to him (which is why he gave them names); but when he disobeyed, his rule was rightly cut short; he was not thrown out of all of it (lest grace be found stale), but it was cut short. For it was not just that the defeated man should also be crowned; he was to be chastened by fear of the beasts. And that this is true: when Noah cleansed this image by righteousness, all the beasts came to him, acknowledging their ancient servitude and all but reproaching the one who sinned at the beginning and lost part of his rule. And the lions respected Daniel, and the fire the three young men, and the viper did Paul no harm. By those, then, who renewed the ancestral rule, it is plain that he too received it whole but lost it in part. So much from us. If anyone can say something better, let him say it, and let him be heard. [Letter 3.96] To Paul. All arts are strengthened by practice and grow greater, but perish by idleness; and above all the power of speech. For when it is tended and watered, it becomes very great; but when neglected, it easily departs and flies away. Why I say this, you perhaps do not fail to know, you who ought to increase divine wisdom and the working of virtue by additions and make them greater. [Letter 3.97] To Zosimus. Though you are a presbyter, an elder, by age and are so called by ordination, they say that you are youthful in your ways and outdo all those in their prime, doing things I am ashamed to name in words, while you somehow do not blush to do them. If, then, they speak the truth, show an excellent change even in old age, so that they too may stop their mockery and sing a recantation. [Letter 3.98] To Strategius the monk. I was extraordinarily pleased to learn of your progress toward the better, and I made our friends share my pleasure by announcing to them the most longed-for and delightful news. If, then, you wish us to celebrate still more (for we keep your good reputation as a feast with great delight) and to win for yourself sky-high fame, do not stop hunting those things that will make you esteemed before God and celebrated among men. [Letter 3.99] To Hermogenes the bishop. Those who apply what are not rules to the rule, and on that basis test the one who ought to regulate others, do not seem to me to judge matters rightly. For since they have corrupted the reasoning part of the soul by a voluntary disease, they go wrong thereafter in judging matters too. To the just, the brave, the man fearsome to sinners, they attach the name of conceit and haughtiness, scheming by this to cut off the course toward virtue for all its lovers. For they dare to call virtue by the name of the vice next to it. Then let such people blame the lion too, because he looks grim and kingly and not like a monkey, and let them approve the mimes of buffoonery, because they raise unseemly laughter.

To Maron the presbyter. Not over those who are wronged, excellent friend, but over those who do wrong hangs all the danger; it is they who ought to be anxious and tremble. And if this is so, it is not being wronged that is evil, but doing wrong, and not knowing how to bear being wronged. [Letter 3.101] It was well said by one of those outside that it is not being poor that is disgraceful, but not bearing poverty nobly. If, then, he too thought this well and rightly, let us not be ashamed of poverty, nor think it a reproach, but let us transfer this fear to vice.

To Theodore the scholasticus. Since in praising many good men you also mention fortune, I would gladly learn from you how both can come together. For praise looks to the will; but fortune does not allow the good man to be praised, though it does not prevent his being called happy. For even among you who champion the things of the Greeks, being called happy differs greatly from being praised: the one is born of fortune, the other of the will. Write to me, then, wise friend, how talk of fortune suits the man who is praised, or how praise befits the man who has become such, as you say, by fortune. For the one fights the other. If he is such unwillingly, let him not be praised; if willingly, let fortune have no place. If he set up a trophy, let him be proclaimed; if fortune achieved it, let him not enjoy praise. If he contended, let him be crowned; if he did not contend, let him not be praised. [Letter 3.103] To Hermogenes the bishop. If you have chosen to confront Zosimus, Chaeremon and Maron in order to restrain their insolence and licentiousness by force, you need much preparation and alliance from above. But if you think to prevail by a mere shout, you are deceiving yourself without knowing it. For they bring as great an alliance to one another, when they must ward off some good man, as the rivalry they stir up among themselves when they dispute over a greater share of evils. For agreeing in common causes, they differ in private ones; and, showing an irresistible strength in quenching virtue, as far as lies in them, in their contest for first place they raise a truceless war against one another.