{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_72815/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_72815","id":"gutenberg_72815","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/72815","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Demonology -- Early works to 1800","Mysteries, Religious -- Early works to 1800","Occultism -- Early works to 1900","Religion -- Philosophy -- Early works to 1800","Supernatural -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"IAMBLICHUS\n                                   ON\n                            =The Mysteries=\n                                 OF THE\n                  EGYPTIANS, CHALDEANS, AND ASSYRIANS.\n\n\n                       TRANSLATED FROM THE GREEK\n\n                                   BY\n\n                             THOMAS TAYLOR.\n\n\n\u039f \u03b4\u03b5 \u0391\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u0391\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u0391\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b5\u03c6\u03b7 \u03bc\u03b7 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd \u03b7\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n                                                               PLUTARCH.\n\n\n                           =Second Edition.=\n\n\n                                LONDON:\n                            BERTRAM DOBELL,\n                      77 CHARING CROSS ROAD, W.C.\n                                  AND\n                           REEVES AND TURNER,\n                      5 WELLINGTON STREET, STRAND.\n                               MDCCCXCV.\n\n\n\n\n                             ADVERTISEMENT.\n\n\nThe various translations and original works of Thomas Taylor, though\nstill in request by the more zealous students of ancient philosophy and\noccult science, have now become so scarce and expensive that it is only\nwithin the power of comparatively wealthy collectors to obtain them.\nThis is a matter for regret, inasmuch as it cannot be affirmed that his\nwritings have been, or are likely to be superseded, or that they are\nwithout value. They can hardly be neglected without loss by those who\ndesire to understand the systems of philosophy which satisfied the\nspiritual needs of the antique world. It is not possible, even for the\nmost fervent believer in modern \u201cprogress,\u201d to dismiss the speculations\nof the ancient philosophers as antiquated notions which have had their\nday and no longer possess interest or value. The names of Socrates,\nPlato, and Aristotle can never grow dim with age, nor is it possible to\nconceive a time when men shall cease to study and reverence them. As the\ndisciple, the translator, and the expounder of these and of other sages\nof antiquity, Thomas Taylor deserves to be held in honour and\nremembrance, and it would be a misfortune if his labours remained\nunknown because of the scarcity of his books. It is for this reason that\nthe present reprint has been undertaken; and it is hoped that it will\nmeet with such a measure of success as may encourage the republication\nof various other works by the same author. It has been printed in\nhandsome style and published at a moderate price in order that it may be\nregarded as a desirable addition to the scholar\u2019s library, while yet it\nwill not tax severely the means of the not too wealthy student. For the\nrest it is only necessary to say that this reprint is, in size, number\nof pages, type, and general get-up, an almost exact facsimile of the\noriginal edition, which was first printed in 1821. No alterations or\nadditions have been made in or to the original text, as it is thought\nthat those who care for Taylor\u2019s writings will prefer to have them in\ntheir integrity. Should it be found possible, however, to continue the\nseries it is intended to prefix to a future volume an essay on Taylor,\nwhich will contain a biography of him, and a critical estimate of his\nwritings.\n\n\n  _May, 1895._\n\n\n\n\n                             INTRODUCTION.\n\n\nIt appears to me that there are two descriptions of persons by whom the\npresent work must be considered to be of inestimable worth, the lovers\nof antiquity and the lovers of ancient philosophy and religion. To the\nformer of these it must be invaluable, because it is replete with\ninformation derived from the wise men of the Chaldeans, the prophets of\nthe Egyptians, the dogmas of the Assyrians, and the ancient pillars of\nHermes; and to the latter, because of the doctrines contained in it,\nsome of which originated from the Hermaic pillars, were known by\nPythagoras and Plato, and were the sources of their philosophy; and\nothers are profoundly theological, and unfold the mysteries of ancient\nreligion with an admirable conciseness of diction, and an inimitable\nvigour and elegance of conception. To which also may be added, as the\ncolophon of excellence, that it is the most copious, the clearest, and\nthe most satisfactory defence extant of genuine ancient theology.\n\nThis theology, the sacred operations pertaining to which called\n_theurgy_ are here developed, has for the most part, since the\ndestruction of it, been surveyed only in its corruptions among barbarous\nnations, or during the decline and fall of the Roman empire, with which,\noverwhelmed with pollution, it gradually fell, and at length totally\nvanished from what is called the polished part of the globe. This will\nbe evident to the intelligent reader from the following remarks, which\nare an epitome of what has been elsewhere more largely discussed by me\non this subject, and which also demonstrate the religion of the\nChaldeans, Egyptians, and Greeks to be no less scientific than sublime.\n\nIn the first place, this theology celebrates the immense principle of\nthings as something superior even to being itself; as exempt from the\nwhole of things, of which it is nevertheless ineffably the source; and\ndoes not, therefore, think fit to enumerate it with any triad[1] or\norder of beings. Indeed it even apologizes for giving the appellation of\nthe most simple of our conceptions to that which is beyond all knowledge\nand all conception. It denominates this principle however, _the one_ and\n_the good_; by the former of these names indicating its transcendent\nsimplicity, and by the latter its subsistence as the object of desire to\nall beings. For all things desire good. At the same time, however, it\nasserts that these appellations are in reality nothing more than the\nparturitions of the soul, which, standing as it were in the vestibules\nof the adytum of deity, announce nothing pertaining to the ineffable,\nbut only indicate her spontaneous tendencies towards it, and belong\nrather to the immediate offspring of the first God than to the first\nitself. Hence, as the result of this most venerable conception of the\nsupreme, when it ventures not only to denominate it, though ineffable,\nbut also to assert something of its relation to other things, it\nconsiders this as preeminently its peculiarity, that it is _the\nprinciple of principles_; it being necessary that the characteristic\nproperty of principle, after the same manner as other things, should not\nbegin from multitude, but should be collected into one monad as a\nsummit, and which is the principle of all principles.\n\nThe scientific reasoning from which this dogma is deduced is the\nfollowing. As the principle of all things is _the one_, it is necessary\nthat the progression of beings should be continued, and that no vacuum\nshould intervene either in incorporeal or corporeal natures. It is also\nnecessary that every thing which has a natural progression should\nproceed through similitude. In consequence of this, it is likewise\nnecessary that every producing principle should generate a number of the\nsame order with itself, viz. _nature_, a natural number; _soul_, one\nthat is psychical (_i. e._ belonging to soul); and _intellect_ an\nintellectual number. For if whatever possesses a power of generating,\ngenerates similars prior to dissimilars, every cause must deliver its\nown form and characteristic peculiarity to its progeny; and before it\ngenerates that which gives subsistence to progressions, far distant and\nseparate from its nature, it must constitute things proximate to itself\naccording to essence, and conjoined with it through similitude. It is,\ntherefore, necessary from these premises, since there is one unity, the\nprinciple of the universe, that this unity should produce from itself,\nprior to every thing else, a multitude of natures characterized by\nunity, and a number the most of all things allied to its cause; and\nthese natures are no other than the Gods.\n\nAccording to this theology, therefore, from the immense principle of\nprinciples, in which all things causally subsist, absorbed in\nsuperessential light, and involved in unfathomable depths, a beauteous\nprogeny of principles proceed, all largely partaking of the ineffable,\nall stamped with the occult characters of deity, all possessing an\noverflowing fulness of good. From these dazzling summits, these\nineffable blossoms, these divine propagations, _being, life, intellect,\nsoul, nature, and body_ depend; _monads_ suspended from _unities_,\ndeified natures proceeding from deities. Each of these monads, too, is\nthe leader of a series which extends from itself to the last of things,\nand which, while it proceeds from, at the same time abides in, and\nreturns to, its leader. And all these principles, and all their progeny,\nare finally centred and rooted by their summits in the first great\nall-comprehending one. Thus all beings proceed from, and are\ncomprehended in, the first being: all intellects emanate from one first\nintellect; all souls from one first soul; all natures blossom from one\nfirst nature; and all bodies proceed from the vital and luminous body of\nthe world. And, lastly, all these great monads are comprehended in the\nfirst one, from which both they and all their depending series are\nunfolded into light. Hence this first one is truly the unity of unities,\nthe monad of monads, the principle of principles, the God of Gods, one\nand all things, and yet one prior to all.\n\nNo objections of any weight, no arguments but such as are sophistical,\ncan be urged against this most sublime theory, which is so congenial to\nthe unperverted conceptions of the human mind, that it can only be\ntreated with ridicule and contempt in degraded, barren, and barbarous\nages. Ignorance and impious fraud, however, have hitherto conspired to\ndefame those inestimable works[2] in which this and many other grand and\nimportant dogmas can alone be found; and the theology of the ancients\nhas been attacked with all the insane fury of ecclesiastical zeal, and\nall the imbecile flashes of mistaken wit, by men whose conceptions on\nthe subject, like those of a man between sleeping and waking, have been\n_turbid_ and _wild_, _phantastic_ and _confused_, _preposterous_ and\n_vain_.\n\nIndeed, that after the great incomprehensible cause of all, a divine\nmultitude subsists, cooperating with this cause in the production and\ngovernment of the universe, has always been, and is still, admitted by\nall nations and all religions, however much they may differ in their\nopinions respecting the nature of the subordinate deities, and the\nveneration which is to be paid to them by man; and however barbarous the\nconceptions of some nations on this subject may be, when compared with\nthose of others. Hence, says the elegant Maximus Tyrius, \u201cYou will see\none according law and assertion in all the earth, that there is one God,\nthe king and father of all things, and many Gods, sons of God, ruling\ntogether with him. This the Greek says, and the Barbarian says, the\ninhabitant of the continent, and he who dwells near the sea, the wise\nand the unwise. And if you proceed as far as to the utmost shores of the\nocean, there also there are Gods, rising very near to some, and setting\nvery near to others.\u201d[3]\n\nThe deification, however, of dead men, and the worshiping men as Gods,\nformed no part of this theology, when it is considered according to its\ngenuine purity. Numerous instances of the truth of this might be\nadduced, but I shall mention for this purpose, as unexceptionable\nwitnesses, the writings of Plato, the Golden Pythagoric Verses,[4] and\nthe Treatise of Plutarch on Isis and Osiris. All the works of Plato,\nindeed, evince the truth of this position, but this is particularly\nmanifest from his Laws. The Golden verses order that the immortal Gods\nbe honoured first, as they are disposed by law; afterwards the\nillustrious Heroes, under which appellation the author of the verses\ncomprehends also angels and d\u00e6mons, properly so called; and in the last\nplace, the terrestrial d\u00e6mons, _i. e._ such good men as transcend in\nvirtue the rest of mankind. But to honour the Gods as they are disposed\nby law, is, as Hierocles observes, to reverence them as they are\narranged by their demiurgus and father; and this is to honour them as\nbeings not only superior to man, but also to d\u00e6mons and angels. Hence,\nto honour men, however excellent they may be, as Gods, is not to honour\nthe Gods according to the rank in which they are placed by their\nCreator; for it is confounding the divine with the human nature, and is\nthus acting directly contrary to the Pythagoric precept. Plutarch too,\nin his above mentioned treatise, most forcibly and clearly shows the\nimpiety of worshiping men as Gods.[5]\n\n\u201cSo great an apprehension indeed,\u201d says Dr. Stillingfleet,[6] \u201chad the\nHeathens of the necessity of _appropriate acts of divine worship_, that\nsome of them have chosen to die, rather than to give them to what they\ndid not believe to be God. We have a remarkable story to this purpose in\nArrian and Curtius[7] concerning Callisthenes. Alexander arriving at\nthat degree of vanity as to desire to have divine worship given him, and\nthe matter being started out of design among the courtiers, either by\nAnaxarchus, as Arrian, or Cleo the Sicilian, as Curtius says; and the\nway of doing it proposed, _viz._ by incense and prostration;\nCallisthenes vehemently opposed it, _as that which would confound the\ndifference of human and divine worship, which had been preserved\ninviolable among them_. The worship of the Gods had been kept up in\ntemples, with altars, and images, and sacrifices, and hymns, and\nprostrations, and such like; _but it is by no means fitting_, says he,\n_for us to confound these things, either by lifting up men to the\nhonours of the Gods, or depressing the Gods to the honours of men_. For\nif Alexander would not suffer any man to usurp his royal dignity by the\nvotes of men; how much more justly may the Gods disdain for any man to\ntake their honours to himself. And it appears by Plutarch,[8] that the\nGreeks thought it a mean and base thing for any of them, when sent on\nany embassy to the kings of Persia, to prostrate themselves before them,\nbecause this was only allowed among them in divine adoration. Therefore,\nsays he, when Pelopidas and Ismenias were sent to Artaxerxes, Pelopidas\ndid nothing unworthy, but Ismenias let fall his ring to the ground, and\nstooping for that, was thought to make his adoration; which was\naltogether as good a shift as the Jesuits advising the crucifix to be\nheld in the mandarin\u2019s hands while they made their adorations in the\nHeathen temples in China.\n\nConon[9] also _refused to make his adoration, as a disgrace to his\ncity_; and Isocrates[10] accuses the Persians for doing it, _because\nherein they showed that they despised the Gods rather than men, by\nprostituting their honours to their princes_. Herodotus mentions\nSperchies and Bulis, who could not with the greatest violence be brought\nto give adoration to Xerxes, _became it was against the law of their\ncountry to give divine honour to men_.[11] And Valerius Maximus[12]\nsays, \u201c_the Athenians put Timagoras to death for doing it_; so strong an\napprehension had possessed them, that the manner of worship which they\nused to their Gods, should be preserved sacred and inviolable.\u201d The\nphilosopher Sallust also, in his Treatise on the Gods and the World,\nsays, \u201cIt is not unreasonable to suppose that impiety is a species of\npunishment, and that those who have had a knowledge of the Gods, and yet\ndespised them, will in another life be deprived of this knowledge. And\nit is requisite to make the punishment of those who have honoured their\nkings as Gods to consist in being expelled from the Gods.\u201d[13]\n\nWhen the ineffable transcendency of the first God, which was considered\nas the grand principle in the Heathen religion by the best theologists\nof all nations, and particularly by its most illustrious promulgators,\nOrpheus, Pythagoras, and Plato, was forgotten, this oblivion was\ndoubtless the principal cause of dead men being deified by the Pagans.\nHad they properly directed their attention to this transcendency they\nwould have perceived it to be so immense as to surpass eternity,\ninfinity, self-subsistence, and even essence itself, and that these in\nreality belong to those venerable natures which are, as it were, first\nunfolded into light from the unfathomable depths of that truly mystic\nunknown, about which all knowledge is refunded into ignorance. For, as\nSimplicius justly observes, \u201cIt is requisite that he who ascends to the\nprinciple of things should investigate whether it is possible there can\nbe any thing better than the supposed principle; and if something more\nexcellent is found, the same inquiry should again be made respecting\nthat, till we arrive at the highest conceptions, than which we have no\nlonger any more venerable. Nor should we stop in our ascent till we find\nthis to be the case. For there is no occasion to fear that our\nprogression will be through an unsubstantial void, by conceiving\nsomething about the first principles which is greater and more\ntranscendent than their nature. For it is not possible for our\nconceptions to take such a mighty leap as to equal, and much less to\npass beyond, the dignity of the first principles of things.\u201d He adds,\n\u201cThis, therefore, is one and the best extension [of the soul] to [the\nhighest] God, and is, as much as possible, irreprehensible; _viz._ to\nknow firmly, that by ascribing to him the most venerable excellences we\ncan conceive, and the most holy and primary names and things, we ascribe\nnothing to him which is suitable to his dignity. It is sufficient,\nhowever, to procure our pardon [for the attempt], that we can attribute\nto him nothing superior.\u201d[14] If it is not possible, therefore, to form\nany ideas equal to the dignity of the immediate progeny of the\nineffable, _i. e._ of the first principles of things, how much less can\nour conceptions reach that thrice unknown darkness, in the reverential\nlanguage of the Egyptians,[15] which is even beyond these? Had the\nHeathens, therefore, considered as they ought this transcendency of the\nsupreme God, they would never have presumed to equalize the human with\nthe divine nature, and consequently would never have worshiped men as\nGods. Their theology, however, is not to be accused as the cause of this\nimpiety, but their forgetfulness of the sublimest of its dogmas, and the\nconfusion with which this oblivion was necessarily attended.\n\nBut to return to the present work. To some who are conversant with the\nwritings of Porphyry, who know how high he ranks among the best of the\nPlatonists, and that he was denominated by them, on account of his\nexcellence, _the philosopher_, it may seem strange that he should have\nbeen so unskilled in theological mysteries, and so ignorant of the\ncharacteristics of the beings superior to man, as by his epistle to\nAnebo he may appear to have been. That he was not, however, in reality\nthus unskilful and ignorant, is evident from his admirable Treatise on\nAbstinence from Animal Food, and his \u0391\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1, or\nAuxiliaries to Intelligibles. His apparent ignorance, therefore, must\nhave been assumed for the purpose of obtaining a more perfect and\ncopious solution of the doubts proposed in his Epistle, than he would\notherwise have received. But at the same time that this is admitted, it\nmust also be observed, that he was inferior to Iamblichus in theological\nscience, who so greatly excelled in knowledge of this kind, that he was\nnot surpassed by any one, and was equaled by few. Hence he was\ndenominated by all succeeding Platonists _the divine_, in the same\nmanner as Plato, \u201cto whom,\u201d as the acute Emperor Julian remarks, \u201che was\nposterior in time only, but not in genius.\u201d[16]\n\nThe difficulties attending the translation of this work into English are\nnecessarily great, not only from its sublimity and novelty, but also\nfrom the defects of the original. I have, however, endeavoured to make\nthe translation as faithful and complete as possible; and have\n_occasionally_ availed myself of the annotations of Gale, not being able\nto do so _continually_, because for the most part, where philosophy is\nconcerned, he shows himself to be an inaccurate, impertinent, and\ngarrulous smatterer.\n\n\n\n\n                                  THE\n                          EPISTLE OF PORPHYRY\n                                 TO THE\n                            EGYPTIAN ANEBO.\n\n\n  _Porphyry to the Prophet Anebo greeting._\n\n\nI commence my friendship towards you from the Gods and good d\u00e6mons, and\nfrom those philosophic disquisitions, which have an affinity to these\npowers. And concerning these particulars indeed, much has been said by\nthe Grecian philosophers; but, for the most part, the principles of\ntheir belief are derived from conjecture.\n\nIn the first place, therefore, it is granted that there are Gods. But I\ninquire what the peculiarities are of each of the more excellent genera,\nby which they are separated from each other; and whether we must say\nthat the cause of the distinction between them is from their energies,\nor their passive motions, or from things that are consequent, or from\ntheir different arrangement with respect to bodies; as, for instance,\nfrom the arrangement of the Gods with reference to etherial, but of\nd\u00e6mons to aerial, and of souls to terrestrial, bodies?\n\nI also ask, why, since [all] the Gods dwell in the heavens, theurgists\nonly invoke the terrestrial and subterranean Gods? Likewise, how some of\nthe Gods are said to be aquatic and aerial? And how different Gods are\nallotted different places, and the parts of bodies according to\ncircumscription, though they have an infinite, impartible, and\nincomprehensible power? How there will be a union of them with each\nother, if they are separated by the divisible circumscriptions of parts,\nand by the difference of places and subject bodies?\n\nHow do theologists, or those who are wise in divine concerns, represent\nthe Gods as passive, to whom on this account, it is said, erect phalli\nare exhibited, and obscene language is used? But if they are impassive,\nthe invocations of the Gods will be in vain, which announce that they\ncan appease the anger of the divinities, and procure a reconciliation\nwith them; and still more, what are called the necessities of the Gods,\nwill be vain. For that which is impassive cannot be allured, nor\ncompelled, nor necessitated. How, therefore, are many things, in sacred\noperations, performed to them as passive? Invocations,\u2014likewise, are\nmade to the Gods as passive; so that not d\u00e6mons only are passive, but\nthe Gods also, conformably to what Homer says,\n\n            \u201cAnd flexible are e\u2019en the Gods themselves.\u201d[17]\n\nBut if we assert with certain persons, that the Gods are pure\nintellects, but that d\u00e6mons, being psychical, participate of intellect;\nin a still greater degree will pure intellects be incapable of being\nallured, and will be unmingled with sensible natures. Supplications,\nhowever, are foreign to the purity of intellect, and therefore are not\nto be made to it. But the things which are offered [in sacred rites] are\noffered as to sensitive and psychical essences.\n\nAre, therefore, the Gods separated from d\u00e6mons, through the former being\nincorporeal, but the latter corporeal? If, however, the Gods are\nincorporeal alone, how will the sun and moon, and the visible\ncelestials, be Gods?\n\nHow, likewise, are some of the Gods beneficent, but others malefic?\n\nWhat is it that connects the Gods in the heavens that have bodies, with\nthe incorporeal Gods?\n\nWhat is it that distinguishes d\u00e6mons from the visible and invisible\nGods, since the visible are connected with the invisible Gods?\n\nIn what do a d\u00e6mon, hero, and soul, differ from each other? Is it in\nessence, or in power, or in energy?\n\nWhat is the indication of a God, or angel, or archangel, or d\u00e6mon, or a\ncertain archon, or soul being present? For to speak boastingly, and to\nexhibit a phantasm of a certain quality, is common to Gods and d\u00e6mons,\nand to all the more excellent genera. So that the genus of Gods will in\nno respect be better than that of d\u00e6mons.\n\nSince the ignorance of, and deception about, divine natures is impiety\nand impurity, but a scientific knowledge of the Gods is holy and\nbeneficial, the ignorance of things honourable and beautiful will be\ndarkness, but the knowledge of them will be light. And the former,\nindeed, will fill men with all evils, through the want of erudition, and\nthrough audacity; but the latter will be the cause to them of every\ngood. [I wish you, therefore, to unfold to me the truth respecting these\nparticulars.[18]]\n\n[And, in the first place, I wish you to explain to me distinctly[19]]\nwhat that is which is effected in divination? For we frequently obtain a\nknowledge of future events through dreams, when we are asleep; not\nbeing, at that time, in a tumultuous ecstasy, for the body is then\nquiescent; but we do not apprehend what then takes place, in the same\nmanner as when we are awake.\n\nBut many, through enthusiasm and divine inspiration, predict future\nevents, and are then in so wakeful a state, as even to energize\naccording to sense, and yet they are not conscious of the state they are\nin, or at least, not so much as they were before.\n\nSome also of those who suffer a mental alienation, energize\nenthusiastically on hearing cymbals or drums, or a certain modulated\nsound, such as those who are Corybantically inspired, those who are\npossessed by Sabazius, and those who are inspired by the mother of the\nGods. But some energize enthusiastically by drinking water, as the\npriest of Clarius, in Colophon; others, by being seated at the mouth of\na cavern, as those who prophesy at Delphi; and others by imbibing the\nvapour from water, as the prophetesses in Branchid\u00e6. Some also become\nenthusiastic by standing on characters, as those that are filled from\nthe intromission of spirits. Others, who are conscious what they are\ndoing in other respects, are divinely inspired according to the\nphantastic part; some, indeed, receiving darkness for a cooperator,\nothers certain potions, but others incantations and compositions: and\nsome energize, according to the imagination, through water; others in a\nwall, others in the open air, and others in the sun, or in some other of\nthe celestial bodies. Some also establish the art of the investigation\nof futurity through the viscera, through birds, and through the stars.\n\nI likewise ask concerning the mode of divination, what it is, and what\nthe quality by which it is distinguished? All diviners, indeed, assert,\nthat they obtain a foreknowledge of future events through Gods or\nd\u00e6mons, and that it is not possible for any others to know that which is\nfuture, than those who are the lords of futurity. I doubt, therefore,\nwhether divinity is so far subservient to men, as not to be averse to\nsome becoming diviners from meal.\n\nBut, concerning the causes of divination, it is dubious whether a God,\nan angel, or a d\u00e6mon, or some other power, is present in manifestations,\nor divinations, or certain other sacred energies, as is the case with\nthose powers that are drawn down through you [priests] by the\nnecessities with which invocation is attended.\n\nOr does the soul assert and imagine these things, and are they, as some\nthink, the passions of the soul, excited from small incentives?\n\nOr is a certain mixed form of subsistence produced from our soul, and\ndivine inspiration externally derived?\n\nHence it must be said, that the soul generates the power which has an\nimaginative perception of futurity, through motions of this kind, or\nthat the things which are adduced from matter constitute d\u00e6mons, through\nthe powers that are inherent in them, and especially things adduced from\nthe matter which is taken from animals.\n\nFor in sleep, when we are not employed about any thing, we sometimes\nobtain a knowledge of the future.\n\nBut that a passion of the soul is the cause of divination, is indicated\nby this, that the senses are occupied, that fumigations are introduced,\nand that invocations are employed; and likewise, that not all men, but\nthose that are more simple and young, are more adapted to prediction.\n\nThe ecstasy, also, of the reasoning power is the cause of divination, as\nis likewise the mania which happens in diseases, or mental aberration,\nor a sober and vigilant condition, or suffusions of the body, or the\nimaginations excited by diseases, or an ambiguous state of mind, such as\nthat which takes place between a sober condition and ecstasy, or the\nimaginations artificially procured by enchantment.\n\nNature, likewise, art, and the sympathy of things in the universe, as if\nthey were the parts of one animal, contain premanifestations of certain\nthings with reference to each other. And bodies are so prepared, that\nthere is a presignification of some by others, which is clearly\nindicated by the works performed in predicting what is future. For those\nwho invoke the divinities for this purpose, have about them stones and\nherbs, bind certain sacred bonds, which they also dissolve, open places\nthat are shut, and change the deliberate intentions of the recipients,\nso as from being depraved to render them worthy, though they were before\ndepraved. Nor are the artificers of efficacious images to be despised.\nFor they observe the motion of the celestial bodies, and can tell from\nthe concurrence of what star with a certain star or stars, predictions\nwill be true or false; and also whether the things that are performed\nwill be inanities, or significant and efficacious, though no divinity or\nd\u00e6mon is drawn down by these images.\n\nBut there are some who suppose that there is a certain obedient genus of\nd\u00e6mons, which is naturally fraudulent, omniform, and various, and which\nassumes the appearance of Gods and d\u00e6mons, and the souls of the\ndeceased; and that through these every thing which appears to be either\ngood or evil is effected; for they are not able to contribute any thing\nto true goods, such as those of the soul, nor to have any knowledge of\nthem, but they abuse, deride, and frequently impede those who are\nstriving to be virtuous. They are likewise full of pride, and rejoice in\nvapours and sacrifices.\n\nJugglers likewise fraudulently attack us in many ways, through the\nardour of the expectations which they raise.\n\nIt very much indeed perplexes me to understand how superior beings, when\ninvoked, are commanded by those that invoke them, as if they were their\ninferiors; and they think it requisite that he who worships them should\nbe just, but when they are called upon to act unjustly, they do not\nrefuse so to act. Though the Gods, likewise, do not hear him who invokes\nthem, if he is impure from venereal connexions, yet, at the same time,\nthey do not refuse to lead any one to illegal venery.\n\n[I am likewise dubious with respect to sacrifices, what utility or power\nthey possess in the universe, and with the Gods, and on what account\nthey are performed, appropriately indeed, to the powers who are honoured\nby them, but usefully to those by whom the gifts are offered.[20]]\n\nWhy also do the interpreters of prophecies and oracles think it\nrequisite that they should abstain from animals, lest the Gods should be\npolluted by the vapours arising from them; and yet the Gods are\nespecially allured by the vapours of animals?\n\nWhy is it requisite that the inspector [who presides over sacred rites]\nought not to touch a dead body, though most sacred operations are\nperformed through dead bodies? And why, which is much more absurd than\nthis, are threats employed and false terrors, by any casual person, not\nto a d\u00e6mon, or some departed soul, but to the sovereign Sun himself, or\nto the Moon, or some one of the celestial Gods, in order to compel these\ndivinities to speak the truth? For does not he who says that he will\nburst the heavens, or unfold the secrets of Isis, or point out the\narcanum in the adytum, or stop Baris, or scatter the members of Osiris\nto Typhon, [or that he will do something else of the like kind[21]],\ndoes not he who says this, by thus threatening what he neither knows nor\nis able to effect, prove himself to be stupid in the extreme? And what\nabjectness does it not produce in those who, like very silly children,\nare possessed with such vain fear, and are terrified at such fictions?\nAnd yet Ch\u00e6remon, who was a sacred scribe, writes these things, as\ndisseminated by the Egyptians. It is also said, that these, and things\nof the like kind, are of a most compulsive nature.\n\nWhat also is the meaning of those mystic narrations which say that a\ncertain divinity is unfolded into light from mire, that he is seated\nabove the lotus, that he sails in a ship, and that he changes his forms\nevery hour, according to the signs of the zodiac? For thus, they say, he\npresents himself to the view, and thus ignorantly adapt the peculiar\npassion of their own imagination to the God himself. But if these things\nare asserted symbolically, being symbols of the powers of this divinity,\nI request an interpretation of these symbols. For it is evident, that if\nthese are similar to passions of the Sun, when he is eclipsed, they\nwould be seen by all men who intently survey the God.\n\nWhat also is the design of names that are without signification? and\nwhy, of such, are those that are barbaric preferred to our own? For if\nhe who hears them looks to their signification, it is sufficient that\nthe conception remains the same, whatever the words may be that are\nused. For he who is invoked is not of the Egyptian race; nor, if he was\nan Egyptian, does he use the Egyptian, or, in short, any human language.\nFor either all these are the artificial contrivances of enchanters, and\nveils originating from our passions, which rumour ascribes to a divine\nnature; or we ignorantly frame conceptions of divinity, contrary to its\nreal mode of subsistence.\n\nI likewise wish you to unfold to me, what the Egyptians conceive the\nfirst cause to be; whether intellect, or above intellect? whether alone,\nor subsisting with some other or others? whether incorporeal, or\ncorporeal; and whether it is the same with the Demiurgus, or prior to\nthe Demiurgus? Likewise, whether all things are from one principle, or\nfrom many principles? whether the Egyptians have a knowledge of matter,\nor of primary corporeal qualities; and whether they admit matter to be\nunbegotten, or to be generated? For Ch\u00e6remon, indeed, and others, do not\nthink there is any thing else prior to the visible worlds; but in the\nbeginning of their writings on this subject, admit the existence of the\nGods of the Egyptians, but of no others, except what are called the\nplanets, the Gods that give completion to the zodiac, and such as rise\ntogether with these; and likewise, the sections into decans, and the\nhoroscopes. They also admit the existence of what are called the\npowerful leaders, whose names are to be found in the calendars, together\nwith their ministrant offices, their risings and settings, and their\nsignifications of future events. For Ch\u00e6remon saw that what those who\nsay that the sun is the Demiurgus, and likewise what is asserted\nconcerning Osiris and Isis, and all the sacred fables, may be resolved\ninto the stars and the phases, occultations and risings of these, or\ninto the increments or decrements of the moon, or into the course of the\nsun, or the nocturnal and diurnal hemisphere, or into the river [Nile].\nAnd, in short, the Egyptians resolve all things into physical, and\nnothing into incorporeal and living essences. Most of them likewise\nsuspend that which is in our power from the motion of the stars; and\nbind all things, though I know not how, with the indissoluble bonds of\nnecessity, which they call fate. They also connect fate with the Gods;\nwhom, nevertheless, they worship in temples and statues, and other\nthings, as the only dissolvers of fate.\n\nConcerning the peculiar d\u00e6mon, it must be inquired how he is imparted by\nthe lord of the geniture, and according to what kind of efflux, or life,\nor power, he descends from him to us? And also, whether he exists, or\ndoes not exist? And whether the invention of the lord of the geniture is\nimpossible, or possible? For if it is possible he is happy, who having\nlearned the scheme of his nativity, and knowing his proper d\u00e6mon,\nbecomes liberated from fate.\n\nThe canons, also, of genethlialogy [or prediction from the natal day]\nare innumerable and incomprehensible. And the knowledge of this\nmathematical science cannot be obtained; for there is much dissonance\nconcerning it, and Ch\u00e6remon and many others have written against it. But\nthe discovery of the lord, or lords, of the geniture, if there are more\nthan one in a nativity, is nearly granted by astrologers themselves to\nbe unattainable, and yet they say that on this the knowledge of the\nproper d\u00e6mon depends.\n\nFarther still, I wish to know whether the peculiar d\u00e6mon rules over some\none of the parts in us? For it appears to certain persons, that d\u00e6mons\npreside over the parts of our body, so that one is the guardian of\nhealth, another of the form of the body, and another of the corporeal\nhabits, and that there is one d\u00e6mon who presides in common over all\nthese. And again, that one d\u00e6mon presides over the body, another over\nthe soul, and another over the intellect; and that some of them are\ngood, but others bad.\n\nI am also dubious whether this d\u00e6mon is not a certain part of the soul,\n[such, for instance, as the intellectual part;] and if so, he will be\nhappy who has a wise intellect.\n\nI see likewise, that there is a twofold worship of the peculiar d\u00e6mon;\nthe one being the worship as of two, but the other as of three. By all\nmen, however, the d\u00e6mon is called upon by a common invocation.\n\nI farther ask, whether there is a certain other latent way to felicity,\nseparate from the Gods? And I am dubious whether it is requisite to look\nto human opinions in divine divination and theurgy? And whether the soul\ndoes not devise great things from casual circumstances? Moreover, there\nare certain other methods, which are conversant with the prediction of\nfuture events. And, perhaps, those who possess divine divination,\nforesee indeed what will happen, yet are not on this account happy; for\nthey foresee future events, but do not know how to use this knowledge\nproperly. I wish, therefore, that you would point out to me the path to\nfelicity, and show me in what the essence of it consists. For with us\n[Greeks] there is much verbal contention about it, because we form a\nconjecture of good from human reasonings. But by those who have devised\nthe means of associating with beings more excellent than man, if the\ninvestigation of this subject is omitted, wisdom will be professed by\nthem in vain; as they will only disturb a divine intellect about the\ndiscovery of a fugitive slave, or the purchase of land, or, if it should\nso happen, about marriage, or merchandize. And if they do not omit this\nsubject, but assert what is most true about other things, yet say\nnothing that is stable and worthy of belief about felicity, in\nconsequence of employing themselves about things that are difficult, but\nuseless to mankind; in this case, they will not be conversant either\nwith Gods or good d\u00e6mons, but with that d\u00e6mon who is called fraudulent;\nor, if this is not admitted, the whole will be the invention of men, and\nthe fiction of a mortal nature.\n\n\n\n\n                 =Iamblichus[22] on the Mysteries, &c.=\n\n\n                                  THE\n\n                    ANSWER OF THE PRECEPTOR ABAMMON\n\n                                 TO THE\n\n                     EPISTLE OF PORPHYRY TO ANEBO,\n\n                                 AND A\n\n                SOLUTION OF THE DOUBTS CONTAINED IN IT.\n\n\n\n\n                               SECTION I.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAP. I.\n\n\nHermes, the God who presides over language, was formerly very properly\nconsidered as common to all priests; and the power who presides over the\ntrue science concerning the Gods is one and the same in the whole of\nthings. Hence our ancestors dedicated the inventions of their wisdom to\nthis deity, inscribing all their own writings with the name of Hermes.\nIf, therefore, we participate of a portion of this God, adapted and\ncommensurate to our powers, you do well to propose your theological\ndoubts to the priests, as friends, and to make these doubts known to\nthem. I also very properly conceiving that the epistle sent to my\ndisciple Anebo was written to me, shall give you a true answer to your\ninquiries. For it would not be becoming, that Pythagoras and Plato,\nDemocritus and Eudoxus, and many other of the ancient Greeks, should\nhave obtained appropriate instruction from the sacred scribes of their\ntime, but that you who are our contemporary, and think conformably to\nthose ancients, should be frustrated of your wish by those who are now\nliving, and who are called common preceptors. I, therefore, thus betake\nmyself to the present discussion; and do you, if you please, conceive\nthat the same person to whom you sent the letter returns you an answer.\nOr, if it should seem fit to you, admit it to be me who discourses with\nyou in writing, or some other prophet of the Egyptians, for this is of\nno consequence. Or, which I think is still better, dismiss the\nconsideration whether the speaker is an inferior or a superior\ncharacter, but direct your attention to what is said, so as readily to\nexcite your mind to survey whether what is asserted is true or false.\n\nIn the first place, therefore, we shall divide the genera of the\nproposed problems, in order that we may know the quantity and quality of\nthem. And, in the next place, we shall show from what theologies the\ndoubts are assumed, and according to what sciences they are\ninvestigated. For some things that are badly confused, require a certain\ndistinction; others are conversant with the cause through which they\nsubsist, and are apprehended; others, which we propose according to a\ncertain contrariety, draw our decision on both sides; and some things\nrequire from us the whole development of mystic doctrines. Such,\ntherefore, being the nature of the subjects of discussion, they are\nassumed from many places, and from different sciences. For some things\nintroduce animadversions from what the wise men of the Chaldeans have\ndelivered; others produce objections from what the prophets of the\nEgyptians teach; and there are some that, adhering to the theory of\nphilosophers, make inquiries conformably to them. There are now likewise\nsome, that from other opinions, which do not deserve to be mentioned,\nelicite a certain dubitation; and others originate from the common\nconceptions of mankind. These things, therefore, are of themselves\nvariously disposed, and are multiformly connected with each other.\nHence, through all these causes, a certain discussion is requisite for\nthe management of them in a becoming manner.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. II.\n\n\nWe shall, therefore, deliver to you the peculiar dogmas of the\nAssyrians; and also clearly develop to you our own opinions; collecting\nsome things from the infinite writings of the ancients, but others from\nthose particulars which were comprehended by the ancients in one\ntreatise, and pertain to the whole knowledge of divine natures. If also\nyou should propose any philosophic inquiry, we shall discuss it for you,\naccording to the ancient pillars of Hermes, which Plato and Pythagoras\nknew before, and from thence constituted their philosophy. But such\nthings as exhibit foreign inquiries, or which are contradictory and\ncontentious, we shall assist mildly and aptly, or we shall demonstrate\ntheir absurdity. Such, likewise, as proceed conformably[23] to common\nconceptions, we shall endeavour to discuss in a way perfectly known and\nclear. And things, indeed, which require the experience of divine\noperations to an accurate knowledge of them, we shall explain, as far as\nthis is possible to be effected by words alone; but such as are full of\nintellectual theory, we shall develop with a view to the purification of\nthe soul. But indications of this theory worthy of notice may be\nmentioned, by which it is possible for you, and those who resemble you,\nto be conducted by intellect to the essence of [real] beings. And with\nrespect to such things as become known by a reasoning process, we shall\nleave no one of these without a perfect demonstration. But in all things\nwe shall give to each that which is appropriate. And such questions,\nindeed, as are theological, we shall answer theologically; such as are\ntheurgic, theurgically; but such as are philosophical, we shall, in\nconjunction with you, philosophically explore. Of these, also, such as\nextend to first causes, we shall unfold into light, by following them\nconformably to first principles. But such as pertain to morals, or to\nends, we shall fitly discuss, according to the ethical mode. And, in a\nsimilar manner, we shall examine other things methodically and\nappropriately. Let us, therefore, now betake ourselves to your\ninquiries.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. III.\n\n\nIn the first place, therefore, you say, \u201c_it must be granted that there\nare Gods_.\u201d Thus to speak, however, is not right on this subject. For an\ninnate knowledge of the Gods is coexistent with our very essence; and\nthis knowledge is superior to all judgment and deliberate choice, and\nsubsists prior to reason and demonstration. It is also counited from the\nbeginning with its proper cause, and is consubsistent with the essential\ntendency of the soul to _the good_. If, indeed, it be requisite to speak\nthe truth, the contact with divinity is not knowledge. For knowledge is\nin a certain respect separated [from its object] by _otherness_.[24] But\nprior to the knowledge, which as one thing knows another, is the uniform\nconnexion with divinity, and which is suspended from the Gods, is\nspontaneous and inseparable from them. Hence, it is not proper to grant\nthis, as if it might not be granted, nor to admit it as ambiguous (for\nit is always unically established in energy); nor are we worthy thus to\nexplore it, as if we had sufficient authority to approve or reject it.\nFor we are comprehended in it, or rather we are filled by it, and we\npossess that very thing which we are, [or by which our essence is\ncharacterized] in knowing the Gods.\n\nI shall likewise say the same thing to you, concerning the more\nexcellent genera that follow the Gods, I mean d\u00e6mons, heroes, and\nundefiled souls.[25] For it is necessary to understand respecting these,\nthat there is always in them one definite reason of essence, and to\nremove from them the indefiniteness and instability of the human\ncondition. It is likewise requisite to separate from them that\ninclination to one side of an argument rather than another, arising from\nthe equilibrium of a reasoning process. For a thing of this kind is\nforeign from the principles of reason and life, and rather tends to\nsecondary natures, and to such things as pertain to the power and\ncontrariety of generation. But it is necessary that the more excellent\ngenera should be apprehended uniformly.\n\nThe connascent perception, therefore, of the perpetual attendance of the\nGods, will be assimilated to them. Hence, as they have an existence\nwhich is always invariably the same, thus also the human soul is\nconjoined to them by knowledge, according to a sameness of subsistence;\nby no means pursuing through conjecture, or opinion, or a syllogistic\nprocess, all which originate in time, an essence which is above all\nthese, but through the pure and blameless intellections which the soul\nreceived from eternity from the Gods, becoming united to them. You,\nhowever, seem to think, that there is the same knowledge of divine\nnatures as of any thing else, and that one thing, rather than another,\nmay be granted from opposites, in the same manner as it is usual to do\nin dialectic discussions. There is, however, no similitude whatever\nbetween the two kinds of knowledge. For the knowledge of divine natures\nis different from that of other things, and is separated from all\nopposition. It likewise neither subsists in being now granted, or in\nbecoming to be, but was from eternity, uniformly consubsistent with the\nsoul. And thus much I say to you concerning the first principle in us,\nfrom which it is necessary those should begin who speak or hear any\nthing about the natures that are superior to us.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. IV.\n\n\nWith respect to your inquiry, \u201c_what the peculiarities are in each of\nthe more excellent genera, by which they are separated from each\nother?_\u201d if you understand by peculiarities the specific differences\nunder the same genus, which are distinguished by opposite qualities, as\nthe rational and irrational under animal; we by no means admit\npeculiarities of this kind, in things which neither have one common\nessence, nor an equal contradistinction, nor receive a composition from\nsomething common, which is indefinite, and defines the peculiarity. But\nif you apprehend the peculiarity to be, as in prior and secondary\nnatures, differing in their whole essence and whole genus, a certain\nsimple condition of being, definite in itself; in this case, your\nconception of peculiarities will be reasonable. For these peculiarities\nof things, which have an eternal subsistence, are simple, and entirely\nexempt. The inquiry, however, proceeds imperfectly. For it was\nnecessary, in the first place, to inquire what the peculiarities are of\nthe more excellent genera, according to essence; in the next place, what\nthey are according to power; and thus afterwards, what they are\naccording to energy. But, as your question now stands, with respect to\nthe peculiarities by which these genera are separated, you alone speak\nof the peculiarities of energies. Hence you inquire concerning the\ndifference in the last things pertaining to them; but you leave\nuninvestigated such things as are first, and most honourable in them,\nand which are the elements of their difference. In the same place, also,\nsomething is added concerning \u201c_efficacious and passive motions_,\u201d which\nis a division by no means adapted to the difference of the more\nexcellent genera. For the contrariety of action and passion is not\ninherent in any one of them; but their energies are unrestrained,\nimmutable, and without habitude to their opposites. Hence, neither must\nwe admit in them motions of such a kind as arise from action and\npassion. For neither do we admit in the soul a self-motion, which\nconsists of the mover and that which is moved; but we conceive that it\nis a certain simple essential motion, subsisting from itself,[26] and\nnot possessing a habitude to another thing, and exempt from acting on,\nand suffering from, itself. Who, therefore, can endure that the\npeculiarities of the genera superior to the soul, should be\ndistinguished according to active or passive motions?\n\nThat also which is added by you, \u201c_or of accidents_,\u201d is foreign from\nthese genera. For in composites, and things which exist together with,\nor in others, or are comprehended by others, some things are conceived\nto be precedaneous, but others consequent; and some as essences, but\nothers, as afterwards acceding to essences. For there is a certain\ncoarrangement of them, and incongruity and interval intervenes. But, in\nthe more excellent genera, all things must be conceived in \u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9,\ni. e. _in merely existing_; and wholes have a precedaneous subsistence,\nare separate by themselves, and have not their hypostasis from, or in\nothers; so that there is not any thing in them which is accidental.\nHence the peculiarity of them is not characterized from accidents.\n\nAt the end, likewise, of your inquiry, you introduce a distinction\naccording to nature. For your question asks, \u201c_How essences are known by\nenergies, by physical motions, and by accidents?_\u201d The very contrary,\nhowever, to all this takes place. For if energies and motions were\nconstitutive of essences, they would be the lords of the difference\nwhich is between them. But if essences generate energies, the former\nbeing separate prior to the latter, will impart to motions, energies,\nand accidents, that by which they differ from each other. This,\ntherefore, subsists contrarily to what you suppose, for the purpose of\ndiscovering the peculiarity which you now investigate.\n\nIn short, whether you think that there is one genus of the Gods, one of\nd\u00e6mons, and in a similar manner of heroes, and souls essentially\nincorporeal; or whether you admit that these are severally many, you\ninquire what the difference of them is according to peculiarities. For\nif you apprehend that each of these is one [and the same genus] the\nwhole arrangement of scientific theology is confounded. But if, as truth\nrequires, you admit that they are genetically distinguished, and that\nthere is not in them one common essential definition, but that those of\nthem which are prior, are exempt from those that are inferior, it is not\npossible to discover their common boundaries. And even if this were\npossible, this very thing would destroy their peculiarities. In this\nway, therefore, the object of investigation cannot be found. He,\nhowever, he who directs his attention to the analogous sameness which\nexists in superior natures, as, for instance, in the many genera of the\nGods, and again in d\u00e6mons and heroes, and, in the last place, in souls,\nwill be able to define their peculiarities. Hence through this, it is\ndemonstrated by us what the rectitude is of the present inquiry, and\nwhat its [accurate] distinction, and also in what manner it is\nimpossible, and in what manner it is possible, for it to subsist.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAP. V.\n\n\nIn the next place, let us direct our attention to the solution of your\ninquiries. There is, therefore, _the good itself_ which is beyond\nessence, and there is that good which subsists according to essence; I\nmean the essence which is most ancient and most honourable, and by\nitself incorporeal. And this is the illustrious peculiarity of the Gods,\nwhich exists in all the genera that subsist about them, preserving their\nappropriate distribution and order, and not being divulsed from it, and\nat the same time being inherent with invariable sameness in all the\nGods, and their perpetual attendants.\n\nIn souls, however, which rule over bodies, and precedaneously pay\nattention to them, and which, prior to generation, have by themselves a\nperpetual arrangement, essential good is not present, nor the cause of\ngood, which is prior to essence; but to these a certain\nparticipation[27] and habit, proceeding from essential good, accedes;\njust as we see that the participation of beauty and virtue is very\ndifferent [in these souls] from that which we behold in men. For the\nlatter is ambiguous, and accedes to composite natures as something\nadventitious. But the former has an immutable and never failing\nestablishment in souls, and neither itself ever departs from itself, nor\ncan be taken away by any thing else. Such, therefore, being the\nbeginning and end in the divine genera, conceive two media between these\nextreme boundaries, _viz._ the order of heroes, which has an arrangement\nmore elevated than that of souls, in power and virtue, in beauty and\nmagnitude, and in all the goods which subsist about souls, and which,\nthough it entirely transcends the psychical order, yet, at the same\ntime, is proximately conjoined to it, through the alliance of a similar\nformed life. But the other medium, which is suspended from the Gods,\nthough it is far inferior to them, is that of d\u00e6mons, which is hot of a\nprimarily operative nature, but is subservient to, and follows the\nbeneficent will of the Gods. It likewise unfolds into energy the\ninvisible good of the Gods, being itself assimilated to it, and gives\ncompletion to its fabrications conformably to it. For it renders that\nwhich is ineffable in the good of the Gods effable, illuminates that\nwhich is formless in forms, and produces into visible reasons [or\nproductive forms] that which in divine good is above all reason.\nReceiving also a connascent participation of things beautiful, it\nimparts and transfers it, in unenvying abundance, to the genera\nposterior to itself. These middle genera, therefore, give completion to\nthe common bond of the Gods and souls, and cause the connexion of them\nto be indissoluble. They also bind together the one continuity of things\nfrom on high as far as to the end; make the communion of wholes to be\ninseparable; cause all things to have the best, and a commensurate\nmixture; in a certain respect, equally transmit the progression from\nmore excellent to inferior natures, and the elevation from things\nposterior to such as are prior; insert in more imperfect beings order\nand measures of the communication which descends from more excellent\nnatures, and of that by which it is received; and make all things to be\nfamiliar and coadapted to all, supernally receiving the causes of all\nthese from the Gods.\n\nYou must not, therefore, think that this division is the peculiarity of\npowers or energies, or of essence; nor assuming it separately, must you\nsurvey it in one of these. But by extending it in common through all the\ngenera, you will give perfection to the answer concerning the\npeculiarities of Gods, d\u00e6mons, and heroes, and also of those in souls\nwhich are now the subjects of your inquiry.\n\nAgain, however, according to another mode of considering the subject, it\nis necessary to ascribe to the Gods the whole of that which is united,\nof whatever kind it may be; that which is firmly established in itself,\nand which is the cause of impartible essences; the immoveable, which\nalso is to be considered as the cause of all motion, and which\ntranscends the whole of things, and has nothing in common with them; and\nthe unmingled and the separate, understood in common in essence, power\nand energy, and every thing else of this kind. But that which is now\nseparated into multitude, and is able to impart itself to other things,\nand which receives from others bound in itself, and is sufficient in the\ndistributions of partible natures, so as to give completion to them;\nwhich also participates of the primarily operative and vivific, having\ncommunion with all real and generated beings; receives a commixture from\nall things, imparts a contemperation to all things from itself, and\nextends these peculiarities through all the powers, essences, and\nenergies, in itself; all this we shall truly ascribe to souls, by\nasserting that it is naturally implanted in them.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. VI.\n\n\nWhat, therefore, shall we say concerning the media? I think, indeed,\nthat from what has been before said, they will be manifest to every one;\nfor these give completion to the indivisible connexion of the extremes.\nNevertheless, it is necessary to be more explicit. I consider,\ntherefore, the d\u00e6moniacal tribe to be multiplied, but, unitedly, to be\ncomingled, but in an unmingled manner, and to comprehend all other\nthings of a subordinate nature, according to the idea of that which is\nmore excellent. But again, the tribe of heroes supernally presides over\na more obvious division and multitude, and likewise over motion,\ncommixture, and things allied to these. It also receives gifts of a more\nexcellent nature, concealed as it were inwardly; I mean union, purity, a\nfirm establishment, impartible sameness, and a transcendency above other\nthings. For one of these middle genera is proximate to the first, but\nthe other to the last, of the extremes. But it reasonably follows,\naccording to continuity of alliance, that the medium which begins from\nthe most excellent natures, should proceed to such as are less\nexcellent; but that the medium which primarily produces a contact with\nthe last of things, should also in a certain respect communicate with\nthe natures that transcend it. From these media, also, the completion\nmay be seen of the first and last genera, and this entirely connascent,\nin a similar manner, in existence, in power, and in energy. As we have,\ntherefore, in these two ways, perfectly completed the division of the\nfour genera, we shall deem it sufficient in the others, to exhibit the\nextreme peculiarities alone, for the sake of conciseness, and because\nwhat remains, _i. e._ the comprehension of the media, is in a certain\nrespect evident. But the media themselves, as being known from the\nextremes, we shall omit; making a definition of the extremes in the\nshortest way, as follows.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. VII.\n\n\nOf the extremes, therefore, one is supreme, transcendent, and perfect;\nbut the other is last in dignity, deficient, and more imperfect. And the\nformer, indeed, is capable of accomplishing all things at once,\nuniformly in an instant; but the latter is neither able to effect all\nthings, nor at once, nor suddenly, nor impartibly. The former also\ngenerates and governs all things, without being inclined towards them;\nbut the latter is naturally disposed to verge, and be converted to the\nthings which it generates and governs. And the former, indeed, as\nprimordial and cause, precedes all things in power; but the latter,\nbeing suspended from the will of the Gods, as from a cause, is from\neternity consubsistent with it. The former, likewise, according to one\nvigorous acme, comprehends the ends of all energies and essences; but\nthe latter passes from some things to others, and proceeds from the\nimperfect to the perfect. Farther still, to the former that which is\nhighest and that which is incomprehensible pertain, and also that which\nis better than all measure, and is in such a manner formless, as not to\nbe circumscribed by any form; but the latter is vanquished by\ninclination, habitude, and propensity; and is detained by appetites\ndirected to that which is less excellent, and by familiarity with\nsecondary natures. Hence, in the last place, it is formalized by\nall-various measures derived from them. Intellect, therefore, which is\nthe leader and king of all beings, and which is the demiurgic art of the\nuniverse, is always present with the Gods with invariable sameness,\nperfectly, and without indigence, being purely established in itself,\naccording to one energy. But soul participates of a partible and\nmultiform intellect, having its attention directed to the government of\nthe whole. It also providentially attends to inanimate natures, becoming\nat different times ingenerated in different forms.\n\nFrom the same causes, therefore, order and beauty itself are\nconsubsistent with the more excellent genera; or, if some one had rather\nadmit it, the cause of these is consubsistent with them. But with soul,\nthe participation of intellectual order and divine beauty is always\npresent. And with the former, indeed, the measure of wholes, or the\ncause of this, perpetually concurs. But soul is terminated by the divine\nboundary, and participates of this in a partible manner. To the former,\nalso, empire over all beings, through the power and domination of cause,\nmay be reasonably ascribed. But soul has certain distinct boundaries, as\nfar as to which it is able to have dominion. Such, therefore, being the\ndifferent peculiarities in the extremes, it will not be difficult to\nunderstand what we have now said, and to perceive the middle\npeculiarities of d\u00e6mons and heroes, which are allied to each of the\nextremes, possessing a similitude, to each, departing from both to the\nmedium, and embracing a concordant communion comingled from them, and\nconnected with it in appropriate measures. Such, therefore, must be\nconceived to be the peculiarities of the first divine genera.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. VIII.\n\n\nBut neither must we admit that cause of the distinction of these genera\nwhich you subjoin, viz. \u201c_that it is an arrangement with reference to\ndifferent bodies; as, for instance, of Gods to etherial bodies, but of\nd\u00e6mons to aerial bodies, and of souls to such as are terrene_.\u201d For such\nan arrangement as this, which resembles that of Socrates to a tribe,\nwhen he is a senator, is unworthy of the divine genera, because all of\nthem are essentially unrestrained and free. To which may be added, that\nit is dreadfully absurd to ascribe to bodies a principal power of giving\na specific distinction to the first causes of themselves. For bodies are\nin servile subjection to these causes, and are ministrant to generation.\nAnd farther still, the genera of the more excellent natures are not in\nbodies, but the former externally rule over the latter. Hence they are\nnot changed in conjunction with bodies. Again, they impart from\nthemselves to bodies every such good as they are able to receive, but\nthey themselves receive nothing from bodies; so that neither will they\nderive from them certain peculiarities. For if they were as the habits\nof bodies, or as material forms, or were in some other way\ncorporeal-formed, it would, perhaps, be possible for them to be changed\ntogether with the differences of bodies. But if they are separate from\nbodies, and essentially preexist unmingled with them, what reasonable\ndistinction, produced from bodies, can be transferred to them? To which\nalso may be added, that this assertion of yours makes bodies to be more\nexcellent than the divine genera, since the former afford a seat to\nsuperior causes, and insert in them peculiarities essentially. He,\ntherefore, who coarranges allotments, distributions, and consociations\nof governors with the governed, will evidently assign a principal\nauthority to more excellent natures. For, because the presiding powers\nare such [as we have shown them to be], on this account they have such\nan allotment, and give to it an essential specific distinction, but they\nare not assimilated to the nature of their receptacles.\n\nIt is necessary, therefore, to admit a thing of this kind in partial\nsouls. For such as is the life which the soul received, prior to its\ninsertion in a human body, and such as the form which it readily\nexerted; such also is the organical body which it has suspended from\nitself, and such the consequent corresponding nature, which receives the\nmore perfect life of the soul. But with respect to more excellent\nnatures, and which, as wholes, comprehend the principle [of parts] in\nthese, inferior are produced in superior natures; bodies, in incorporeal\nessences; things fabricated, in the fabricators; and, being circularly\ncomprehended in, are directed and governed by, them. Hence, the\ncirculations of the celestial bodies, being primarily inserted in the\ncelestial circulations of the etherial soul, are perpetually inherent in\nthem; and the souls of the worlds [_i. e._ of the spheres], being\nextended to their intellect, are perfectly comprehended by it, and are\nprimarily generated in it. Intellect, also, both that which is partial\nand that which is universal, is in a similar manner comprehended in the\ngenera that are more excellent than intellect. Since, therefore, second\nare always converted to first natures, and superior are the leaders of\ninferior essences, as being the paradigms of them, hence essence and\nform accede to subordinate from superior natures, and things posterior\nare primarily produced in such as are more excellent; so that order and\nmeasure are derived from primary to secondary beings, and the latter\npossess that which they are from the former. But the contrary must not\nbe admitted, _viz._ that peculiarities emanate from things less\nexcellent to the natures which precede them.\n\nHence, through these things such a corporeal-formed division as you\nintroduce, is demonstrated to be false. It is, indeed, especially\nnecessary not to propose any thing of this kind; but if this should\nappear to you to be requisite, yet you must not think, that what is\nfalse deserves to be discussed. For such a discussion does not exhibit a\ncopiousness of arguments; but he wearies himself in vain, who, proposing\nthings that are false, endeavours afterwards to subvert them, as things\nthat are not true. For how is it possible that an essence, which is of\nitself incorporeal, and which has nothing in common with the bodies that\nparticipate of it, should be distinguished from other things by\ncorporeal qualities? How can that which is not locally present with\nbodies, be separated by corporeal places? And how can that which is not\ninclosed by the partible circumscriptions of subjects, be partibly\ndetained by the parts of the world? What, also, is that which can\nprevent the Gods from being every where? And what can restrain their\npower from extending as far as to the celestial arch? For to effect\nthis, must be the work of a more powerful cause, which is able to\ninclose and circumscribe them in certain parts. But truly existing\nbeing, and which is essentially incorporeal, is every where, wherever it\nmay wish to be. And that which is divine, and which transcends all\nthings, would [if what you say were admitted] be transcended by the\nperfection of the whole world, and, as a certain part, would be\ncomprehended by it. Hence, it would be inferior to corporeal magnitude.\nI do not, however, see after what manner these sensible natures could be\nproduced and specifically distinguished, if there was no divine\nfabrication, and if no participation of divine forms, extended through\nthe whole world.\n\nIn short, this opinion wholly subverts sacred institutions, and the\ntheurgic communion of the Gods with men; since it exterminates from the\nearth the presence of the more excellent genera. For it says nothing\nelse than that divine dwell remote from earthly natures, and that this\nour place of abode is deserted by them. According to this assertion,\ntherefore, neither can we, that are priests, learn any thing from the\nGods, nor do you rightly inquire of us, as knowing more than others,\nsince we shall differ in no respect from other men.\n\nNo one, however, of these assertions is sane. For neither are the Gods\ndetained in certain parts of the world, nor are terrene natures\ndestitute of their providential attention. But the divinities are\ncharacterized by this, that they are not comprehended by any thing, and\nthat they comprehend all things in themselves. But terrestrial natures\npossess their existence in the _pleromas_[28] of the Gods; and when they\nbecome adapted to divine participation, then prior to their own proper\nessence, they immediately possess the Gods, which [latently] preexisted\nin it.\n\nThrough these things, therefore, we have shown that the whole of this\ndivision is false; that the method [employed by you] of investigating\npeculiarities is irrational; and that to suppose the government of the\nGods is fixed in a certain place, is by no means to apprehend the whole\nessence and power which is in them. It would have been proper,\ntherefore, to have omitted the opposite inquiry made by you, about this\ndistribution of more excellent natures, as not contradicting in any\nrespect true conceptions. Because, however, it is necessary rather to\ndirect the attention to true science, but not to dispute with men, on\nthis account, we also shall adapt the present inquiry to a certain\nrational and theological apprehension.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. IX.\n\n\nI consider you, therefore, as asking, for it is your inquiry, \u201c_Why,\nsince the Gods dwell in the heavens alone, there are invocations by\ntheurgists of terrestrial and subterranean Gods?_\u201d For what you assert\nin the beginning is not true, that the Gods circumvolve in the heavens\nalone: since all things are full of them. You also inquire, \u201c_How some\nof the Gods are said to be aerial, and different Gods are allotted\ndifferent places, and circumscribed portions of bodies, though they\npossess infinite, impartible, and incomprehensible power? And how,\nlikewise, there will be a union of them with each other, as they are\nseparated by divisible circumscriptions of parts, and by difference of\nplaces and subject bodies?_\u201d Of all these, therefore, and an infinite\nnumber of other similar questions, one and the best solution will be\nobtained by surveying the mode of divine allotment.\n\nA divine nature, therefore, whether it is allotted certain parts of the\nuniverse, such as heaven or earth, or sacred cities and regions, or\ncertain groves, or sacred statues, externally[29] illuminates all these,\nin the same manner as the sun externally irradiates all things with his\nrays. Hence, as light comprehends the things which are illuminated by\nit, thus also the power of the Gods externally comprehends its\nparticipants. As, likewise, the solar light is present with the air in\nan unmingled manner; but this is manifest from no light being left in\nthe air, when once that which illuminated it has departed, though heat\nis still present with it, when that which heated it is entirely\nwithdrawn; thus also the light of the Gods illuminates separately, and\nbeing firmly established in itself, wholly proceeds through all beings.\nMoreover, the light which is the object of sensible perception, is one,\ncontinuous, and every where the same, whole; so that it is not possible\nfor any part of it to be separate and cut off from the whole, nor to be\ninclosed in a circle, nor at any time to depart from its illuminating\nsource. After the same manner, therefore, the whole world being\npartible, is divided about the one and impartible light of the Gods. But\nthis light is every where one and the same whole, and is impartibly\npresent with all things that are able to participate of it; through an\nall perfect power fills all things, and by a certain causal\ncomprehension, incloses and terminates the whole of things in itself,\nand is every where united to itself, and conjoins ends to beginnings.\nThis too, all heaven and the world imitating, revolve with a circular\nmotion, are united to themselves, and lead the elements which are\ncarried round in a circle. Hence the world causes all things to be in\neach other, and to tend to each other, makes the end of one thing to\ncoalesce with the beginning of another, as, for instance, earth with\nheaven, and produces one connexion and concord of wholes with wholes.\n\nWill not, therefore, he who surveys this conspicuous statue of the Gods,\nthus united to itself, be ashamed to have a different opinion of the\nGods, who are the causes of it, so as to introduce among them sections,\nand separations, and corporeal-formed circumscriptions? I, indeed,\nshould think, that every one would be thus disposed. For if there is no\nratio, no habitude of symmetry, no communion of essence, nor a connexion\neither in capacity or in energy, between that which is adorned and the\nadorning cause; if this be the case, there will neither be found in the\nworld a certain extension according to interval, nor local\ncomprehension, nor partible interception, nor any other such like\nconnascent equalization in the presence of the Gods [with mundane\nnatures]. For in things which are of a kindred nature, according to\nessence and power, or which are, in a certain respect, of the same\nspecies, or homogeneous, a certain comprehension, or conservation, may\nbe discovered. But in such things as are entirely exempt from all\nmundane wholes, what opposing circumstance, or transition through all\nthings, or partible circumscription, or local comprehension, or any\nthing else of this kind can justly be perceived? I think, therefore,\nthat the several participants of the divinities are of such a nature,\nthat some partake of them etherially, others aerially, and others\naquatically; which also, the art of divine works perceiving, employs\nadaptations and invocations, conformable to such a division. And thus\nmuch concerning the distribution of the more excellent genera into the\nworld.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAP. X.\n\n\nAfter these things, you again subjoin another division for yourself,\n\u201c_in which you separate the essences of the more excellent genera by the\ndifference of passive and impassive_.\u201d But neither do I admit this\ndivision. For no one of the more excellent genera is passive, nor yet\nimpassive in such a way as to be contradistinguished from that which is\npassive; nor is naturally adapted to receive passions, but liberated\nfrom them through virtue, or some other worthy condition of being. But\nbecause they are entirely exempt from the contrariety of action and\npassion; and because they are not at all adapted to suffer, and have\nessentially an immutable firmness, on this account I place the impassive\nand the immutable in all the divine genera.\n\nFor consider, if you are willing, the last of divine natures, _viz._ a\nsoul purely liberated from bodies. What does such a soul want with the\ngeneration which is in pleasure, or the restitution which is in it to a\nnatural condition, since such a soul is above nature, and lives an\nunbegotten life? Why, also, should it participate of the pain which\nleads to corruption and dissolves the harmony of the body, since it is\nbeyond all body, and the nature which is divided about body, and is\nentirely separate from the harmony which descends from the soul into the\nbody? But neither is it in want of the passions which precede sensation:\nfor neither is it detained in body, nor inclosed by it, so as to require\ncorporeal organs, in order to apprehend certain other bodies which are\nexternal to these organs. And, in short, being impartible, and abiding\nin one and the same form, and also being essentially incorporeal, and\nhaving no communication with a generated and passive body, it cannot\nsuffer any thing either according to division, or according to a change\nin quality, nor can have any thing which is allied to any kind of\nmutation or passion.\n\nBut neither does the [rational] soul, when it accedes to body, either\nitself suffer, or the reasons which it imparts to the body. For these\n_reasons_ are _forms_, and being simple and uniform, they receive no\nperturbation in themselves, and no departure from their proper mode of\nsubsistence. That which remains, therefore [or the participant of the\nrational soul], becomes the cause of suffering to the composite. Cause,\nhowever, is not the same with its effect. Hence, as soul is the first\norigin of generable and corruptible composite animals, but is itself by\nitself ingenerable and incorruptible; thus, also, though the\nparticipants of the soul suffer, and do not wholly [_i. e._ truly]\npossess life and existence, but are complicated with the indefiniteness\nand diversity of matter, yet the soul is itself by itself immutable, as\nbeing essentially more excellent than that which suffers, and not as\npossessing impassivity, in a certain deliberate choice, which verges\nboth to the impassive and the passive, nor as receiving an adscitious\nimmutability in the participation of habit or power.\n\nSince, therefore, we have demonstrated that it is impossible for even\nthe last genus of the more excellent order of beings, _viz._ the soul,\nto participate of suffering, how can it be proper to adapt this\nparticipation to d\u00e6mons and heroes, who are perpetual, and the\nattendants of the Gods, and who always invariably preserve the same\ndivine order, and never desert it? For we know this indeed, that passion\nis something disorderly, confused, and unstable, never having any proper\nauthority of its own, but being devoted to that by which it is detained,\nand to which it is subservient for the purposes of generation. This,\ntherefore, rather pertains to some other genus, than to that which\nalways exists, and is suspended from the Gods, and which, in conjunction\nwith them, observes the same order, and accomplishes the same period.\nHence d\u00e6mons are impassive, and all the more excellent genera, which\nfollow them [and the Gods].\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XI.\n\n\n\u201c_How therefore_,\u201d you ask, \u201c_are many things performed to them in\nsacred operations, as if they were passive?_\u201d I reply, that this is\nasserted through an ignorance of sacerdotal mysticism. For of the things\nwhich are perpetually effected in sacred rites, some have a certain\narcane cause, and which is more excellent than reason; others are\nconsecrated from eternity to the superior genera, as symbols; others\npreserve a certain other image, just as nature, which is effective of\ninvisible reasons, expresses certain visible formations; others are\nadduced for the sake of honour, or have for their end some kind of\nsimilitude, or familiarity and alliance; and some procure what is useful\nto us, or in a certain respect purify and liberate our human passions,\nor avert some other of those dire circumstances which happen to us. It\nmust not, however, be on this account granted, that a certain portion of\nsacred institutions is employed in the service of Gods or d\u00e6mons, as if\nthey were passive. For an essence which is by itself perpetual and\nincorporeal, is not naturally adapted to receive a certain mutation from\nbodies.\n\nNor, even though we should admit that this essence is especially in want\nof such things, will it require the aid of men to a sacred worship of\nthis kind; since it is itself filled from itself, and from the nature of\nthe world, and the perfection which is in generation; and, if it be\nlawful so to speak, prior to being in want it receives the\nself-sufficient, through the never failing wholeness of the world and\nits own proper plenitude, and because all the more excellent genera are\nfull of appropriate good. Let this, therefore, be a lenitive for us in\ncommon, concerning the worship of the undefiled genera, as being\nappropriately coadapted to the beings that are more excellent than we,\nand because pure things are introduced to pure, and impassive things to\nimpassive, natures.\n\nBut directing our attention to particulars, we say that the erection of\nthe _phalli_ is a certain sign of prolific power, which, through this,\nis called forth to the generative energy of the world. On which account,\nalso, many phalli are consecrated in the spring, because then the whole\nworld receives from the Gods the power which is productive of all\ngeneration. But I am of opinion, that the obscene language which then\ntakes place, affords an indication of the privation of good about\nmatter, and of the deformity which is in material subjects, prior to\ntheir being adorned. For these being indigent of ornament, by so much\nthe more aspire after it, as they in a greater degree despise their own\ndeformity. Again therefore, they pursue the causes of forms, and of what\nis beautiful and good, recognizing baseness from base language. And\nthus, indeed, the thing itself, _viz._ turpitude, is averted, but the\nknowledge of it is rendered manifest through words, and those that\nemploy them transfer their desire to that which is contrary to baseness.\n\nAnother reason, also, of these things may be assigned. The powers of the\nhuman passions that are in us, when they are entirely restrained, become\nmore vehement; but when they are called forth into energy, gradually and\ncommensurately, they rejoice in being moderately[30] gratified, are\nsatisfied; and from hence, becoming purified, they are rendered\ntractable, and are vanquished without violence. On this account, in\ncomedy and tragedy, by surveying the passions of others, we stop our own\npassions, cause them to be more moderate, and are purified from them. In\nsacred ceremonies, likewise, by certain spectacles and auditions of\nthings base, we become liberated from the injury which happens from the\nworks effected by them.[31] Things of this kind, therefore, are\nintroduced for the sake of our soul, and of the diminution of the evils\nwhich adhere to it through generation, and of a solution and liberation\nfrom its bonds. On this account, also, they are very properly called by\nHeraclitus _remedies_, as healing things of a dreadful nature, and\nsaving souls from the calamities with which the realms of generation are\nreplete.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XII.\n\n\nYou also say, \u201c_that invocations are directed to the Gods as to beings\nthat are passive, so that not only d\u00e6mons are passive, but likewise the\nGods_.\u201d This, however, is not the case. For the illumination which takes\nplace through invocations, is spontaneously visible and self-perfect; is\nvery remote from all downward attraction; proceeds into visibility\nthrough divine energy and perfection, and as much surpasses our\nvoluntary motion as the divine will of _the good_ transcends a\ndeliberately chosen life. Through this will, therefore, the Gods, being\nbenevolent and propitious, impart their light to theurgists in unenvying\nabundance, calling upwards their souls to themselves, procuring them a\nunion with themselves, and accustoming them, while they are yet in body,\nto be separated from bodies, and to be led round to their eternal and\nintelligible principle.\n\nBut it is evident, from the effects themselves, that what we now say is\nthe salvation of the soul. For the soul in contemplating blessed\nspectacles, acquires another life, energizes according to another\nenergy, and is then rightly considered as no longer ranking in the order\nof man. Frequently, likewise, abandoning her own life, she exchanges it\nfor the most blessed energy of the Gods. If, therefore, the ascent\nthrough invocations imparts to the priests purification from passions, a\nliberation from generation, and a union with a divine principle, how is\nit possible to connect with it any thing of passion? For an invocation\nof this kind does not draw down the impassive and pure Gods, to that\nwhich is passive and impure; but, on the contrary, it renders us, who\nhave become passive through generation, pure and immutable.\n\nNeither do the invocations which implore the Gods to _incline_ to us,\nconjoin the priests to them through passion; but procure for them the\ncommunion of an indissoluble connexion, through the friendship which\nbinds all things together. Hence, it does not, as the name seems to\nimply, incline the intellect of the Gods to men; but, according to the\ndecision of truth, renders the will of man adapted to the participation\nof the Gods, elevates it to them, and coharmonizes the former with the\nlatter, through the most appropriate persuasion. On this account also,\nsuch names of the Gods as are adapted to sacred concerns, and other\ndivine symbols, are able, as they are of an anagogic or elevating\nnature, to connect invocations with the Gods themselves.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. XIII.\n\n\nMoreover, \u201c_the pacifications of anger_\u201d will become manifest, if we\nunderstand what the anger of the Gods is.[32] This, therefore, is not,\nas it appears to be to some, a certain ancient and inveterate rage, but\nan abandonment of the beneficent care of the Gods, from which we turn\nourselves away, withdrawing, as it were, from meridian light, hiding\nourselves in darkness, and depriving ourselves of the beneficent gift of\nthe Gods. Hence _pacification_ is able to convert us to the\nparticipation of divinity and the providential care of the Gods, from\nwhich we were divulsed, and to bind together, commensurately,\nparticipants and the participated natures. So far, therefore, is\npacification from accomplishing its work through passion, that it\nseparates us from the passive and tumultuous abandonment of the Gods.\n\nBut \u201c_the oblation of victims_,\u201d when some evil is present in places\nabout the earth, procures a remedy for the evil, and secures us from the\nincursion of any mutation or passion. Hence, whether a thing of this\nkind is effected through Gods or d\u00e6mons, it invokes these as the\nexpellers of evil, and [our true] saviours, and through them\nexterminates all the injury which may accede from the calamities. Those\npowers, also, who avert genesiurgic[33] and physical punishments, do not\nexpel them through passions. And if some one should think that the\nsuppression of the guardian care of the Gods, introduces a certain\nspontaneous injury, in this case the persuasion arising from\npacification recalls the benevolence of the more excellent genera, to a\nprovidential attention to our affairs, and takes away our privation of\ngood, being itself perfectly pure and immutable.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XIV.\n\n\nFarther still, with respect to \u201c_what are called the necessities of the\nGods_,\u201d the whole truth of this is, that necessities are peculiar to,\nand subsist in such a way as accords with the nature of, the Gods.[34]\nHence they do not subsist as if they were externally derived, or were\nthe effect of violence, but after such a manner as _the good_ ought to\nbe from necessity, so the Gods entirely exist, and are by no means\notherwise disposed. This necessity, therefore, is mingled with\nbeneficent will, and is the friend of love; through an order adapted to\nthe Gods, possesses identity and immutability; and because it is\ncontained in one boundary, abides in this, and never departs from it.\nHence, through all these particulars, the contrary to what you infer\ntakes place. For it happens that a divine nature is incapable of being\nallured, is impassive and uncompelled, if there are in reality such\npowers in theurgy, as we have demonstrated there are.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XV.\n\n\nAfter this, you pass on to another division into contraries, _viz._ the\ndivision of Gods with reference to d\u00e6mons. For you say, \u201c_that the Gods\nare pure intellects_;\u201d but you propose this opinion as an hypothesis, or\nyou narrate it as a dogma adopted by certain persons. And you infer,\n\u201c_that d\u00e6mons are psychical essences participating of intellect_.\u201d\nNeither, therefore, am I ignorant that this is the opinion of many\nphilosophers; but to you, I do not think it is proper to conceal what\nappears to me to be the truth. For all such opinions are full of\nconfusion; since they wander from d\u00e6mons to souls, which also\nparticipate of intellect; and from the Gods to an immaterial intellect\nin energy, which the Gods entirely excel by a priority of nature. Why,\ntherefore, is it requisite to attribute to them these peculiarities,\nwhich are by no means appropriate? And thus much concerning this\ndivision, for it would be superfluous to make any further mention of it.\nBut it is requisite that your doubts respecting this distinction should\nbe properly considered, as the discussion of them pertains to the\nsacerdotal province.\n\nFarther still, having said \u201c_that pure intellects are inflexible_,\n[i. e. _not to be changed or altered_] _and unmingled with sensibles_,\u201d\nyou doubt, \u201c_whether it is requisite to pray to them_.\u201d But I think it\nis necessary to pray to no others than these. For that in us which is\ndivine, intellectual,[35] and one, or intelligible, if you are willing\nso to call it, is most clearly excited in prayer; and, when excited,\nvehemently seeks that which is similar to itself, and becomes copulated\nto perfection itself. But if it should appear to you to be incredible,\nthat an incorporeal nature can be capable of hearing sounds, and it\nshould be urged by you, that for this purpose the sense of hearing is\nrequisite, that it may apprehend what is said by us in prayer; you\nwillingly forget the excellency of primary causes, which consists in\nboth knowing and comprehending in themselves at once the whole of\nthings. The Gods, therefore, do not receive prayers in themselves,\nthrough any corporeal powers or organs, but rather contain in themselves\nthe energies of pious invocations; and especially of such as, through\nsacred ceremonies, are established in, and united to, the Gods. For\nthen, in reality, a divine nature is present with itself, and does not\ncommunicate with the intellectual conceptions in prayer, as different\nfrom its own.\n\n\u201c_Supplications, however_,\u201d you say, \u201c_are too foreign to the purity of\nintellect to be offered to the Gods_.\u201d But this is by no means the case.\nFor on this very account, because we fall short of the Gods in power,\npurity, and every thing else, we shall act in the most opportune manner,\nby invoking them with the most vehement supplications. For the\nconsciousness of our own nothingness, when we compare ourselves, with\nthe Gods, causes us to betake ourselves spontaneously to suppliant\nprayer. But from supplication, we are in a short time led to the object\nof supplication, acquire its similitude from intimate converse, and\ngradually obtain divine perfection, instead of our own imbecility and\nimperfection.\n\nIf, indeed, it is considered that sacred prayers are sent to men from\nthe Gods themselves, that they are certain symbols of the divinities,\nand that they are only known to the Gods, with whom, in a certain\nrespect, they possess the same power,\u2014how can it any longer be justly\napprehended, that a supplication of this kind is sensible, and not\ndivine and intellectual? Or what passion can accede to a thing of this\nkind, the purity of which the most worthy human manners cannot easily\nequal?\n\nYou say, however, \u201c_that the things which are offered in supplications\nare offered as to sensitive and psychical natures_.\u201d And, indeed, if the\nofferings consisted of corporeal and composite powers alone, or of such\nthings as are merely subservient to corporeal organs, your assertion\nwould be true. But as the offerings participate of incorporeal forms, of\ncertain reasons, and more simple measures, the aptitude of them is to be\nsurveyed according to this alone. And if a certain alliance, or\nsimilitude, is present, which is either proximate or remote, it is\nsufficient to effect the contact of which we are now speaking. _For\nthere is not any thing which in the smallest degree is adapted to the\nGods, to which the Gods are not immediately present, and with which they\nare not conjoined._ The connexion, therefore, of supplications with the\nGods, is not as with sensitive or psychical natures, but as with divine\nforms, and with the Gods themselves [as Gods, _i. e._ as superessential\nhyparxes]. So that we have sufficiently spoken in opposition to this\ndivision.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XVI.\n\n\nThe difference which separates \u201c_Gods from d\u00e6mons by the corporeal and\nincorporeal_,\u201d is the next thing that follows in what you have written;\nthis being much more common than the former difference, and yet it is so\nfar from expressing the peculiarities of their essence, that it does not\nafford a conjectural knowledge of them, nor of any accidents which\npertain to them. For neither is it possible from these things to\napprehend whether they are animals or not, and whether they are deprived\nof life, or are not at all in want of it. Farther still, neither is it\neasy to conjecture how these names are predicated, whether in common, or\nof many different things. For if in common, it is absurd that a line and\ntime, God and d\u00e6mons, fire and water, should be under the same\nincorporeal genus. But if of many things, what reason is there when you\nspeak of the incorporeal, that you should rather manifest by it Gods\nthan points; or when you speak of the corporeal, that you should not be\nthought to speak of the earth rather than of d\u00e6mons? For neither is this\nvery thing defined, whether Gods and d\u00e6mons have bodies, or are carried\nin bodies, as in a vehicle, or use them, or comprehend them, or are\nalone the same[36] with body. But, perhaps, it is not proper to examine\nthis distinction very minutely. For you do not propose it as your own\ndecision, but you exhibit it as the opinion of others.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. XVII.\n\n\nWe will exchange, therefore, this division for the doubt which may be\nadduced by you against the present opinion. \u201c_For_,\u201d it may be said by\nyou, \u201c_how, conformably to what we assert, can the sun and moon, and the\nvisible natures in the heavens, be Gods, if the Gods are alone\nincorporeal?_\u201d To this we reply, that the celestial divinities are not\ncomprehended by bodies, but contain bodies in their divine lives and\nenergies; that they are not themselves converted to body, but they have\na body which is converted to its divine cause; and that body does not\nimpede their intellectual and incorporeal perfection, nor occasion them\nany molestation by its intervention. Hence it does not require an\nabundant attention, but follows the divinities spontaneously, and after\na certain manner, self-motively, not being in want of manual direction;\nbut, through an anagogic tendency, being itself uniformly coelevated by\nitself, to _the one_ of the Gods.\n\nIt may also, if requisite, be said that a celestial body is most allied\nto the incorporeal essence of the Gods. For as the latter is one, so the\nformer is simple; as the latter is impartible, so the former is\nindivisible;[37] and as that is immutable, so this is unchanged in\nquality. If, likewise, it is admitted that the energies of the Gods are\nuniform, a celestial body also, has one circulation. To which may be\nadded, that it imitates the sameness of the Gods, by a perpetual motion,\nwhich is invariably the same, and which subsists according to one reason\nand one order. It also imitates a divine life, by the life which is\nconnascent with etherial bodies. Hence, this celestial body does not\nconsist of things contrary and different, as is the case with our body;\nnor does the soul of the celestial Gods coalesce with the body into one\nanimal from two things; but the celestial animals of the Gods are\nentirely similar and counited, and are throughout wholes, uniform, and\nincomposite. For things of a more excellent nature are always\ntranscendent in them, after the same manner; and things of an inferior\nnature are suspended from the dominion of such as are prior, yet so as\nnever to draw down this dominion to themselves. But all these are\ncongregated into one coarrangement and perfection; and, after a certain\nmanner, all things in the celestial Gods are incorporeal, and wholly\nGods; because the divine form which is in them predominates, and inserts\nevery where throughout one total essence. Thus, therefore, the visible\ncelestials are all of them Gods, and after a certain manner incorporeal.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. XVIII.\n\n\nYour next inquiry doubts, \u201c_how some of the Gods are beneficent, but\nothers malefic_.\u201d This opinion, therefore, is assumed from the\npredictors of nativities. It is, however, entirely remote from the\ntruth. For all the Gods are good, and invariably the causes of good; and\nall of them are uniformly convolved to one good, according to the\nbeautiful and good alone. The bodies, likewise, which are subject to\nthem possess immense powers; some of which are firmly established in the\ndivine bodies themselves, but others proceed from them into the nature\nof the world, and into the world itself, descending in an orderly manner\nthrough the whole of generation, and extending without impediment as far\nas to things which have a partial subsistence.\n\nWith respect to the powers, therefore, which remain in the heavens in\nthe divine bodies themselves, there can be no doubt that all of them are\nsimilar. Hence, it remains that we should discuss those powers which are\nthence transmitted to us, and are mingled with generation. These,\ntherefore, descend with invariable sameness for the salvation of the\nuniverse, and connectedly contain the whole of generation after the same\nmanner. They are likewise impassive and immutable, though they proceed\ninto that which is mutable and passive. For generation being multiform,\nand consisting of different things, receives _the one_ of the Gods, and\nthat in them which is without difference, with hostility and\npartibility, conformably to its own contrariety and division. It also\nreceives that which is impassive, passively; and, in short, participates\nof them according to its own proper nature, and not according to their\npower. As, therefore, that which is generated [or has a subsistence in\nbecoming to be,] participates of being generatively, and body\nparticipates of the incorporeal, corporeally; thus, also, the physical\nand material substances which are in generation, participate of the\nimmaterial and etherial bodies, which are above nature and generation,\nin a confused and disorderly manner. Hence they are absurd who attribute\ncolour, figure, and contact to intelligible forms, because the\nparticipants of them are things of this kind; as likewise are those who\nascribe depravity to the celestial bodies, because their participants\nsometimes produce evils. For the participation from the first could not\nbe a thing of this kind, unless the recipient had some mutation. But if\nthat which is participated is received as in another and different\nthing, this other thing in terrene natures is evil and disorderly. The\nparticipation, therefore, becomes the cause of the abundant difference\nin secondary natures, and also the commixture of material substances\nwith immaterial effluxions; and besides these, another cause is this,\nthat what is imparted in one way, is received in another by terrestrial\nsubstances. Thus, for instance, the efflux of Saturn is constipative,\nbut that of Mars is motive; but the passive genesiurgic receptacle in\nmaterial substances receives the former according to congelation and\nrefrigeration, but the latter according to an inflammation which\ntranscends mediocrity. Do not, therefore, the corruption and privation\nof symmetry arise from an aberration which is effective of difference,\nand which is material and passive? Hence the imbecility of material and\nterrene places, not being able to receive the genuine power and most\npure life of the etherial natures, transfers its own passion to first\ncauses. Just as if some one having a diseased body, and not being able\nto bear the vivific heat of the sun, should falsely dare to say, in\nconsequence of looking to his own maladies, that the sun is not useful\nto health or life.\n\nA certain thing of this kind also may take place in the harmony and\ncrasis of the universe: for the same things may be the salvation of the\nwhole, through the perfection of the things inherent and the recipients;\nbut may be noxious to the parts, through their partible privation of\nsymmetry. In the motion, therefore, of the universe, all the\ncirculations preserve the whole world invariably the same; but some one\nof the parts is frequently injured by another part, which we see is\nsometimes the case in a dance.\n\nAgain, therefore, corruptibility and mutability are passions connascent\nwith partial natures. But it is not proper to ascribe these to wholes\nand first causes, either as if they existed in them, or as if they\nproceeded to terrestrial substances from them. Hence, through these\nthings it is demonstrated, that neither the celestial Gods, nor their\ngifts, are effective of evil.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XIX.\n\n\nIn the next place, therefore, we shall answer your question, \u201c_What it\nis which conjoins the Gods that have a body in the heavens with the\nincorporeal Gods._\u201d What this is, therefore, is evident from what has\nbeen before said. For if these Gods, as incorporeal, intelligible, and\nunited, ride in the celestial spheres, they have their principles in the\nintelligible world, and intellectually perceiving the divine forms of\nthemselves, they govern all heaven according to one infinite energy. And\nif they are present with the heavens in a separate manner, and lead the\nperpetual circulations of them by their will alone, they are themselves\nunmingled with a sensible nature, and exist together with the\nintelligible Gods.\n\nIt will be better, however, to answer you more particularly, as follows:\nI say, therefore, that the visible statues of the Gods originate from\ndivine intelligible paradigms, and are generated about them. But being\nthus generated, they are entirely established in them, and being also\nextended to,[38] they possess an image which derives its completion from\nthem. These images likewise fabricate another order; sublunary natures\nare in continuity with them, according to one union; and the divine\nintellectual forms, which are present with the visible bodies of the\nGods, exist prior to them in a separate manner. But the unmingled and\nsupercelestial intelligible paradigms of them, abide by themselves in\nunity, and are at once all things, according to the eternal\ntranscendency of themselves.\n\nThere is, therefore, one common indivisible bond of them according to\nintellectual energies; and there is also this bond according to the\ncommon participations of forms, since there is nothing which intercepts\nthese, nor any thing which comes between them. For indeed, an immaterial\nand incorporeal essence itself, being neither separated by places, nor\nby subjects, nor defined by the divisible circumscriptions of parts,\nimmediately concurs, and is connascent with sameness. The progression\nalso, from, and the regression of all things to, _the one_, and the\nentire domination of _the one_, congregates the communion of the mundane\nGods with the Gods that preexist in the intelligible world.\n\nFarther still, the intellectual conversion of secondary to primary\nnatures, and the gift of the same essence and power imparted by the\nprimary to the secondary Gods, connects the synod of them in\nindissoluble union. For in things of different essences, such as soul\nand body, and also in those of a dissimilar species, such as material\nforms, and those which are in any other way separated from each other,\nthe connascent adventitious union is derived from supernal causes, and\nis lost in certain definite periods of time. But by how much the higher\nwe ascend, and elevate ourselves to the sameness both in form and\nessence, of first natures, and proceed from parts to wholes, by so much\nthe more shall we discover the union which has an eternal existence, and\nsurvey the essence, which has a precedaneous and more principal\nsubsistence, and possesses about, and in itself, difference and\nmultitude.[39]\n\nSince, however, the order of all the Gods is profoundly united, and the\nfirst and second genera of them, and all the multitude which is\nspontaneously produced about them, are consubsistent in unity, and also\nevery thing which is in them is one,\u2014hence the beginning, middles, and\nends in them are consubsistent according to _the one itself_; so that in\nthese, it is not proper to inquire, whence _the one_ accedes to all of\nthem. For the very existence in them, whatever it may be, is _this\none_[40] of their nature. And secondary genera, indeed, remain with\ninvariable sameness in _the one_ of such as are primary; but the primary\nimpart from themselves union to the secondary genera, and all of them\npossess in each other the communion of an indissoluble connexion.\n\nFrom this cause, therefore, the perfectly incorporeal Gods are united to\nthe sensible Gods that have bodies. For the visible Gods also are\nexternal to bodies, and on this account are in the intelligible world;\nand the intelligible Gods, through their infinite union, comprehend in\nthemselves the visible Gods; and both are established according to a\ncommon union and one energy. In a similar manner, also, this is the\nillustrious prerogative of the cause and orderly distribution of the\nGods, on which account the same union of all the divinities extends from\non high, as far as to the end of the divine order. But if this deserves\nto be doubted, the contrary would be wonderful, _viz._ that there should\nnot be this union of the visible and intelligible Gods. And thus much\nconcerning the contact with, and establishment of, the sensible in the\nintelligible Gods.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XX.\n\n\nAfter this, you again resume the same inquiries, of which what has been\nalready said may be considered as a sufficient solution. Since, however,\nit is necessary, according to the proverb, frequently to speak of and\nconsider things that are beautiful, neither shall we pass over these\nparticulars, as if they had been now sufficiently answered, but by\nrepeatedly discussing them we may, perhaps, obtain from all of them a\ncertain perfect and great scientific good. For you doubt \u201c_what it is\nwhich distinguishes d\u00e6mons from the visible and invisible Gods, since\nthe visible are conjoined with the invisible divinities_.\u201d But I,\nbeginning from this as the first thing, shall demonstrate what it is in\nwhich they differ. For, because the visible are united to the\nintelligible Gods, and have the same idea with them, but d\u00e6mons are far\ndistant from them, according to essence, and scarcely adumbrate them\nthrough similitude, on this account they are separated from the visible\nGods; and they differ from the invisible Gods, according to the\ndifference itself of the invisible.[41] For d\u00e6mons, indeed, are\ninvisible, and by no means to be apprehended by sense; but the Gods\ntranscend rational knowledge and material intelligence. And, because\nthey are unknown and unapparent to these, they are thus denominated; but\nare said to be invisible in a way very different from that in which this\nis asserted of d\u00e6mons. What, therefore, have the invisible Gods, so far\nas they are invisible, more excellent than the visible Gods? Nothing.\nFor that which is divine, wherever it may be, and whatever allotment it\nmay possess, has the same power and dominion over all the natures that\nare arranged under it. Moreover, though the invisible Gods should become\nvisible, yet they rule over invisible d\u00e6mons. For neither the place,\nwhich is the recipient of divinity, nor a certain part of the world,\nproduces any mutation in the dominion of the Gods. But the whole essence\nof the Gods remains everywhere the same, indivisible and immutable,\nwhich all subordinate beings similarly venerate, in the order assigned\nthem by nature.\n\nBy the assistance also of this reasoning, we may discover another\ndifference between Gods and d\u00e6mons. For both the visible and invisible\nGods, indeed, comprehend in themselves the whole government of whatever\nis contained in all heaven and the world, and in the total invisible\npowers in the universe. But those powers that are allotted a d\u00e6moniacal\nprefecture, distributing certain divisible portions of the world, govern\nthese, and have themselves a partible form of essence and power. They\nare, likewise, in a certain respect, connascent with, and inseparable\nfrom, the subjects of their government. But the Gods, though they may\nride in bodies, are entirely separated from them. The providential\nattention, therefore, to bodies, produces no diminution in those to whom\nbody is subservient: for it is connectedly contained by a more excellent\nnature, is converted to it, and is not the cause of any impediment to\nit. But the adhering to a genesiurgic nature, and the being divided\nabout it, necessarily give to d\u00e6mons a more subordinate condition. In\nshort, that which is divine is of a ruling nature, and presides over the\ndifferent orders of beings; but that which is d\u00e6moniacal is of a\nministrant nature, and receives whatever the Gods may announce, promptly\nemploying manual operation, as it were, in things which the Gods\nintellectually perceive, wish, and command. The Gods, therefore, are\nliberated from the powers which verge to generation; but d\u00e6mons are not\nentirely purified from these. And thus much concerning this distinction;\nand we trust, that from the former and the present exposition, the\ndifference between Gods and d\u00e6mons will become more known.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XXI.\n\n\nThe division, however, of _the passive from the impassive_, which you\nadopt, may perhaps be rejected by some one, as not adapted to either of\nthe more excellent genera, through the causes which we have before\nenumerated; and it also deserves to be subverted, because it is inferred\nthat these genera are passive, from what is performed in religious\nceremonies. For what sacred institution, what religious cultivation,\nwhich is conformable to sacerdotal laws, is effected through passion, or\nproduces a certain completion of passions? Is not each of these\nlegislatively ordained from the first, conformably to the sacred laws of\nthe Gods, and intellectually? Each also imitates both the intelligible\nand celestial order of the Gods; and contains the eternal measures of\nbeings, and those admirable signatures which are sent hither from the\nDemiurgus and father of wholes, by which things of an ineffable nature\nare unfolded into light through arcane symbols, things formless are\nvanquished by forms, things more excellent than every image are\nexpressed through images, and all things are accomplished through a\ndivine cause alone, which is in so great a degree separated from\npassions, that reason is not able to come into contact with it.\n\nThis, therefore, is nearly the cause of our aberration to a multitude of\nconceptions. For men being in reality unable to apprehend the reasons of\nsacred institutions, but conceiving that they are able, are wholly\nhurried away by their own human passions, and form a conjecture of\ndivine concerns from things pertaining to themselves. In so doing,\nhowever, they err in a twofold respect; because they fall from divine\nnatures; and because, being frustrated of these, they draw them down to\nhuman passions. But it is requisite not to apprehend after the same\nmanner, things which are performed both to Gods and men, such as\ngenuflexions, adorations, gifts, and first fruits, but to establish the\none apart from the other, conformably to the difference between things\nmore and things less honourable; and to reverence the former, indeed, as\ndivine, but to despise the latter as human, and as performed to men. It\nis proper, likewise, to consider, that the latter produce passions, both\nin the performer and those to whom they are performed; for they are\nhuman and corporeal-formed; but to honour the energy of the former in a\nvery high degree, as being performed through immutable admiration, and a\nvenerable condition of mind, because they are referred to the Gods.\n\n\n\n\n                              SECTION II.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAP. I.\n\n\nIt is also necessary to demonstrate to you, in what d\u00e6mons, heroes, and\nsouls differ from each other, and whether this difference is according\nto essence, or according to power, or according to energy. I say,\ntherefore, that d\u00e6mons are produced according to the generative and\ndemiurgic powers of the Gods, in the most remote termination of\nprogression, and ultimate distribution into parts. But heroes are\nproduced according to the reasons [or effective principles], of life in\ndivine natures; and from these, the first and perfect measures of souls\nreceive their termination and distribution into parts.\n\nSince, however, the nature of d\u00e6mons and heroes is thus generated from\ndifferent causes, it is also necessary that the essence of the one\nshould be different from that of the other. Hence, the essence of d\u00e6mons\nis effective, and perfective of mundane natures, and gives completion to\nthe superintendence of generated individuals. But the essence of heroes\nis vital and rational, and is the leader of souls. And, with respect to\nthe powers of each, those of d\u00e6mons must be defined to be prolific,\ninspective of nature, and of the bond by which souls are united to\nbodies. But it is requisite to attribute to heroes vivific powers, which\nare the leaders of men, and are liberated from generation.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. II.\n\n\nIt follows, therefore, that in the next place we should define the\nenergies of them. And those of d\u00e6mons, indeed, must be surveyed as\noccupied about the world, and more widely extended in their effects; but\nthose of heroes as less extended, and as converted to the order of\nsouls. Hence, these being thus distinguished, soul succeeds, which\nproceeds as far as to the end of the divine orders; and, being allotted\nfrom these two genera certain portions of powers, is redundant with\npartible additions, and other prerogatives derived from itself. It also\nproduces at different times different forms and reasons and manners,\nwhich originate from different sources; and, according to each part of\nthe world, employs various lives and ideas; becoming, connascent with,\nand likewise receding from, whatever natures it pleases; being,\nassimilated to all things, and at the same time, through difference,\nbeing separated from them; drawing forth reasons allied to real beings\nand generated natures; and connecting itself with the Gods, according to\nother harmonies of essences and powers, than those by which, d\u00e6mons and\nheroes are united to the divinities. It likewise possesses the eternity\nof a similar life and energy in a less degree than d\u00e6mons and heroes;\nyet, through the beneficent will of the Gods, and the illumination\nimparted by them, it frequently proceeds higher, and is elevated to a\ngreater, _i. e._ to the angelic, order; when it no longer remains in the\nboundaries of soul, but the whole of it is perfected into an angelic\nsoul and an undefiled life. Hence, also, soul appears to comprehend in\nitself all-various essences and reasons, and forms or species of every\nkind. If, however, it be requisite to speak the truth, soul is always\ndefined according to one certain thing, but adapting itself to\nprecedaneous causes, it is at different times conjoined to different\ncauses.\n\nSo great, therefore, being the difference between the energies of\nd\u00e6mons, heroes, and souls throughout, it is no longer proper to doubt,\nwhat it is which separates them from each other; but they are to be\ndistinguished by the peculiar nature of each. And so far as they are\nable to form one conjunction, so far the communion of them must be\nsurveyed. For thus it will be possible truly to comprehend and define\nseparately the conception which ought to be formed of them.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. III.\n\n\nLet us, however, now proceed to the appearances of the Gods and their\nperpetual attendants, and show what the difference is in their\nappearance. For you inquire, \u201c_by what indication the presence of a God,\nor an angel, or an archangel, or a d\u00e6mon, or a certain archon_ [i. e.\n_ruler_], _or a soul, may be known_.\u201d In one word, therefore, I conclude\nthat their appearances accord with their essences, powers, and energies.\nFor such as they are, such also do they appear to those that invoke\nthem, and they exhibit energies and ideas consentaneous to themselves,\nand proper indications of themselves. But that we may descend to\nparticulars, the phasmata, or luminous appearances, of the Gods are\nuniform; those of d\u00e6mons are various; those of angels are more simple\nthan those of d\u00e6mons, but are subordinate to those of the Gods; those of\narchangels approximate in a greater degree to divine causes; but those\nof archons, if these powers appear to you to be the cosmocrators,[42]\nwho govern the sublunary element, will be more various, but adorned in\norder; but if they are the powers that preside over matter, they will\nindeed be more various, and more imperfect, than those of the archons\n[properly so called]; and those of souls will appear to be all-various.\nAnd the phasmata, indeed, of the Gods will be seen shining with salutary\nlight; those of archangels will be terrible, and at the same time mild;\nthose of angels will be more mild; those of d\u00e6mons will be dreadful;\nthose of heroes (which you have omitted in your inquiry, but to which we\nshall give an answer for the sake of truth) are milder than those of\nd\u00e6mons; but those of archons, if their dominion pertains to the world,\nproduce astonishment, but if they are material, they are noxious and\npainful to the spectators; and those of souls are similar to the heroic\nphasmata, except that they are inferior to them.\n\nAgain, therefore, the phasmata of the Gods are entirely immutable,\naccording to magnitude, morphe,[A] and figure, and according to all\nthings pertaining to them; those of archangels approximate to those of\nthe Gods, but fall short of the sameness of them; those of angels are\nsubordinate to these, but are immutable; and those of d\u00e6mons are at\ndifferent times seen in a different form, and appear at one time great,\nbut at another small, yet are still recognized to be the phasmata of\nd\u00e6mons. Moreover, those of such archons as are leaders are immutable;\nbut those of such as are material are multiformly changed; those of\nheroes are similar to those of d\u00e6mons; and those of souls imitate in no\nsmall degree the d\u00e6moniacal mutation. Farther still, order and quiet\npertain to the Gods; but with archangels, there is an efficacy of order\nand quiet. With angels, the adorned and the tranquil are present, but\nnot unattended with motion. Perturbation and disorder follow the\nd\u00e6moniacal phasmata; but spectacles attend the archons, conformable to\neach of the particulars which we have already mentioned; the material\narchons, indeed, being borne along tumultuously; but those of a leading\ncharacteristic, presenting themselves to the view, firmly established in\nthemselves. The phasmata of heroes are subject to motion and mutation;\nbut those of souls resemble, indeed,\n\n[Sidenote A: Morphe pertains to the colour, figure, and magnitude of\nsuperficies.] the heroic, but at the same time are less than these. In\naddition also to these peculiarities, divine beauty, indeed, shines with\nan immense splendour as it were, fixes the spectators in astonishment,\nimparts a divine joy, presents itself to the view with ineffable\nsymmetry, and is exempt from all other species of pulchritude. But the\nblessed spectacles of archangels have indeed themselves the greatest\nbeauty, yet are not so ineffable and admirable as those of the Gods.\nThose of angels divide, in a partible manner, the beauty which they\nreceive from archangels. But the d\u00e6moniacal and heroical self-visive\nspirits, have both of them beauty in definite forms, yet the former is\nadorned in reasons which define the essence, and the latter exhibits\nfortitude. The phasmata of archons may be divided in a twofold respect.\nFor some of them exhibit a beauty which is spontaneous, and of a ruling\ncharacteristic; but others, an elegance of form which is fictitious and\nrenovated. And the phasmata of souls are, indeed, adorned in definite\nreasons, but these reasons are more divided than those in heroes, are\npartibly circumscribed, and are vanquished by one form. If, however, it\nbe requisite to define all of them in common, I say that each\nparticipates of beauty according to its arrangement, the peculiar nature\nwhich it possesses, and its allotment.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. IV.\n\n\nProceeding, therefore, to other peculiarities of them, we say, that with\nthe Gods, indeed, there is acuteness and rapidity in the energies, which\nshine forth with greater celerity than those of intellect itself, though\nin themselves they are immoveable and stable. With archangels, the\ncelerities are, in a certain respect, mingled with efficacious energies.\nThose of angels partake of a certain motion, and do not, similarly with\narchangels, possess a power which is effective by speaking. The\noperations of d\u00e6mons appear to be more rapid than they are in reality.\nIn the motions of the heroic phasmata, a certain magnificence presents\nitself to the view; but in accomplishing what they wish to effect, their\nenergies are not so rapid as those of d\u00e6mons. In the phasmata of\narchons, the first energies appear to be most excellent and\nauthoritative; but the second have a more abundant representation, yet\nin actions fall short of the end. And the phasmata of souls are seen to\nbe more moveable, yet are more imbecile, than those of heroes.\n\nIn addition to these things also, the magnitude of the epiphanies [or\nmanifestations] in the Gods, indeed, is so great as sometimes to conceal\nall heaven, the sun and the moon; and the earth itself, as the Gods\ndescend, is no longer able to stand still. When archangels appear,\ncertain parts of the world are moved, and a divided forerunning light\nprecedes them. But they exhibit a magnitude of light commensurate to the\nmagnitude of their domination. The angelic light is less than the\narchangelic, and more divided, but in d\u00e6mons it is still more divided,\nand the magnitude of the manifestation is not always equal in them. The\nmanifestation of heroes is still less than that of d\u00e6mons, but exhibits\nmore of an elevated condition. Again, the manifestation of such archons\nas preside over mundane forms, presents itself to the view as above\nmeasure great; but such of them as are distributed about matter, exhibit\nin their manifestations an abundance of pride and arrogance. Those of\nsouls are not all of them seen to be equal, but appear to be less than\nthose of heroes. And, in short, the magnitude of the manifestation is\nappropriately present in each of these, according to the magnitude of\ntheir powers, and the amplitude of the empire through which they extend\nthemselves, and in which they exercise their authority.\n\nAfter these things, therefore, we shall define the reasons of the\nself-apparent statues [or images]. Hence, in the forms of the Gods which\nare seen by the eyes, the most clear spectacles of truth itself are\nperceived, which are also accurately splendid, and shine forth with an\nevolved light. The images of archangels present themselves to the view\ntrue and perfect; but those of angels preserve, indeed, the same form,\nbut fail in plenitude of indication. The images of d\u00e6mons are obscure;\nand those of heroes are seen to be still inferior to these. With\nrespect, also, to archons, the images of such as are mundane, are clear;\nbut of such as are material, obscure. Both, however, are seen to be of\nan authoritative nature. And the images of souls appear to be of a\nshadowy form.\n\nIn a similar manner, likewise, we must determine concerning the light of\nthese powers. For the images of the Gods, indeed, are replete with a\nfulgid light. Those of archangels are full of supernatural light. Those\nof angels are luminous; but d\u00e6mons present themselves to the view with a\nturbid fire. The light of heroes is mingled with many things. And, with\nrespect to archons, the light of those that have the government of the\nworld is more pure; but of those that preside over matter, exhibits\nitself mingled from things of a dissimilar and contrary nature. And the\nlight of souls manifests itself to be partibly filled with many of the\nmixtures which exist in generation.\n\nConformably, also, to what has been said, the fire of the Gods, indeed,\nshines forth with an indivisible and ineffable light, and fills all the\nprofundities of the world, in an empyrean,[43] but not in a mundane,\nmanner. But the fire of archangels is impartible indeed, but is seen to\npossess about itself an abundant multitude, either preceding or\nfollowing after itself. The fire of angels is divided, except that it\nexhibits itself in the most perfect ideas. That of d\u00e6mons is still more\nshortly circumscribed by a distribution into parts, is effable, and does\nnot astonish the sight of those that have seen more excellent natures.\nThe fire of heroes has, after a certain manner, the same things as that\nof d\u00e6mons, but at the same time falls short of the most accurate\nsimilitude to it. Moreover, with respect to archons, the fire of those\nthat are of a more elevated order, is more pellucid; but of those that\nare material, is more dark. And the fire of souls is seen to be much\ndivided and multiform, and is comingled from many of the natures that\nare in the world. Again, the fire of the Gods appears to be entirely\nstable. That of archangels is tranquil; but that of angels is stably\nmoved. The fire of d\u00e6mons is unstable; but that of heroes is, for the\nmost part, rapidly moved. The fire of those archons that are of the\nfirst rank is tranquil; but of those that are of the last order is\ntumultuous. And the fire of souls is transmuted in a multitude of\nmotions.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAP. V.\n\n\nMoreover, that which purifies souls is perfect in the Gods; but in\narchangels it is anagogic. Angels alone dissolve the bond of generation.\nD\u00e6mons draw souls down into nature; but heroes lead them to a\nprovidential attention to sensible works. Archons either deliver to them\nthe government of mundane concerns, or the inspection of material\nnatures. And souls, when they become apparent, tend in a certain respect\nto generation.\n\nFarther still, consider this, also, that you should attribute everything\nwhich is pure and stable in the visible image to the more excellent\ngenera. Hence, you should ascribe to the Gods that which in the image is\ntranscendently splendid, and which is firmly established in itself. That\nwhich is splendid, but is established as in another thing, you should\ngive to archangels; but that which remains in another to angels. To all\nthese, therefore, you should oppose, that which is rashly borne along,\nis unestablished, and filled with foreign natures, the whole of which is\nadapted to inferior orders.\n\nThese, also, may now be divided according to the difference of\ncommixture. For mundane vapours are mingled with d\u00e6mons, and are\nunstably borne along, contrary to the motion of the world. Genesiurgic\ncompositions of pneumatic substances are mingled with heroes, about\nwhich substances, also, they are moved. The archons of the world remain\ninvariably the same, exhibiting the mundane nature which they possess.\nBut the archons of matter are full of material substances. And souls are\nfilled with an abundance of stains and foreign spirits, together with\nwhich, when they become visible, each of these genera presents itself to\nthe view.\n\nThe following, also, will be no small indications to you [of the\ndifference of these powers]. With the Gods matter is immediately\nconsumed. With archangels it is consumed in a short time. With angels\nthere is a solution of, and elevation from, matter. By d\u00e6mons matter is\nelegantly adorned. With heroes there is a coadaptation to it, in\nappropriate measures, and a skilful providential attention to it. And\nwith respect to archons, those that are the governors of the world are\npresent with matter in a transcendent manner, and in this way unfold\nthemselves into light. But those that are material, exhibit themselves\nas entirely replete with matter. With respect to souls, also, those that\nare pure, present themselves to the view out of matter, but those of a\ncontrary description are seen surrounded with it.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. VI.\n\n\nMoreover, the gifts arising from the manifestations are not all of them\nequal, nor have the same fruits. But the presence[44] of the Gods,\nindeed, imparts to us health of body, virtue of soul, purity of\nintellect, and in one word elevates every thing in us to its proper\nprinciple. And that, indeed, in us which is cold and destructive it\nannihilates; that which is hot it increases, and renders more powerful\nand predominant; and causes all things to accord with soul and\nintellect. It also emits a light, accompanied with intelligible harmony,\nand exhibits that which is not body as body to the eyes of the soul,\nthrough those of the body. The presence of archangels imparts likewise\nthe same things, except that it does not impart them always, nor in all\nthings, nor does it bestow goods which are sufficient, perfect, and\nincapable of being taken away; nor is their appearance accompanied with\na light equal to that of the Gods. The presence of angels imparts\ndivisibly still more partible goods, and the energy through which it\nbecomes visible falls very short of comprehending in itself a perfect\nlight. That of d\u00e6mons renders the body, indeed, heavy, afflicts with\ndiseases, draws down the soul to nature, does not depart from bodies,\nand the sense allied to bodies, and detains about this terrestrial place\nthose who are hastening to divine fire, and does not liberate from the\nbonds of Fate. The presence of heroes is in other respects similar to\nthat of d\u00e6mons, but is attended with this peculiarity, that it excites\nto certain generous and great undertakings. The appearance which is\nvisible by itself, of the mundane archons, imparts mundane goods, and\nevery thing pertaining to human life; but that of the material archons\nextends material benefits, and such works as are terrestrial. Moreover,\nthe vision of souls that are undefiled, and established in the order of\nangels, is anagogic, and the saviour of the soul, is accompanied with\nsacred hope, and imparts those goods which sacred hope vindicates to\nitself. But the vision of other souls draws down to generation, corrupts\nthe fruits of [sacred] hope, and fills the spectators with passions\nwhich fix them to body.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. VII.\n\n\nMoreover, in the manifestations there is an indication of the order\nwhich the powers that are seen possess. For the Gods are surrounded by\neither Gods or angels; but archangels have angels either preceding or\ncoarranged with them, or following them behind, or are accompanied by a\ncertain other multitude of angels, who attend on them as guards. Angels\nexhibit, together with themselves, the peculiar works of the order to\nwhich they belong. Good d\u00e6mons permit us to survey, in conjunction with\nthemselves, their own works, and the benefits which they impart; but\navenging d\u00e6mons exhibit the species of punishments [which they inflict];\nand such other d\u00e6mons as are depraved are surrounded by certain noxious,\nblood-devouring, and fierce wild beasts.[45] Archons [of the first rank]\nexhibit, together with themselves, certain portions of the world; but\nother archons attract to themselves the inordination and confusion of\nmatter. With respect to soul, if it ranks as a whole, and does not\nbelong to any particular species, it presents to the view a formless\nfire, extended through the whole world, which is indicative of the\ntotal, one, indivisible, and formless soul of the universe; but a\npurified soul exhibits a fiery form, and a pure and unmingled fire.\nThen, also, the most inward light of it is seen, and an undefiled and\nstable form, and it most willingly and joyfully follows its elevating\nleader, and unfolds, by its works, its own appropriate order. But the\nsoul which verges downward draws along with it the signs of bonds and\npunishments, is heavy with material spirits, is detained by the\nanomalous tumults of matter, and exhibits before itself, genesiurgic\npresiding d\u00e6mons. And, in short, all these genera exhibit their proper\norders; _viz._ the aerial genera exhibit aerial fire; the terrestrial a\nterrestrial and blacker fire; and the celestial a more splendid fire.\nBut in these three boundaries all the genera are distributed according\nto a triple order of beginning, middle, and end. And the Gods, indeed,\nexhibit the supreme and most pure causes of this triple order. But the\ngenera of angels depend on those of archangels. The genera of d\u00e6mons\nappear to be subservient to those of angels; and in a similar manner to\nthese, the genera of heroes are ministrant. They are not, however,\nsubservient to angels in the same way as d\u00e6mons. Again, the genera of\narchons, whether they preside over the world or over matter, exhibit the\norder which is adapted to them. But all the genera of souls present\nthemselves to the view as the last of more excellent natures. Hence,\nalso, they exhibit places in conjunction with themselves; souls of the\nfirst rank primary, but those of the second rank secondary, places, and\nthe rest conformably to their arrangement, in each of these three\ngenera.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. VIII.\n\n\nMoreover, with respect to the tenuity and subtilty of light, the Gods\nextend a light so subtle that corporeal eyes cannot sustain it, but are\naffected in the same manner as fishes, when they are drawn upward from\nturbid and thick water into attenuated and diaphanous air. For men who\nsurvey divine fire are not able to breathe, through the subtilty of it,\nbut become languid as soon as they perceive it, and are deprived of the\nuse of their connascent spirit. Archangels, also, emit a light which is\nintolerable to respiration, yet their splendour is not equally pure with\nthat of the Gods, nor similarly overpowering. The presence of angels\nrenders the temperature of the air tolerable, so that theurgists are\ncapable of being united to it. But when d\u00e6mons are present, the whole\nair is not at all affected; nor does the air, which surrounds them,\nbecome more attenuated; nor does a light precede them, in which, being\npreviously received and preoccupied by the air, they unfold the form of\nthemselves; nor are they surrounded by a certain splendour, which\ndiffuses its light everywhere. When heroes appear, certain parts of the\nearth are moved, and sounds are heard around them; but, in short, the\nair does not become more attenuated, nor incommensurate to theurgists,\nso as to render them unable to receive it. But when archons are present,\nan assemblage of many luminous appearances runs round them, difficult to\nbe borne, whether these appearances are mundane or terrestrial. They\nhave not, however, a supermundane tenuity, nor even that of the supreme\nelements. And to the psychical appearances the air is more allied, and,\nbeing suspended from them, receives in itself their circumscription.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. IX.\n\n\nIn the last place, the dispositions of the soul of those that invoke the\nGods to appear receive, when they become visible, a liberation from the\npassions, a transcendent perfection, and an energy entirely more\nexcellent, and participate of divine love and an immense joy. But when\narchangels appear, these dispositions receive a pure condition of being,\nintellectual contemplation, and an immutable power. When angels appear,\nthey participate of intellectual wisdom and truth, pure virtue, stable\nknowledge, and a commensurate order. But when d\u00e6mons are seen, they\nreceive the appetite of generation and a desire of nature, together with\na wish to accomplish the works of Fate, and a power effective of things\nof this kind. If heroes are seen, they derive from the vision other such\nlike manners and many impulses, which contribute to the communion of\nsouls. But when these dispositions come into contact with archons,\nmundane or material, motions are excited in conjunction with the soul.\nAnd, together with the vision of souls, the spectators derive\ngenesiurgic tendencies and connascent providential inspections, for the\nsake of paying attention to bodies, and such other peculiarities as are\nallied to these.\n\nIn addition to these things, also, the manifestation of the Gods imparts\ntruth and power, rectitude of works, and gifts of the greatest goods;\nbut the manifestation of other powers is appropriately accompanied by\nsuch things as are commensurate to their several orders. Thus the\nmanifestation of archangels imparts truth, not simply about all things,\nbut definitely of certain things; and this not always, but sometimes;\nnor indefinitely to all, or every where, but with limitation, in a\ncertain place, or to a certain individual. In like manner it does not\nimpart a power effective of all things, nor always without distinction,\nnor every where; but a power which is effective sometimes, and in a\ncertain place. But the manifestation of angels, in a still greater\ndegree than that of archangels, divides, in imparting good, the\ncircumscriptions which are always defined by them in more contracted\nboundaries. Again, the manifestation of d\u00e6mons does not impart the goods\nof the soul, but either those of the body, or goods pertaining to the\nbody. And they impart these when the order of the world permits them.\nAfter the same manner, likewise, the manifestation of heroes imparts\nsecond and third goods, and regards as its scope the whole terrestrial\nand mundane polity of souls. With respect to archons, the manifestation\nof some of these imparts mundane benefits, and all the goods of life;\nbut that of others of an inferior rank imparts not a few of the\nprerogatives of material natures. And souls, when they appear, procure\nfor those that behold them things which contribute to the benefit of\nhuman life. Thus, therefore, we have appropriately defined the gifts of\nthese powers, conformably to the proper order of each; and the\nparticulars in the manifestations about which you inquired, have\nreceived a fit reply. And thus much for these questions.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAP. X.\n\n\nWhat you introduce, however, for the purpose of obtaining a knowledge of\nthese things, whether it be your own opinion, or whether you have heard\nit from others, is neither true nor rightly asserted. For you say,\n\u201c_that to speak boastingly, and to exhibit an adumbrative phantasm, are\ncommon to Gods and d\u00e6mons, and to all the more excellent genera of\nbeings_.\u201d But the thing is not as you apprehend it to be. For a God, an\nangel, and a good d\u00e6mon, instruct men in what their proper essence\nconsists; and never use an addition in their language which transcends\ntheir power, or their appropriate good. For truth is coexistent with the\nGods, in the same manner as light with the sun. And, at the same time,\nwe say, that divinity is not in want of any beauty or virtue which it is\npossible to add to him through language. Moreover, angels and d\u00e6mons\nalways receive truth from the Gods, so that they never assert any thing\ncontrary to this, each of them being essentially perfect, nor can they\nadd any thing to it for the sake of commendation.\n\nWhen, therefore, does the deception mentioned by you \u201c_of speakingly\nboastingly_\u201d take place. For when a certain error happens in the\ntheurgic art, and not such _autoptic_, or self-visible, images are seen\nas ought to occur, but others, instead of these, then inferior powers\nassume the form of the more venerable orders, and pretend to be those\nwhose forms they assume; and hence arrogant words are uttered by them,\nand such as exceed the authority which they possess. For, as it appears\nto me, if any fraud germinates from the first principle, much falsehood\nis derived from the perversion, which it is necessary the priest should\nlearn from the whole order in the phasmata, and by the proper\nobservation of which they are able to confute and reject the\nfictitious[46] pretext of these inferior powers, as by no means\npertaining to true and good spirits. Nor is it proper to introduce\nerrors in the true judgment of things; for neither in other sciences or\narts do we judge of their works from the aberrations which may happen to\ntake place in them. You should not, therefore, here characterize things\nwhich are scarcely performed with rectitude through ten thousand\nlabours, from the errors which may, through ignorance, befall them; but\nrather assert something else of them. For if the works which take place\nfrom the appearance of these powers are such as you say, viz. if they\nare arrogant and false, yet the operations about fire of true spirits\nare genuine and true. For, as in all other things, such as are principal\nprimarily begin from themselves, and impart to themselves that which\nthey give to others; as, for instance, in essence, in life, and in\nmotion; thus also the natures which supply all beings with truth,\nprimarily proclaim the truth of themselves, and precedaneously unfold\nthe essence of themselves to the spectators. Hence, likewise, they\nexhibit to theurgists a fire which is of itself visible. For it is not\nthe province of heat to refrigerate, nor of light to darken or conceal\nany thing; nor with any other nature which essentially performs a\ncertain thing, is a power present of at the same time effecting the\ncontrary. But things which do not possess a [true] nature, and which are\ncontrary to things that exist essentially; these are able to receive\ncontraries, and are adapted to fall into evil.\n\nWe must say the same thing, therefore, concerning phantasms. For if\nthese are not true, but other things are so which have a real existence,\nthus also in the appearances of spirits, they seem to be such as things\nwhich are true beings; at the same time they participate of falsehood\nand deception, in the same manner as the forms which present themselves\nto the view in mirrors; and thus vainly attract the mind about things\nwhich never take place in any of the more excellent genera. These\nphantasms, likewise, will consist in deceptive perversions. For that\nwhich is an imitation of [real] being, and is an obscure assimilation,\nand becomes the cause of deception, pertains to no one of the true and\nclearly existing genera. But the Gods, indeed, and those powers that\nfollow the Gods, reveal true images of themselves, but by no means\nextend phantasms of themselves, such as exist in water, or in mirrors.\nFor on what account should they exhibit these? Shall we say, as bringing\nwith them an indication of their own essence and power? This, however,\nis by no means the case. For these phantasms become the cause of\ndeception to those that believe in them, and withdraw the spectators\nfrom the true knowledge of the Gods. Shall we say, then, that it is\nbecause they afford a certain utility to those that behold them? But\nwhat advantage can be derived from falsehood? If, therefore, this is not\nthe case, may it not be natural to divinity to extend a phantasm from\nitself? But how can that which is firmly established in itself, and\nwhich is the cause of essence and truth, produce in a foreign seat a\ncertain deceitful imitation of itself? By no means, therefore, does\ndivinity either transform himself into phantasms, nor extend these from\nhimself to other things, but emits, by illumination, true\nrepresentations of himself, in the true manners of souls. Conformably to\nthis, also, the attendants of the Gods are emulous of the self-visible\ntruth of the Gods. But that which you now say, \u201c_that it is common to\nGods and d\u00e6mons, and the rest of the more excellent genera, to produce\nfictitious images, and to speak boastingly of themselves_,\u201d confounds\nall the genera of superior beings in each other, and leaves no\ndifference whatever between them. For thus all things will be common to\nthem, and nothing singularly excellent will be given to transcendent\nnatures. It will, therefore, be more just to ask, in opposition to you,\nin what will the genus of the Gods be superior to that of d\u00e6mons? These\ngenera, however, have nothing in common, nor is the communion between\nthem phantastic, nor is it fit from such natures as are last, and from\nthe errors which take place in them, to estimate first essences, and the\ntrue impressions of forms which are in them. For by thus thinking\nconcerning these essences, we shall think justly, and in a way pleasing\nto the Gods.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XI.\n\n\nIn what follows, in which you think that ignorance and deception about\nthese things are impiety and impurity, and in which you exhort us to the\ntrue developement of these particulars, is not, indeed, attended with\nany ambiguity, but is acknowledged by all men. For who will not grant\nthat the science which apprehends real being, is most adapted to a\ndivine cause, but that ignorance which is hurried along to nonbeing,\nsince it is most remote from a divine cause, falls off from truly\nexisting forms? Since, however, what is said by you is not sufficient, I\nwill add what is wanting; and because what you assert is rather\nphilosophical and logical, than conformable to the efficacious art of\npriests, on this account I think it is necessary to say something more\ntheurgical about these particulars.\n\nFor, let \u201c_ignorance and deception be error and impiety_,\u201d yet it does\nnot follow that, on this account, things which are offered to the Gods,\nand divine works, are false. For a conception of the mind does not\nconjoin theurgists with the Gods; since, if this were the case, what\nwould hinder those who philosophize theoretically, from having a\ntheurgic union with the Gods? Now, however, in reality, this is not the\ncase. For the perfect efficacy of ineffable works, which are divinely\nperformed in a way surpassing all intelligence, and the power of\ninexplicable symbols, which are known only to the Gods, impart theurgic\nunion. Hence, we do not perform these things through intellectual\nperception; since, if this were the case, the intellectual energy of\nthem would be imparted by us; neither of which is true. For when we do\nnot energize intellectually, the _synthemata_[47] themselves perform by\nthemselves their proper work, and the ineffable power of the Gods itself\nknows, by itself, its own images. It does not, however, know them, as if\nexcited by our intelligence; for neither is it natural that things which\ncomprehend should be excited by those that are comprehended, nor perfect\nby imperfect natures, nor wholes by parts. Hence, neither are divine\ncauses precedaneously called into energy by our intellections; but it is\nrequisite to consider these, and all the best dispositions of the soul,\nand also the purity pertaining to us, as certain concauses; the things\nwhich properly excite the divine will being divine synthemata\nthemselves. And thus, things pertaining to the Gods, are moved by\nthemselves, and do not receive from any inferior nature a certain\nprinciple in themselves of their own proper energy.\n\nI have, however, been thus prolix, in order that you may not think all\nthe authority of the energy in theurgic operations is in our power, and\nthat you may not suppose the true work of them consists in our\nconceptions, or the falsehood of them in our deception. For though we\nmay know the peculiarities which are consequent to each genus, yet we\nmay not obtain the truth which is in their works. Nevertheless,\nefficacious union [with divine natures] is not effected without\nknowledge; yet knowledge does not possess a sameness with this union. So\nthat neither is divine purity obtained through right knowledge, as\nneither is purity of body procured through health; but divine purity is\nmore undefiled than knowledge, and is more transcendently united. Hence\nneither this, nor any thing of the like kind which is in us, and is\nhuman, cooperates any thing to the end of divine actions.\n\nAccept, therefore, this, which is said indeed incidentally, but is a\nsufficient reply to the whole of your conception concerning the theurgic\nart. Those assertions, also, of yours pertain to the same thing, in\nwhich you say, \u201c_that the science of the Gods is sacred and useful, and\ncall the ignorance of things honourable and beautiful darkness, but the\nknowledge of them light; and also add, that the ignorance of these\nthings fills men with all evils, through inerudition and audacity, but\nthe knowledge of them is the cause of all good_.\u201d For all these\nassertions tend to the same thing with the preceding, and obtain\ntogether with them an appropriate discussion. It is necessary, therefore\nto omit them, and to pass on to the inquiries concerning divination, and\nconcisely dissolve them.\n\n\n\n\n                              SECTION III.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAP. I.\n\n\nIn the first place, therefore, you ask me to explain to you distinctly,\n\u201c_what that is which is effected in the foreknowledge of future\nevents?_\u201d Immediately, however, that which you endeavour to learn is\nimpossible. For, according to the meaning of your question, you think\nthat foreknowledge is something which is generated, or subsists in\nbecoming to be, and pertains to things which have a natural subsistence.\nIt is not, however, one of the things which have their existence in\nbecoming to be, nor is it effected after the manner of physical\nmutation, nor is it invented and devised as something useful for the\npurposes of life, nor in short, is it a human work, but is divine and\nsupernatural, and is supernally sent to us from the heavens. It is also\nunbegotten and eternal, and spontaneously has a precedaneous\nsubsistence.\n\nThe greatest remedy, therefore, for all such doubts is this, to know the\nprinciple of divination, that it neither originates from bodies, nor\nfrom the passions about bodies, nor from a certain nature, and the\npowers about nature, nor from any human apparatus, or the habits\npertaining to it. But neither does it originate from a certain art,\nexternally acquired, about a certain part of such things as are\nsubservient to life. For the whole authority of it pertains to the Gods,\nand is imparted by them; it is also effected by divine works, or signs;\nand it possesses divine spectacles, and scientific theorems. All other\nthings, however, are subjected as instruments to the gift of\nforeknowledge transmitted from the Gods; _viz._ such things as pertain\nto our soul and body, and such as are in the nature of the universe, or\nare inexistent in particular natures. But some things are previously\nsubjacent, as in the order of matter, such as places, or certain other\nthings of the like kind.\n\nIf some one, however, dismissing primordial causes, should refer\ndivination to secondary offices, such as the motions of bodies, or the\nmutations of passions, or certain other motions, or the energies of\nhuman life, or animal or physical reasons, and should think that in so\ndoing he asserts something manifest; or if, considering the symmetries\nof these with reference to each other, as causes, he should apprehend\nthat he can assign something accurate concerning divination, he wholly\ndeviates from the truth. But the one right boundary, and the one\nprinciple of all these particulars, is by no means to produce without a\ncause the foreknowledge of futurity, from things which have no\nprescience in themselves, but to survey from the Gods who contain in\nthemselves the terminations of all the knowledge of beings, divination\ndistributed about the whole world, and about all the natures that are\nseparately contained in it. For such a cause as this is primordial, and\nis especially most common, containing in itself primarily those things\nwhich it gives to its participants, and particularly imparting truth, of\nwhich divination is in want; and antecedently comprehending the essence\nand cause of future events, from which foreknowledge necessarily and\nincessantly proceeds. Let such a principle as this, therefore, be the\norigin in common of all divination, from which it is possible to\ndiscover scientifically all the species of it; which we shall now\nunfold, conformably to the questions proposed by you.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. II.\n\n\nConcerning the divination, therefore, which takes place in sleep, you\nsay as follows: \u201c_We frequently obtain through dreams, when we are\nasleep, a knowledge of future events, not being in an ecstasy, through\nwhich we are much agitated, for the body is quiet, but we do not\napprehend what we see in the same clear manner as when we are awake_.\u201d\nIt is usual, however, for what you here say, to happen in human dreams,\nand in dreams which are excited by the soul, or by some of our\nconceptions, or by reason, or by imaginations, or certain diurnal cares.\nAnd these, indeed, are sometimes true and sometimes false; and in some\nthings they apprehend reality, but in many deviate from it. But the\ndreams which are denominated _theopemptoi_, or _sent from God_, do not\nsubsist after the manner which you mention; but they take place either\nwhen sleep is leaving us, and we are beginning to awake, and then we\nhear a certain voice, which concisely tells us what is to be done; or\nvoices are heard by us, between sleeping and waking, or when we are\nperfectly awake. And sometimes, indeed, an invisible and incorporeal\nspirit surrounds the recumbents, so as not to be perceived by the sight,\nbut by a certain other cosensation and intelligence. The entrance of\nthis spirit, also, is accompanied with a noise, and he diffuses himself\non all sides without any contact, and effects admirable works conducive\nto the liberation of the passions of the soul and body. But sometimes a\nbright and tranquil light shines forth, by which the sight of the eyes\nis detained, and which occasions them to become closed, though they were\nbefore open. The other senses, however, are in a vigilant state, and in\na certain respect have a cosensation of the light unfolded by the Gods;\nand the recumbents hear what the Gods say, and know, by a consecutive\nperception, what is then done by them. This, however, is beheld in a\nstill more perfect manner, when the sight perceives, when intellect,\nbeing corroborated, follows what is performed, and this is accompanied\nwith the motion of the spectators. Such, therefore, and so many being\nthe differences of these dreams, no one of them is similar to human\ndreams. But wakefulness,[48] a detention of the eyes, a similar\noppression of the head, a condition between sleeping and waking, an\ninstantaneous excitation, or perfect vigilance, are all of them divine\nindications, and are adapted to the reception of the Gods. They are also\nsent by the Gods, and a part of divine appearances antecedes according\nto things of this kind.\n\nTake away, therefore, from divine dreams, among which also divination is\ncontained, \u201c_the being asleep_,\u201d and also the assertion, \u201c_that we do\nnot apprehend what we see in sleep, in the same clear manner as when we\nare awake_.\u201d For the Gods are no less clearly present with us in these\ndreams than when we are awake. And, if it be requisite to speak the\ntruth, the presence of the Gods, in the former case, is necessarily\nclearer and more accurate, and produces a more perfect perception than\nin the latter. Some, therefore, not knowing these indications of\nprophetic dreams, and conceiving that they have something in common with\nhuman dreams, rarely and casually obtain a foreknowledge of futurity,\nand in consequence of this, reasonably doubt how dreams contain any\ntruth. And this, also, appears to me to disturb you, in consequence of\nyour not knowing the true indications of dreams. It is necessary,\nhowever, that, admitting these to be the elements of the true knowledge\nof dreams, you should attend to the whole of the discussion concerning\ndivination in sleep.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. III.\n\n\nThe wise,[49] therefore, speak as follows: The soul having a twofold\nlife, one being in conjunction with body, but the other being separate\nfrom all body; when we are awake we employ, for the most part, the life\nwhich is common with the body, except when we separate ourselves\nentirely from it by pure intellectual and dianoetic energies. But when\nwe are asleep, we are perfectly liberated, as it were, from certain\nsurrounding bonds, and use a life separated from generation. Hence, this\nform of life, whether it be intellectual or divine, and whether these\ntwo are the same thing, or whether each is peculiarly of itself one\nthing, is then excited in us, and energizes in a way conformable to its\nnature. Since, therefore, intellect surveys real beings, but the soul\ncontains in itself the reasons of all generated natures, it very\nproperly follows that, according to a cause which comprehends future\nevents, it should have a foreknowledge of them, as arranged in their\nprecedaneous reasons. And it possesses a divination still more perfect\nthan this, when it conjoins the portions of life and intellectual energy\nto the wholes from which it was separated. For then it is filled from\nwholes with all scientific knowledge, so as for the most part to attain\nby its conceptions to the apprehension of every thing which is effected\nin the world. Indeed, when it is united to the Gods, by a liberated\nenergy of this kind, it then receives the most true plenitudes of\nintellections, from which it emits the true divination of divine dreams,\nand derives the most genuine principles of knowledge. But if the soul\nconnects its intellectual and divine part with more excellent natures,\nthen its phantasms will be more pure, whether they are phantasms of the\nGods, or of beings essentially incorporeal, or, in short, of things\ncontributing to the truth of intelligibles. If, also, it elevates the\nreasons of generated natures, contained in it to the Gods, the causes of\nthem, it receives power from them, and a knowledge which apprehends what\nhas been, and what will be; it likewise surveys the whole of time, and\nthe deeds which are accomplished in time, and is allotted the order of\nprovidentially attending to and correcting them in an appropriate\nmanner. And bodies, indeed, that are diseased it heals; but properly\ndisposes such things as subsist among men erroneously and disorderly. It\nlikewise frequently delivers the discoveries of arts, the distributions\nof justice, and the establishment of legal institutions. Thus in the\ntemple of Esculapius, diseases are healed through divine dreams; and,\nthrough the order of nocturnal appearances, the medical art is obtained\nfrom sacred dreams. Thus, too, the whole army of Alexander was\npreserved, which would otherwise have been entirely destroyed in the\nnight, in consequence of Bacchus appearing in sleep, and pointing out a\nsolution of the most grievous calamities. The city Aphutis, likewise,\nwhen besieged by King Lysander, was saved through a dream sent to him by\nJupiter Ammon. For afterwards, he most rapidly withdrew his army from\nthence, and immediately raised the siege.\n\nWhat occasion, however, is there to be prolix in mentioning every\nparticular of things which happen daily, and which exhibit an energy\nsuperior to all language? What, therefore, has been said concerning\ndivine divination in sleep is sufficient to show what it is, how it is\neffected, and what advantage it affords to mankind.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. IV.\n\n\nAfterwards, also, you say, \u201c_that many, through enthusiasm and divine\ninspiration, predict future events, and that they are then in so wakeful\na state, as even to energize according to sense, and yet they are not\nconscious of the state they are in, or at least, not so much as they\nwere before_.\u201d I wish, therefore, here to point out to you the signs by\nwhich those who are rightly possessed by the Gods may be known. For they\neither subject the whole of their life, as a vehicle or instrument to\nthe inspiring Gods; or they exchange the human for the divine life; or\nthey energize with their own proper life about divinity. But they\nneither energize according to sense, nor are in such a vigilant state as\nthose who have their senses excited from sleep (for neither do they\napprehend future events); nor are they moved as those are who energize\naccording to impulse. Nor, again, are they conscious of the state they\nare in, neither as they were before, nor in any other way; nor, in\nshort, do they convert to themselves their own intelligence, or exert\nany knowledge which is peculiarly their own.\n\nThe greatest indication, however, of the truth of this is the following.\nMany, through divine inspiration, are not burned when fire is introduced\nto them, the inspiring influence preventing the fire from touching them.\nMany, also, though burned, do not apprehend that they are so, because\nthey do not then live an animal life. And some, indeed, though\ntransfixed with spits, do not perceive it; but others that are struck on\nthe shoulders with axes, and others that have their arms cut with\nknives, are by no means conscious of what is done to them. Their\nenergies, likewise, are not at all human. For inaccessible places become\naccessible to those that are divinely inspired; they are thrown into\nfire, and pass through fire, and over rivers, like the priest in\nCastabalis, without being injured. But from these things it is\ndemonstrated, that those who energize enthusiastically are not conscious\nof the state they are in, and that they neither live a human nor an\nanimal life, according to sense or impulse, but that they exchange this\nfor a certain more divine life, by which they are inspired and perfectly\npossessed.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAP. V.\n\n\nThere are, therefore, many species of divine possession, and divine\ninspiration is multifariously excited; whence, also, the signs of it are\nmany and different. For either the Gods are different, by whom we are\ninspired, and thus produce a different inspiration; or the mode of\nenthusiasms being various, produces a different afflatus. For either\ndivinity possesses us, or we give up ourselves wholly to divinity, or we\nhave a common energy with him. And sometimes, indeed, we participate of\nthe last power of divinity, sometimes of his middle, and sometimes of\nhis first power. Sometimes, also, there is a participation only, at\nother times communion likewise, and sometimes a union of these divine\ninspirations. Again, either the soul alone enjoys the inspiration, or\nthe soul receives it in conjunction with the body, or it is also\nparticipated by the common animal.\n\nFrom these things, therefore, the signs of those that are inspired are\nmultiform. For the inspiration is indicated by the motions of the\n[whole] body, and of certain parts of it, by the perfect rest of the\nbody, by harmonious orders and dances, and by elegant sounds, or the\ncontraries of these. Either the body, likewise, is seen to be elevated,\nor increased in bulk, or to be borne along sublimely in the air, or the\ncontraries of these, are seen to take place about it. An equability,\nalso, of voice, according to magnitude, or a great variety of voice\nafter[50] intervals of silence, may be observed. And again, sometimes\nthe sounds have a musical intension and remission, and sometimes they\nare strained and relaxed after a different manner.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. VI.\n\n\nThat, however, which is the greatest thing is this, that he who [appears\nto] draw down a certain divinity, sees a spirit descending and entering\ninto some one, recognizes its magnitude and quality, and is also\nmystically persuaded and governed by it. But a species of fire is seen\nby the recipient, prior to the spirit being received, which sometimes\nbecomes manifest to all the spectators, either when the divinity is\ndescending, or when he is departing. And from this spectacle the\ngreatest truth and power of the God, and especially the order he\npossesses, as likewise about what particulars he is adapted to speak the\ntruth, what the power is which he imparts, and what he is able to\neffect, become known to the scientific. Those, however, who, without\nthese blessed spectacles, draw down spirits invisibly, are without\nvision, as if they were in the dark, and know nothing of what they do,\nexcept some small signs which become visible through the body of him who\nis divinely inspired, and certain other things which are manifestly\nseen, but they are ignorant of all the most important particulars of\ndivine inspiration, which are concealed from them in the invisible. But\nto return from this digression: if the presence of the fire of the Gods,\nand a certain ineffable species of light, externally accede to him who\nis possessed, and if they wholly fill him, have dominion over and\ncircularly comprehend him on all sides, so that he is not able to exert\nany one proper energy, what sense, or animadversion, or appropriate\nprojection of intellect, can there be in him who receives a divine fire?\nWhat human motion, likewise, can then intervene, or what human reception\nof passion or ecstasy, or of aberration of the phantasy, or of any thing\nelse of the like kind, such as is apprehended by the multitude, can take\nplace? Let such, therefore, be the divine indications of true\ninspiration from the Gods, which he who attends to will not wander from\na right knowledge concerning it.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. VII.\n\n\nIt is not, however, sufficient to learn these things alone, nor will he\nwho only knows these become perfect in divine science. But it is\nrequisite also to know what enthusiasm is, and how it is produced. It is\nfalsely, therefore, supposed to be a motion of dianoia, in conjunction\nwith d\u00e6moniacal inspiration. For human dianoia is not moved, if it is\nthus enthusiastically affected; nor is the inspiration produced by\nd\u00e6mons, but by the Gods. Neither is enthusiasm simply an ecstasy; for it\nis a reelevation and transition to a more excellent condition of being.\nBut delirium and ecstasy evince a perversion to that which is worse.\nHence, he who is an advocate for the latter, speaks, indeed, of things\nwhich happen to those that energize enthusiastically, yet does not teach\nthat which is precedaneous. But this consists in being wholly possessed\nby divinity, which is afterwards followed by mental alienation. No one,\ntherefore, can justly apprehend that enthusiasm is something pertaining\nto the soul, or to some one of its powers, or to intellect or energies,\nor to corporeal imbecility, or that it cannot subsist without the\ndebility of the body. For neither is the work of divine inspiration\nhuman, nor does the whole of it depend on human powers and energies; but\nthese, indeed, have the relation of a subject, and divinity uses them as\ninstruments. He accomplishes, however, the whole work of divination\nthrough himself, and being separated in an unmingled manner from other\nthings, neither the soul nor the body being at all moved, he energizes\nby himself. Hence, when divinations are rightly effected in the way\nwhich I have mentioned, then they subsist without falsehood. But when\nthe soul has been previously disturbed, or is moved in the interim, or\nthe body intervenes, and confounds the divine harmony, then divinations\nbecome turbulent and false, and the enthusiasm is no longer true nor\ngenuine.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. VIII.\n\n\nIf, therefore, true divination was a solution of the divine part of the\nsoul from the other parts of it, or if it was a separation of intellect,\nor a certain extension of it; or if it was a vehemence and extension of\nenergy or passion, or an acuteness and motion of dianoia, or a fervour\nof intellect; then, since all such like particulars are excited by our\nsoul, enthusiasm might be reasonably supposed to be the offspring of the\nsoul. If, however, the body, on account of certain temperaments, whether\nthey are such as are melancholic, or any other, or, to speak more\nparticularly, on account of heat, or cold, or moisture, or a certain\nspecific quality of these, or the mixture or temperature of these in a\ncertain proportion, or the pneumatic part of the soul, or the more and\nthe less of these; if any one of these is established as the cause of\nenthusiastic alienation, in this case, the alienation will be a\ncorporeal passion, and will be excited by physical motions. But if its\nexcitation originates from both the soul and the body, so far as these\ncoalesce with each other, a motion of this kind will be common to the\nanimal [produced by the union of the two]. The enthusiastic energy,\nhowever, is not the work either of the body or the soul, or of both\nconjoined. For these do not contain in themselves a certain cause of\ndivine alienation, nor are things of a more excellent nature adapted to\nbe generated by such as are less excellent.\n\nBut it is necessary to investigate the causes of divine mania. And these\nare the illuminations proceeding from the Gods, the spirits imparted by\nthem, and the all perfect domination of divinity, which comprehends\nindeed every thing in us, but exterminates entirely our own proper\nconsciousness and motion. This divine possession, also, emits words\nwhich are not understood by those that utter them; for they pronounce\nthem, as it is said, with an insane mouth, and are wholly subservient,\nand entirely yield themselves to the energy of the predominating God.\nThe whole of enthusiasm is a thing of this kind, and is effected by\nthese causes, though this must not be considered as asserted with\nconsummate accuracy.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. IX.\n\n\nWhat you afterwards say is as follows: \u201c_That some of those who suffer a\nmental alienation, energize enthusiastically on hearing cymbals or\ndrums, or a certain modulated sound, such as those who are\nCorybantically inspired, those who are possessed by Sabazius, and those\nwho are inspired by the mother of the Gods_.\u201d It is necessary,\ntherefore, to discuss the causes of these things, and to show how they\nare definitely produced.\n\nThat music, therefore, is of a motive nature, and is adapted to excite\nthe affections, and that the melody of pipes produces or heals the\ndisordered passions of the soul, changes the temperaments or\ndispositions of the body, and by some melodies causes a Bacchic fury,\nbut by others occasions this fury to cease;[51] and, likewise, how the\ndifferences of these accord with the several dispositions of the soul,\nand that an unstable and variable melody is adapted to ecstasies, such\nas are the melodies of Olympus,[52] and others of the like kind; all\nthese appear to me to be adduced in a way foreign to enthusiasm. For\nthey are physical and human, and the work of our art; but nothing\nwhatever of a divine nature in them presents itself to the view.\n\nWe must rather, therefore, say, that sounds and melodies are\nappropriately consecrated to the Gods. There is, also, an alliance in\nthese sounds and melodies to the proper orders and powers of the several\nGods, to the motions in the universe itself, and to the harmonious\nsounds which proceed from the motions. Conformably, therefore, to such\nlike adaptations of melodies to the Gods, the Gods themselves become\npresent. For there is not any thing which intercepts; _so that whatever\nhas but a casual similitude to, directly participates of, them_. A\nperfect possession, likewise, immediately takes place, and a plenitude\nof a more excellent essence and power. Not that the body and the soul\nare in each other, and sympathize, and are copassive with the melodies;\nbut because the inspiration of the Gods is not separated from divine\nharmony, but is originally adapted and allied to it, on this account it\nis participated by it in appropriate measures. Hence also, it is excited\nand restrained according to the several orders of the Gods. But this\ninspiration must by no means be called an ablation, purgation, or\nmedicine. For it is not primarily implanted in us from a certain\ndisease, or excess, or redundance; but the whole principle and\nparticipation of it are supernally derived from the Gods.\n\nNeither is it proper to say that the soul primarily consists of harmony\nand rythm. For thus enthusiasm would be adapted to the soul alone. It is\nbetter, therefore, to deny this, and to assert that the soul, before she\ngave herself to body, was an auditor of divine harmony; and that hence,\nwhen she proceeded into body, and heard melodies of such a kind as\nespecially preserve the divine vestigie of harmony, she embraced these,\nfrom them recollected divine harmony, and tends and is allied to it, and\nas much as possible participates of it. Hence the cause of divine\ndivination may, after this manner, be assigned in common.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAP. X.\n\n\nLet us, however, discuss what pertains to divination more particularly;\nnot asserting this, that nature leads each thing to its like; for the\nenthusiastic energy is not the work of nature; nor again asserting that\nthe temperature of the air, and of that which surrounds us, produces\nalso a different temperature in the body of those that energize\nenthusiastically; since inspiration, which is the work of the Gods, is\nnot changed by corporeal powers or temperaments. Nor must we say, that\nthe much celebrated inspiration of divinity is adapted to passions and\ngenerated natures. For the gift of the proper energy of the Gods to men\nis impassive and superior to all generation. But since the power of the\nCorybantes is, in a certain respect, of a guardian and efficacious\nnature,[53] and that of Sabazius appropriately pertains to Bacchic\ninspiration, the purifications of souls,[56] and the solutions of\nancient divine anger,[57] on this account the inspirations of them\nentirely differ from each other.\n\nWith respect, however, to the mother of the Gods, you, indeed, seem to\nthink that those who are possessed by the Goddess are males; for,\nconformably to this, you denominate them Metrizantes. But the thing is\nnot truly so. For those who are precedaneously inspired by the mother of\nthe Gods are women; but the males that are thus inspired are very few in\nnumber, and such as are more effeminate. This enthusiasm, however, has a\nvivific and replenishing power,[58] on which account, also, it in a\nremarkable degree differs from all other mania.\n\nProceeding, therefore, in this way, in what remains of the present\ndiscussion, and fitly distinguishing the inspirations of the Nymphs, or\nof Pan, and the other differences of them, according to the powers of\nthe Gods, we shall separate them conformably to their appropriate\npeculiarities; and we shall also be able to explain through what cause\nthey leap and dwell in mountains, why some of them appear to be bound,\nand why they are worshiped through sacrifices. All these, likewise, we\nshall ascribe to divine causes, as containing in themselves all the\nauthority of these particulars; but we shall not say that either a\ncertain collected redundancy of body or soul requires to be purified, or\nthat the periods of the seasons are the causes of such like passions, or\nthat the reception of the similar, and the ablation of the dissimilar,\nbring with them a certain remedy for an excess of this kind. For all\nsuch like particulars are corporeal-formed, and are entirely separated\nfrom a divine and intellectual life. But each thing energizes\nconformably to its nature; so that the spirits which are excited by the\nGods, and which produce in men Bacchic inspiration, expel every other\nhuman and physical motion; and it is not proper to assimilate their\nenergies to those which are usually exerted after our manner; but it is\nfit to refer them to perfectly different and primordial divine causes.\nOne species, therefore, of divine inspiration is of this kind, and is\nafter this manner produced.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XI.\n\n\nAnother species of divine divination which is much celebrated, most\nmanifest and manifold, is that of oracles, about which you say as\nfollows: \u201c_There are some who drink water, as the priest of Clarius, in\nColophon;[59] but others are seated at the mouth [of a cavern], as those\nwho prophesy at Delphi; and others imbibe the vapour from water, as the\nprophetesses in Brandchid\u00e6_.\u201d[60] You have, therefore, made mention of\nthese three oracles by name, not that there are only these, for there\nare many more which you have omitted, but as these are more celebrated\nthan the rest, and, at the same time, because through these you may be\nsufficiently instructed in the mode of divination sent to men from the\nGods, hence, as it appears to me, you were satisfied with these. We,\ntherefore, likewise shall discuss these three, omitting to speak about\nthe many other oracles that exist.\n\nIt is acknowledged then by all men, that the oracle in Colophon gives\nits answers through the medium of water. For there is a fountain in a\nsubterranean dwelling from which the prophetess drinks; and on certain\nestablished nights, after many sacred rites have been previously\nperformed, and she has drank of the fountain, she delivers oracles, but\nis not visible to those that are present. That this water, therefore, is\nprophetic, is from hence manifest. But how it becomes so, this,\naccording to the proverb, is not for every man to know. For it appears\nas if a certain prophetic spirit pervaded through the water. This is\nnot, however, in reality the case. For a divine nature does not pervade\nthrough its participants in this manner, according to interval and\ndivision, but comprehends as it were externally, and illuminates the\nfountain,[61] and fills it from itself with a prophetic power. For the\ninspiration which the water affords is not the whole of that which\nproceeds from a divine power, but the water itself only prepares us, and\npurifies our luciform spirit,[62] so that we may be able to receive the\ndivinity; while, in the mean time, there is a presence of divinity prior\nto this, and illuminating from on high. And this, indeed, is not absent\nfrom any one, who through aptitude is capable of being united to it. But\nthis divine illumination is immediately present, and uses the prophetess\nas an instrument; she neither being any longer mistress of herself, nor\ncapable of attending to what she says, nor perceiving where she is.\nHence, after prediction, she is scarcely able to recover herself. And\nbefore she drinks the water, she abstains from food for a whole day and\nnight; and retiring to certain sacred places, inaccessible to the\nmultitude, begins to receive in them the enthusiastic energy. Through\nher departure, therefore, and separation from human concerns, she\nrenders herself pure, and by this means adapted to the reception of\ndivinity: and from hence she possesses the inspiration of the God,\nshining into the pure seat of her soul, becomes full of an unrestrained\nafflatus, and receives the divine presence in a perfect manner, and\nwithout any impediment.\n\nBut the prophetess in Delphi, whether she gives oracles to mankind\nthrough an attenuated and fiery spirit, bursting from the mouth of the\ncavern, or whether being seated in the adytum on a brazen tripod, or on\na stool with four feet, she becomes sacred to the God; whichsoever of\nthese is the case, she entirely gives herself up to a divine spirit, and\nis illuminated with a ray of divine fire. And when, indeed, fire\nascending from the mouth of the cavern circularly invests her in\ncollected abundance, she becomes filled from it with a divine splendour.\nBut when she places herself on the seat of the God, she becomes\ncoadapted to his stable prophetic power: and from both these preparatory\noperations she becomes wholly possessed by the God. And then, indeed, he\nis present with and illuminates her in a separate manner, and is\ndifferent from the fire, the spirit, the proper seat, and, in short,\nfrom all the visible apparatus of the place, whether physical or sacred.\n\nThe prophetic woman too in Brandchid\u00e6, whether she holds in her hand a\nwand,[63] which was at first received from some God, and becomes filled\nwith a divine splendour, or whether seated on an axis, she predicts\nfuture events, or dips her feet or the border of her garment in the\nwater, or receives the God by imbibing the vapour of the water; by all\nthese she becomes adapted to partake externally[64] of the God.\n\nBut the multitude of sacrifices, the sacred law of the whole sanctimony,\nand such other things as are performed in a divine manner, prior to the\nprophetic inspiration, _viz._ the baths of the prophetess, her fasting\nfor three whole days, her retiring into the adyta, and there receiving a\ndivine light, and rejoicing for a considerable time\u2014all these evince\nthat the God is entreated by prayer to approach, that he becomes\nexternally present, and that the prophetess, before she comes to her\naccustomed place, is inspired in a wonderful manner; and that, in the\nspirit which rises from the fountain, another more ancient God, who is\nseparate from the place, shines forth to the view, and who is also the\ncause of the place, of the country, and of the whole divination.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XII.\n\n\nIt appears, therefore, that the divination of oracles accords with all\nthe hypotheses which we have before adduced concerning prediction. For\nif a power of this kind was inseparable from the nature of places, and\nof the bodies which are the subjects of it, or proceeded[65] according\nto a motion defined by number, it would not be able to foreknow, with\ninvariable sameness, things which exist every where and always. But\nbeing separate and liberated from places and things which are measured\nby the numbers of time, and also from those which are detained in place,\nit is equally present with all things wherever they may be, and subsists\nsimultaneously with all the natures that are produced according to time.\nIt likewise comprehends in one the truth of all things, through its\nseparate and transcendent essence.\n\nHence, if this is rightly asserted by us, the prophetic power of the\nGods is not partibly comprehended by any place, or partible human body,\nnor by the soul, which is detained in one certain species of divisible\nnatures; but being separate and indivisible, it is wholly every where\npresent with the natures which are capable of receiving it. It likewise\nexternally illuminates and fills all things, pervades through all the\nelements, comprehends earth and air, fire and water, and leaves nothing\ndestitute of itself, neither animals nor any of the productions of\nnature, but imparts from itself a certain portion of foreknowledge, to\nsome things in a greater, and to others in a less, degree. Moreover,\nexisting itself prior to all things, by its own separate nature, it\nbecomes sufficient to fill all things, so far as each is able to partake\nof it.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. XIII.\n\n\nLet us, therefore, now direct our attention to another species of\ndivination, which is not public, but of a private nature, concerning\nwhich you say, \u201c_that some become enthusiastic by standing on\ncharacters, as those that are filled from the intromission of spirits_.\u201d\nThis species, therefore, through those who badly use it, cannot easily\nbe comprehended in one definition. But it is obvious and superficial,\nand known to many, and employs a falsehood and deception which are not\nto be endured; nor is it at all attended with the presence of a certain\ndivinity, but it produces a certain motion of the soul, which is adverse\nto the Gods, and attracts from them an obscure and adumbrative\nrepresentation, which, through the evanescent nature of its power, is\nusually disturbed by d\u00e6moniacal depraved spirits. That, however, which\nis truly a representation of the Gods, is in other respects genuine and\npure, immutable and true, and is inaccessible to, and unimpeded by,\nspirits of a contrary nature. For, as darkness is not adapted to sustain\nthe splendour of the glittering light of the sun, but suddenly becomes\ntotally invisible, entirely recedes, and immediately vanishes; thus,\nalso, when the power of the Gods, which fills all things with good,\nabundantly shines forth, no place is left for the tumult of evil\nspirits, nor can it present itself to the view; but, as if it was\nnothing, it departs into nonentity, not being able to be at all moved,\nwhen more excellent natures are present, or to disturb[66] such natures\nin their illuminations.\n\nSince, therefore, these differ so greatly, I shall not use any other\nindications, in order to distinguish them, than those which are adduced\nby you. For when you say, \u201c_some standing on characters_,\u201d you seem to\nsignify nothing else than the cause of all the evils pertaining to these\nthings. For there are some who, neglecting the whole business of the\ntelesiurgic theory, both concerning the invoking [priest] and the\ninspector (\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2), and also despising the order of religion, and the\nmost holy endurance of labours for a long time, and rejecting the sacred\nlaws and ordinances, and other religious ceremonies, think that the\nstanding on characters is alone sufficient, and that by doing this for\none hour, they can cause a certain spirit to enter; though how is it\npossible that any thing beautiful or perfect can be effected by these?\nOr how, by ephemeral works, can a contact he produced with the eternal\nand true essence of the Gods in sacred deeds? Through these things,\ntherefore, it appears that such like rash men entirely err, and that\nthey do not deserve to be ranked among diviners.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XIV.\n\n\nConcerning another kind of divination, also, you say as follows:\n\u201c_Others who are conscious what they are doing in other respects, are\ndivinely inspired according to the phantastic part, some indeed\nreceiving darkness for a cooperator, others certain potions, but others\nin cantations and compositions. And some energize according to the\nimagination through water,[67] others in a wall, others in the open air,\nand others in the light of the sun, or some other celestial body._\u201d The\nwhole, however, of this kind of divination of which you now speak, since\nit is multiform, may be comprehended in one power, which may be called\nthe eduction of light.[68] But this illuminates with divine light the\netherial and luciform vehicle[69] with which the soul is surrounded,\nfrom which divine visions occupy our phantastic power, these visions\nbeing excited by the will of the Gods. For the whole life of the soul\nand all the powers that are in it, being in subjection to the Gods, are\nmoved in such a way as the Gods, the leaders of the soul, please.\n\nAnd this takes place in a twofold manner, either from the Gods being\npresent with the soul, or imparting to the soul from themselves a\ncertain forerunning light; but, according to each of these modes, the\ndivine presence and the illumination have a separate subsistence. The\nattentive power, therefore, and dianoia[70] of the soul, are conscious\nof what is effected, since the divine light does not come into contact\nwith these; but the phantastic part is divinely inspired, because it is\nnot excited to the modes of imaginations by itself, but by the Gods, the\nphantasy being then entirely changed from human custom.\n\nSince, however, a contrary is receptive of a contrary, according to a\nmutation and departure from itself, and that which is allied to another\nthing, and familiar[71] with it through similitude, is capable of\nreceiving it, hence the illuminators receive darkness as a cooperator,\nand employ in illuminating the light of the sun, or of the moon, or, in\nshort, of the air.\n\nSometimes, likewise, they use collocations of such things as are adapted\nto the Gods that are about to descend, or they employ incantations or\ncompositions, and these appropriately prepared for the reception,\npresence, and manifestation of the Gods. And again, sometimes they\nintroduce light through water, because this being diaphanous, is aptly\ndisposed to the reception of light. But at other times, they cause light\nto shine forth on a wall, having previously prepared the wall for the\nreception of light in the best manner by the sacred descriptions of\ncharacters; and, at the same time, they fix the light in a certain solid\nplace, so that it may not be widely diffused.\n\nMany other modes, also, of introducing light might be mentioned; but all\nof them may be referred to one mode, that of irradiation, wherever it\nmay be effected, and through whatever instruments the Gods may\nilluminate. Since, therefore, this illumination accedes externally, and\nhas every thing which it possesses subservient to the will and\nintelligence alone of the Gods, and as the greatest thing pertaining to\nit, possesses a sacred irradiating light, either supernally derived from\nether, or from the air, or the moon, or the sun, or from some other\ncelestial sphere,\u2014this being the case, it is evident from all these\nparticulars, that such a mode of divination as this is unrestrained,\nprimordial, and worthy of the Gods.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XV.\n\n\nLet us, therefore, pass on to the mode of divination which is effected\nthrough human art, and which possesses much of conjecture and opinion.\nBut concerning this you say as follows: \u201c_Some also establish the art of\nthe investigation of futurity through the viscera, through birds, and\nthrough the stars_.\u201d And there are, indeed, many other arts of this\nkind, but the above are sufficient to exhibit the whole artificial\nspecies of divination. Universally, therefore, this art employs certain\ndivine signs, which derive their completion from the Gods, according to\nvarious modes. But from divine portents, according to an alliance of\nthings to the signs which are exhibited, art in a certain respect\ndecides, and from certain probabilities conjecturally predicts. The\nGods, therefore, produce the signs, either through nature, which is\nsubservient both generally and particularly to the generation of\neffects; or through genesiurgic d\u00e6mons, who presiding over the elements\nof the universe, partial bodies, and every thing contained in the world,\nconduct with facility the ph\u00e6nomena, conformably to the will of the\nGods. But these signs symbolically premanifest the decrees of divinity\nand of futurity, as Heraclitus says, \u201cneither speaking nor concealing,\nbut signifying;\u201d[72] because they express the mode of fabrication\nthrough premanifestation. As, therefore, the Gods generate all things\nthrough forms[73], in a similar manner they signify all things through\nsigns, impressed as it were by a seal (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd). Perhaps,\nlikewise, they render by this mean our intelligence more acute. And thus\nmuch has been said by us in common concerning the whole of this kind of\nhuman art.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XVI.\n\n\nDescending, however, to particulars, the soul of animals, the d\u00e6mon who\npresides over them, the air, the motion of the air, and the circulation\nof the heavens, variously change the viscera,[74] conformably to the\nwill of the Gods. But an indication that they are so changed is this,\nthat they are frequently found without a heart,[75] or deprived of the\nmost principal parts, without which it is not at all possible for\nanimals to be supplied with life. With respect to birds, likewise, the\nimpulse of their proper soul moves them, and also the d\u00e6mon who presides\nover animals; and, together with these, the revolution of the air, and\nthe power of the heavens which descends into the air, accord with the\nwill of the Gods, and consentaneously lead the birds to what the Gods\nordained from the first. Of this the greatest indication is, that birds\nfrequently precipitate themselves to the earth, and destroy themselves,\nwhich it is not natural for any thing to do; but this is something\nsupernatural, so that it is some other thing which produces these\neffects through birds.\n\nMoreover, the lations of the stars approximate to the eternal\ncirculations of the heavens, not only locally, but also in powers, and\nthe irradiations of light. But these are moved conformably to the\nmandates of the celestial Gods. For the most pure, agile, and supreme\npart of the air, is adapted to be enkindled [_i. e._ is most\ninflammable], so that when the Gods assent, it is immediately set on\nfire. And if some one thinks that certain effluxions of the celestial\nbodies are imparted to the air, his opinion will not be discordant with\nwhat is frequently effected by the divine art. The union, also, and\nsympathy of the universe, and the simultaneous motion of the most remote\nparts, as if they were near, and belonged to one animal, cause these\nsigns to be sent from the Gods to men in the most luminous manner,\nprimarily, indeed, through the heavens, but afterwards through the air.\n\nFrom all that has been said, therefore, this becomes manifest, that the\nGods, employing many instruments as media, send indications to men; and\nthat they also use the ministrant aid of d\u00e6mons and souls, and the whole\nof nature, and of every thing in the world which is willingly obedient\nto them, they being the primordial leaders of all these, and\ntransmitting the motion which descends from them wherever they please.\nHence, they being separate from all things, and liberated from all\nhabitude and coarrangement with things in generation, lead all that\ngeneration and nature contains, according to their own proper will. This\nexplanation, therefore, of divination accords with the doctrine of the\nfabricative energy and providence of the Gods. For it does not draw down\nthe intellect of more excellent natures to sublunary concerns and to us,\nbut this intellect being established in itself, converts to itself signs\nand the whole of divination, and discovers that these proceed from it.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. XVII.\n\n\nIn the next place you inquire \u201c_concerning the mode of divination, what\nit is, and what the quality is by which it is distinguished_,\u201d which we\nhave already explained, both generally and particularly. But you, in the\nfirst place, represent diviners as asserting, \u201c_that all of them obtain\na foreknowledge of future events through Gods or d\u00e6mons, and that it is\nnot possible for any others to know that which is future, than those who\nare the lords of futurity_.\u201d Afterwards you doubt, \u201c_whether divinity is\nso far subservient to men, as not to be averse to some becoming diviners\nfrom meal_.\u201d You do not, however, properly apprehend the abundance of\nthe power of the Gods, their transcendent goodness, and the cause which\ncomprehends all things, when you denominate their providential care and\ndefence of us subserviency. And, besides this, you are ignorant of the\nmode of divine energy, that it is not drawn down and converted to us,\nbut that it has a separate precedency, and gives itself, indeed, to its\nparticipants, yet neither departs from itself, nor becomes diminished,\nnor is ministrant to those that receive it; but, on the contrary, uses\nall things as subservient to itself. The present doubt also appears to\nme to be erroneous in another respect, for supposing the works of the\nGods to be like those of men, it inquires how they are effected. For\nbecause we are converted to our works, and sometimes adhere to the\npassions of the things which we providentially attend to, on this\naccount you badly conjecture that the power of the Gods is subservient\nto the natures which are governed by them. But this power is never drawn\ndown to its participants either in the production of the worlds, or in\nthe providential inspection of the realms of generation, or in\npredicting concerning it. For it imparts to all things good, and renders\nall things similar to itself. It likewise benefits the subjects of its\ngovernment most abundantly, and without envy, and by how much the more\nit abides in itself, by so much the more it is filled with its own\nproper perfection. And it does not itself, indeed, become any thing\nbelonging to its participants, but it causes the things which receive it\nto partake of its peculiarities, and preserves them in an all perfect\nmanner. It also abides at the same time perfectly in itself, and\ncomprehends them at once in itself, but is neither vanquished nor\ncomprehended by any one of them. In vain, therefore, are men disturbed\nby a suspicion of this kind. For divinity is not divided together with\nthe above mentioned modes of divination, but produces all of them\nimpartibly. Nor does he effect different things at a different time, in\na distributed manner, but produces all of them according to one energy,\ncollectively and at once. Nor is he detained about signs, being\ncomprehended in, or divided about, them; but contains them in himself,\nand in one order, and comprehends them in unity, and produces them from\nhimself, according to one invariable will.\n\nIf, also, the power of the Gods proceeds in premanifestation as far as\nto things inanimate, such as pebble stones, rods,[76] pieces of wood,\nstones, corn, or wheat, this very thing is most admirable in the\npresignification of divine prophesy; because it imparts soul to things\ninanimate, motion to things immoveable, and makes all things to be clear\nand known, to partake of reason, and to be defined by the measures of\nintellection, though possessing no portion of reason from themselves.\nAnother divine miracle also divinity appears to me to exhibit through\nsigns in these things. For, as he sometimes makes some stupid man to\nspeak wisely, through which it becomes manifest to every one, that this\nis not a certain human but a divine work; thus, also, he reveals through\nthings which are deprived of knowledge, conceptions which precede all\nknowledge. And, at the same time, he declares to men that the signs\nwhich are exhibited are worthy of belief, and that they are superior to\nnature, from which he is exempt. Thus he makes things to be known which\nare naturally unknown, and things which are without knowledge gnostic.\nThrough them, also, he inserts in us wisdom, and through every thing\nwhich is in the world excites our intellect to the truth of real beings,\nof things which are in generation, and of future events. From these\nthings, therefore, I think it is manifest, that the mode of divination\nis perfectly contrary to what you suspected it to be. For it is of a\nruling and primordial nature, of an unrestrained power, and transcendent\nnature, comprehending in itself all things, but not being comprehended\nby any thing, nor enclosed by its participants. For it ascends into, and\nrules over, all things simultaneously, and without circumscription, and\ncollectively signifies future events. Hence, from what has been said,\nyou may easily dissolve these vulgar doubts, which disturb most men, and\nmay in a becoming manner elevate yourself to the intellectual, divine,\nand irreprehensible presignification of the Gods from all things.\nThrough this, therefore, we have evinced, that divinity is not drawn\ndown to the signs employed by divination.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. XVIII.\n\n\nAnother contest, however, awaits us, not less than that in which we have\nbeen before engaged, and which you immediately announce, concerning the\ncauses of divination, \u201c_whether a God, an angel, or a d\u00e6mon, or some\nother power, is present in manifestations, or divinations, or certain\nother sacred energies_.\u201d But our reply to your question is simply this,\nthat it is not possible for any thing to be performed in a manner\nadapted to sacred concerns in divine works, without the presence of some\none of the more excellent natures, as inspecting and giving completion\nto the sacred energy. And where the felicitous operations are perfect,\nsufficient to themselves, and unindigent, of these the Gods are the\nleaders. But where they are media, and in a small degree fall short of\nthe extremes, they have angels as the powers that perfect and unfold\nthem into light. And it is the province of d\u00e6mons to effect those\noperations which rank as the last. But the right performance of actions\nwhich are effected in a divine manner, is entirely to be ascribed to\nsome one of the more excellent natures. For since it is not possible to\nspeak rightly about the Gods without the Gods, much less can any one\nperform works which are of an equal dignity with divinity, and obtain\nthe foreknowledge of every thing without [the inspiring influence of]\nthe Gods. For the human race is imbecile, and of small estimation, sees\nbut a little, and possesses a connascent nothingness; and the only\nremedy of its inherent error, perturbation, and unstable mutation, is\nits participation, as much as possible, of a certain portion of divine\nlight. But he who excludes this, does the same thing as those who\nattempt to produce soul from things inanimate, or to generate intellect\nfrom things unintelligent. For without the cooperation of a cause, he\nconstitutes divine works from things which are not divine.\n\nLet it be granted, therefore, that a God, a d\u00e6mon, or an angel, gives\ncompletion to more excellent works, yet we must not on this account\nadmit what you adduce as a thing acknowledged, \u201c_that they affect these\nthings, in consequence of being drawn through us by the necessities with\nwhich invocation is attended_.\u201d For divinity is superior to necessity,\nand this is likewise the case with all the choir of more excellent\nnatures that is suspended from him. Nor is he alone exempt from the\nnecessity which is introduced by men, but also from that which\ncomprehends in itself the world; because it is not the province of an\nimmaterial nature, and which does not receive any adventitious order, to\nbe subservient to any necessity introduced from any thing else. And in\nthe next place, invocation, and the things performed by a scientific\noperator, accede and are conjoined to more excellent natures through\nsimilitude and alliance, and do not accomplish their energies through\nviolence. Hence, the effects which are seen to take place in diviners,\ndo not happen as you think, from the scientific theurgist being\npassively affected; nor is divination thus effected through necessity,\npassion preoccupying the predictor; for these things are foreign from,\nand incongruous to, the essence of more excellent natures.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XIX.\n\n\nBut neither does the cause [of the energies] of more excellent natures\nsubsist as a certain middle instrument,[77] nor does he who invokes\noperate through him who prophesies; for to assert these things is\nimpious. And it is much more true to say, that God is all things, is\nable to effect all things, and that he fills all things with himself,\nand is alone worthy of sedulous attention,[78] esteem, the energy of\nreason, and felicitous honour; that which is human being vile, of no\naccount, and ludicrous, when compared with that which is divine. Hence I\nlaugh, when I hear it said, that divinity is spontaneously present with\ncertain persons or things, either through the period of generation, or\nthrough other causes. For thus that which is unbegotten will no longer\nbe more excellent, if it is led by the period of generation; nor will it\nbe primarily the cause of all things, if it is coarranged with certain\nthings, according to other causes. These assertions, therefore, are\nunworthy of the conceptions which we should frame of the Gods, and\nforeign from the works which are effected in theurgy.[79] But an\ninvestigation of this kind suffers the same thing as the multitude\nsuffer, about the fabrication of the universe and providence. For not\nbeing able to learn what the mode is in which these are effected, and\nrefusing to ascribe human cares and reasonings to the Gods, they wholly\nabolish the providential and fabricative energy of divinity. As,\ntherefore, we are accustomed to answer these, that the divine mode of\nproduction and providential inspection is very different from that which\nis human, and which it is not proper wholly to reject through ignorance,\nas if it had not from the first any subsistence; thus, also, it may be\njustly contended against you, that all prediction, and the performance\nof divine works, are the works of the Gods, as they are not effected\nthrough other and these human causes, but through such as are alone\nknown to the Gods.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XX.\n\n\nOmitting, therefore, these things, we may reasonably adduce a second\ncause, assigned by you, of the above mentioned particulars: viz. \u201c_that\nthe soul says and imagines these things, and that they are the passions\nof it, excited from small incentives_.\u201d Neither, however, does nature\npossess these passions, nor does reason admit them. For every thing\nwhich is generated is generated from a certain cause, and that which is\nof a kindred nature derives its completion from a kindred nature. But a\ndivine work is neither casual, for a thing of this kind is without a\ncause, and is not entirely arranged, nor is it produced by a human\ncause. For this is a thing foreign and subordinate; but that which is\nmore perfect cannot be produced from the imperfect. All works,\ntherefore, which have a similitude to divinity germinate from a divine\ncause. For the human soul is contained by one form, and is on all sides\ndarkened by body, which he who denominates the river of Negligence, or\nthe water of Oblivion, or ignorance and delirium,[80] or a bond through\npassions,[81] or the privation of life, or some other evil, will not by\nsuch appellations sufficiently express its turpitude. How, therefore, is\nit possible that the soul, which is detained by so many evils, can ever\nbecome sufficient to an energy of this kind? It is, indeed, by no means\nreasonable to suppose that she can. For if at any time we appear to be\ncapable of effecting this, it is alone through participating of, and\nbeing illuminated by, the Gods, that we enjoy the divine energy. Hence\nthe soul does not participate of divine works, so far as she possesses\nher own proper virtue and wisdom; though if works of this kind pertained\nto the soul, every soul would perform them, or that soul alone which\npossessed its proper perfection. Now, however, neither of these is\nsufficiently prepared for this purpose; but even the perfect soul is\nimperfect as with reference to divine energy. The theurgic energy,\ntherefore, is a different thing, and the felicitous accomplishment of\ndivine works is imparted by the Gods alone. For if this were not the\ncase, the worship of the Gods would not, in short, be requisite, but\ndivine goods might be present with us from ourselves, without the\nexercise of religion. If, therefore, these opinions are insane and\nstupid, it is proper to abandon an hypothesis of this kind, as not\naffording a cause which deserves to be mentioned of the accomplishment\nof divine works.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XXI.\n\n\nIs, therefore, what you add in the third place more true; viz. \u201c_that\nthere is a certain mixed form of hypostasis, consisting of our soul and\ndivine inspiration externally derived_?\u201d Consider this then more\naccurately, lest we should be deceived by it, being impeded by its\nplausibility. For wherever one thing is effected from two, this one\nthing is wholly of a similar species, nature, and essence. Thus the\nelements which concur in the same thing, produce one certain thing from\nmany, and many souls coalesce in one total soul. That, however, which is\nperfectly exempt, can never become one with that which departs from\nitself;[82] so that neither will there be one certain form of hypostasis\nwith the soul and divine inspiration. For if divinity is unmingled, the\nsoul will not be mingled with it; and if he is immutable, he will not be\nchanged through a concretion into that which is common, from the\nsimplicity of his subsistence. Some, therefore, prior to us, were of\nopinion that certain small sparks excite in us divine forms. It is\nimpossible, however, that these sparks, whether they are physical, or in\nsome other way corporeal-formed, should be transferred from things of a\ncasual nature to things which are divine. But in what is now asserted by\nyou, the soul is said to be a concause of the divine commixture; and it\nis evident, this being admitted, that the soul becomes of an equal\ndignity with the Gods, that it gives a certain part to them and receives\na part from them, and that it also affords a measure to natures more\nexcellent than itself, and is itself bounded by them. That likewise\nfollows which is asserted by some, and is most dire, that the Gods\nprecedaneously subsisting in the order of elements, are inherent in\ntheir effects, and there will be a certain thing produced in time, and\nfrom a mixture according to time, which will contain the Gods in itself.\nWhat, likewise, is this comingled form of subsistence? For if it is both\n[soul and divine inspiration externally derived], it will not be one\nthing consisting of two, but a certain composite, and a coacervation\nfrom two things. But if it is as something different from both, eternal\nnatures will be mutable, and divine natures will in no respect differ\nfrom physical substances in generation.[83] And as it is absurd to admit\nthat an eternal nature is produced through generation, it is still more\nabsurd to suppose that any thing which consists of eternal natures can\nbe dissolved. Neither, therefore, is this opinion concerning divination\nby any means reasonable; and besides this, it is also paradoxical,\nwhether it is considered as one supposition or as two.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. XXII.\n\n\nYou say, therefore, \u201c_that the soul generates the power which has an\nimaginative perception of futurity, through motions of this kind, or\nthat the things which are adduced from matter constitute d\u00e6mons through\nthe powers that are inherent in them, and especially things adduced from\nthe matter which is taken from animals_.\u201d It appears to me, however,\nthat what is now asserted by you exhibits a dire illegality with\nreference to the whole of theology and the theurgic energy. For one\nabsurdity in it, and which is the first that presents itself to the\nview, is this, that it makes d\u00e6mons to be generable and corruptible. And\nanother, which is more dire than this, is that things which are prior\nwill be produced from things which are posterior to themselves. For\nd\u00e6mons exist prior to soul, and to the powers which are distributed\nabout bodies. In addition to these things, also, how can the energies of\na partible soul which is detained in body, become essence, and be by\nthemselves separate out of soul? Or how can the powers which are divided\nabout, be separated from bodies, though they have their very being in\nbodies? And who is it that liberating them from a corporeal condition of\nsubsistence, again collects the corporeal dissolution, and causes it to\ncoalesce in one thing? For thus a thing of this kind will be a d\u00e6mon,\nwho will have an existence prior to his being constituted. This\nassertion, likewise, is attended with certain common doubts. For how can\ndivination be produced from things which have no divining power? And how\ncan soul be generated from things which are without soul? And, in short,\nhow can things which are more perfect be the progeny of such as are more\nimperfect? The mode, likewise, of production appears to me to be\nimpossible. For it is impossible that essence should be produced through\nthe motions of the soul, and through the powers which are in bodies. For\nfrom things which are without essence, it is impossible that essence\nshould be generated.\n\nWhence, also, does the imagination, receiving from a certain thing a\ndivining power, become prophetic of futurity? For we do not see that any\none of the things which are sown through generation possess any thing\nmore than what is imparted to it by its first generating cause. But, in\nthe present instance, the imagination will receive a certain more\nexcellent addition from that which has no existence. Unless some one\nshould say, that d\u00e6mons preside over the matter which is derived from\nanimals, and that when this matter is adduced, the presiding d\u00e6mon is\nsympathetically moved towards it. According to this opinion, therefore,\nd\u00e6mons are not generated from the powers in bodies; but preceding and\nhaving an existence prior to bodies, they are moved in conformity to\nthem. Let it, however, be admitted, that d\u00e6mons are thus sympathetic,\nyet I do not see after what manner there will be something true\nrespecting futurity. For the foreknowledge and premanifestation of\nfuturity is not the province of a copassive and material power, which is\ndetained in a certain place and body; but, on the contrary, this\npertains to a power which is liberated from all these. Such, therefore,\nare the corrections of this opinion.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. XXIII.\n\n\nThe animadversions which are after this adduced, at first, indeed, doubt\nabout the mode of divination, but as they proceed, endeavour entirely to\nsubvert it. We shall, therefore, discuss both these. And, in the first\nplace, we shall begin to dissolve the former of these doubts. \u201c_For in\nsleep, when we are not employed about any thing, we sometimes obtain a\nknowledge of the future._\u201d Not that the cause of divination is derived\nboth from us and externally: for in things the principle of which\ndefinitely subsists in us, and that which is consequent is externally\nderived, if these two have a coarrangement and connexion with each\nother, in this case the works of the two are definitely effected, and\nthe things which are suspended from them follow their precedaneous\ncauses. But when the cause is independent of us, and preexists by\nitself, the end is not defined on account of us, but the whole depends\non things external to us. Now, therefore, since the truth which is in\ndreams does not entirely concur with our works, but frequently shines\nforth from itself, it shows that divination is externally derived from\nthe Gods, that it possesses an independent power, and that it\nbenevolently unfolds futurity when it pleases, and in such a way as it\npleases. These things, therefore, should have an answer of this kind.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. XXIV.\n\n\nIn what follows, while you endeavour to unfold divination, you entirely\nsubvert it. For if a passion of the soul is admitted to be the cause of\nit, what wise man will attribute to an unstable and stupid thing orderly\nand stable foreknowledge? Or how is it possible that the soul, which is\nin a sane and stable condition according to its better powers, _viz._\nthose that are intellectual and dianoetic, should be ignorant of\nfuturity; but that the soul which suffers according to disorderly and\ntumultuous motions, should have a knowledge of what is future? For what\nhas passion in itself adapted to the theory of beings? And is it not\nrather an impediment to the more true intellection of things? Farther\nstill, therefore, if the things contained in the world were constituted\nthrough passions, in this case passions, through their similitude, would\nhave a certain alliance to them. But if they are produced through\nreasons and through forms, there will be another foreknowledge of them,\nwhich is liberated from all passion. Again, passion alone perceives that\nwhich is present, and which now has a subsistence; but foreknowledge\napprehends things which do not yet exist. Hence, to foreknow is\ndifferent from being passively affected.\n\nLet us, however, consider your arguments in support of this opinion.\nThat \u201c_the senses are occupied_,\u201d therefore tends to the contrary to\nwhat you say; for it is an indication that no human phantasm is then\nexcited. But \u201c_the fumigations which are introduced_,\u201d have an alliance\nto divinity, but not to the soul of the spectator. And \u201c_the\ninvocations_\u201d do not excite the inspiration of the reasoning power, or\ncorporeal passions in the recipient; for they are perfectly unknown and\narcane, and are alone known to the God whom they invoke. But that \u201c_not\nall men, but those that are more simple and young are more adapted to\ndivination_,\u201d manifests that such as these are more prepared for the\nreception of the externally acceding and inspiring spirit. From these\nindications, however, you do not truly conjecture that enthusiasm is a\npassion. For it follows from these signs, that the influx of it, in the\nsame manner as the inspiration, is externally derived. In this way,\ntherefore, these things subsist.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XXV.\n\n\nThat which follows in the next place, descends from a divine alienation\nof mind to an ecstasy of the reasoning power which leads it to a worse\ncondition, and absurdly says, \u201c_that the cause of divination is the\nmania which happens in diseases_.\u201d For, as we may conjecture, it\nassimilates enthusiasm to the redundancy of the black bile, to the\naberrations of intoxication, and to the fury which happens from mad\ndogs. It is necessary, therefore, from the beginning, to divide ecstasy\ninto two species, one of which leads to a worse condition of being, and\nfills us with stupidity and folly; but the other imparts goods which are\nmore honourable than human temperance. One species also deviates to a\ndisorderly, confused, and material motion; but the other gives itself to\nthe cause which rules over the orderly distribution of things in the\nworld. And the one, indeed, as being deprived of knowledge, wanders from\nwisdom; but the other conjoins with natures that transcend all our\nwisdom. The one, likewise, is unstable, but the other is immutable. The\none is preternatural, but the other is above nature. The one draws down\nthe soul, but the other elevates it. And the one entirely separates us\nfrom a divine allotment, but the other connects us with it.\n\nWhy, therefore, does your assertion so much wander from the proposed\nhypothesis, as to decline from things primary and good to the last evils\nof insanity? For in what is enthusiasm similar to melancholy, or\nintoxication, or any other delirium excited by the body? Or what\nprediction can ever be produced from diseases of the body? Is not a\nderivation of this kind a perfect corruption, but divine inspiration the\nperfection and salvation of the soul? And does not depraved enthusiasm\ntake place through imbecility, but the enthusiasm which is more\nexcellent through a plenitude of power? In short, the latter being\nquiescent, according to its own proper life and intelligence, gives\nitself to be used by another [power which is superior to itself]; but\nthe former, energizing according to its proper energies, renders these\nmost depraved and turbulent. This, therefore, is a difference the most\nmanifest of all others, because all the works of divine natures differ\n[in a transcendent degree] from the works of other beings. For as the\nmore excellent genera are exempt from all others, thus also their\nenergies do not resemble those of any other nature. Hence, when you\nspeak of divine mania, immediately remove from it all human perversions.\nAnd if you ascribe a sacred \u201c_sobriety and vigilance_\u201d to divine\nnatures, you must not consider human sobriety and vigilance as similar\nto it. But by no means compare the diseases of the body, such as\nsuffusions, and the imaginations excited by diseases, with divine\nimaginations. For what have the two in common with each other? Nor\nagain, must you compare \u201c_an ambiguous state_,\u201d such as that which takes\nplace between a sober condition of mind and ecstasy, with sacred visions\nof the Gods, which are defined by one energy. But neither must you\ncompare the most manifest surveys of the Gods with the imaginations\nartificially procured by enchantment. For the latter have neither the\nenergy, nor the essence, nor the truth of the things that are seen, but\nextend mere phantasms, as far as to appearances only.\n\nAll such doubts as these, however, which are adduced foreign to the\npurpose, and tend from contraries to contraries, we do not consider as\npertinent to the present hypothesis. Hence, as we have shown the\nunappropriateness of them, we do not think it requisite to discuss them\nany further, because they are contentiously introduced, and not with\nphilosophical investigation.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. XXVI.\n\n\nThere are many other contentious innovations also, which may be the\nsubject of wonder. But some one may justly be astonished at the\ncontrariety of opinions produced by admitting either that the truth of\ndivination is with enchanters, the whole of which subsists in mere\nappearances alone, but has no real existence; or that it is with those\nwho are incited by passion or disease, since every thing which they have\nthe boldness to utter is fraudulently asserted. For what principle of\ntruth, or what auxiliary of intelligence, either smaller or greater, can\nthere be in those who are thus insane? It is necessary, however, not to\nreceive truth of such a kind as that which may be fortuitous; for this,\nit is said, may happen to those that are rashly borne along. Nor must\nsuch truth be admitted as that which subsists between agents and\npatients, when they are concordantly homologous with each other; for\ntruth of this kind is present with the senses and imaginations of\nanimals. Hence this truth has nothing peculiar, or divine, or superior\nto common nature. But the truth of divination is established in energy\nwith invariable sameness, has the whole knowledge of beings present with\nit, and is connascent with the essence of things. It likewise employs\nstable reasons, and perfectly, aptly, and definitely knows all things.\nThis truth, therefore, is adapted to divination. Hence, it is very far\nfrom being a certain natural prescience, such as the preperception which\nis inherent in some animals of earthquakes and rain. For this arises\nfrom sympathy, when certain animals are moved in conjunction with\ncertain parts and powers of the universe; or when, through the acuteness\nof a certain sense, they antecedently perceive things which happen in\nthe air, before they accede to places about the earth.\n\nIf, therefore, these assertions are true, though we derive from nature\nimpressions by which we obtain a knowledge of things, or come into\ncontact with futurity, it is not proper to consider an impression of\nthis kind as prophetic foreknowledge; but it is, indeed, similar to this\nknowledge, yet falls short of it in stability and truth, is conversant\nwith that which frequently, but not always, happens, and apprehends the\ntruth in certain, but not in all things. Hence, if there is a discipline\nwhich foresees the future in the arts, as, for instance, in the piloting\nor medical art, this does not all pertain to divine foreknowledge. For\nit conjectures the future by certain signs, and these such as are not\nalways credible, nor such as have that of which they are the signs,\nconnected with them with invariable sameness. But with divine\nprovidence, a stable knowledge of the future precedes; [and this is\nattended with] an immutable faith suspended from causes; an indissoluble\ncomprehension of all things in all; and a perpetually abiding and\ninvariable knowledge of all things as present and definite.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. XXVII.\n\n\nMoreover, neither is it sufficient to assert, \u201c_that nature, art, and\nthe sympathy of things in the universe, as if they were the parts of one\nanimal, contain premanifestations of certain things with reference to\neach other; nor that bodies are so prepared, that there is a\npresignification of some by others_.\u201d For these things, which are very\nclearly seen, exhibit a certain divulsed vestige of divine prediction,\nin a greater or less degree; since it is not possible for any thing to\nbe perfectly destitute of divine divination. But as in all things the\nimage of good exhibits a similitude of divinity; thus, likewise, in all\nthings a certain obscure or more manifest image of divine prediction\nshines forth to the view. Nevertheless, no one of these is such as the\ndivine species of divination; nor must the one, divine, and unmingled\nform of it be characterized from the many phantasms which proceed from\nit into generation. Nor, if there are certain other false and deceitful\nresemblances, which are still more remote from reality, is it fit to\nadduce these in forming a judgment of it. But the divine form or species\nof divination is to be apprehended according to one intelligible and\nimmutable truth; and the mutation which subsists differently at\ndifferent times is to be rejected as unstable and unadapted to the Gods.\nIf, therefore, that which is truly divination is a thing of this kind,\n_i. e._ is a divine work, who would not blush to ascribe it to nature,\nwhich produces its effects without reason and intellect, as if nature\nelaborated in us a certain prophetic apparatus, and inserted this\naptitude in some things in a greater but in others in a less degree? For\nin those things in which men receive auxiliaries from nature in the\nattainment of their proper perfection, in these, also, certain aptitudes\nof nature precede; but in things in which no human work is proposed [to\nbe effected], in these neither does the end pertain to us. And when a\ncertain good, which is more ancient than our nature, has a prior\narrangement, it is not possible in this case that a certain natural\nexcellence should become the prepared subject of it. For in those things\nof which there are perfections, in these imperfect preparations are\ningenerated; but both these are the habits of men [and not of Gods].\nHence, of those things which are not present with us, so far as we are\nmen, there will not be a preparative from nature. There is not,\ntherefore, a natural seed in us of divine prediction. If some one,\nhowever, should in a more general way assert, that there is a certain\nhuman divination, of this there will be a certain physical preparation.\nBut with respect to that which may be truly denominated divination, and\nwhich pertains to the Gods, it is not proper to think that this is\ningrafted by nature. For both other things, and also the indefinite,\naccording to the more and the less, are the attendants on this. Hence it\nis separated from divine divination, which abides in stable boundaries.\nOn this account, also, it is requisite strenuously to contend against\nhim who asserts that divination originates from us. You likewise adduce\nclear indications of this from the works performed in predicting what is\nfuture. For you say, \u201c_that those who invoke [the divinities for the\npurposes of divination] have about them stones and herbs, bind certain\nsacred bonds, which they also dissolve, open places that are shut, and\nchange the deliberate intentions of the recipients, so as to render them\nworthy, though they were before depraved_.\u201d All these particulars,\ntherefore, signify that the inspiration accedes externally. It is\nrequisite, however, not only to preassume this, but also to define what\nthe inspiration of divine origin is, which produces divine divination.\nFor if this is not done, we shall not previously know what its\npeculiarity is, in consequence of not attributing to it its proper\ncharacter, and adapting this to it as a certain seal. And this, indeed,\nhas been accurately done by us a little before.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAP. XXVIII.\n\n\nYou adduce, however, as a thing by no means to be despised, \u201c_the\nartificers of efficacious images_.\u201d But I should wonder if these were\nadmitted by any one of the theurgists who survey the true forms of the\nGods. For why should any one exchange truly existing beings for images,\nand descend from the first to the last of things? Or do we not know that\nall things effected by an adumbration of this kind, have an obscure\nsubsistence, are the phantasms only of that which is true, and appear to\nbe good, but in no respect are so? Other things, also, of this kind that\naccede, are borne along in a flowing condition of being; but obtain\nnothing genuine, or perfect, or manifest. But this is evident from the\nmode of their production: for not divinity, but man is the maker of\nthem. Nor are they produced from uniform and intelligible essences, but\nfrom matter, which is assumed for this purpose. What good, therefore,\ncan germinate from matter, and from the material and corporeal-formed\npowers which are in bodies? Or is not that which derives its subsistence\nfrom human art, more imbecile than men themselves, who impart existence\nto it? By what kind of art, likewise, is this image fashioned? For it is\nsaid, indeed, to be fashioned by demiurgic art; but this is effective of\ntrue essences, and not of certain images. Hence the image-producing art\nis distant by a great interval from the seminal production of realities.\nBesides, neither does it preserve a certain analogy with divine\nfabrication. For divinity does not fabricate all things, either through\nthe celestial physical motions, or through a partial matter, or through\npowers thus divided; but he produces the worlds by conceptions, will,\nand immaterial forms, and through an eternal and supermundane soul. The\nmaker of images, however, is said to elaborate them through the\nrevolving stars. But the thing does not in reality subsist so as it\nappears to do. For since there are certain infinite powers in the\ncelestial Gods, the last genus of all the powers in them is physical.\nBut again, of this power one portion being inherent in spermatic reasons\n[or productive powers], and prior to these reasons being established in\nimmoveable natures, essentially precedes generation. But another portion\nbeing inherent in sensible and visible motions and powers, and in\ncelestial effluxions and qualities, has dominion over the whole visible\norder of things. This last power, therefore, in all these rules over the\ncircumterrestrial manifest generation in places about the earth. Many\nother arts, however, as for instance, the medical[84] and gymnastic, use\nthis power, which has dominion over visible generation, and the\nqualities of the effluxions sent from the heavens employ it, and\nlikewise all such arts as in their operations communicate with nature.\nAnd moreover, the image-making art attracts a certain very obscure\ngenesiurgic portion from the celestial effluxions.\n\nSuch, therefore, as the truth is, such also it is requisite to unfold it\nto others. It must be said, then, that the maker of images neither uses\nthe celestial circulations, nor the powers which are inherent in them,\nnor those powers which are naturally established about them; nor, in\nshort, is it possible to come into contact with them. But he\nartificially, and not theurgically, applies himself to the last\neffluxions which openly proceed from the nature of them, about the last\npart of the universe. For these effluxions, I think, being mingled with\na partial matter, are capable of being changed and transformed\ndifferently at different times. They likewise receive the transposition,\nfrom some things to others, of the powers which are in partial natures.\nThe variety, however, of such like energies, and the composition of a\nmultitude of material powers, are not only entirely separated from\ndivine fabrication, but also from natural production. For nature\nproduces her proper works collectively, and at once, and accomplishes\nall things by simple and incomposite energies. Hence it remains that a\ncommixture of this kind, about the last and manifest celestial\neffluxion, and about the things which are moved by a celestial nature,\nis artificial.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. XXIX.\n\n\nWhy, therefore, does the maker of images, who effects these things,\ndesert himself, though he is better than these images, and consists of\nthings of a more excellent nature, and confide in inanimate idols, which\nare inspired with the representation alone of life, contain a renovated\nharmony, and which is externally multiform, and are in reality diurnal?\nShall we say that something genuine and true is inherent in them?\nNothing, however, which is fashioned by human art is genuine and pure.\nBut you will say, that simplicity and uniformity of energy predominate\nin the whole of their composition. This is very far from being the case.\nFor the idol, according to its visible composition, is mingled from\nall-various and contrary qualities. Shall we say then, that a certain\npure and perfect power is manifest in them? By no means. For a thing of\nthis kind possesses an adventitious multitude of effluxions, collected\nfrom many places, and which shows itself to be imbecile and evanescent.\nBut if these particulars, which we have enumerated, are not found to\ntake place in images, is stability present with them, as it is said to\nbe [by the patrons of these images]? By no means, likewise, is this the\ncase. For these idols are extinguished with much greater rapidity than\nthe images which are seen in mirrors. For they are immediately formed by\nthe accession of fumigations from exhaling vapours; but when the\nfumigation is mingled with, and diffused through, the whole air, then\nthe idol is likewise immediately dissolved, and is not naturally adapted\nto remain for the smallest portion of time. Why, therefore, should the\nman who is a lover of truth, pay attention to these useless delusions?\nI, indeed, do not think them to be of any value. For if the makers of\nthese images know that the fictions about which they are busily\nemployed, are nothing more than the formations of passive matter, the\nevil arising from an attention to them will be simple. But in addition\nto this, these idol-makers are similar to the images in which they\nconfide. And if they pay attention to these idols as if they were Gods,\nthe absurdity will be so great, as neither to be effable by words, nor\nto be endured in deeds. For a certain divine splendour never illuminates\na soul of this kind, because it is not adapted to be imparted to things\nwhich are entirely repugnant to it; neither have those things which are\ndetained by dark phantasms a place for its reception. This delusive\nformation, therefore, of phantasms, will be conversant with shadows,\nwhich are very remote from the truth.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XXX.\n\n\nYou say, however, \u201c_that the makers of images observe the motion of the\ncelestial bodies, and can tell from the concurrence of what star, with a\ncertain star or stars, predictions will be true or false; and also\nwhether the things that are performed will be inanities, or significant\nand efficacious_.\u201d But neither will these phantasms, on this account,\npossess any thing divine. For the last of the things which are in\ngeneration are moved in conjunction with the celestial courses, and are\ncopassive with the effluxions which descend from the heavenly bodies.\nMoreover, if any one considers these things accurately, he will find\nthat they demonstrate the contrary to what is here asserted. For how is\nit possible that things which are in every respect mutable, and this\nwith facility, and which are all-variously turned by external motions,\nso as to become inefficacious, or prophetic, or significant, or\neffective, or at different times different, should contain in\nthemselves, by participation, any portion, however small, of divine\npower? What then, are the powers which are inherent in matter the\nelements of d\u00e6mons? By no means: for no partial sensible bodies generate\nd\u00e6mons; but much more are these generated and guarded by d\u00e6mons. Neither\nis any man able to fashion, as by a machine, certain forms of d\u00e6mons;\nbut, on the contrary, he is rather fashioned and fabricated by them, so\nfar as he participates of a sensible body. But neither is a certain\nd\u00e6moniacal multitude generated from the elements of sensibles; since, on\nthe contrary, this multitude is simple, and energizes uniformly about\ncomposite natures. Hence, neither will it have sensibles more ancient,\nor more stable than itself; but being itself more excellent than\nsensibles, both in dignity and power, it imparts to them the permanency\nwhich they are able to receive. Unless indeed, you denominate idols\nd\u00e6mons, not rightly employing an appellation of this kind. For the\nnature of d\u00e6mons is one thing, and that of idols another. The order of\neach, likewise, is very different. Moreover, the leader of idols is\ndifferent from the great leader of d\u00e6mons. And this, also, you admit.\nFor you say, \u201c_that no God or d\u00e6mon is drawn down by idols_.\u201d What,\ntherefore, will be the worth of a sacred deed, or of the foreknowledge\nof what is future, if it is entirely destitute of divinity and a d\u00e6mon?\nSo that it is requisite to know what the nature is of this\nwonder-working art, but by no means to use or confide in it.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. XXXI.\n\n\nAgain, therefore, still worse than this is the explanation of sacred\noperations, which assigns as the cause of divination, \u201c_a certain genus\nof d\u00e6mons, which is naturally fraudulent, omniform, and various, and\nwhich assumes the appearance of Gods and d\u00e6mons, and the souls of the\ndeceased_.\u201d I shall, therefore, relate to you, in answer to this, what I\nonce heard from the prophets of the Chaldeans.\n\nSuch Gods as are truly divinities, are alone the givers of good; alone\nassociate with good men, and with those that are purified by the\nsacerdotal art, and from these amputate all vice, and every passion.\nWhen these, also, impart their light, that which is evil, and at the\nsame time d\u00e6moniacal, vanishes from before more excellent natures, in\nthe same manner as darkness when light is present; nor is it able to\ndisturb theurgists in the smallest degree, who receive from this light\nevery virtue, obtain worthy manners, become orderly and elegant in their\nactions, are liberated from passions, and purified from every disorderly\nmotion, and from atheistical and unholy conduct. But those who are\nthemselves flagitious, and who leap, as it were, to things of a divine\nnature in an illegal and disorderly manner, these, through the\nimbecility of their proper energy, or through indigence of inherent\npower, are not able to associate with the Gods. Because, likewise, they\nare excluded, through certain defilements, from an association with pure\nspirits, they become connected with evil spirits, are filled from them\nwith the worst kind of inspiration, are rendered depraved and unholy,\nbecome replete with intemperate pleasures, and every kind of vice, are\nemulous of manners foreign to the Gods, and, in short, become similar to\nthe depraved d\u00e6mons, with whom they are connascent. These, therefore,\nbeing full of passions and vice, attract to themselves, through\nalliance, depraved spirits, and are excited by them to every kind of\niniquity. They are also increased in wickedness by each other, like a\ncircle conjoining the beginning to the end, and similarly making an\nequal compensation. Hence deeds which are the nefarious offences of\nimpiety, which are introduced into sacred works in a disorderly manner,\nand which are also confusedly performed by those who betake themselves\nto such works, and at one time, as it seems, cause one divinity to be\npresent instead of another, and again, introduce depraved d\u00e6mons instead\nof Gods, whom they call equal to the Gods (\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2)\u2014such deeds as\nthese you should never adduce in a discourse concerning sacerdotal\ndivination. For good is more contrary to evil than to that which is not\ngood. As, therefore, the sacrilegious are in the most eminent degree\nhostile to the religious cultivation of the Gods; thus, also, those who\nare conversant with d\u00e6mons who are fraudulent, and the causes of\nintemperance, are undoubtedly hostile to theurgists. For from these\nevery depraved spirit departs, and when they are present, is entirely\nsubverted. Every vice, too, and every passion, are by these perfectly\namputated: for a pure participation of good is present with the pure,\nand they are supernally filled with truth from a divine fire. These,\ntherefore, suffer no impediment from evil spirits, nor are these spirits\nany obstacles to the goods of their souls. Nor are theurgists disturbed\nby pride, or flattery, or the enjoyment of exhalations, or any violence;\nbut all these, as if struck by lightning, yield and recede, without\ntouching the theurgist, or being able to approach to them. Hence this\ngenus of divination is undefiled and sacerdotal, and is truly divine.\nThis, also, does not, as you say it does, require me, or any other as an\narbiter, in order that I may prefer it to a multitude of other things;\nbut it is itself exempt from all things, is supernatural, and has an\neternal preexistence, neither receiving a certain opposition, nor a\ncertain transcendency, which has a prearrangement in many things,\nbecause it is of itself liberated, and uniformly precedes all things.\nAnd to this it is requisite that you, and every one who is a genuine\nlover of the Gods, should give himself wholly; since by this mean\nirreprehensible truth will be obtained in divinations, and perfect\nvirtue in souls; and through both these, an ascent will be afforded to\ntheurgists to intelligible fire, which ought to be preestablished as the\nend of all foreknowledge, and of every theurgic operation. Hence you in\nvain adduce the opinion of those who think that divination is effected\nby an evil d\u00e6mon, since these do not deserve to be mentioned in\nspeculations concerning the Gods. At the same time, likewise, they are\nignorant of the means of distinguishing truth from falsehood, because\nthey are from the beginning nourished in darkness, and are wholly\nincapable of knowing the principles from which these are produced. Here,\ntherefore, we shall terminate our discussion concerning the mode of\ndivination.\n\n\n\n\n                              SECTION IV.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAP. I.\n\n\nLet us then, in the next place, consider the opposing arguments, what\nthey are, and what reason they possess. And if we should discuss some\nthings a little more abundantly, in consequence of speaking freely and\nat leisure, it is requisite that you should promptly attend to, and\nendure what, we say. For it is necessary that great labour should be\nbestowed on the greatest disciplines, and that they should be accurately\nexplored for a long time, if you intend to know them perfectly. Do you,\ntherefore, conformably to the present hypothesis, propose the arguments\nwhich occasion the doubt, and I will answer you. Say then, \u201c_it very\nmuch perplexes me to understand how superior beings, when invoked, are\ncommanded by those that invoke them, as if they were their inferiors_.\u201d\nBut I will unfold to you the whole division, which is worthy of regard,\nconcerning the powers that are invoked; from which you will be able\nclearly to define what is possible and what is impossible, in the\nsubjects of your investigation. For the Gods, indeed, and the natures\nthat are more excellent than we, through the wish of what is beautiful,\nand from an unenvying and exuberant fulness of good, benevolently impart\nto those that are worthy, such things as are fit for them, commiserating\nthe labours of sacerdotal men, but being delighted with those that they\nhave begotten, nourished, and instructed. But the middle genera are the\ninspective guardians of judgment. These inform us what ought to be done,\nand from what it is fit to abstain. They also give assistance to just\nworks, but impede such as are unjust; and as many endeavour to take away\nunjustly the property of others, or basely to injure or destroy some\none, they cause these to suffer the same things as they have done to\nothers. But there is, likewise, another most irrational genus of\nd\u00e6mons,[85] which is without judgment, and is allotted only one power,\nthrough an arrangement by which each of these d\u00e6mons presides over one\nwork alone. As therefore, it is the province of a sword to cut, and to\ndo nothing else than this, thus also of the spirits which are\ndistributed in the universe, according to the partible necessity of\nnature, one kind divides, but another collects, things which are\ngenerated. This, however, is known from the ph\u00e6nomena. For the\nCharonean[86] spiracles, as they are called, emit from themselves a\ncertain spirit, which is able to corrupt promiscuously every thing that\nfalls into them. Thus, therefore, of certain invisible spirits, each is\nallotted a different power, and is alone adapted to do that which it is\nordained to perform. He, therefore, who turns from their natural course\nthings which contribute to the universe in an orderly manner, and\nillegitimately performs a certain thing, in this case receives the\ninjury arising from that which he uses badly. This, however, pertains to\nanother mode of discussion.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. II.\n\n\nBut we sometimes see that take place which is now proposed to be\nconsidered. For it happens that spirits are commanded [to do this or\nthat] who do not use a reason of their own, and have not the principle\nof judgment. Nor does this occur irrationally. For our dianoia naturally\npossessing the power of reasoning about and judging of things as they\nare, and comprehending in itself many powers of life, is accustomed to\ncommand the most irrational spirits, and such as derive their perfection\nfrom one energy alone. Hence, it invokes these as more excellent\nnatures, because it endeavours to attract to particulars from the whole\nworld, in which we are contained, things which contribute to wholes.[87]\nAnd it commands them as inferior natures, because frequently certain\nparts of things in the world [such as our reasoning power] are more pure\nand perfect than things which extend themselves to the whole world.\nThus, for instance, if one thing is intellectual [as is the case with\nour dianoia], but another is wholly inanimate or physical, then that\nwhich proceeds to a less extent has a more principal power than that\nwhich is more extended, though the former falls far short of the latter\nin magnitude and multitude of domination. For these things, also,\nanother reason may be assigned, and which is as follows: in all\ntheurgical operations the priest sustains a twofold character; one,\nindeed, as man, and which preserves the order possessed by our nature in\nthe universe; but the other, which is corroborated by divine signs, and\nthrough these is conjoined to more excellent natures, and is elevated to\ntheir order by an elegant circumduction, this is deservedly capable of\nbeing surrounded with the external form of the Gods. Conformably,\ntherefore, to a difference of this kind, the priest very properly\ninvokes, as more excellent natures, the powers derived from the\nuniverse, so far as he who invokes is a man; and again, he commands\nthese powers, because through arcane symbols, he, in a certain respect,\nis invested with the sacred form of the Gods.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. III.\n\n\nDissolving, however, the doubts in a way still more true, we think it\nrequisite, in invoking superior natures, to take away the evocations\nwhich appear to be directed to them as to men, and also the mandates in\nthe performance of works, which are given with great earnestness. For if\nthe communion of concordant friendship, and a certain indissoluble\nconnexion of union, are the bonds of sacerdotal operations, in order\nthat these operations may be truly divine, and may transcend every\ncommon action known to men, no human work will be adapted to them; nor\nwill the invocations of the priest resemble the manner in which we draw\nto ourselves things that are distant; nor are his mandates directed as\nto things separated from him, in the way in which we transfer one thing\nfrom others. But the energy of divine fire shines forth voluntarily, and\nin common, and being self-invoked and self-energetic, energizes through\nall things with invariable sameness, both through the natures which\nimpart, and those that are able to receive, its light. This mode of\nsolution, therefore, is far superior, which does not suppose that divine\nworks are effected through contrariety, or discrepance, in the way in\nwhich generated natures are usually produced; but asserts that every\nsuch work is rightly accomplished through sameness, union, and consent.\nHence, if we separate from each other that which invokes and that which\nis invoked, that which commands and that which is commanded, that which\nis more and that which is less excellent, we shall, in a certain\nrespect, transfer the contrariety of generations to the unbegotten goods\nof the Gods. But if we despise all such things, as it is just we should,\nas of an earth-born nature, and ascribe that which is common and simple,\nas being more honourable, to the powers who transcend the variety which\nis in the realms of generation, the first hypothesis of these questions\nwill be immediately subverted, so that no reasonable doubt concerning\nthem will be left.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. IV.\n\n\nWhat then shall we say concerning the next inquiry to this, viz. \u201c_why\nthe powers who are invoked think it requisite that he who worships them\nshould be just, but they when called upon to act unjustly do not refuse\nso to act_?\u201d To this I reply, that I am dubious with respect to what you\ncall acting justly, and am of opinion that what appears to us to be an\naccurate definition of justice does not also appear to be so to the\nGods. For we, looking to that which is most brief, direct our attention\nto things present, and to this momentary life, and the manner in which\nit subsists. But the powers that are superior to us know the whole life\nof the soul, and all its former lives; and, in consequence of this, if\nthey inflict a certain punishment from the prayer of those that invoke\nthem, they do not inflict it without justice, but looking to the\noffences committed by souls in former lives;[88] which men not\nperceiving think that they unjustly fall into the calamities which they\nsuffer.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAP. V.\n\n\nThe multitude, also, are accustomed to doubt in common the very same\nthing concerning providence, _viz._ why certain persons are afflicted\nundeservedly, as they have not done any thing unjustly prior to their\nbeing thus afflicted. For neither here is it possible to understand\n[perfectly] what the soul is, and its whole life, how many offences it\nhas committed in former lives, and whether it now suffers from its\nformer guilt. In this life, also, many unjust actions are concealed from\nhuman knowledge, but are known to the Gods, since neither is the same\nscope of justice proposed to them as to men. For men, indeed, define\njustice to be the soul\u2019s performance of its own proper business,[89] and\nthe distribution of desert, conformably to the established laws, and the\nprevailing polity. But the Gods, looking to the whole orderly\narrangement of the world, and to the subserviency of souls to the Gods,\nform a judgment of what is just. Hence the judgment of just actions with\nthe Gods is different from what it is with us. Nor is it wonderful, if\nwe are unable, in most things, to arrive at the supreme and most perfect\njudgment of more excellent natures. What also hinders, but that to each\nthing by itself, and in conjunction with the whole alliance of souls,\njustice may in a very transcendent manner be decreed by the Gods? For if\na communion of the same nature in souls, both when they are in and when\nthey are out of bodies, produces a certain identical connexion and\ncommon order with the life of the world, it is likewise necessary that,\na fulfilment of justice should be required by wholes, and especially\nwhen the magnitude of the unjust deeds antecedently committed by one\nsoul transcends the infliction of one punishment due to the offences.\nBut if any one should add other definitions, through which he can show\nthat what is just subsists with the Gods in a way different from that in\nwhich it is known by us, from these also our design will be facilitated.\nFor me, however, the beforementioned canons are alone sufficient for the\npurpose of manifesting the universal genus, and which comprehends every\nthing pertaining to the medicinal punishments inflicted by divine\njustice.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. VI.\n\n\nIn order, therefore, that from an abundance of arguments we may contend\nagainst the objection which is now adduced, we will grant, if you\nplease, the contrary to what we have asserted, _viz._ that certain\nunjust things are performed in this business of invocations. That the\nGods, however, are not to be accused as the causes of these is\nimmediately manifest. For those that are good are the causes of good;\nand the Gods possess good essentially. They do nothing, therefore, that\nis unjust. Hence other causes of guilty deeds must be investigated. And\nif we are not able to discover these causes, it is not proper to throw\naway the true conception respecting the Gods, nor on account of the\ndoubts whether these unjust deeds are performed, and how they are\neffected, to depart from notions concerning the Gods which are truly\nclear. For it is much better to acknowledge the insufficiency of our\npower to explain how unjust actions are perpetrated, than to admit any\nthing impossible and false respecting the Gods; since all the Greeks and\nBarbarians truly opine the contrary to be the case with divine natures.\nAfter this manner, therefore, the truth respecting these particulars\nsubsists.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. VII.\n\n\nMoreover, it is necessary to add the causes whence evils[90] sometimes\narise, and to show how many and of what kind they are. For the form of\nthem is not simple; but, being various, is the leader of the generation\nof various evils. For if what we a little before said, concerning images\nand evil d\u00e6mons, who assume the appearance of Gods and good d\u00e6mons, is\ntrue, an abundant evil-producing tribe, about which a contrariety of\nthis kind usually happens, will from hence appear to flow. _For an evil\nd\u00e6mon requires that his worshipper should be just, because he assumes\nthe appearance of one belonging to the divine genus; but he is\nsubservient to what is unjust, because he is depraved._ The same thing,\nlikewise, that is said of good and evil may be asserted of the true and\nthe false. As, therefore, in divinations we attribute true predictions\nto the Gods alone, but when we detect any falsehood in predictions we\nrefer this to another genus of cause, _viz._ that of d\u00e6mons; thus, also,\nin things just and unjust, the beautiful and the just are to be alone\nascribed to Gods and good d\u00e6mons; but such d\u00e6mons as are naturally\ndepraved, perpetrate what is unjust and base. And that, indeed, which\nconsents and accords with itself, and always subsists with invariable\nsameness, pertains to more excellent natures; but that which is hostile\nto itself, which is discordant, and never the same, is the peculiarity\nin the most eminent degree of d\u00e6moniacal dissension, about which it is\nnot at all wonderful that things of an opposing nature should subsist;\nbut perhaps the very contrary, that this should not be the case, would\nbe more wonderful.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. VIII.\n\n\nWe may, however, beginning from another hypothesis, demonstrate the same\nthing. We must admit that the corporeal parts of the universe are\nneither sluggish nor destitute of power, but as much as they excel our\nconcerns in perfection, beauty, and magnitude, by so much also is the\npower which is present with them greater. Each, likewise, by itself is\ncapable of effecting different things, and produces certain different\nenergies. They are also capable of effecting things much more numerous\non each other. And besides this, a certain multiform production extends\nto parts from wholes; partly from sympathy, through similitude of\npowers, and partly from the aptitude of the agent to the patient. If,\ntherefore, certain evils and destructions happen to parts, they are\nsalutary and good as with reference to wholes and the harmony of the\nuniverse, but to parts they introduce a necessary corruption, either\nfrom not being able to bear the energies of wholes, or from a certain\nother commixture and temperament of their own imbecility, or, in the\nthird place, from the privation of symmetry in the parts to each other.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. IX.\n\n\nAfter the body of the universe, also, many things are generated by the\nnature of it. For the concord of similars, and the contrariety of\ndissimilars, effect not a few things. Farther still, the assemblage of\nmany things into the one animal of the universe, and the powers in the\nworld, whatever the number and quality of them may be, effect, in short,\none thing in wholes and another in parts, on account of the divided\nimbecility of parts. Thus, for instance, the friendship, love, and\ncontention which subsist in energy in the universe, become passions in\nthe partial natures by which they are participated. Those things,\nlikewise, that are preestablished in forms and pure reasons in the\nnature of wholes, participate of a certain material indigence, and\nprivation of _morphe_, in things which subsist according to a part. And\nthings which are conjoined to each other in wholes are separated in\nparts. Hence partible natures, which participate of wholes in\nconjunction with matter, degenerate from them in all things, and also\nfrom what is beautiful and perfect. But some parts are corrupted, in\norder that wholes may be preserved in a condition conformable to nature.\nSometimes, likewise, parts are compressed and weighed down, though at\nthe same time wholes remain impassive to a molestation of this kind.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAP. X.\n\n\nWe shall collect, therefore, what happens from these conclusions. For if\ncertain invocators employ the physical or corporeal powers[91] of the\nuniverse, an involuntary gift of energy [from these powers], and which\nis without vice, takes place. He, likewise, who uses this gift\n[sometimes] perverts it to things of a contrary nature, and to base\npurposes. And the gift, indeed, is moved contrarily together with the\npassions, and sympathetically through similitude; but he who uses the\nthing which is imparted, deliberately draws it, contrary to justice, to\nwhat is evil and base. And the gift, indeed, causes things which are\nmost remote to cooperate through the one harmony of the world. But if\nsome one understanding this to be the case should iniquitously endeavour\nto draw certain portions of the universe to other parts, these parts are\nnot the cause of the evil that ensues; but the audacity of men, and the\ntransgression of the order in the world, pervert things that are\nbeautiful and legal. Hence neither do the Gods effect what appears to be\nbase, but this is accomplished by the natures and bodies that proceed\nfrom them; nor do these very natures and bodies impart improbity from\nthemselves, as it is thought they do; but they send their proper\neffluxions to places about the earth, for the salvation of wholes, and\nthose who receive them transmute them by their commixture and\nperversion, and transfer what is given to a purpose different from that\nfor which it was imparted. From all these particulars, therefore, it is\ndemonstrated that a divine nature is not the cause of evils and unjust\ndeeds.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XI.\n\n\nMoreover, you inquire, and at the same time doubt, \u201c_how it comes to\npass that the Gods do not hear him who invokes them, if he is impure\nfrom venereal connexions; but, at the same time, they do not refuse to\nlead any one to illegal venery_.\u201d You have, indeed, a clear solution of\nthese things from what has been before said; if they are done contrary\nto [human] laws, but are effected according to another order and cause\nmore excellent than laws. Or if it happens that things of this kind are\nconformable to the mundane harmony and friendship, yet produce a\nconflict in parts through a certain sympathy. Or if the communication of\ngood, which is beautifully imparted, is perverted by those that receive\nit to the contrary.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XII.\n\n\nIt is, necessary, however, to discuss these things particularly, and to\nshow how they subsist, and what reason they possess. It is requisite,\ntherefore, to understand that the universe is one animal; and that the\nparts in it are, indeed, separated by places, but through the possession\nof one nature hasten to each other.[92] The whole collective power,\nhowever, and the cause of mixture, spontaneously draws the parts to a\nmingling with each other. But it is also possible for this spontaneous\nattraction to be excited and extended by art more than is fit. The cause\nitself, therefore, of this mixture extending from itself to the whole\nworld, is good, and the source of plenitude; has the power of\nharmonically procuring communion, consent, and symmetry; and inserts, by\nunion, the indissoluble principle of love, which principle retains and\npreserves both things that are in existence, and such as are becoming to\nbe. But in the parts, through their separation from each other and from\nwholes, and because, from their own proper nature, they are imperfect,\nindigent, and imbecile, their mutual connection is accompanied with\npassion; by which, in most of them, desire and a connascent appetite are\ninherent. Art[93] therefore, perceiving this innate desire thus\nimplanted by nature, and distributed about it (art itself also being\nmultiformly distributed about nature), variously attracts and derives it\nas through a channel. Hence it transfers that which in itself is orderly\nand arranged into the privation of order, and fills that which is\nbeautiful and commensurate with deformity. But the venerable end in each\nparticular thing, which is connascent with union, it transfers to\nanother indecorous plenitude, which is an assemblage of different things\naccording to a common passion. It likewise imparts a matter from itself,\nwhich is unadapted to the whole generation of what is beautiful, either\nbecause it does not entirely receive it, or because it transfers it to\nother things. It also mingles many different physical powers, which it\nmanages as it pleases for the purposes of generation. Hence we have\nuniversally shown, that the apparatus of a venereal connexion of this\nkind proceeds from a certain human art, and not from a certain\nd\u00e6moniacal or divine necessity.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. XIII.\n\n\nConsider, therefore, also another genus of causes; how a stone or a herb\nfrequently possess from themselves a nature corruptive, or again\ncollective of generated natures. For this is not only the case with\nthese, but this physical power is also in greater natures and greater\nthings, which those who are not able to infer by a reasoning process,\nwill perhaps transfer the works and energies of nature to more excellent\nbeings [_i. e._ to Gods, angels, and d\u00e6mons]. Now, therefore, it is\nacknowledged that the tribe of evil d\u00e6mons has a very extended power in\ngeneration, in human affairs, and in such things as subsist about the\nearth. Hence, why is it wonderful that a tribe of this kind should\neffect such works as these? For every man is not able to distinguish a\ngood from an evil d\u00e6mon, or by what peculiarities the one is separated\nfrom the other. Hence those, who are not able to perceive the difference\nbetween the two, absurdly reason concerning the cause of them, and refer\nthis cause to genera superior to nature and the d\u00e6moniacal order. If,\nalso, certain powers of a partial soul are assumed in order to effect\nthese things, whether such a soul is detained in body, or has left the\ntestaceous and terrestrial body, but wanders about the places of\ngeneration in a turbid and humid spirit; this, indeed, will be a true\nopinion, but separates the cause of these things at the greatest\ndistance from more excellent natures. By no means, therefore, is that\nwhich is divine, or any good d\u00e6mon, subservient to the illegal desires\nof men in venereal concerns. For of these things there are many other\ncauses.\n\n\n\n\n                               SECTION V.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAP. I.\n\n\nThe doubt mentioned by you in the next place, is, as I may say, an\ninquiry which is made in common both by the learned and the unlearned, I\nmean concerning sacrifices, \u201c_what utility or power they possess in the\nuniverse, and with the Gods, and on what account they are performed,\nappropriately indeed to the powers who are honoured by them, but\nusefully to those by whom the gifts are offered_.\u201d In the same place,\nalso, another objection occurs, viz. \u201c_that the interpreters of\nprophecies and oracles ought to abstain from animals, lest the Gods\nshould be polluted by the vapours arising from them. For this is\ncontrary to the assertion, that the Gods are especially allured by the\nvapours of animals._\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. II.\n\n\nThe hostile opposition, therefore, in the things that are now proposed,\nmay be easily dissolved by demonstrating the dignity of wholes with\nrespect to parts, and by recalling to your recollection the exempt\ntranscendency of the Gods above men. But what I mean is this, that the\nsoul, which ranks as a whole, presides over all the mundane body,[94]\nand that the celestial Gods ascend, as into a vehicle, into a celestial\nbody, neither receiving any injury from thence, nor any impediment in\ntheir intellections. But to a partial soul, the communion with body is\nnoxious in both these respects. If, therefore, some one perceiving this,\nshould nevertheless introduce such a doubt as the following, that if the\nbody is a bond to our soul, it will also be a bond to the soul of the\nuniverse, and that if a partial soul is converted to the body on account\nof generation, in a similar manner the power of the Gods is converted to\ngeneration; in answer to this every one may reply, that he who thus\ndoubts does not know how much superior beings transcend men, and wholes\nparts. Since, therefore, the objections pertain to things different from\neach other, they do not produce any ambiguity.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. III.\n\n\nHere, therefore, the same reasoning is likewise sufficient. For with us\nthe enjoyment of bodies which once were united to soul, impresses in us\nheaviness and defilement, ingenerates in us voluptuousness, and produces\nmany other diseases in the soul. But with the Gods, and with mundane and\ntotal causes, this is by no means the case. For the exhalation which\nascends after a divine manner from animals that are sacrificed, as it is\ncomprehended by, and does not comprehend, the Gods, and as it is also\nconnected with the universe, but does not conjoin wholes and the Gods to\nitself, is in consequence of this coadapted to superior beings and to\ntotal causes, but does not restrain them and coadapt them to itself.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. IV.\n\n\nNor is that which so greatly disturbs you, and for which you so\nstrenuously contend, attended with any difficulty, I mean abstinence\nfrom animals,[95] if it is rightly understood. For those who worship the\nGods do not abstain from animals, lest the Gods should be defiled by the\nvapours arising from them. For what exhalation from bodies can approach\nthose who, before any thing material can come into contact with their\npower, intangibly amputate matter? Nor is it the power of the Gods only\nthat abolishes all bodies, and causes them to vanish, without any\napproximation to them; but a celestial body, also, is unmingled with all\nthe material elements;[96] nor does it receive into itself any thing\nextraneous, nor impart any portion of itself to things of a foreign\nnature. How, therefore, can any terrestrial vapour, which is not\nelevated five stadia from the earth before it again flows down to the\nearth, either nourish a circulating and immaterial body, or, in short,\nproduce in it a certain defilement, or any other passion? For it is\nacknowledged that an etherial body is void of all contrariety, is\nliberated from all mutation, is entirely pure from the possibility of\nbeing transmuted into any thing else, and is perfectly free from a\ntendency to, and from the middle, because it is either without any\ntendency, or is convolved in a circle. Hence, it is not possible that\nbodies, which consist of different powers and motions, which are\nall-variously changed, and are moved either upwards or downwards, should\nhave any communion of nature or power with celestial bodies, or that any\nexhalation of the former should be mingled with the latter. As the\nformer, therefore, are entirely separated from the latter, they will not\neffect any thing in them. For celestial bodies being unbegotten, are not\ncapable of receiving any mutation from generated natures. How,\ntherefore, can the Gods be defiled by such like vapours, who suddenly,\nas I may say, at one stroke, amputate the vapours ascending from all\nmatter and material bodies?\n\nThis, therefore, it is not fit to suspect of the Gods [_viz._ that they\ncan be defiled by vapours]; but it is much more requisite to think that\nthings of this kind are foreign to us and to our nature. For things\nwhich are divided, and also material and kindred natures, are able to\nhave a certain communion with each other in acting and suffering; but\nthings which are essentially different, and such as are entirely\ntranscendent, and which employ other natures and powers, these cannot\nact on or receive any thing from each other. The defilement, therefore,\nproduced by material natures, falls on things which are detained by a\nmaterial body; and from these it is necessary those should be purified\nwho are capable of being defiled by matter. But how can those beings be\ndefiled by material essences who neither have a divisible nature nor\npossess the power of receiving in themselves the passions of matter?\nHow, likewise, can divinity, who has nothing in common with us, in\nconsequence of antecedently existing superior to human imbecility, be\npolluted by my passions, or by those of any other man?\n\nNeither of these, therefore, at all pertains to the Gods; neither our\nbeing filled with material bodies; (for there is nothing, in short, of\nthis kind with them, nor are they defiled by our stains, since they are\nentirely pure and incorruptible), nor if there are certain material\nvapours of bodies which are emitted about the earth; for these vapours\nare most remote from the essence and power of the Gods. Hence the whole\nhypothesis of contrariety is subverted if no part of it pertains to the\nGods. For how, in short, can that which is not possess in itself a\ncertain contest [with any thing]? You in vain, therefore, suspect things\nof this kind to be absurd, and you adduce doubts unworthy of the Gods,\nsince they cannot be reasonably applied even to good men. For no man who\npossesses intellect, and is free from passion, would ever permit himself\nto be allured by the exhalation of vapours, and much less would any one\nof the beings more excellent than man suffer himself to be thus allured.\nThese things, however, will be discussed shortly after. But now, since\nthis contrariety is, through many solutions, subverted, we shall here\nfinish what we have to say about the first doubt.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAP. V.\n\n\nYour next inquiry is of greater consequence, and is concerning things of\na greater nature. How, therefore, shall I be able, briefly and\nsufficiently, to give you an answer to a question which is extremely\ndifficult, and requires a long explanation? Nevertheless I will answer\nit, and without failing in alacrity. I will also endeavour to follow\nwhat you have concisely indicated and tacitly signified. But I will\nunfold to you my dogma concerning sacrifices [which is as follows]. It\nis by no means requisite that sacrifices should be offered for the sake\nof honour alone, in the same manner as we honour benefactors; nor for\nthe sake of returning thanks for the goods imparted to us by the Gods;\nnor yet for the sake of first fruits, or as a remuneration by certain\ngifts of more venerable goods bestowed on us by the Gods. For these\nthings are also common to men, and are assumed from the common polity of\nmankind, but by no means preserve the transcendency of the Gods and the\norder of them as exempt causes.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. VI.\n\n\nBut the greatest thing in sacrifices, _viz._ their efficacious power,\nand why especially they are so very beneficial that without them we are\nneither liberated from pestilence, nor famine, nor sterility of fruits,\nnor obtain seasonable showers of rain, nor things of much greater\nconsequence than these, I mean such as contribute to the purification of\nthe soul, or an emancipation from generation; these are not at all\nindicated by such modes of sacrifices as you adduce. Hence no one can\njustly approve of them, because they assign a cause of the works\nperformed in sacrifices unadapted to their dignity. And if some one\nshould approve of them it will be only in a secondary way, and as\nsuspended from primary, more ancient, and venerable causes.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. VII.\n\n\nThe discussion therefore requires that we should show what it is through\nwhich sacrifices are effective of things, and are suspended from the\nGods, the precedaneous causes of effects. If then we say that the\ncommunion of similar powers, or the dissension of contraries, or a\ncertain aptitude of the agent to the patient in the universe, as in one\nanimal, every where possessing one and the same life, coexcites adapted\nsimilars, pervading with invariable sameness according to one sympathy,\nand existing most near in things most remote: if we should say this, we\nshould thus assert something of what is true, and which necessarily\naccompanies sacrifices, yet we should not demonstrate the true mode of\ntheir subsistence. For the essence of the Gods is not placed in nature\nand in physical necessities, so as to be coexcited by physical passions,\nor by the powers which extend through all nature; but independently of\nthese, it is defined by itself, having nothing in common with them,\nneither according to essence, nor according to power, nor any thing\nelse.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. VIII.\n\n\nThe same absurdities likewise happen from assigning, as the causes of\nwhat is effected by sacrifices, either certain numbers that are with us,\nsuch, for instance, as assuming the number sixty in the crocodile,[97]\nas adapted to the sun; or physical reasons, as the powers and energies\nof animals, for instance, of the dog[98], the cynocephalus,[99] and the\nweasel[100], these being common to the moon; or material forms, such as\nare seen in sacred animals[101] according to the colours, and all the\nforms of the body; or any thing else pertaining to the bodies of\nanimals, or of other things which are offered; or a certain member, as\nthe heart of a cock;[106] or other things of the like kind which are\nsurveyed about nature, if they are considered as the causes of the\nefficacy in sacrifices. For from these things the Gods are not\ndemonstrated to be supernatural causes; nor, as such, to be excited by\nsacrifices. But they are considered as physical causes detained by\nmatter, and as physically involved in bodies, and coexcited and becoming\nquiescent together with them, these things also existing about nature.\nIf, therefore, any thing of this kind takes place in sacrifices, it\nfollows as a concause, and as having the relation of that without which\na thing is not effected; and thus it is suspended from precedaneous\ncauses.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. IX.\n\n\nIt is better, therefore, to assign as the cause of the efficacy of\nsacrifices friendship and familiarity, and a habitude which binds\nfabricators to the things fabricated, and generators to the things\ngenerated. Hence when, this common principle preceding, we take a\ncertain animal, or any thing which germinates in the earth, and which\ngenuinely and purely preserves the will of its maker; then, through a\nthing of this kind, we appropriately move the demiurgic cause, which\npresides over it in an undefiled manner. But these causes being many,\nand some, as the d\u00e6moniacal causes, having a proximate arrangement; but\nothers, as divine causes, being arranged above these; and farther still,\none most ancient and venerable cause being the leader of these; all the\ncauses are moved in conjunction by a perfect sacrifice. Each thing,\nlikewise, is in a kindred manner adapted to the sacrifice, according to\nthe order which it is allotted. But if any sacrifice is imperfect, it\nproceeds to a certain extent, but is not capable of proceeding any\nfurther. Hence many are of opinion that sacrifices are to be offered to\ngood d\u00e6mons, many to the last powers of the Gods, and many to the\nmundane or terrestrial powers of d\u00e6mons or Gods. These things,\ntherefore, as being a part of sacrifices, are not falsely asserted; but\nthey do not comprehend the whole of the power of sacrifice, and all the\ngoods it contains, which extend to every thing divine.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAP. X.\n\n\nWe, however, admit all these assertions; physical essences, indeed,\nbeing coexcited as in one animal, according to aptitude or sympathy, as\nin another respect being subjects, and following and being subservient\nto the cause of the efficacy of sacrifices; but d\u00e6mons, and terrene or\nmundane divine powers, being primarily familiarized to our order;\nnevertheless, we must say, that the most perfect and leading cause of\nthe efficacy of sacrifices is to be conjoined to demiurgic and the most\nperfect powers. But since these comprehend in themselves all the causes\nof sacrifice, we say that all the effective causes of it are at once\ncoexcited together with these. And from all these a common utility is\nimparted to the whole of generation; sometimes through cities and\npeople, or all various nations, or circumscriptions more or less\nextended than these; but at other times through houses, or an\nindividual, these causes impart good with an unenvying and exuberant\nwill, unaccompanied with passion; conferring their benefits with an\nimpassive intellect, according to adaptation and alliance; one\nfriendship at the same time which connectedly contains all things,\nproducing this bond through a certain ineffable communion.\n\nFor these assertions are much more true, and more characteristic of the\nessence and power of the Gods, than what you suspect to be the case,\nviz. \u201c_that the Gods are especially allured by the vapours produced in\nthe sacrifices of animals_.\u201d For if d\u00e6mons are invested with a certain\nbody, which some think is nourished by sacrifices, yet this body is\nimmutable and impassive, luciform and unindigent; so that neither does\nany thing flow from it, nor is it in want of any influx externally\nintroduced. And if some one should admit that there is this influx, yet\nsince the world and the air contained in it have a never failing\nabundance of exhalations from terrene places, an efflux of this kind\nbeing equally diffused on all sides, what use can there be of sacrifices\nto d\u00e6mons? But neither do the influxions equally and commensurately fill\nthe place of the effluxions, so as that neither excess should at any\ntime predominate, nor deficiency be produced, but that there should be a\nperfect equality and similitude of the bodies of d\u00e6mons, and this\ninvariably the same. For the Demiurgus of the universe has not provided\nabundant nutriment, and which may be easily obtained, for all the\nanimals in the earth and the sea, but has made the beings superior to us\nto be in want of it; nor has he imparted to other animals a native\nabundance of what is daily requisite, but given to d\u00e6mons nutriment\nwhich is adscititious and procured by us men; so that if we through\nindolence, or some other pretext, should neglect an offering of this\nkind, the bodies of d\u00e6mons would be in want of food, and would\nparticipate of incommensuration and disorder. Why, therefore, do not the\nauthors of these assertions subvert the whole order of things, so as to\nmake us to be in a better and more powerful class of beings? For if we\nsupply d\u00e6mons with nutriment, we shall much more be the causes of their\nexistence. For every thing receives nutriment and perfection from that\nby which it was generated. And this, indeed, may be seen in the visible\ngenerations of things; but it may also be surveyed in the heavens and\nthe earth. For terrestrial are nourished by celestial natures. But this\nbecomes most eminently manifest in invisible causes. For soul indeed, is\nperfected by intellect; but nature by soul. And other things are in a\nsimilar manner nourished by their causes. If, therefore, it is\nimpossible that we should be the primordial causes of d\u00e6mons, it is, for\nthe same reason, impossible that we should be the causes of their\nnutriment.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XI.\n\n\nIt appears to me, also, that the present question errs in another\nrespect. For it is ignorant that the offering of sacrifices through fire\nhas the power of consuming and destroying the matter of them in a\ngreater degree; that it assimilates this matter to itself, but is not\nitself assimilated to the matter; and that it elevates to divine,\ncelestial, and immaterial fire, but does not tend downwards to matter\nand generation. For if the enjoyment of the vapours from matter allured\nd\u00e6mons, it would be requisite that the matter should be pure and entire;\nsince thus there would be a more abundant efflux from it to its\nparticipants. But now all the matter is enkindled and consumed, and is\nchanged into the purity and tenuity of fire; which is itself a clear\nindication of the contrary to what you assert. For superior beings\n[_i. e._ d\u00e6mons] are impassive, and they are delighted to amputate\nmatter through fire, and render us impassive. They likewise assimilate\nwhatever is in us to the Gods, in the same manner as fire[107]\nassimilates all solid and resisting substances to luminous and\nattenuated bodies. And they elevate us through sacrifices and the\nsacrifice fire to the fire of the Gods, in the same manner as fire\nelevates to fire, and draws upward gravitating and resisting substances\nto divine and celestial natures.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XII.\n\n\nFor, in short, the vehicle[108] which is subservient to d\u00e6mons neither\nconsists of matter, nor of the elements, nor of any other of the bodies\nknown to us. What perfect supply of food, therefore, can there be from\none essence to another [specifically different]? Or what enjoyment can\naccede from foreign to foreign natures? There cannot be any. But much\nmore, as the Gods by the fire of lightning divide matter, and separate\nfrom it things which are essentially immaterial, but which are\nvanquished and bound by it, and render them impassive from being\npassive; thus also the fire that is with us, imitating the energy of\ndivine fire, destroys every thing which is material in sacrifices,\npurifies the things which are offered, liberates them from the bonds of\nmatter, and renders them, through purity of nature, adapted to the\ncommunion of the Gods. It likewise liberates[109] us after the same\nmanner from the bonds of generation, assimilates us to the Gods, causes\nus to be adapted to their friendship, and conducts our material nature\nto an immaterial essence.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. XIII.\n\n\nSubverting, therefore, in this manner the common absurd opinions\nconcerning sacrifices, we shall introduce in their place true\nconceptions about them; omitting the particular discussion of each\nspecies of sacrifice, which the peculiar and distinct consideration of\nsacrifices requires, because this pertains to another inquiry, and\nbecause, at the same time, every one who is intelligent may be able to\naccomplish this from what has been already said, and from one thing may\nextend his reasoning power to many, and may easily know what is omitted\nfrom what has been discussed. And I, indeed, think that these things\nhave been sufficiently explained, both in other respects and because the\nexplanation pays attention in a becoming manner to the purity of the\nGods. Because, however, it may perhaps appear to others to be\nincredible, and not sufficiently manifest, and the veracity of it may be\nsuspected, as not exciting the discursive energy of reason, I wish to\nconsider these things a little more fully; and, if possible, to add\narguments more evident than those which have been adduced.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XIV.\n\n\nWe shall begin, however, the elucidation of this subject in the best\npossible manner, if we demonstrate that the sacred law of sacrifices is\nconnected with the order of the Gods. In the first place, therefore, we\nsay, that of the Gods some are material, but others immaterial. And the\nmaterial, indeed, are those that comprehend matter in themselves, and\nadorn it; but the immaterial are those that are perfectly exempt from,\nand transcend, matter. But, according to the sacrific art, it is\nrequisite to begin sacred operations from the material Gods for the\nascent to the immaterial Gods will not otherwise be effected. The\nmaterial Gods, therefore, have a certain communion with matter, so far\nas they preside over it. Hence they have dominion over things which\nhappen about matter, such as the division, percussion, repercussion,\nmutation, generation, and corruption of all material bodies. He,\ntherefore, who wishes to worship these theurgically, in a manner adapted\nto them, and to the dominion which they are allotted, should, as they\nare material, employ a material mode of worship. For thus we shall be\nwholly led to a familiarity with them, and worship them in an allied and\nappropriate manner. Dead bodies, therefore, and things deprived of life,\nthe slaying of animals, and the consumption of victims, and, in short,\nthe mutation of the matter which is offered, pertain to these Gods, not\nby themselves, but on account of the matter over which they preside. For\nthough they are in the most eminent degree separate from it, yet at the\nsame time they are present with it. And though they comprehend matter in\nan immaterial power, yet they are coexistent with it. Things that are\ngoverned, also, are not foreign from their governors; and things which\nare subservient as instruments, are not unadapted to those that use\nthem. Hence, it is foreign to the immaterial Gods, to offer matter to\nthem through sacrifices, but this is most adapted to all the material\nGods.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XV.\n\n\nLet us then, in the next place, direct our attention to that which\naccords with what has been before said, and with our twofold condition\nof being. For there is a time when we become wholly soul, are out of the\nbody, and sublimely revolve on high, in conjunction with all the\nimmaterial Gods. And there is also a time when we are bound in the\ntestaceous body, are detained by matter, and are of a corporeal-formed\nnature. Again, therefore, there will be a twofold mode of worship. For\none mode, indeed, will be simple, incorporeal, and pure from all\ngeneration, and this mode pertains to undefiled souls. But the other is\nfilled with bodies, and every thing of a material nature, and is adapted\nto souls which are neither pure nor liberated from all generation. We\nmust admit, therefore, that there are twofold species of sacrifices; one\nkind, indeed, pertaining to men who are entirely purified, which, as\nHeraclitus says, rarely happens to one man, or to a certain easily to be\nnumbered few of mankind; but the other kind, being material and\ncorporeal-formed, and consisting in mutation, is adapted to souls that\nare still detained by the body. Hence, to cities and people not yet\nliberated from genesiurgic fate and the impeding communion of bodies, if\nsuch a mode of sacrifice as this latter is not permitted, they will\nwander both from immaterial and material good. For they will not be able\nto receive the former, and to the latter they will not offer what is\nappropriate. At the same time, likewise, every one in sacrificing\nperforms the sacrifice with reference to what he is, and not with\nreference to what he is not. It is not proper, therefore, that the\nsacrifice should transcend the proper measure of him by whom it is\noffered. The same thing will also be said by me concerning the connexion\nwhich appropriately coadapts the men who worship and the powers that are\nworshiped. For this connexion requires that a mode of worship should be\nchosen adapted to itself; _viz._ an immaterial connexion, a mode of\nworship immaterially mingled, and purely conjoining by pure incorporeal\npowers, incorporeal natures to themselves; but a corporeal-formed\nconnexion, a corporeal-formed mode which depends on bodies, and is\nmingled with the essences that preside over bodies.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XVI.\n\n\nFarther still, therefore, we must not disdain to add what follows; that\nwe frequently perform something to the Gods who are the inspective\nguardians of body, and to good d\u00e6mons, for the sake of the necessary use\nof the body; as, for instance, when [by sacrifices] we purify it from\nancient stains, or liberate it from diseases, and fill it with health,\nor remove from it heaviness and torpor, or procure for it any other\ngood. In this case, therefore, we evidently must not busy ourselves with\nthe body in an intellectual and incorporeal manner. For the body is not\nadapted to participate of modes of this kind; but, obtaining things\nwhich are allied to itself, it is meliorated and purified by bodies. The\nrites of sacrifices, therefore, will necessarily, for a purpose of this\nkind, be corporeal-formed; partly cutting off what is superfluous in us;\npartly supplying us with that of which we are in want; and partly\nleading into symmetry and order such things in us as are immoderately\ndisturbed. We also frequently engage in sacred operations, entreating\nsuperior beings to grant us such things as are adapted to the wants of\nhuman life. And these are such as preserve the body in health, or\npertain to those things which we procure for the sake of the body.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. XVII.\n\n\nWhat, therefore, shall we derive from the Gods who are entirely exempt\nfrom all human generation, with respect to sterility, or abundance or\nany thing else pertaining to [the mortal] life? Nothing whatever. For it\nis not the province of those who are liberated from all things to meddle\nwith gifts of this kind. But if some one should say that the perfectly\nimmaterial comprehend in themselves the material Gods, and that through\nthis they also contain in themselves their gifts according to one first\ncause; such a one will also say, that in consequence of this an\nabundance of divine gifts descend from the immaterial Gods. It must not,\nhowever, be granted to any one to say that the immaterial Gods bestow\nthese gifts by proximately interfering with the actions of human life.\nFor such an administration of our affairs is partible, is accomplished\nwith a certain conversion [to the subjects of its care], is not entirely\nseparate from bodies, and is incapable of receiving a pure and undefiled\ndomination. Will not, therefore, that mode of sacrifice in works of this\nkind be most appropriate which is mingled with bodies, and adheres to\ngeneration; and not that which is entirely immaterial and incorporeal?\nFor the _pure_ mode of sacrifice is perfectly transcendent and\nincommensurate [with our concerns]. But the mode which employs bodies,\nand the powers that subsist through bodies, is in the most eminent\ndegree allied to human affairs. It is also capable of producing a\ncertain prosperous condition of things, and of imparting symmetry and\ntemperament to the mortal race.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. XVIII.\n\n\nAccording to another division, therefore, the numerous herd [or the\ngreat mass] of men is arranged under nature, is governed by physical\npowers, looks downward to the works of nature, gives completion to the\nadministration of Fate, and to things pertaining to Fate, because it\nbelongs to the order of it, and always employs practical reasoning about\nsuch particulars alone as subsist according to nature. But there are a\ncertain few who, by employing a certain supernatural power of intellect,\nare removed indeed from nature, but are conducted to a separate and\nunmingled intellect; and these, at the same time, become superior to\nphysical powers. Others again, who are the media between these, tend to\nthings which subsist between nature and a pure intellect. And of these,\nsome indeed equally follow both nature and an immaculate intellect;\nothers embrace a life which is mingled from both; and others are\nliberated from things subordinate, and betake themselves to such as are\nmore excellent.\n\nThis division, therefore, being made, that which follows will most\nmanifestly take place. For those who are governed by the nature of the\nuniverse, who lived conformably to this, and employ the powers of\nnature, these should embrace a mode of worship adapted to nature, and to\nthe bodies that are moved by nature, and should choose for this purpose\nappropriate places, air, matter, the powers of matter, bodies, and the\nhabits of bodies, qualities, and proper motions, the mutations of things\nin generation, and other things connected with these, both in other\nparts of piety and in that part of it which pertains to sacrifice. But\nthose who live conformably to intellect alone, and to the life of\nintellect, and are liberated from the bonds of nature, these should\nexercise in all the parts of theurgy the intellectual and incorporeal\nmode of worship. And those who are the media between these, should\nlabour differently in the paths of piety, conformably to the differences\nof this middle condition of life, either by embracing both modes of\npiety, or separating themselves from one of the modes [and adhering to\nthe other], or receiving both these modes as the foundation of things of\na more honourable nature. For without these they never can arrive at\nthings supereminent. Or, in some other way, they should thus, in a\nbecoming manner, labour in the paths of sanctity.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XIX.\n\n\nOn this subject, however, there is also the following division. Of\ndivine essences and powers some have [a genesiurgic] soul and nature\nsubject and ministrant to their fabrications, whenever they wish to use\nthem. But others are entirely separate from soul and nature, I mean from\na divine, and not only from a mundane and genesiurgic soul and\nnature.[110] And others are the media[111] between these, and afford to\nthe extremes a communion with each other, either according to an\nexuberant participation of greater good, or according to an unimpeded\nreception of less good, or according to a concord which binds together\nboth the extremes. When, therefore, we worship the Gods who reign over\nsoul and nature, it is not foreign to these to offer to them physical\npowers, and bodies which are governed by nature. For all the works of\nnature are subservient to them, and contribute to their government. But\nwhen we undertake to honour those Gods who are essentially uniform, then\nit is requisite to venerate them with liberated honours. Hence,\nintellectual gifts are adapted to these, and things which pertain to an\nincorporeal life, together with the fruits of virtue and wisdom, and\nwhatever perfect and total goods of the soul there may be. Moreover, to\nthe Gods who subsist as media, and who are the leaders of goods of a\nmiddle nature, sometimes twofold gifts will be adapted, and sometimes\nsuch as have a communication with both these; or such as are separated\nfrom inferiors, and pertain to more elevated natures; or, in short, such\nas in one of the modes give completion to the medium.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XX.\n\n\nBeing impelled, therefore, from another principle, _viz._ from the world\nand the mundane Gods, from the arrangement of the four elements in the\nworld, and the association of the elements according to [appropriate]\nmeasures, and also from the orderly circulation of bodies about centres,\nwe shall have an easy ascent to the truth of the piety respecting\nsacrifices. For if we are in the world, are contained as parts in the\nuniverse, are primarily produced by it, and perfected by the total\npowers that are in it, and if we consist of its elements, and receive\nfrom it a certain portion of life and nature; if this be the case, it is\nnot proper to pass beyond the world and the mundane orders. We must\nadmit, therefore, that in each part of the world there is this visible\nbody, and that there are also incorporeal powers, which are divided\nabout bodies. Hence the law of religion distributes similars to\nsimilars, and thus extends from on high, through wholes, as far as to\nthe last of things; assigning, indeed, incorporeals to incorporeals, but\nbodies to bodies, and this commensurately to the nature of each. If,\nhowever, some theurgist should participate of the supermundane Gods,\nwhich is the rarest of all things, he, indeed, in the worship of the\nGods will transcend both bodies and matter; being united to the Gods by\na supermundane power. But that which happens to one person with\ndifficulty and late, and at the end of the sacerdotal office, ought not\nto be promulgated as common to all men; nor ought it to be made a thing\ncommon to those who are commencing theurgic operations, nor to those who\nhave made a middle proficiency in it. For these, after a manner, pay a\ncorporeal-formed attention to sanctity.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XXI.\n\n\nI think, therefore, that all who are lovers of the contemplation of\ntheurgic truth will acknowledge this, that the piety which pertains to\ndivine natures ought not to be exercised towards them partially or\nimperfectly. Hence, since prior to the appearance of the Gods, all\nsuch powers as are presubjacent to them are moved, and when the Gods\nare about to descend to the earth, precede them as in a solemn\nprocession;[112] he who does not distribute to all these powers that\nwhich is adapted to them, and does not honour each in an appropriate\nmanner, will depart imperfect, and destitute of the participation of\nthe Gods. But he who propitiates all of them, and offers to each\nacceptable gifts, and such as are to the utmost of his power adapted\nto them, will always remain secure and irreprehensible, giving\ncompletion in a proper manner to the perfect and entire receptacle of\nthe divine choir. Since this, therefore, is the case, whether is it\nnecessary that the mode of sanctity should be simple, and consist of a\ncertain few things, or that it should be multiform and all-harmonic,\nand mingled, as I may say, from every thing contained in the world?\nIf, indeed, the power which is invoked, and is excited in the\nperformance of sacred rites, was simple, the mode of sacrifice should\nnecessarily be simple. But if the multitude of powers which are\nexcited when the Gods descend and are moved, is not to be comprehended\nby any one, except theurgists alone, who accurately know this through\nexperience in sacred operations; if this be the case, they alone are\ncapable of knowing what the perfection is of the sacrific art; and\nthey also know that the omission, though of a few things, subverts the\nwhole work of religion; just as in harmony, from the bursting of one\nchord, the whole becomes dissonant and incommensurate.[113] As,\ntherefore, in the visible descents of the Gods, a manifest injury is\nsustained by those who leave some one of the more excellent genera\nunhonoured,[114] thus also in the invisible appearances of the Gods in\nsacrifices, it is not proper to honour one of them, and not honour\nanother, but it is entirely requisite to honour each of them according\nto the order which he is allotted. But he who leaves some one of them\nunhonoured, confounds the whole work of piety, and divulses the one\nand whole orderly distribution of it; not, in so doing, as some one\nmay think, imperfectly receiving the Gods, but entirely subverting all\nthe ceremonies of religion.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. XXII.\n\n\nWhat then [it may be said], does not the summit of the sacrific art\nrecur to the most principal one of the whole multitude of Gods, and at\none and the same time worship the many essences and principles that are\n[rooted and concentred] in it? Entirely so, but this happens at the\nlatest period, and to a very few, and we must be satisfied if it takes\nplace when the sun of life is setting. Our present discussion, however,\ndoes not ordain laws for a man of this kind; for he is superior to all\nlaw;[115] but it promulgates a law such as that of which we are now\nspeaking, to those who are in want of a certain divine legislation.[116]\nIt says, therefore, that as the world has one coarrangement from many\norders, thus also it is necessary that the consummation of sacrifices,\nbeing never failing and entire, should be conjoined to the whole order\nof more excellent natures. If, however, the world is multiform, and all\nperfect, and is united from many orders, it is also necessary that\nsacred operations should imitate its omniform variety through the whole\nof the powers which they employ. Hence, in a similar manner, since the\nthings which surround us are all-various, it is not fit that we should\nbe connected with the divine causes that preside over them, from a\ncertain part which they contain. Nor is it proper that we should ascend\nimperfectly to the primordial causes of them.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. XXIII.\n\n\nThe various mode, therefore, of sanctity in sacred operations partly\npurifies and partly perfects some one of the things that are in us or\nabout us. And some things, indeed, it restores to symmetry and order;\nbut others it liberates from mortal-formed error. But it renders all\nthings familiar and friendly to all the natures that are superior to us.\nMoreover, when divine causes, and human preparations which are\nassimilated to them conspire in one and the same, then the perfection of\nsacred operations imparts all the perfect and great benefits of\nsacrifice. It will not be amiss, also, to add such particulars as the\nfollowing, in order to the accurate comprehension of these things. An\nexuberance of power is always present with the highest causes, and at\nthe same time that this power transcends all things, it is equally\npresent with all with unimpeded energy. Hence, conformably to this, the\nfirst illuminate the last of things, and immaterial are present with\nmaterial natures immaterially. Nor should it be considered by any one as\nwonderful, if we say that there is a certain pure and divine\nmatter.[117] For matter being generated by the father and demiurgus of\nwholes, receives a perfection adapted to itself, in order to its\nbecoming the receptacle of the Gods. At the same time nothing prevents\nmore excellent beings from being able to impart their light to\nsubordinate natures. Neither, therefore, is matter separated from the\nparticipation of better causes; so that such matter as is perfect, pure,\nand boniform, is not unadapted to the reception of the Gods. For, since\nit is requisite that terrestrial natures should by no means be destitute\nof divine communion, the earth also receives a certain divine portion\nfrom it, sufficient for the participation of the Gods. The theurgic art,\ntherefore, perceiving this to be the case, and thus having discovered in\ncommon, appropriate receptacles, conformably to the peculiarity of each\nof the Gods, it frequently connects together stones, herbs, animals,\naromatics, and other sacred, perfect, and deiform substances of the like\nkind; and afterwards, from all these, it produces an entire and pure\nreceptacle. For it is not proper to despise all matter, but that alone\nwhich is foreign from the Gods. But that matter is to be chosen which is\nadapted to them, as being able to accord with the edifices of the Gods,\nthe dedication of statues, and the sacred operations of sacrifices. For\nno otherwise can a participation of superior beings be obtained by\nplaces in the earth, or by men that dwell in it, unless a foundation of\nthis kind is first established. _It is also requisite to be persuaded by\narcane assertions, that a certain matter is imparted by the Gods,\nthrough blessed visions._ This matter, therefore, is doubtless\nconnascent with those by whom it is imparted. Hence, does it not follow\nthat the sacrifice of a matter of this kind excites the Gods to present\nthemselves to the view, immediately calls forth the participation of\nthem, receives them when they accede, and perfectly unfolds them into\nlight?\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. XXIV.\n\n\nThe same things also may be learned from the distribution of the Gods\naccording to places; and from this, and the partible dominion over each\nparticular thing, it may be seen how many allotments, greater or less,\nsuperior beings are assigned according to their different orders. For it\nis evident, that to the Gods who preside over certain places, the things\nproduced by them are most appropriately offered in sacrifice; and that\nwhat pertains to the governed is most adapted to be sacrificed to the\ngovernors. For always to makers their own works are particularly\ngrateful; and to those who primarily produce certain things, such things\nare primarily acceptable. Whether, therefore, certain animals, or\nplants, or any other productions of the earth, are governed by superior\nbeings, at one and the same time, they participate of their inspective\ncare, and impart to us an indivisible communion with the Gods. Some\nthings, therefore, of this kind, if they are carefully preserved,\nincrease the familiarity of those that retain them with the Gods; and\nthese are such as by remaining entire, preserve the communion between\nGods and men. Of this kind are some of the animals in Egypt, and man,\nwho is everywhere sacred. But some things, when consecrated, produce a\nmore manifest familiarity; and these are such as by an analysis into the\nprinciple of the first elements, effect an alliance more sacredly\nadapted to superior causes. For the more perfect this alliance is, the\nmore perfect always is the good which is imparted by it.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. XXV.\n\n\nIf, therefore, these things were human customs alone, and derived their\nauthority through our legal institutions, it might be said that the\nworship of the Gods was the invention of our conceptions. Now, however,\ndivinity is the leader of it, who is thus invoked by sacrifices, and who\nis surrounded by a numerous multitude of Gods and angels. Under him,\nlikewise, a certain common presiding power, is allotted dominion\naccording to each nation of the earth. And a peculiar presiding power is\nallotted to each temple. Of the sacrifices, also, which are performed to\nthe Gods, the inspective guardian is a God; but an angel, of those which\nare performed to angels; and a d\u00e6mon, of such as are performed to\nd\u00e6mons. After the same manner, also, in other sacred operations, the\npresiding power is allotted dominion over each, in a way allied to his\nproper genus. When, therefore, we offer sacrifices to the Gods,\naccompanied by the presiding Gods, who give completion to sacred\noperations, then at the same time, it is necessary in sacrifices to\nvenerate the sacred law of divine sanctity; and at the same time, also,\nwe ought to be confident, as sacrificing under the Gods who are the\nrulers of such works. We ought, likewise, to be very cautious, lest we\nshould offer any gift unworthy of, or foreign from, the Gods. And, as\nthe last admonition, we should in a manner entirely perfect, pay\nattention to all that surrounds us, and to the Gods, angels, and d\u00e6mons\nthat are distributed according to genera in the universe. And to all\nthese, in a similar manner, an acceptable sacrifice should be offered;\nfor thus alone sanctity can be preserved in a way worthy of the Gods who\npreside over it.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. XXVI.\n\n\nSince, however, prayers are not the smallest [but on the contrary a very\ngreat] part of sacrifices, especially give completion to them, and\nthrough these the whole operation of them is corroborated and effected;\nand since, besides this, they afford a common utility to religion, and\nproduce an indissoluble and sacred communion with the Gods, it will not\nbe improper to discuss a few particulars concerning prayer. For this is\nof itself a thing worthy to be known, and renders more perfect the\nscience concerning the Gods. I say, therefore, that the _first_ species\nof prayer is _collective_; and that it is also the leader of contact\nwith, and a knowledge of, divinity. The _second_ species _is the bond of\nconcordant communion_, calling forth, prior to the energy of speech, the\ngifts imparted by the Gods, and perfecting the whole of our operations\nprior to our intellectual conceptions. And the third and most perfect\nspecies of prayer is _the seal of ineffable union with the divinities_,\nin whom it establishes all the power and authority of prayer; and thus\ncauses the soul to repose in the Gods, as in a never failing port. But\nfrom these three terms, in which all the divine measures are contained,\nsuppliant adoration not only conciliates to us the friendship of the\nGods, but supernally extends to us three fruits, being as it were three\nHesperian apples of gold.[118] The _first_ of these pertains to\n_illumination_; the _second_, to _a communion of operation_; but through\nthe energy of the _third_, we receive _a perfect plenitude of divine\nfire_. And sometimes, indeed, supplication _precedes_; like a precursor\npreparing the way before the sacrifice appears. But some times it\n_intercedes as a mediator_; and sometimes _accomplishes the end of\nsacrificing_. No operation, however, in sacred concerns, can succeed\nwithout the intervention of prayer. Lastly, the continual exercise of\nprayer nourishes the vigour of our intellect, and renders the\nreceptacles of the soul far more capacious for the communications of the\nGods. It likewise is the _divine key_, which opens to men the penetralia\nof the Gods; accustoms us to the splendid rivers of supernal light; in a\nshort time perfects our inmost recesses, and disposes them for the\nineffable embrace and contact of the Gods; and does not desist till it\nraises us to the summit of all. It also gradually and silently draws\nupward the manners of our soul, by divesting them of every thing foreign\nto a divine nature, and clothes us with the perfections of the Gods.\nBesides this, it produces an indissoluble communion and friendship with\ndivinity, nourishes a divine love, and inflames the divine part of the\nsoul. Whatever is of an opposing and contrary nature in the soul, it\nexpiates and purifies; expels whatever is prone to generation, and\nretains any thing of the dregs of mortality in its etherial and splendid\nspirit; perfects a good hope and faith concerning the reception of\ndivine light; and, in one word, renders those by whom it is employed the\nfamiliars and domestics of the Gods. If such, then, are the advantages\nof prayer, and such its connexion with sacrifice, does it not appear\nfrom hence that the end of sacrifice is a conjunction with the Demiurgus\nof the world? And the benefit of prayer is of the same extent with the\ngood which is conferred by the demiurgic causes on the race of mortals.\nAgain, from hence the _anagogic_, _perfective_, and _replenishing_ power\nof prayer appears; likewise how it becomes efficacious and unific; and\nhow it possesses a common bond imparted by the Gods. And, in the third\nand last place, it may easily be conceived from hence how prayer and\nsacrifice mutually corroborate and confer on each other a sacred and\nperfect power in divine concerns.\n\nHence, since it appears that there is a perfect conspiration and\ncooperation of the sacerdotal discipline with itself, and that the parts\nof it are more connascent than those of any animal, being entirely\nconjoined through one connexion; this being the case, it is not by any\nmeans proper to neglect this concord, nor to admit some of its parts and\nreject others; but it is fit that all of them should be exercised in a\nsimilar manner, and that those should be perfected through all of them\nwho wish to be genuinely conjoined to the Gods. These things therefore,\ncannot subsist otherwise.\n\n\n\n\n                              SECTION VI.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAP. I.\n\n\nIt is now, however, time for me to pass on to the next doubt which you\npropose, viz. \u201c_Why it is requisite that the inspector [who presides\nover sacred rites] ought not to touch a dead body, though most sacred\noperations are performed through dead bodies?_\u201d Again, therefore, that\nwe may dissolve this doubt, we shall direct our attention to this\napparent opposition; for there is not in reality any, but these things\n_alone seem_ to subsist contrarily. For if the laws of sacred rites\nordered that the same dead bodies should not be touched and should be\ntouched, this would be a thing contrary to itself. But if they order\nthat some dead bodies should be abstained from as impure, but that\nothers which are consecrated should be touched, this is not attended\nwith any contrariety. Farther still, it is not lawful to touch human\nbodies when the soul has left them, since a certain vestige, image, or\nrepresentation of divine life is extinguished in the body by death. But\nit is no longer unholy to touch other dead bodies, because they did not\n[when living] participate of a more divine life. To other Gods,\ntherefore, who are pure from matter, our not touching dead bodies is\nadapted; but to those Gods who preside over animals, and are proximately\nconnected with them, invocation through animals is properly made.\nAccording to this, therefore, no contrariety takes place.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. II.\n\n\nAfter another manner, also, this doubt may be dissolved. For in men,\nindeed, who are detained in matter, bodies deprived of life produce a\ncertain stain; because that which is not alive inserts a certain\ndefilement in that which is living, in the same manner as the impure in\nthat which is pure, and that which is in privation in that which is in\nhabit; and also because that which is dead produces a certain pollution,\nthrough a physical aptitude to a worse condition, in consequence of\nhaving possessed the power of dying. But a dead body cannot produce any\ndefilement in a d\u00e6mon who is perfectly incorporeal, and does not receive\nany corruption. For it is necessary that he should transcend a\ncorruptible body, and not participate of any representation of\ncorruption from it. And thus much in answer to the contrariety of the\ndoubt.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. III.\n\n\nIn the next place we shall explain how divination is effected through\nsacred animals, such, for instance, as hawks. We must never say,\ntherefore, that the Gods accede through bodies that are thus procured,\nbeing employed. For they do not preside over animals, either partibly,\nor proximately, or materially, or with a certain habitude towards them.\nBut to d\u00e6mons and these such as are very much divided, to different\norders of whom different animals are allotted, and who proximately\nexercise a government of this kind, and do not obtain their proper\ndominion in a way perfectly independent and immaterial, such a contact\nwith the organs of divination must be ascribed. Or, if some one is\nwilling so to admit, a seat must be attributed to them, through which we\nmay be able to associate with and employ them. It is necessary,\ntherefore, to think that this seat should be pure from bodies. For there\ncan be no communion whatever between the pure and its contrary; but it\nis reasonable to admit that this seat is conjoined with men, through the\nsoul of animals. For this soul has a certain alliance to men, through\nhomogeneity of life; but it is allied to d\u00e6mons, because, being\nliberated from body, it has in a certain respect a separate subsistence.\nHence, being a medium between both, it is subservient to its presiding\nd\u00e6mon, but announces to those who are yet detained in body that which\nits prefect commands. And it imparts to both these a common bond with\neach other.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. IV.\n\n\nIt is necessary, however, to think that the soul which uses divination\nof this kind, not only becomes an auditor of the prediction, but also\ncontributes in no small degree from itself to the consummation of it,\nand of what pertains to its operations. For this soul is coexcited and\ncooperates, and at the same time foreknows, through a certain necessary\nsympathy. Such a mode, therefore, of divination as this is entirely\ndifferent from the divine and true mode, being alone able to predict\nrespecting small and diurnal concerns, _viz._ respecting such as being\nplaced in a divided nature, are borne along about generation, and which\nimpart motions from themselves to those things that are able to receive\nthem, and produce multiform passions in things which are naturally\nadapted to be copassive. Perfect foreknowledge, however, can never be\neffected through passion. For that which is itself especially immutable,\nimmaterial, and entirely pure, is accustomed to apprehend the future;\nbut that which is mingled with the most irrational and dark nature of a\ncorporeal-formed and material essence is filled with abundant ignorance.\nAn artificial apparatus, therefore, of this kind does not deserve to be\ncalled divination; nor is it proper to bestow much attention upon it,\nnor to believe in any other person who uses it, as if it possessed in\nitself a certain clear and known indication of truth. And thus much\nconcerning divination of this kind.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAP. V.\n\n\nLet us, therefore, now discuss another species of doubts, the cause of\nwhich is occult, and which, as you say, is accompanied with \u201c_violent\nthreats_.\u201d But it is variously divided about the multitude of threats.\n\u201c_For it threatens either to burst the heavens, or to unfold the secrets\nof Isis, or to point out the arcanum in the adytum,[119] or to stop\nBaris, or to scatter the members of Osiris to Typhon, or to do something\nelse of the like kind._\u201d Men do not, however, as you think, threaten by\nsuch words as these the sun or the moon, or any of the celestial Gods;\nfor if they did, more dire absurdities would ensue than those which you\nlament. But, as we before observed, there is a certain genus of powers\nin the world which is partible, inconsiderate, and most irrational, and\nwhich receives reason from another, and is obedient to it; neither\nitself employing a proper intelligence, nor distinguishing what is true\nand false, or what is possible or impossible. A genus, therefore, of\nthis kind, when threatenings are extended, is immediately coexcited and\nastonished, because, as it appears to me, it is naturally adapted to be\nled by representations, and to allure other things, through an astounded\nand unstable phantasy.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. VI.\n\n\nThese things also admit of another explanation of the following kind.\nThe theurgist, through the power of arcane signatures, commands mundane\nnatures, no longer as man, nor as employing a human soul; but as\nexisting superior to them in the order of the Gods, he makes use of\ngreater mandates than pertain to himself, so far as he is human. This,\nhowever, does not take place as if he effected every thing which he\nvehemently threatens to accomplish; but he teaches us by such a use of\nwords the magnitude and quality of the power which he possesses through\na union with the Gods, and which he obtains from the knowledge of arcane\nsymbols. This, likewise, may be said, that the d\u00e6mons who are\ndistributed according to parts, and who guard the parts of the universe,\npay so much attention to the parts over which they preside, that they\ncannot endure a word contrary [to the safety of these], but they\npreserve the permanency of mundane natures immutable. They preserve this\npermanency, therefore, in an unchanged condition, because the order of\nthe Gods remains invariably the same. Hence they cannot endure even to\nhear that threatened in which the aerial and terrestrial d\u00e6mons have\ntheir existence.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. VII.\n\n\nOr this thing may likewise be explained as follows: D\u00e6mons preside with\na guardian power over arcane mysteries, and this in so remarkable a\ndegree, because the orderly distribution of things in the universe is\nprimarily contained in d\u00e6mons. For the parts of the universe remain in\norder, because the beneficent power of Osiris continues sacred and\nundefiled, and is not mingled with any opposing error and perturbation.\nThe life of all things likewise remains pure and incorruptible, because\nthe occult vivific beauties of the productive principles in Isis do not\ndescend into body which is born along,[120] and is the object of sight.\nBut all things continue immoveable and perpetual, because the course of\nthe sun is never stopped. And all things remain perfect and entire,\nbecause the arcana in the adytum[121] are never disclosed. Hence, in\nthose particulars in which the whole of things possesses its safety, I\nmean in arcana being always preserved occult, and in the ineffable\nessence of the Gods, never receiving a contrary condition; in these,\nterrestrial d\u00e6mons cannot endure, even in words, to hear that they\nsubsist otherwise than they do, or that they become profaned; and on\nthis account threatening language has a certain power when employed\nagainst them. No one, however, threatens the Gods, nor is such a mode of\ninvocation addressed to them. Hence with the Chaldeans, by whom words\nused to the Gods alone are preserved distinct and pure, no threats are\nemployed. But the Egyptians, mingling d\u00e6moniacal words with divine\nsignatures, sometimes employ threats. You have, therefore, an answer to\nthese doubts, concise indeed, but I think sufficiently free from error.\n\n\n\n\n                              SECTION VII.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAP. I.\n\n\nThe doubts also that follow in the next place require for their solution\nthe assistance of the same divinely-wise Muse. But I am desirous,\nprevious to this, to unfold to you the peculiarity of the theology of\nthe Egyptians. For they, imitating the nature of the universe, and the\nfabricative energy of the Gods, exhibit certain images through symbols\nof mystic, occult, and invisible intellections; just as nature, after a\ncertain manner, expresses invisible reasons [or productive powers]\nthrough visible forms. But the fabricative energy of the Gods delineates\nthe truth of forms, through visible images. Hence the Egyptians,\nperceiving that all superior natures rejoice in the similitude to them\nof inferior beings, and thus wishing to fill the latter with good,\nthrough the greatest possible imitation of the former, very properly\nexhibit a mode of theologizing adapted to the mystic doctrine concealed\nin the symbols.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. II.\n\n\nHear, therefore, the intellectual interpretation of symbols, according\nto the conceptions of the Egyptians; at the same time removing from your\nimagination and your ears the image of things symbolical, but elevating\nyourself to intellectual truth. By \u201c_mire_,\u201d therefore, understand every\nthing corporeal-formed and material; or that which is nutritive and\nprolific; or such as the material species of nature is, which is borne\nalong in conjunction with the unstable flux of matter; or a thing of\nsuch a kind as that which the river of generation receives, and which\nsubsides together with it; or the primordial cause of the elements, and\nof all the powers distributed about the elements, and which must be\nantecedently conceived to exist analogous to a foundation. Being,\ntherefore, a thing of this kind, the God who is the cause of generation,\nof all nature, and of all the powers in the elements, as transcending\nthese, and as being immaterial, incorporeal, and supernatural,\nunbegotten and impartible, wholly derived from himself, and concealed in\nhimself,\u2014this God precedes all things, and comprehends all things in\nhimself. And because, indeed, he comprehends all things, and imparts\nhimself to all mundane natures, he is from these unfolded into light.\nBecause, however, he transcends all things, and is by himself expanded\nabove them, on this account he presents himself to the view as separate,\nexempt, elevated, and expanded by himself above the powers and elements\nin the world. The following symbol, likewise, testifies the truth of\nthis. For by the God \u201c_sitting above the lotus_,\u201d a transcendency and\nstrength which by no means come into contact with the mire, are\nobscurely signified, and also indicate his intellectual and empyrean\nempire. For every thing belonging to the lotus is seen to be circular,\n_viz._ both the form of the leaves and the fruit; and circulation is\nalone allied to the motion of intellect, which energizes with invariable\nsameness, in one order, and according to one reason. But the God is\nestablished by himself, and above a dominion and energy of this kind,\nvenerable and holy, superexpanded, and abiding in himself, which his\nbeing seated is intended to signify. When the God, also, is represented\nas \u201c_sailing in a ship_,\u201d[122] it exhibits to us the power which governs\nthe world. As, therefore, the pilot being separate from the ship\npresides over the rudder of it, thus the sun having a separate\nsubsistence, governs the helm of the whole world. And as the pilot\ndirects all things from the stem, giving from himself a small principle\nof motion to the vessel; thus, also, by a much greater priority, the God\nindivisibly imparts supernally from the first principles of nature, the\nprimordial causes of motions. These particulars, therefore, and still\nmore than these, are indicated by the God sailing in a ship.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. III.\n\n\nSince, however, every part of the heavens, every sign of the\nzodiac,[123] all the motion of the heavens, every period of time\naccording to which the world is moved, and all things contained in the\nwholes of the universe, receive the powers which descend from the sun,\nsome of which are complicated with these wholes, but others transcend a\ncommixture with them, the symbolical mode of signification represents\nthese also, indicating \u201c_that the sun is diversified according to the\nsigns of the zodiac, and that every hour he changes his form_.\u201d At the\nsame time, also, it indicates his immutable, stable, never failing, and\nat once collected communication of good to the whole world. But since\nthe recipients of the impartible gift of the God are variously affected\ntowards it, and receive multiform powers, from the sun, according to\ntheir peculiar motions, hence the symbolical doctrine evinces through\nthe multitude of the gifts, that the God is one, and exhibits his one\npower through multiform powers. Hence, likewise, it says that he is one\nand the same, but that the vicissitudes of his form, and his\nconfigurations, must be admitted to exist in the recipients. On this\naccount it asserts \u201cthat he is changed every hour, according to the\nsigns of the zodiac,\u201d in consequence of these being variously changed\nabout the God, according to the many modes by which they receive him.\nThe Egyptians use prayers to the sun, conformable to these assertions,\nnot only in visions which are seen by the bodily eyes, but also in their\nmore common supplications, all which have such a meaning as this, and\nare offered to the God conformably to a symbolic and mystic doctrine of\nthis kind. Hence it would not be reasonable in any one to undertake a\ndefence of them.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. IV.\n\n\nBut the inquiries which follow in the next place, require a more\nabundant doctrine, in order to their elucidation. At the same time,\nhowever, it is necessary to discuss the truth concerning them with\nbrevity. For you inquire \u201c_what efficacy there is in names that are not\nsignificant_.\u201d[124] They are not, however, as you think, without\nsignification; but let them be indeed unknown to us (though some of them\nare known to us, the explications of which we receive from the Gods),\nyet to the Gods all of them are significant, though not according to an\neffable mode; nor in such a way as that which is significant and\nindicative with men through imaginations; but either intellectually,\nconformably to the divine intellect which is in us; or ineffably, and in\na way more excellent and simple, and conformably to the intellect which\nis united to the Gods. It is requisite, therefore, to take away all\nconceptions derived by an abstraction from sensibles, and all logical\nevolutions from divine names;[125] and likewise the connascent physical\nsimilitudes of language to things which exist in nature. But the\nintellectual and divine symbolical character of divine similitude must\nbe admitted to have a subsistence in names. And, moreover, though it\nshould be unknown to us, yet this very circumstance is that which is\nmost venerable in it, for it is too excellent to be divided into\nknowledge. But in those names which we can, scientifically analyze,[126]\nwe possess a knowledge of the whole divine essence, power, and order,\ncomprehended in the name. And farther still, we preserve in the soul\ncollectively the mystic and arcane image of the Gods, and through this\nwe elevate the soul to the Gods, and when elevated conjoin it as much as\npossible with them. But you ask, \u201c_Why, of significant names, we prefer\nsuch as are Barbaric to our own?_\u201d Of this, also, there is a mystic\nreason. For because the Gods have shown that the whole dialect of sacred\nnations such as those of the Egyptians and Assyrians, is adapted to\nsacred concerns; on this account we ought to think it necessary that our\nconference with the Gods should be in a language allied to them.\nBecause, likewise, such a mode of speech is the first and most ancient.\nAnd especially because those who first learned the names of the Gods,\nhaving mingled them with their own proper tongue, delivered them to us,\nthat we might always preserve immoveable the sacred law of tradition, in\na language peculiar and adapted to them. For if any other thing pertains\nto the Gods, it is evident that the eternal and immutable must be allied\nto them.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAP. V.\n\n\nYou object, however, \u201c_that he who hears words looks to their\nsignification, so that it is sufficient the conception remains the same,\nwhatever the words may be that are used_.\u201d But the thing is not such as\nyou suspect it to be. For if names subsisted through compact[127] it\nwould be of no consequence whether some were used instead of others. But\nif they are suspended from the nature of things, those names which are\nmore adapted to it will also be more dear to the Gods. From this,\ntherefore, it is evident that the language of sacred nations is very\nreasonably preferred to that of other men. To which may be added, that\nnames do not entirely preserve the same meaning when translated into\nanother language; but there are certain idioms in each nation which\ncannot be signified by language to another nation. And, in the next\nplace, though it should be possible to translate them, yet they no\nlonger preserve the same power when translated. Barbarous names,\nlikewise, have much emphasis, great conciseness, and participate of less\nambiguity, variety, and multitude. Hence, on all these accounts, they\nare adapted to more excellent natures. Take away, therefore, entirely\nthose suspicions of yours which fall off from the truth, viz. \u201c_if he\nwho is invoked is either an Egyptian or uses the Egyptian language_.\u201d\nBut rather think that as the Egyptians were the first of men[128] who\nwere allotted the participation of the Gods, the Gods when invoked\nrejoice in the Egyptian rites. Again, however, if all these were the\nfraudulent devices of enchanters, how is it possible that things which\nare in the most eminent degree united to the Gods, which also conjoin us\nwith them, and have powers all but equal to those of superior beings,\nshould be phantastic devices, though without them no sacred operation\ncan be effected? But neither \u201c_do these veils [by which arcana are\nconcealed] originate from our passions, which rumour ascribes to a\ndivine nature_.\u201d For beginning, not from our passions, but, on the\ncontrary, from things allied to the Gods, we make use of words adapted\nto them. \u201c_Nor do we frame conceptions of a divine nature, contrary to\nits real mode of subsistence._\u201d But conformably to the nature which it\npossesses, and to the truth concerning it, which those obtained who\nfirst established the laws of sacred religion, we persevere in our\nconceptions of divinity. _For if any thing else in religious legal\ninstitutions is adapted to the Gods, this must certainly be\nimmutability. And it is necessary that ancient prayers,[129] like sacred\nasyla, should be preserved invariably the same, neither taking any thing\nfrom them, nor adding any thing to them which is elsewhere derived._ For\nthis is nearly the cause at present that both names and prayers have\nlost their efficacy, because they are continually changed through the\ninnovation and illegality of the Greeks. For the Greeks are naturally\nstudious of novelty, and are carried about every where by their\nvolatility; neither possessing any stability themselves, nor preserving\nwhat they have received from others; but rapidly relinquishing this,\nthey transform every thing through an unstable desire of discovering\nsomething new. But the Barbarians are stable in their manners, and\nfirmly continue to employ the same words. Hence they are dear to the\nGods, and proffer words which are grateful to them; but which it is not\nlawful for any man by any means to change. And thus much we have said in\nanswer to you concerning names, which though they are inexplicable, and\nare called Barbaric, yet are adapted to sacred concerns.\n\n\n\n\n                             SECTION VIII.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAP. I.\n\n\nLeaving, therefore, these particulars, you wish in the next place that I\nwould unfold to you \u201c_What the Egyptians conceive the first cause to be;\nwhether intellect, or above intellect; whether alone, or subsisting with\nsome other or others; whether incorporeal, of corporeal; and whether it\nis the same with the Demiurgus, or is prior to the Demiurgus? Likewise,\nwhether all things are from one principle, or from many principles;\nwhether they have a knowledge of matter, or of primary corporeal\nqualities; and whether they admit matter to be unbegotten, or to be\ngenerated?_\u201d I, therefore, will in the first place relate to you the\ncause why in the books of the ancient writers of sacred concerns many\nand various opinions concerning these things are circulated, and also\nwhy among those that are still living, and are renowned for their\nwisdom, the opinion on this subject is not simple and one. I say then,\nthat as there are many essences, and these differing from each other,\nthe all-various multitude of the principles of these, and which have\ndifferent orders, were delivered by different ancient priests. As\nSeleucus[130] narrates, therefore, Hermes described the principles that\nrank as wholes in two myriads[131] of books; or, as we are informed by\nManetho[132], he perfectly unfolded these principles in three myriads\nsix thousand five hundred and twenty five volumes. But different ancient\nwriters differently explained the partial principles of essences. It is\nnecessary, however, by investigation to discover the truth about all\nthese principles, and concisely to unfold it to you as much as possible.\nAnd, in the first place, hear concerning that which is the first subject\nof your inquiry.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. II.\n\n\nPrior to truly existing beings and total principles [or principles that\nrank as wholes], there is one God, prior to [that deity who is generally\nbelieved to be] the first God and king,[133] immoveable, and abiding in\nthe solitude of his own unity. For neither is the intelligible connected\nwith him, nor any thing else; but he is established as the paradigm of\nthe God who is the father of himself, is self begotten, is father alone,\nand is truly good. For he is something even greater and prior to this,\nis the fountain of all things, and the root of the first intelligible\nforms. But from this one deity, the God who is sufficient to himself\nunfolds himself, into light. For this divinity, also, is the principle\nand God of Gods, a monad from _the one_, prior to essence, and the\nprinciple of essence. For from him entity and essence are derived; and\nhence, also, he is denominated the principle of intelligibles. These,\ntherefore, are the most ancient principles of all things, which Hermes\narranges prior to the etherial, empyrean, and celestial Gods. He\nlikewise delivered to us the history of the empyrean Gods in one hundred\nbooks; of the etherial in an equal number; and of the celestial in a\nthousand books.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. III.\n\n\nAccording to another order, however, he arranges the God _Emeph_[134]\nprior to, and as the leader of, the celestial Gods. And he says that\nthis God is an intellect, itself intellectually perceiving itself, and\nconverting intellections to itself. But prior to this, he arranges the\nimpartible one, which he says is the first paradigm, and which he\ndenominates _Eicton_. In this, also, is contained that which is first\nintellective, and the first intelligible, and which is to be worshiped\nthrough silence alone. Besides these, also, other leaders preside over\nthe fabrication of visible natures. For the demiurgic intellect, who is\nthe curator of truth and wisdom, descending into generation, and leading\nthe power; of occult reasons into light, is called in the Egyptian\ntongue Amon; but in consequence of perfecting all things with veracity\nand artificially, he is called Ptha. The Greeks, however, assume Ptha\nfor Vulcan, solely directing their attention to the artificial\npeculiarity of the God. So far, also, as he is effective of good he is\ncalled Osiris; and he has other appellations through other powers and\nenergies. With the Egyptians, therefore, there is another domination of\nthe whole elements in generation, and of the powers contained in them;\nfour of these powers being male and four female, which they attribute to\nthe sun. And there is, likewise, another government of the whole of\nnature about generation, which they assign to the moon.[135] But\ndividing the heavens into two, or four, or twelve, or six-and-thirty\nparts, or the doubles of these, they give to the parts a greater or less\nnumber of rulers. And over all these they place one ruler, who\ntranscends all the rest. Thus, therefore, the doctrine of the Egyptians\nconcerning principles, proceeding from on high as far as to the last of\nthings, begins from one principle, and descends to a multitude which is\ngoverned by this one; and every where an indefinite nature is under the\ndominion of a certain definite measure, and of the supreme unical cause\nof all things. But God produced matter by dividing materiality from\nessentiality;[136] and this being vital, the Demiurgus receiving,\nfabricated from it the simple and impassive spheres. But he distributed\nin an orderly manner the last of it into generable and corruptible\nbodies.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. IV.\n\n\nThese things, therefore, having been accurately discussed, the solution\nof the doubts which you have met with in certain books will be manifest.\n_For the books which are circulated under the name of Hermes contain\nHermaic opinions, though they frequently employ the language of the\nphilosophers: for they were translated from the Egyptian tongue by men\nwho were not unskilled in philosophy._ But Ch\u00e6remon,[137] and any others\nwho have at all discussed the first causes of mundane natures, have\nunfolded the last rulers of these. And such as have written concerning\nthe planets, the zodiac, the decans, horoscopes, and what are called\npowerful and leading planets, these have unfolded the partible\ndistributions of the rulers. The particulars, also, contained in the\nCalendars comprehend a certain very small part of the Hermaic\narrangements. And the causes of such things as pertain to the phases or\noccultations of the stars, or to the increments and decrements of the\nmoon, are assigned by the Egyptians the last of all. The Egyptians,\nlikewise, do not say that all things are physical. For they separate the\nlife of the soul and the intellectual life from nature, not only in the\nuniverse, but also in us. And admitting intellect and reason to subsist\nby themselves, they say that generated essences were thus fabricated.\nThey likewise arrange the Demiurgus as the primary father of things in\ngeneration; and they acknowledge the existence of a vital power, prior\nto the heavens, and subsisting in the heavens. They also establish a\npure intellect above the world, and one impartible intellect in the\nwhole world, and another which is distributed into all the spheres. And\nthese things they do not survey by mere reason alone, but through the\nsacerdotal theurgy, they announce that they are able to ascend to more\nelevated and universal essences, and to those that are established above\nFate, _viz._ to God and the Demiurgus; neither employing matter, nor\nassuming any other thing besides, except the observation of a suitable\ntime.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAP. V.\n\n\nThis deific and anagogic path Hermes, indeed, narrated, but Bitys, the\nprophet of King Ammon,[138] explained it, having found it in the adyta\nof Sa\u00efs[139] in Egypt, written in hieroglyphics; and the same prophet\nalso delivered the name of God, which pervades through the whole\nworld.[140] But there are, likewise, many other coarrangements of the\nsame things; so that you do not appear to me to act rightly in referring\nall things with the Egyptians to physical causes. For there are,\naccording to them, many principles and many essences; and also\nsupermundane powers, which they worship through sacerdotal sanctimony.\nTo me, therefore these things appear to afford common auxiliaries to the\nsolution of all the remaining inquiries. But since it is necessary not\nto leave any one of them uninvestigated, we shall add them to these\nproblems, and examine them on all sides, in order that we may see where\nthere is any thing futile in your opinions.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. VI.\n\n\nYou say, therefore, \u201c_that according to many of the Egyptians, that\nwhich is in our power depends on the motion of the stars_.\u201d What the\ntruth, however, is respecting this, it is necessary to unfold to you\nfrom the Hermaic conceptions. For man, as these writings say, has two\nsouls. And one, indeed, is derived from the first intelligible, and\nparticipates of the power of the Demiurgus; but the other is imparted\nfrom the circulation of the celestial bodies, to which the soul that\nsees God returns. These things, therefore, thus subsisting, the soul\nthat descends to us from the worlds follows the periods of the worlds;\nbut that which is intelligibly present from the intelligible, transcends\nthe genesiurgic motion, and through this a liberation from fate, and the\nascent to the intelligible Gods, are affected. Such theurgy, likewise,\nas leads to an unbegotten nature is perfected conformably to a life of\nthis kind.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. VII.\n\n\nHence that of which you are dubious is not true, \u201c_that all things are\nbound with the indissoluble bonds of Necessity_,\u201d which we call Fate.\nFor the soul has a proper principle of circumduction to the\nintelligible, and of a separation from generated natures; and also of a\ncontact with real being, and that which is divine. \u201c_Nor must we ascribe\nfate to the Gods, whom we worship in temples and statues, as the\ndissolvers of fate._\u201d For the Gods, indeed, dissolve fate; but the last\nnatures which proceed from them, and are complicated with the generation\nof the world and with body, give completion to fate. Hence we very\nproperly worship the Gods with all possible sanctity, and the observance\nof all religious rites, in order that they may liberate us from the\nevils impending from fate, as they alone rule over necessity through\nintellectual persuasion. But neither are all things comprehended[141] in\nthe nature of fate, but there is another principle of the soul, which is\nsuperior to all nature and generation, and through which we are capable\nof being united to the Gods, of transcending the mundane order, and of\nparticipating eternal life, and the energy of the supercelestial Gods.\nThrough this principle, therefore, we are able to liberate ourselves\nfrom fate. For when the more excellent parts of us energize, and the\nsoul is elevated to natures better than itself,[142] then it is entirely\nseparated from things which detain it in generation, departs from\nsubordinate natures, exchanges the present for another life, and gives\nitself to another order of things, entirely abandoning the former order\nwith which it was connected.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. VIII.\n\n\nWhat then, is it not possible for a man to liberate himself [from fate]\nthrough the Gods that revolve in the heavens, and to consider the same\nas the leaders of fate, and yet as those that bind our lives with\nindissoluble bonds? Perhaps nothing prevents this from being the case.\nFor if the Gods comprehend in themselves many essences and powers, there\nare also in them other immense differences and contrarieties. Moreover,\nthis also may be said, that in each of the Gods, though such as are\nvisible, there are certain intelligible principles through which a\nliberation to souls from mundane generation is effected. But if some one\nleaves only two genera of Gods, _viz._ the mundane and supermundane, the\nliberation to souls will be effected through the supermundane Gods.\nThese things, therefore, are more accurately discussed in our treatise\n_Concerning the Gods_, in which it is shown who are the anagogic Gods,\nand according to what kind of powers they are so; how they liberate from\nfate, and through what sacred regressions; and what the order is of\nmundane nature, and how the most perfect intellectual energy rules over\nthis. So that what you add from Homer, \u201cthat the Gods are flexible,\u201d it\nis not holy to assert. For the works of the sacred ceremonies of\nreligion have long since been defined by pure and intellectual laws.\nSubordinate natures, also, are liberated through a greater order and\npower; and when we abandon inferior natures, we are transferred into a\nmore excellent allotment. This, however, is not effected contrary to any\noriginal sacred law, so as to cause the Gods to be changed, through a\nsacred operation being afterwards performed; but from the first divinity\nsent souls hither, in order that they might again return to him.\nNeither, therefore, is any mutation produced through a reascent of this\nkind, nor do the descents and ascents of souls oppose each other. For as\ngeneration and this universe are suspended from an intellectual essence;\nthus, also, in the orderly distribution of souls, the liberation from\ngeneration accords with the care employed by them about generation.\n\n\n\n\n                              SECTION IX.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAP. I.\n\n\nLet us now, therefore, to the utmost of our power, endeavour to discuss\nthe manifold doubt concerning the peculiar d\u00e6mon, and which also is\nsubject to various objections. Since, however, to speak summarily, the\nconsideration of the peculiar d\u00e6mon is twofold, the one being theurgic,\nbut the other artificial; and the one drawing this d\u00e6mon down from\nsupernal causes, but the other from the visible periods in generation;\nand the one making no use whatever of the calculation of nativities, but\nthe other meddling with methods of this kind; and the one worshiping\nthis d\u00e6mon in a way more universal and supernatural, but the other\npartibly conformable to nature; this being the case, you appear to me to\nhave absurdly transferred a more perfect sacred operation to one that is\nhuman, and in this to have exercised your inquiries.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. II.\n\n\nIn the next place, here also you appear to me to have cut off only a\ncertain small part of the discussion concerning the peculiar d\u00e6mon. For\nsince it is usual with those who artificially operate about nature to\ninvoke this d\u00e6mon in an orderly manner from the decans, from the\ndispensators of influxes, from the signs of the zodiac, the stars, the\nsun and moon, from the greater and lesser bear, from the whole elements,\nand from the world, this being the case, you do not act rightly in\nassuming one, and that the smallest part of all these, _viz._ the lord\nof the geniture, and making your inquiries about this alone. Here,\nlikewise, again from one of the things proposed to be considered, you\ninquire \u201c_how the lord of the geniture gives the peculiar d\u00e6mon, and\naccording to what kind of efflux, or life, or power, it descends to us\nfrom him_.\u201d You also speak concerning the calculation of nativities, and\nask \u201c_whether there is any reality in it or not_;\u201d and likewise\nconcerning the invention of the lord of the geniture, \u201c_whether it is\nimpossible to be found, or possible_.\u201d In what respect, however, do\nthese things pertain to the domination of the d\u00e6mon? For it is evident\nthat our knowledge of the manner in which he subsists, contributes\nnothing to his essence and the cause of his existence. For in things\nwhich belong to the empire of nature, such as are generated in the\nuniverse have a proper stability of their own essence, though we should\nbe ignorant how they are produced. In this way, therefore, we reply in\n_common_ to your doubts. But directing our attention _particularly_ to\nthe subjects of your inquiry, we shall endeavour to give you solutions\nof them.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. III.\n\n\nYou say, then, \u201c_that he is happy who having learned the scheme of his\nnativity, and knowing his proper d\u00e6mon, is thus liberated from fate_.\u201d\nTo me, however, you appear to assert these things in a way neither\nconsonant to themselves nor to truth. For if our proper d\u00e6mon is\ndistributed to us from the scheme of our nativity, and from thence we\nare able to discover him, how can we _be liberated from fate_, through a\nknowledge of the d\u00e6mon imparted to us by fate? But if, as you say, we\nare truly liberated from necessity through this d\u00e6mon, how is he\nallotted to us by fate? Thus, therefore, what is now said by you opposes\nwhat you before asserted; and is also discordant with truth. For the\nproper d\u00e6mon of every one does not entirely accede from the scheme of\nthe peculiar nativity; but his origin is more ancient than this, which\nwe shall hereafter discuss. To which may be added, that if the\ndescending d\u00e6mon was to be alone surveyed from hence, he will not be\nhappy who obtains the knowledge of his genesiurgic d\u00e6mon. And who would\n[willingly] receive this d\u00e6mon as his leader to a liberation from fate,\nif he was given to him for this purpose, that he might accomplish the\ndistributions of fate? Farther still, this appears to me to be only a\ncertain and the last part of the theory pertaining to this d\u00e6mon; and\nthat the whole theory of his essence is omitted by a method of this\nkind. But these things, indeed, though they are falsely asserted, yet at\nthe same time are not utterly foreign from the purpose. The doubts,\nhowever, adduced by you in the next place, concerning \u201c_the enumeration\nof the canons and the genethlialogical science_,\u201d as they are\ninscrutable, are not attended with any ambiguity in the present\ndiscussion. For whether these arts are known or are incomprehensible,\nyet, at the same time, the efflux from the stars distributes to us the\nd\u00e6mon, whether we know it or not. But divine divination is able to teach\nus concerning the stars, in a way which is most true, and [when we are\nin possession of this] we are not entirely in want of the enumeration of\ncanons, or of the divining art.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. IV.\n\n\nIf, however, it be necessary, dismissing these particulars, to speak\nwhat appears to me to be the truth, you do not rightly infer \u201c_that a\nknowledge of this mathematical science[143] cannot be obtained, because\nthere is much dissonance concerning it, or because Ch\u00e6remon, or some\nother, has written against it_.\u201d For if this reason were admitted, all\nthings will be incomprehensible. For all sciences have ten thousand\ncontrovertists, and the doubts with which they are attended are\ninnumerable. As, therefore, we are accustomed to say in opposition to\nthe contentious, that contraries in things that are true are naturally\ndiscordant, and that it is not falsities alone that are hostile to each\nother; thus, also, we say respecting this mathematical science, that it\nis indeed true; but that those who wander from the scope of it, being\nignorant of the truth, contradict it. This, however happens not in this\nscience alone, but likewise in all the sciences, which are imparted by\nthe Gods to men. For time always proceeding the divine mode of knowledge\nbecomes evanescent, through being frequently mingled and contaminated\nwith much of what is mortal. This divine mode is indeed [in astrology\nalso], and a certain clear indication of truth, though it is but small,\nis at the same time preserved in it. For it places before our eyes\nmanifest signs of the mensuration of the divine periods, when it\npredicts the eclipses of the sun and moon, and the concursions[144] of\nthe moon with the fixed stars, and when the experience of the sight is\nseen to accord with the prediction. _Moreover, the observations of the\ncelestial bodies through the whole of time,[145] both by the Chaldeans\nand by us, testify that this science is true._ Indications, also, more\nknown than these might be adduced, if the present discussion was\nprecedaneously about these particulars. But as they are superfluous, and\ndo not pertain to the knowledge of the peculiar d\u00e6mon, I shall, as it is\nfit so to do, omit them, and pass on to things more appropriate than\nthese.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAP. V.\n\n\nYou say then, in your epistle, \u201c_that the discovery of the lord or lords\nof the geniture, if there are more than one in a nativity, can scarcely\nbe obtained, and by astrologers themselves is confessed to be\nunattainable; and yet they say that the peculiar d\u00e6mon is from thence to\nbe known_.\u201d But how can astrologers confess that the knowledge of the\nlord of the geniture is not to be obtained by them, when they deliver\nclear methods for the discovery of it, and teach us rules by which we\nmay discover the doubts; some, indeed, giving us five,[146] others more\nand others less than five rules? Omitting this, however, let us direct\nour attention to a thing of greater consequence, _viz._ the accidents\npertaining to both these. For if it is possible to discover the lord of\nthe geniture, the d\u00e6mon imparted by him will be known; but if this\nknowledge is unattainable, we shall be ignorant of the lord of the\ngeniture according to this hypothesis, and yet, nevertheless, he will\nhave an existence, and also the d\u00e6mon imparted by him. What therefore\nhinders, but that the discovery of him may be difficult through\nprediction from the nativity, and yet through sacred divination, or\ntheurgy, there may be a great abundance of scientific knowledge on this\nsubject? In short, the d\u00e6mon is not alone imparted by the lord of the\ngeniture, but there are many other principles of it more universal[147]\nthan this. And farther still, a method of this kind introduces a certain\nartificial and human disquisition concerning the peculiar d\u00e6mon. Hence,\nin these doubts of yours there is nothing sane.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. VI.\n\n\nIf, however, it be requisite to unfold to you the truth concerning the\npeculiar d\u00e6mon, we must say that he is not distributed to us from one\npart of the heavens, or from some one of the visible elements; but that\nfrom the whole world, the all-various life contained in it, and the\nall-various body through which the soul descends into generation, a\ncertain peculiar portion is distributed to each of the parts in us,\naccording to a peculiar prefecture. This d\u00e6mon, therefore, is\nestablished in the paradigm before the soul descends into generation;\nand when the soul has received him as its leader, the d\u00e6mon immediately\npresides over the soul, gives completion to its lives, and binds it to\nbody when it descends. He likewise governs the common animal of the\nsoul, directs its peculiar life, and imparts to us the principles of all\nour thoughts and reasonings. We also perform such things as he suggests\nto our intellect, and he continues to govern us till, through sacerdotal\ntheurgy, we obtain a God for the inspective guardian and leader of the\nsoul. For then the d\u00e6mon either yields or delivers his government to a\nmore excellent nature, or is subjected to him, as contributing to his\nguardianship, or in some other way is ministrant to him as to his lord.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. VII.\n\n\nFrom these things, therefore, it is easy to answer your next question.\nFor the peculiar d\u00e6mon does not rule over one of the parts in us, but,\nin short, over all the parts at once, and extends to every principle\nwithin us, in the same manner as he was distributed to us from the total\norders in the universe. For that which it appears to you proper to add\nas an indication \u201c_that d\u00e6mons preside over the parts of our body, so\nthat one is the guardian of health, another of the form of the body, and\nanother of the corporeal habits, and that there is one d\u00e6mon who\npresides in common over all these_;\u201d this you should consider as an\nargument that there is one d\u00e6mon who is the guardian and governor of\nevery thing that is in us. You must not, therefore, distribute one d\u00e6mon\nto the body, but another to the soul, and another to intellect: for it\nis absurd that the animal should be one, but the d\u00e6mon that presides\nover it multiform. For every where the natures that govern are more\nsimple than the natures that are governed. And it will be still more\nabsurd if the many d\u00e6mons that rule over the parts are not connascent,\nbut separated from each other. But you also make contrariety among them.\nFor you speak as if \u201c_some of them were good, but others bad_.\u201d Evil\nd\u00e6mons, however, have no where a ruling allotment, nor are they\noppositely divided to such as are good with equal authority and power.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. VIII.\n\n\nAfterwards, abandoning these particulars, you pass on to the opinion of\nphilosophy. But you subvert the whole hypothesis concerning the peculiar\nd\u00e6mon. For if [as you say] \u201c_this d\u00e6mon is a part of the soul_,\u201d such,\nfor instance, as the intellectual part, \u201c_and he is happy who is in\npossession of a wise intellect_,\u201d there will no longer be any other more\nexcellent or d\u00e6moniacal order, presiding over, as transcending the human\nsoul. But certain parts of the soul, or a certain divided power, will\nhave dominion over many of the forms of life that are in us; and will\nrule over these, not connascently, but as naturally exempt, and as\ntranscending the whole of our composition.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. IX.\n\n\nAfter this, therefore, you also mention another disquisition concerning\nthe peculiar d\u00e6mon, which represents \u201c_some as worshiping two, but\nothers three, d\u00e6mons of this kind_.\u201d The whole of this, however, is\nerroneous. For it is a false mode of proceeding to divide the causes\nthat preside over us, and not refer them to one; since this wanders from\nthe union which has dominion over all things. The opinion, likewise,\nwhich distributes this d\u00e6mon into body, and the government of body,\ndraws down his domination to a certain most minute part. So that what\nnecessity is there for those who embrace this opinion to direct their\nattention to sacred operations, the first principle of them being\nfutile? There is, therefore, of each of us one peculiar presiding d\u00e6mon;\nbut it is not proper to think that this d\u00e6mon is common to all men; nor\nagain, that he is common, but is peculiarly present with each\nindividual. For division, according to species and difference of matter,\ndo not receive the communion and sameness of things essentially\nincorporeal. \u201c_Why then_ [you say] _is the peculiar d\u00e6mon invoked by a\ncommon mode by all men?_\u201d Because the invocation of him is effected\nthrough one God, who is the lord of d\u00e6mons; who from the first defined\nto every one his peculiar d\u00e6mon; and who, in sacred operations, unfolds\nto every one his proper d\u00e6mon, according to his own proper will. For\nalways in the theurgic order secondary are invoked through primary\nnatures. Among d\u00e6mons, therefore, one common leader of the cosmocrators\nabout generation sends to each of us his peculiar d\u00e6mon. Hence, when the\npeculiar d\u00e6mon is present with each of us, he then unfolds the worship\nwhich is proper to be paid to him and his name, and likewise delivers\nthe proper mode of invoking him.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAP. X.\n\n\nAnd this order is adapted to d\u00e6mons; one part of it being allied to\nthose that are invoked; another being derived from more ancient causes;\nand the third part effecting a common completion from both the others.\nDo not, therefore, assimilate divine invocations to such as are human,\nnor those that are ineffable to those that are effable; nor compare\nthose that are prior to every boundary, and every indefinite mode, to\nthose that are defined by men, or to indefinite actions. For our\nconcerns have nothing in common with theirs, whose whole genus and whole\norder transcend and govern the whole of our essence and nature. But\nhere, especially, the greatest errors happen to men, when from human\nimbecility they infer any thing concerning the domination of d\u00e6mons, and\nfrom things which are small, of no worth, and distributed into parts,\nform a conjecture of great, excellent, and perfect natures. And thus\nmuch in answer to you concerning the peculiar d\u00e6mon, in addition to what\nhas been before said.\n\n\n\n\n                               SECTION X.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAP. I.\n\n\nIt now remains, in the last place, that we should speak concerning\nfelicity, about which you make various inquiries, first of all proposing\nobjections, afterwards doubting, and then interrogating. Adducing,\ntherefore, all that is said by you, we shall answer it appropriately.\nYou inquire, then, \u201c_whether there is not some other latent way to\nfelicity_.\u201d But how, in that path which recedes from the Gods, is it\nprobable there can be an ascent to felicity? For if the essence and\nperfection of all good are comprehended in the Gods, and the first and\nancient power of them is with us priests, and if by those who similarly\nadhere to more excellent natures, and genuinely obtain a union with\nthem, the beginning and end of all good is earnestly pursued; if this be\nthe case, here the contemplation of truth, and the possession of\nintellectual science are to be found.[148] And a knowledge of the Gods\nis accompanied with a conversion to, and the knowledge of, ourselves.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. II.\n\n\nHence you in vain doubt, \u201c_that it is not proper to look to human\nopinions_.\u201d For what leisure can he have whose intellect is directed to\nthe Gods to look downward to the praises of men? Nor do you rightly\ndoubt in what follows, viz. \u201c_that the soul devises great things from\ncasual circumstances_.\u201d For what principle of fictions can there be in\ntruly existing beings? Is it not the phantastic power in us which is the\nmaker of images? _But the phantasy is never excited when the\nintellectual life energizes perfectly._ And is not truth essentially\ncoexistent with the Gods? Is it not, likewise, concordantly established\nin intelligibles? It is in vain, therefore, that things of this kind are\ndisseminated by you and others. But neither do those things for which\ncertain futile and arrogant men calumniate the worshipers of the Gods,\nthe like to which have been asserted by you, at all pertain to true\ntheology and theurgy. And if certain things of this kind germinate in\nthe sciences of divine concerns, as in other arts evil arts blossom\nforth; these are doubtless more contrary to such sciences than to any\nthing else. For evil is more hostile to good than to that which is not\ngood.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. III.\n\n\nI wish, in the next place, to reply to such assertions as calumniate\ndivine prediction. For you compare with it \u201c_certain other methods which\nare conversant with the prediction of future events_.\u201d To me, however,\nit does not appear to be any thing honourable if a certain natural\naptitude is ingenerated in us to the indication of the future, just as\nin animals there is a foreknowledge of earthquakes, or winds, or\ntempests. For an innate presage of this kind is the consequence of\nacuteness of sensation, or sympathy, or some other conjoint motion of\nthe physical powers, and is not attended with any thing venerable and\nsupernatural. Nor if some one, by human reasoning, or artificial\nobservation, conjectures from signs those things of which the signs are\nindicative (as physicians foreknow that a fever will take place from the\nsystole and torpor of the pulse), neither does he appear to me to\npossess any thing honourable and good. For he conjectures after a human\nmanner, and concludes from our reasoning power about things which are\nacknowledged to be effected naturally, and forms a judgment not very\nremote from the corporeal-formed order. Hence, if there is in us a\ncertain natural presentiment of the future, in the same manner as in all\nother animals, this power is clearly seen to energize; this presentiment\ndoes not in reality possess any thing which is most blessed. For what is\nthere among the things which are implanted in us by nature in the realms\nof generation that is a genuine, perfect, and eternal good?\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. IV.\n\n\nDivine divination, therefore, which is conjoined with the Gods, alone\ntruly imparts to us a divine life; since it participates of [divine]\nforeknowledge, and divine intellections, and renders us in reality\ndivine. It likewise causes us to be genuine participants of _the good_,\nbecause the most blessed intellectual perception of the Gods is filled\nwith all good. Hence those who possess this divination \u201c_do not_,\u201d as\nyou conjecture, \u201c_foresee future events, and are nevertheless unhappy_.\u201d\nFor all divine foreknowledge is boniform. Nor \u201c_do they foresee, indeed,\nwhat is future, but do not know how to use this knowledge properly_.\u201d\nFor, together with the foreknowledge, they receive the beautiful itself,\nand true and appropriate order: and utility is also present with it. For\nthe Gods, in conjunction with it, deliver a transcendent power of\ndefence against the inconveniences which accede from nature. And when it\nis necessary to exercise virtue, and the ignorance of future events\ncontributes to this, then the Gods conceal what will be for the sake of\nrendering the soul better. But when the ignorance of what is future does\nnot at all contribute to this, and foreknowledge is advantageous to\nsouls, for the sake of their salvation and reascent [to divinity], then\nthe Gods insert the foreknowledge which pertains to divination in the\npenetralia of the essences of souls.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAP. V.\n\n\nBut why am I prolix about these particulars? For I have abundantly\nshown, in what has been before said, the transcendency of divine above\nhuman divination. It is better, therefore, in compliance with your\nrequest, \u201c_to point out to you the way to felicity, and show you in what\nthe essence of it is placed_.\u201d For from this the truth will be\ndiscovered, and at the same time all the doubts may be easily dissolved.\nI say, therefore, that the more divine[149] intelligible man, who was\nformerly united to the Gods by the vision of them, afterwards entered\ninto another soul, which is coadapted to the human form, and through\nthis became fettered with the bonds of necessity and fate. Hence it is\nrequisite to consider how he may be liberated from these bonds. _There\nis, therefore, no other dissolution of them than the knowledge of the\nGods._ For to know scientifically _the good_ is the idea of felicity;\njust as the oblivion of good, and deception about evil, happen to be the\nidea of evil. The former, therefore, is present with divinity; but the\nlatter, which is an inferior destiny, is inseparable from the mortal\nnature. And the former, indeed, measures the essences of\nintelligibles[150] by sacred ways; but the latter, abandoning\nprinciples, gives itself up to the measurement of the idea of body. The\nformer is a knowledge of the father; but the latter is a departure from\nhim, and an oblivion of the God who is a superessential father, and\nsufficient to himself. The former, likewise, preserves the true life of\nthe soul, and leads it back to its father; but the latter draws down the\ngeneration-ruling[151] man, as far as to that which is never permanent,\nbut is always flowing. You must understand, therefore, that this is the\nfirst path to felicity, affording to souls an intellectual plenitude of\ndivine union. But the sacerdotal and theurgic gift of felicity is\ncalled, indeed, the gate to the Demiurgus of wholes, or the seat, or\npalace, of _the good_. In the first place, likewise, it possesses a\npower of purifying the soul, much more perfect than the power which\npurifies the body; afterwards it causes a coaptation of the reasoning\npower to the participation and vision of _the good_, and a liberation\nfrom every thing of a contrary nature; and, in the last place, produces\na union with the Gods, who are the givers of every good.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. VI.\n\n\nMoreover, after it has conjoined the soul to the several parts of the\nuniverse, and to the total divine powers which pass through it; then it\nleads the soul to, and deposits it in, the whole Demiurgus, and causes\nit to be independent of all matter, and to be counited with the eternal\nreason alone. But my meaning is, that it peculiarly connects the soul\nwith the self begotten and self-moved God, and with the all-sustaining,\nintellectual, and all-adorning powers of the God, and likewise with that\npower of him which elevates to truth, and with his self-perfect,\neffective, and other demiurgic powers; so that the theurgic soul becomes\nperfectly established in the energies and demiurgic intellections of\nthese powers. Then, also, it inserts the soul in the whole demiurgic\nGod. And this is the end with the Egyptians of the sacerdotal elevation\nof the soul to divinity.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAP. VII.\n\n\nWith respect to _the good_, likewise, they conceive that one kind is\ndivine, and this is the God who is prior to the intelligible; but that\nthe other is human, and is a union with the former. And these two kinds\nof good Bitys has unfolded from the Hermaic books. This part, therefore,\nis not, as you suspect, omitted by the Egyptians, but is divinely\ndelivered by them. Nor do \u201c_theurgists disturb the divine intellect\nabout trifling concerns_;\u201d but they consult it about things which\npertain to the purification, liberation, and salvation of the soul.\nNeither do they studiously employ themselves in things which are indeed\ndifficult, yet useless to mankind; but, on the contrary, they direct\ntheir attention to things which are of all others most beneficial to the\nsoul. Nor, in the last place, are \u201c_they deceived by a certain\nfraudulent d\u00e6mon_,\u201d who, having vanquished a fallacious and d\u00e6moniacal\nnature, ascend to an intelligible and divine essence.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAP. VIII.\n\n\nAnd thus we have answered, to the utmost of our ability, your inquiries\nconcerning divination and theurgy. It remains, therefore, at the end of\nthis discussion, that I should beseech the Gods to afford me an\nimmutable guard of true conceptions, to insert in me truth eternally,\nand to supply me abundantly with the participation of more perfect\nconceptions of the Gods, in which the most blessed end of our good is\nposited, and the confirmation of our concordant friendship with each\nother.\n\n\n\n\n                           ADDITIONAL NOTES.\n\n\nPage 9. _Anebo._ Porphyry in his Life of Plotinus, and also in the\nsecond book of his Treatise on Abstinence from Animals, informs us that\nhe was familiar with a certain Egyptian priest, who, as Gale\nconjectures, is probably the priest to whom Porphyry now writes. The\ndiction, indeed, as Gale observes, denotes that the person to whom this\nEpistle is addressed was a very _great prophet_, who, nevertheless, is\nafterwards said to be a _priest_. This, however, is not any thing novel\nor incongruous. For by Apuleius in Metamorph. lib. xi. the Egyptian\nZaclas is said to be _propheta primarius et sacerdos, a chief prophet\nand priest_.\n\n\nPage 9. _Hermes the God who presides over language._ The Egyptians\ncelebrated two Hermes, the former of which is here signified by\nIamblichus. This deity is the source of _invention_, and hence he is\nsaid to be the son of _Maia_; because _search_, which is implied by\n_Maia_, leads _invention_ into light. He bestows too _mathesis_ on\nsouls, by unfolding the will of his father Jupiter; and this he\naccomplishes as the angel or messenger of Jupiter. Proclus in MS.\nComment. in Alcibiad. observes, \u201cthat this deity is the inspective\nguardian of _gymnastic exercises_; and hence _herm\u00e6_, or carved statues\nof Mercury, were placed in the Pal\u00e6str\u00e6; of _music_, and hence he is\nhonoured as _the lyrist_ \u03bb\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 among the celestial constellations; and\nof _disciplines_, because the invention of geometry, reasoning, and\ndiscourse is referred to this God. He presides, therefore, over every\nspecies of erudition, leading us to an intelligible essence from this\nmortal abode, governing the different herds of souls, and dispersing the\nsleep and oblivion with which they are oppressed. He is likewise the\nsupplier of recollection, the end of which is a genuine intellectual\napprehension of divine natures.\u201d\n\n\nP. 10. _The ancient pillars of Hermes._ These pillars, according to Amm.\nMarcellinus, lib. xxii. were concealed prior to the deluge in certain\ncaverns, which were called \u03c3\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03c2, _syringes_, not far from the\nEgyptian Thebes. The second Hermes interpreted these pillars, and his\ninterpretation formed many volumes, as Iamblichus informs us in Section\nviii. of this work. These pillars are mentioned by Laertius in his Life\nof Democritus; by Dio Chrysostom in Orat. 49; by Achilles Tatius on\nAratus; and by others of the ancients.\n\n\nP. 15. _There is, therefore, the good itself which is beyond essence,\nand there is that good which subsists according to essence._ There are\nthree orders of good; _viz._ that which is imparticipable and\nsuperessential; that which is imparticipable and essential; and that\nwhich is essential and participable. Of these, the last is such as our\nnature contains; _the good_ which ranks among forms is essential; and\nthat which is beyond essence is superessential. Or we say that _the\ngood_ which subsists in us may be considered as a habit, in consequence\nof subsisting in a subject; the next to this ranks as essence, and a\npart of essence, I mean _the good_ which ranks among forms; and _the\ngood_ which is beyond essence, is neither a habit, nor a part. With\nrespect to _the good_, also, which subsists according to essence, it\nmust be observed, that since forms are twofold, some alone\ndistinguishing the _essences_ of the things fashioned by form, but\nothers their _perfections_, the genus of essence, same and different,\nand the form of animal, horse, and man, and every thing of this kind,\ngive distinction to essence and subjects; but the form of _the good_,\nthe beautiful, and the just, and in like manner the form of virtue, of\nhealth, strength, and every thing of a similar nature, are perfective of\nthe beings to which they belong: and of some, essence is the leader, but\nof others _the good_. For, as Plato says, every thing except _the one_,\nmust necessarily participate of essence; and whatever preserves, gives\nperfection to, or defends any being, must be good. Hence, since these\ntwo are leaders, the one of forms which give subsistence to things, and\nthe other of such as are the sources of their perfection; it is\nnecessary that one of these should be subordinate to the other; I mean\nthat _the good_ which is allotted a coordination among forms that are\nthe sources of perfection, should be subordinate to _essence_, which\nranks among causes, whence subsistence originates, if _the good_ is\nbeing, and a certain being. For it is either the same with, or different\nfrom, essence, which the Elean guest or stranger in the Sophista of\nPlato shows to be the genus of being. And if _the good_ is the same with\nessence, an absurdity must ensue: for being and well-being are not the\nsame. But if _the good_ is something different from essence, it must\nnecessarily participate of essence, in consequence of essence being the\ngenus of all forms. But if genera are more ancient than forms, _the\ngood_ which ranks among forms, and is posterior to their genus, will not\nbe the superessential good which reigns over intelligibles; but this\nmust be asserted of that good, under which this and every form is\narranged, which possesses being, and which is the leader of the other\ngenera of being.\n\n\nP. 15. _But the other medium, which is suspended from the Gods, though\nit is far inferior to them, is that of d\u00e6mons._ In addition to what is\nsaid in this work by Iamblichus concerning d\u00e6mons, the following\ninformation about them from Olympiodorus, in his MS. Scholia on the\nPh\u00e6do of Plato, is well worthy the attention of the philosophical\nreader:\n\n\u201cSince there are in the universe things which subsist differently at\ndifferent times, and since there are also natures which are conjoined\nwith the superessential unities, it is necessary that there should be a\ncertain middle genus, which is neither immediately suspended from deity,\nnor subsists differently at different times, according to better and\nworse, but which is always perfect, and does not depart from its proper\nvirtue; and is immutable indeed, but is not conjoined with the\nsuperessential [which is the characteristic of deity]. The whole of this\ngenus is d\u00e6moniacal. There are, also, different genera of d\u00e6mons: for\nthey are placed under the mundane Gods. The highest of these subsists\naccording to _the one_ of the Gods, and is called an unific and divine\ngenus of d\u00e6mons. The next subsists according to the intellect which is\nsuspended from deity, and is called intellectual. The third subsists\naccording to soul, and is called rational. The fourth, according to\nnature, and is denominated physical. The fifth according to body, which\nis called corporeal-formed. And the sixth according to matter, and this\nis denominated material.\u201d Olympiodorus adds, \u201cor after another manner it\nmay be said, that some of these are celestial, others etherial, others\naerial, others aquatic, others terrestrial, and others subterranean.\nWith respect to this division also, it is evident that it is derived\nfrom the parts of the universe. But irrational d\u00e6mons originate from the\naerial governors, whence, also, the Chaldean Oracle says,\n\n               \u0397\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c5\u03b3\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n_i. e._ being the charioteer of the aerial, terrestrial, and aquatic\ndogs.\u201d Our guardian d\u00e6mons, however, belong to that order of d\u00e6mons\nwhich is arranged under the Gods that preside over the ascent and\ndescent of souls. For a more copious account of d\u00e6mons see the notes on\nthe First Alcibiades in vol. i. of my translation of Plato.\n\n\nP. 22. _One and the best solution will be obtained by surveying the mode\nof divine allotment._\n\nThe manner in which divine allotments subsist is admirably unfolded by\nProclus in Tim. p. 43, as follows: \u201cSince, according to a division of\nthe universe into two parts, we have distributed allotments into the\ncelestial and sublunary, there can be no doubt what the former are, and\nwhether they possess an invariable sameness of subsistence. But the\nsublunary allotments are deservedly a subject of admiration, whether\nthey are said to be perpetual or not. For since all things in generation\nare continually changing and flowing, how can the allotments of the\nprovidential rulers of them be said to be perpetual? For things in\ngeneration are not perpetual. But if their allotments are not perpetual,\nhow is it possible to suppose that divine government can subsist\ndifferently at different times? For an allotment is neither a certain\nseparate energy of the Gods, so that sublunary natures changing, we\nmight say that it is exempt, and remains immutable, nor is it that which\nis governed alone, so that no absurdity would follow from admitting that\nan allotment is in a flowing condition, and is conversant with\nall-various mutations; but it is a providential inspection, and\nunrestrained government of divinity over sublunary concerns. Such being\nthe doubts with which this subject is attended, the following appears to\nbe a solution of the difficulty.\n\n\u201cWe must say, then, that it is not proper to consider all the natures\nthat are in generation, and generation itself, as alone consisting of\nthings mutable and flowing, but that there is also something immutable\nin these, and which is naturally adapted to remain perpetually the same.\nFor the interval which receives and comprehends in itself all the parts\nof the world, and which has an arrangement through all bodies, is\nimmoveable, lest, being moved, it should require another place, and thus\nshould proceed from one receptacle to another, _ad infinitum_. The\netherial vehicles, also, of divine souls, with which they are circularly\ninvested, and which imitate the lives in the heavens, have a perpetual\nessence, and are eternally suspended from these divine souls themselves,\nbeing full of prolific powers, and performing a circular motion,\naccording to a certain secondary revolution of the celestial orbs. And,\nin the third place, the wholeness (\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2) of the elements has a\npermanent subsistence, though the parts are all-variously corrupted. For\nit is necessary that every form in the universe should be never failing,\nin order that the universe may be perfect, and that, being generated\nfrom an immoveable cause, it may be immoveable in its essence. _But\nevery wholeness is a form, or rather it is that which it is said to be\nthrough the participation of one all perfect form._\n\n\u201cAnd here we may see the orderly progression of the nature of bodies.\nFor the interval of the universe is immoveable according to every kind\nof motion. But the vehicles of divine souls alone receive a mutation\naccording to place; for such a motion as this is most remote from\nessential mutation. And the wholeness of the elements admits in its\nparts the other motions of bodies, but the whole remains perfectly\nimmutable. The celestial allotments also, which proximately divide the\ninterval of the universe, codistribute likewise the heavens themselves.\nBut those in the sublunary region are primarily, indeed, allotted the\nparts which are in the interval of the universe, but afterwards they\nmake a distribution according to the definite vehicles of souls. And, in\nthe third place, they remain perpetually the same, according to the\ntotal parts of generation. The allotments of the Gods, therefore, do not\nchange, nor do they subsist differently at different times; for they\nhave not their subsistence proximately in that which may be changed.\n\n\u201cHow, therefore, do the illuminations of the Gods accede to these? How\nare the dissolutions of sacred rites effected? And how is the same place\nat different times under the influence of different spirits? May it not\nbe said, that since the Gods have perpetual allotments, and divide the\nearth according to divine numbers, similarly to the sections of the\nheavens, the parts of the earth also are illuminated, so far as they\nparticipate of aptitude. But the circulation of the heavenly bodies,\nthrough the figures which they possess, produce this aptitude; divine\nillumination at the same time imparting a power more excellent than the\nnature which is present with these parts of the earth. This aptitude is\nalso effected by nature herself as a whole, inserting divine impressions\nin each of the illuminated parts, through which they spontaneously\nparticipate of the Gods. For as these parts depend on the Gods, nature\ninserts in such of them as are different, different images of the\ndivinities. Times too cooperate in producing this aptitude, according to\nwhich other things, also, are governed; the proper temperature of the\nair likewise; and, in short, every thing by which we are surrounded\ncontributes to the increase and diminution of this aptitude. When,\ntherefore, conformably to a concurrence of these many causes, an\naptitude to the participation of the Gods is ingenerated in some one of\nthe natures which are disposed to be changed, then a certain divinity is\nunfolded into light, which, prior to this, was concealed through the\ninaptitude of the recipients; possessing, indeed, his appropriate\nallotment eternally, and always extending the participation of himself,\nsimilarly to illuminations from the sun, but not being always\nparticipated by sublunary natures, in consequence of their inaptitude to\nsuch participation. For as with respect to partial souls such as ours,\nwhich at different times embrace different lives, some of them, indeed,\nchoose lives accommodated to their appropriate Gods, but others foreign\nlives, through oblivion of the divinities to whom they belong; thus,\nalso, with respect to sacred places, some are adapted to the power which\nthere receives its allotment, but others are suspended from a different\norder. And on this account, as the Athenian guest in Plato says, some\nplaces are more fortunate, but others more unfortunate.\n\n\u201cThe divine Iamblichus, however, doubts how the Gods are said to be\nallotted certain places according to definite times, as, by Plato in the\nTim\u00e6us, Minerva is said to have been first allotted the guardianship of\nAthens, and afterwards of Sa\u00efs. For if their allotment commenced from a\ncertain time, it will also at a certain time cease. For every thing\nwhich is measured by time is of this kind. And farther still, was the\nplace which at a certain time they are allotted, without a presiding\ndeity prior to this allotment, or was it under the government of other\nGods? For if it was without a presiding deity, how is it to be admitted\nthat a certain part of the universe was once entirely destitute of\ndivinity? How can any place remain without the guardianship of superior\nbeings? And if any place is sufficient to the preservation of itself,\nhow does it afterwards become the allotment of some one of the Gods? But\nif it should be said, that it is afterwards under the government of\nanother God, of whom it becomes the allotment, this also is absurd. For\nthe second God does not divulse the government and allotment of the\nformer, nor do the Gods alternately occupy the places of each other, nor\nd\u00e6mons change their allotments. Such being the doubts on this subject,\nhe solves them by saying, that the allotments of the Gods remain\nperpetually unchanged, but that the participants of them at one time,\nindeed, enjoy the beneficent influence of the presiding powers, but at\nanother are deprived of it. He adds, that _these are the mutations\nmeasured by time, which sacred institutes frequently call the birthday\nof the Gods_.\n\n\nP. 23. _Which also the art of divine works perceiving, &c._ This art of\ndivine works is called _theurgy_, in which Pythagoras was initiated\namong the Syrians, as we are informed by Iamblichus in his Life of that\nphilosopher. (See p. 9 of my translation of that work.) Proclus also was\nskilled in this art, as may be seen in the Life of him by Marinus.\nPsellus, in his MS. treatise on D\u00e6mons, says, as we have before\nobserved, \u201cthat magic formed the last part of the sacerdotal science\u201d;\nin which place by magic he doubtless means that kind of it which is\ndenominated theurgy. And that theurgy was employed by the ancients in\ntheir mysteries, I have fully proved in my treatise on the Eleusinian\nand Bacchic Mysteries.[152] This theurgy, too, is doubtless the same as\nthe magic of Zoroaster, which Plato in the First Alcibiades says,\nconsisted in the worship of the Gods; on which passage the following\naccount of theurgy by Proclus was, I have no doubt, originally part of a\ncommentary. For the MS. Commentary of Proclus, which is extant on this\ndialogue, does not extend to more than a third part of it; and this\nDissertation on Theurgy, which is only extant in Latin, was published by\nFicinus the translator, immediately after his Excerpta, from this\nCommentary. So that it seems highly probable that the manuscript from\nwhich Ficinus translated his Excerpta, was much more perfect than that\nwhich has been preserved to us, in consequence of containing this\naccount of the theurgy of the ancients.\n\n\u201cIn the same manner as lovers gradually advance from that beauty which\nis apparent in sensible forms, to that which is divine; so the ancient\npriests, when they considered that there is a certain alliance and\nsympathy in natural things to each other, and of things manifest to\noccult powers; and discovered that all things subsist in all, they\nfabricated a sacred science from this mutual sympathy and similarity.\nThus they recognised things supreme in such as are subordinate, and the\nsubordinate in the supreme: in the celestial regions, terrene properties\nsubsisting in a causal and celestial manner; and in earth celestial\nproperties, but according to a terrene condition. For how shall we\naccount for those plants called heliotropes, that is, attendants on the\nsun, moving in correspondence with the revolution of its orb, but\nselenitropes, or attendants on the moon, turning in exact conformity to\nher motion? It is because all things pray, and hymn the leaders of their\nrespective orders; but some intellectually, and others rationally; some\nin a natural, and others after a sensible, manner. Hence the sunflower,\nas far as it is able, moves in a circular dance towards the sun; so that\nif any one could hear the pulsation made by its circuit in the air, he\nwould perceive something composed by a sound of this kind, in honour of\nits king, such as a plant is capable of framing. Hence, too, we may\nbehold the sun and moon in the earth, but according to a terrene\nquality; but in the celestial regions, all plants, and stones, and\nanimals, possessing an intellectual life according to a celestial\nnature. Now the ancients, having contemplated this mutual sympathy of\nthings, applied for occult purposes, both celestial and terrene natures,\nby means of which, through a certain similitude, they deduced divine\nvirtues into this inferior abode. For, indeed, similitude itself is a\nsufficient cause of binding things together in union and consent. Thus,\nif a piece of paper is heated, and afterwards placed near a lamp, though\nit does not touch the fire, the paper will be suddenly inflamed, and the\nflame will descend from the superior to the inferior parts. This heated\npaper we may compare to a certain relation of inferiors to superiors;\nand its approximation to the lamp, to the opportune use of things\naccording to time, place, and matter. But the procession of fire into\nthe paper, aptly represents the presence of divine light to that nature\nwhich is capable of its reception. Lastly, the inflammation of the paper\nmay be compared to the deification of mortals, and to the illumination\nof material natures, which are afterwards carried upwards, like the\nenkindled paper, from a certain participation of divine seed.\n\n\u201cAgain, the lotus, before the rising of the sun, folds its leaves into\nitself, but gradually expands them on its rising: unfolding them in\nproportion to the sun\u2019s ascent to the zenith; but as gradually\ncontracting them as that luminary descends to the west. Hence this\nplant, by the expansion and contraction of its leaves, appears no less\nto honour the sun, than men by the gesture of their eyelids, and the\nmotion of their lips. But this imitation and certain participation of\nsupernal light is not only visible in plants, which possess nothing more\nthan a vestige of life, but likewise in particular stones. Thus the\nsun-stone, by its golden rays, imitates those of the sun; but the stone\ncalled the eye of heaven, or of the sun, has a figure similar to the\npupil of an eye, and a ray shines from the middle of the pupil. Thus,\ntoo, the lunar stone, which has a figure similar to the moon when\nhorned, by a certain change of itself, follows the lunar motion. Lastly,\nthe stone called helioselenus, _i. e._ of the sun and moon, imitates,\nafter a manner, the congress of those luminaries, which it images by its\ncolour. So that all things are full of divine natures; terrestrial\nnatures receiving the plenitude of such as are celestial, but celestial\nof supercelestial essences;[153] while every order of things proceeds\ngradually, in a beautiful descent, from the highest to the lowest. For\nwhatever particulars are collected into one above the order of things,\nare afterwards dilated in descending, various souls being distributed\nunder their various ruling divinities.\n\n\u201cIn the next place, there are many solar animals, such as lions and\ncocks, which participate, according to their nature, of a certain solar\ndivinity; whence it is wonderful how much inferiors yield to superiors\nin the same order, though they do not yield in magnitude and power.\nHence it is said, that a cock is very much feared, and, as it were,\nreverenced, by a lion; the reason of which we cannot assign from matter\nor sense, but from the contemplation alone of a supernal order. For thus\nwe shall find that the presence of the solar virtue accords more with a\ncock than with a lion. This will be evident from considering that the\ncock, as it were, with certain hymns, applauds and calls to the rising\nsun, when he bends his course to us from the antipodes; and that solar\nangels sometimes appear in forms of this kind, who, though they are\nwithout shape, yet present themselves to us, who are connected with\nshape, in some sensible form. Sometimes, too, there are d\u00e6mons with a\nleonine front, who when a cock is placed before them, unless they are of\na solar order, suddenly disappear; and this because those natures which\nhave an inferior rank in the same order always reverence their\nsuperiors; just as many, on beholding the images of divine men, are\naccustomed, from the very view, to be fearful of perpetrating any thing\nbase.\n\n\u201cIn fine, some things turn round correspondent to the revolutions of the\nsun, as the plants which we have mentioned, and others after a manner\nimitate the solar rays, as the palm and the date; some the fiery nature\nof the sun, as the laurel; and others a different property. For, indeed,\nwe may perceive that the properties which are collected in the sun, are\nevery where distributed to subsequent natures constituted in a solar\norder, that is, to angels, d\u00e6mons, souls, animals, plants, and stones.\nHence the authors of the ancient priesthood discovered from things\napparent the worship of superior powers, while they mingled some things\nand purified others. They mingled many things indeed together, because\nthey saw that some simple substances possessed a divine property (though\nnot taken singly) sufficient to call down that particular power, of\nwhich they were participants. Hence, by the mingling of many things\ntogether, they attracted upon us a supernal influx; and by the\ncomposition of one thing from many, they produced an assimilation to\nthat one which is above many; and composed statues from the mixture of\nvarious substances conspiring in sympathy and consent. Besides this,\nthey collected composite odours, by a divine art, into one,\ncomprehending a multitude of powers, and symbolizing with the unity of a\ndivine essence; considering that division debilitates each of these, but\nthat mingling them together restores them to the idea of their exemplar.\n\n\u201cBut sometimes one herb, or one stone, is sufficient to a divine\noperation. Thus a thistle is sufficient to procure the sudden appearance\nof some superior power; but a laurel, raccinum (or a thorny kind of\nsprig), the land and sea onion, the coral, the diamond, and the jasper,\noperate as a safeguard. The heart of a mole is subservient to\ndivination, but sulphur and marine water to purification. Hence the\nancient priests, by the mutual relation and sympathy of things to each\nother, collected their virtues into one, but expelled them by repugnancy\nand antipathy; purifying when it was requisite with sulphur and bitumen,\nand sprinkling with marine water. For sulphur purifies, from the\nsharpness of its odour; but marine water on account of its fiery\nportion. Besides this, in the worship of the Gods, they offered animals,\nand other substances congruous to their nature; and received, in the\nfirst place, the powers of d\u00e6mons, as proximate to natural substances\nand operations; and by these natural substances they convoked into their\npresence those powers to which they approached. Afterwards they\nproceeded from d\u00e6mons to the powers and energies of the Gods; partly,\nindeed, from d\u00e6moniacal instruction, but partly by their own industry,\ninterpreting appropriate symbols, and ascending to a proper intelligence\nof the Gods. And lastly, laying aside natural substances and their\noperations, they received themselves into the communion and fellowship\nof the Gods.\u201d\n\nThe Emperor Julian alludes to this theurgical art, in the following\nextract from his Arguments against the Christians, preserved by Cyril.\n\u03a4\u03bf \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03b5\u03ba \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1, \u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03bd\n\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c1\u1fb3\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1ff3. \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u0395\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd, \u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019\n\u0391\u03b9\u03b3\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c3\u03c9\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. \u03a6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c6\u03c5\u03b7 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2. \u1f43 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b7\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\n\u0396\u03b5\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u03b7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b7\u03b8\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03c7\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c5\u03c6\u2019 \u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03be\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c7\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b2\u03bf\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd. _i. e._ \u201cFor the inspiration which\narrives to men from the Gods is rare, and exists but in a few. Nor is it\neasy for every man to partake of this, nor at every time. This has\nceased among the Hebrews, nor is it preserved to the present time among\nthe Egyptians. Spontaneous oracles, also, are seen to yield to temporal\nperiods. This, however, our philanthropic lord and father Jupiter\nunderstanding, that we might not be entirely deprived of communion with\nthe Gods, has given us observation through _sacred arts_, by which we\nhave at hand sufficient assistance.\u201d For the cause why, at stated times,\nsacred arts, oracles, and inspiration fail, see the additional notes to\nmy translation of Iamblichus\u2019s Life of Pythagoras.\n\n\nP. 24. _The participant of the rational soul becomes the cause of\nsuffering to the composite._ See my translation of Plotinus on the\nImpassivity of Incorporeal Natures, in which this is beautifully and\nprofoundly demonstrated. Proclus, also, in Tim. lib. v. p. 340,\nadmirably observes, that the motion of the nutritive power, and the\npercussions of sense, are the causes of the perturbation of the soul;\nbut that we must not fancy that the soul suffers any thing through\nthese. \u201cFor as if,\u201d says he, \u201csome one standing on the margin of a river\nshould behold the image and form of himself in the floating stream, he\nindeed will preserve his face unchanged; but the stream, being\nall-variously moved, will change the image, so that at different times\nit will appear to him different, oblique and erect, and perhaps divulsed\nand continuous. Let us suppose too, that such a one, through being\nunaccustomed to the spectacle, should think that it was himself that\nsuffered this distortion, in consequence of surveying his shadow in the\nwater, and thus thinking, should be afflicted and disturbed, astonished\nand impeded. After the same manner, the soul beholding the image of\nherself in body, borne along in the river of generation, and variously\ndisposed at different times, through inward passions and external\nimpulses, is indeed herself impassive, but thinks that she suffers; and\nbeing ignorant of, and mistaking her image for, herself, is disturbed,\nastonished, and perplexed.\u201d\n\n\nP. 35. _Since, however, the order of all the Gods is profoundly\nunited.\u2014\u2014For the very existence in them, whatever it may be, is the one\nof their nature._\n\nThe Gods are self-perfect superessential unities, so far as they are\nGods. For the principal subsistence of every thing is according to the\nsummit of its essence, and this in the Gods is _the one_, through which\nthey are profoundly united to each other and to _the one itself_, or the\nineffable principle of things, from which they are ineffably unfolded\ninto light. Concerning this union of them with each other, Proclus\nadmirably observes as follows, in his MS. Commentary on the Parmenides\nof Plato. \u201cAll these unities are in, and are profoundly united to, each\nother, and their union is far greater than the communion and sameness\nwhich subsist in beings. For in the latter there is indeed mutual\nmixture of forms, similitude, and friendship, and a participation of\neach other; but the union of the Gods, as being a union of unities, is\nmuch more uniform, ineffable, and transcendent: for here _all are in\nall_, which does not take place in forms or ideas;[154] and their\nunmingled purity, and the characteristic of each, in a manner far\nsurpassing the diversity in ideas, preserves their natures unconfused,\nand distinguishes their peculiar powers. Hence, some of them are more\nuniversal, and others more particular; some of them are characterised by\npermanency, others by progression, and others by conversion, or\nregression. Some, again, are generative, others anagogic, or of an\nelevating nature, and others demiurgic; and universally, there are\ndifferent characteristics of different Gods, _viz._ the connective,\nperfective, demiurgic, assimilative, and such others as are celebrated\nposterior to these; so that all are in all, and yet each is at the same\ntime separate and distinct.\n\n\u201cIndeed we obtain this knowledge of their union and characteristics from\nthe natures by which they are participated. For, with respect to the\nvisible Gods, we say that there is one soul of the sun, and another of\nthe earth, directing our attention to the visible bodies of these\ndivinities, which possess much variety in their essence, powers, and\ndignity among wholes. As, therefore, we apprehend the difference of\nincorporeal essences from sensible inspection, in like manner from the\nvariety of incorporeal essences, we are enabled to know something of the\nunmingled distinction of the first and superessential unities, and of\nthe characteristics of each. For each unity has a multitude suspended\nfrom its nature, which is either intelligible alone; or intelligible,\nand at the same time intellectual; or intellectual alone; and this last\nis either participated, or not participated; and this again, is either\nsupermundane, or mundane. And thus far does the progression of the\nunities extend.\u201d Shortly after he adds, \u201cAs trees by their extremities\nare rooted in the earth, and through this are earthly in every part, in\nthe same manner divine natures are rooted by their summits in _the one_,\nand each is a _unity_ and _one_, through its unconfused union with _the\none itself_.\u201d See more on this most important of all subjects in the\nnotes to my translation of the Parmenides.\n\n\nP. 50. _For as in all other things, such as are principal, primarily\nbegin from themselves, &c._\n\nHence every God begins his own energy from himself, which Proclus thus\ndemonstrates in Prop. 131 of his Elements of Theology. \u201cFor every God\nfirst exhibits the peculiarity of his presence with secondary natures in\nhimself; because he imparts himself to other things also according to\nhis own exuberant plenitude. For neither is deficiency adapted to the\nGods, nor fulness alone. For every thing deficient is imperfect, and not\nbeing itself perfect, it is impossible it should make another thing to\nbe perfect. But that which is full is alone sufficient to itself, and is\nnot yet prepared to communicate. It is necessary, therefore, that the\nnature which fills other things, and which extends to other things the\ncommunications of itself, should be superplenary, or exuberantly full.\nHence, if a divine nature fills all things from itself with the good\nwhich it contains in itself, it is exuberantly full. And if this be the\ncase, establishing first in itself the peculiarity which it imparts to\nothers, it will extend to them the communications of superplenary\ngoodness.\n\n\nP. 59. _It is requisite also to know what enthusiasm is, and how it is\nproduced._\n\nThe following account of enthusiasm, and of the different kinds of mania\nmentioned by Plato in the Ph\u00e6drus, from the Scholia of Hermeas on that\ndialogue, is extracted from the additional notes to my translation of\nProclus on the Tim\u00e6us, and is given in this place for the sake of the\nPlatonic English reader, who may not have that translation in his\npossession, as a valuable addition to what is here said by Iamblichus on\nthis subject.\n\n\u201cSince Plato here delivers four kinds of mania, by which I mean\nenthusiasm, and possession or inspiration from the Gods, _viz._ the\nmusical, the telestic, the prophetic, and the amatory, previous to the\ndiscussion of each, we must first speak about enthusiasm, and show to\nwhat part of the soul the enthusiastic energy pertains; whether each\npart of it possesses this energy; if all enthusiasm is from the Gods;\nand in what part of the soul it is ingenerated; or whether it subsists\nin something else more excellent than soul. Where, then, does that which\nis properly and primarily called enthusiasm subsist, and what is it? Of\nthe rational soul there are two parts, one of which is _dianoia_, but\nthe other _opinion_. Again, however, of dianoia, one part is said to be\nthe lowest, and is properly dianoia, but another part of it is the\nhighest, which is said to be the intellect of it, according to which the\nsoul especially becomes intellectual, and which some call intellect in\ncapacity. There is also another thing above this, which is the summit of\nthe whole soul, and most allied to _the one_, which likewise wishes well\nto all things, and always gives itself up to the Gods, and is readily\ndisposed to do whatever they please. This, too, is said to be _the one_\nof the soul, bears the image of the superessential one, and unites the\nwhole soul. But that these things necessarily thus subsist, we may learn\nas follows: The rational soul derives its existence from all the causes\nprior to itself, _i. e._ from intellect and the Gods. But it subsists\nalso from itself: for it perfects itself. So far, therefore, as it\nsubsists from the Gods, it possesses _the one_, which unites all its\npowers, and all the multitude of itself, and conjoins them to _the one\nitself_, and is the first recipient of the goods imparted by the Gods.\nIt likewise makes all the essence of the soul to be boniform, according\nto which it is connected with the Gods, and united to them. But so far\nas it subsists from intellect it possesses an intellectual nature,\naccording to which it apprehends forms, by simple projections, or\nintuitions, and not discursively; and is conjoined to the intellect\nwhich is above itself. And so far as it constitutes itself, it possesses\nthe dianoetic power, according to which it generates sciences and\ncertain theorems, energizes discursively, and collects conclusions from\npropositions. For that it constitutes or gives subsistence to itself, is\nevident from its imparting perfection to itself; since that which leads\nitself to perfection, and imparts to itself well-being, will much more\nimpart to itself existence. For well-being is a greater thing than\nbeing. If, therefore, the soul imparts that which is greater to itself,\nit will much more impart that which is less. Hence that which is\nprimarily, properly, and truly enthusiasm from the Gods, is effected\naccording to this one of the soul, which is above dianoia, and above the\nintellect of the soul; which one is at another time in a relaxed and\ndormant state. This one, likewise, becoming illuminated [by the Gods],\nall the life of the soul is illuminated, and also intellect, dianoia,\nand the irrational part, and the resemblance of enthusiasm is\ntransmitted as far as to the body itself.\n\n\u201cOther enthusiasms, therefore, are produced about other parts of the\nsoul,[155] certain d\u00e6mons exciting them,[156] or the Gods also, though\nnot without the intervention of d\u00e6mons. For dianoia is said to energize\nenthusiastically, when it discovers sciences and theorems in a very\nshort space of time, and in a greater degree than other men. Opinion,\nlikewise, and the phantasy, are said thus to energize when they discover\narts, and accomplish admirable works, such, for instance, as Phidias\neffected in the formation of statues, and another in another art, as\nalso Homer says[157] of him who made the belt of Hercules, \u2018that he\nneither did nor would artificially produce such another.\u2019 Anger,\nlikewise, is said to energize enthusiastically, when in battle it\nenergizes supernaturally.\n\n         Like Mars, when brandishing his spear, he raged.[158]\n\nBut if some one, yielding to desire, should eat of that which reason\nforbids, and through this should unexpectedly become well, you may say\nthat desire also, in this instance, energized enthusiastically, though\nobscurely; so that enthusiasm is likewise produced about the other parts\nof the soul. Enthusiasm, however, properly so called, is when this one\nof the soul, which is above intellect, is excited to the Gods, and is\nfrom thence inspired. But at different times it is possessed about the\naptitudes of itself, by different Gods; and is more or less possessed\nwhen intellect or dianoia is that which is moved. As, therefore, when we\ninquire what philosophy is, we do not always accurately define it, but\nfrequently, from an improper use of the word, call mathematics or\nphysics philosophy and science; we do the like also with respect to\nenthusiasm. For though it should be the phantasy which is excited, we\nare accustomed to call the excitation enthusiasm. Moreover, those who\nascribe enthusiasm to the temperatures of bodies, or the excellent\ntemperament of the air, or the ascendency of exhalations, or the\naptitudes of times and places, or the agency of the bodies that revolve\nin the heavens, speak rather of the cooperating and material causes of\nthe thing than of the causes of it properly so called. You have,\ntherefore, for the producing cause of enthusiasm, the Gods; for the\nmaterial cause, the enthusiastically energizing soul itself, or the\nexternal symbols; for the formal cause, the inspiration of the Gods\nabout _the one_ of the soul; and for the final cause, good.\n\n\u201cIf, however, the Gods always wish the soul what is good, why does not\nthe soul always energize enthusiastically? May we not say, that the Gods\nindeed always wish the soul what is good, but they are also willing that\nthe order of the universe should prevail, and that the soul, through\nmany causes, is not always adapted to enthusiasm, on which account it\ndoes not always enthusiastically energize? But some say that the\ntelestic art extends as far as to the sublunary region. If, therefore,\nthey mean that no one of the superlunary and celestial natures energizes\nin the sublunary region, they evidently assert what is absurd. But if\nthey mean that the Telest\u00e6, or mystic operators, are not able to\nenergize above the lunar sphere, we say, that if all the allotments of\nsouls are sublunary, their assertion will be true; but if there are also\nallotments of souls above the moon, as there are (for some are the\nattendants of the sun, others of the moon, and others of Saturn, since\nthe Demiurgus disseminated some of them into the earth, others into the\nmoon, and others elsewhere), this being the case, it will be possible\nfor the soul to energize above the moon. For what the whole order of\nthings impacts to the soul for a very extended period of time, this the\nsoul is also able to impart to itself for a short space of time, when\nassisted by the Gods through the telestic art. For the soul can never\nenergize above its own allotment, but can energize to the extent of it.\nThus, for instance, if the allotment of the soul was as far as to\nphilosophy, the soul would be able, though it should not choose a\nphilosophic but some other life, to energize in that life somewhat\nphilosophically. There are also said to be certain supermundane souls.\nAnd thus we have shown how the soul energizes enthusiastically.\n\nBut how are statues said to have an enthusiastic energy? May we not say,\nthat a statue being inanimate, does not itself energize about divinity,\nbut the telestic art, purifying the matter of which the statue consists,\nand placing round it certain characters and symbols, in the first place\nrenders it, through these means, animated, and causes it to receive a\ncertain life from the world; and, in the next place, after this, it\nprepares the statue to be illuminated by a divine nature, through which\nit always delivers oracles, as long as it is properly adapted. For the\nstatue, when it has been rendered perfect by the telestic art, remains\nafterwards [endued with a prophetic power] till it becomes entirely\nunadapted to divine illumination; but he who receives the inspiring\ninfluence of the Gods receives it only at certain times, and not always.\nBut the cause of this is, that the soul, when filled with deity,\nenergizes about it. Hence, in consequence of energizing above its own\npower, it becomes weary. For it would be a God, and similar to the souls\nof the stars, if it did not become weary. But the statue, conformably to\nits participations, remains illuminated. Hence the inaptitude of it\nentirely proceeds into privation, unless it is again, _de novo_,\nperfected and animated by the mystic operator. We have sufficiently\nshown, therefore, that enthusiasm, properly so called, is effected about\n_the one_ of the soul, and that it is an illumination of divinity.\n\n\u201cIn the next place, let us discuss the order and the use of the four\nmanias, and show why the philosopher makes mention of these alone. Is it\nbecause there are no other than these, or because these were sufficient\nfor his purpose? That there are, therefore, many other divine\ninspirations and manias Plato himself indicates as he proceeds, and\nprior to this, he makes mention of the inspiration from the Nymphs. But\nthere are also inspirations from Pan, from the mother of the Gods, and\nfrom the Corybantes, which are elsewhere mentioned by Plato. Here,\nhowever, he alone delivers these four manias; in the first place,\nbecause these alone are sufficient to the soul, in the attainment of its\nproper apocatastasis, as we shall afterwards show; and in the next\nplace, because he delivers the proximate steps of ascent to the soul.\nFor the gifts of the Gods to all beings are many and incomprehensible.\nBut now he delivers to us the energies of the Gods which are extended to\nsouls. He delivers, however, these four manias, not as if one of them\nwas not sufficient, and especially the amatory, to lead back the soul to\nits pristine felicity; but at present the series and regular gradation\nof them, and the orderly perfection of the soul, are unfolded. As,\ntherefore, it is possible for the tyrannic life, when suddenly changed,\nto become aristocratic, through employing strenuous promptitude and a\ndivine allotment, but the gradual ascent is from a tyrannic to a\ndemocratic, and from this to an oligarchic life, afterwards to a\ntimocratic, and at last to an aristocratic life, but the descent and\nlapse are vice versa; thus also here, the soul being about to ascend,\nand be restored to its former felicity, is in the first place possessed\nwith the musical mania, afterwards with the telestic, then with the\nprophetic, and, in the last place, with the amatory mania. These\ninspirations, however; conspire with, and are in want of, each other; so\nabundant is their communion. For the telestic requires the\nprophetic[159] mania; since the latter[160] interprets many things\npertaining to the former. And again, the prophetic requires the telestic\nmania. For the telestic mania perfects and establishes oracular\npredictions. Farther still, the prophetic uses the poetic and musical\nmania. For prophets, as I may say, always speak in verse. And again, the\nmusical uses the prophetic mania spontaneously, as Plato says. But what\noccasion is there to speak about the amatory and musical manias? For\nnearly the same persons exercise both these, as, for instance, Sappho,\nAnacreon, and the like, in consequence of these not being able to\nsubsist without each other. But it is very evident that the amatory\nmania contributes to all these, since it is subservient to enthusiasm of\nevery kind: for no enthusiasm can be effected without amatory\ninspiration. And you may see how Orpheus appears to have applied himself\nto all these, as being in want of, and adhering to, each other. For we\nlearn that he was most telestic, and most prophetic, and was excited by\nApollo; and besides this, that he was most poetic, on which account he\nis said to have been the son of Calliope. He was likewise most amatory,\nas he himself acknowledges to Mus\u00e6us, extending to him divine goods, and\nrendering him perfect. Hence he appears to have been possessed with all\nthe manias, and this by a necessary consequence. For there is an\nabundant union, conspiration, and alliance with each other, of the Gods\nwho preside over these manias, viz. of the Muses, Bacchus, Apollo, and\nLove.\n\n\u201cIt remains, therefore, that we should unfold the nature of each of the\nmanias, previously observing that those which are internal, and\noriginate from the soul itself, and give perfection to it, are of one\nkind; but the external energies of them, and which preserve the outward\nman, and our nature, are of another. The four external, however, are\nanalogous to the four internal manias. Let us consider, therefore, in\nthe first place, the internal, and which alone originate from the soul\nitself, and let us see what they effect in the soul. In order, likewise,\nthat this may become manifest, and also their arrangement, let us survey\nfrom on high, the descent, as Plato says, and defluxion of the wings of\nthe soul. From the beginning, therefore, and at first, the soul was\nunited to the Gods, and its unity to their one. But afterwards the soul\ndeparting from this divine union descended into intellect, and no longer\npossessed real beings unitedly, and in one, but apprehended and surveyed\nthem by simple projections, and, as it were, contacts of its intellect.\nIn the next place, departing from intellect, and descending into\nreasoning and dianoia, it no longer apprehended real beings by simple\nintuitions, but syllogistically and transitively, proceeding from one\nthing to another, from propositions to conclusions. Afterwards,\nabandoning true reasoning, and the dissolving peculiarity, it descended\ninto generation, and became filled with much irrationality and\nperturbation. It is necessary, therefore, that it should recur to its\nproper principles and again return to the place from whence it came. To\nthis ascent and apocatastasis, however, these four manias contribute.\nAnd the musical mania, indeed, leads to symphony and harmony, the\nagitated and disturbed nature of the parts of the soul, which were\nhurried away to indefiniteness and inaptitude, and were filled with\nabundant tumult. But the telestic mania causes the soul to be perfect\nand entire, and prepares it to energize intellectually. For the musical\nmania alone harmonizes and represses the parts of the soul; but the\ntelestic causes the whole of it to energize, and prepares it to become\nentire, so that the intellectual part of it may energize. For the soul,\nby descending into the realms of generation, resembles a thing broken\nand relaxed. And the circle of _the same_, or the intellectual part of\nit, is fettered; but the circle of _the different_, or the doxastic\npart, sustains many fractures and turnings. Hence, the soul energizes\npartially, and not according to the whole of itself. The Dionysiacal\ninspiration, therefore, after the parts of the soul are coharmonized,\nrenders it perfect, and causes it to energize according to the whole of\nitself, and to live intellectually. But the Apolloniacal mania converts\nand coexcites all the multiplied powers, and the whole of the soul, to\n_the one_ of it. Hence Apollo is denominated as elevating the soul from\nmultitude to _the one_. And the remaining mania, the amatory, receiving\nthe soul united, conjoins this one of the soul to the Gods, and to\nintelligible beauty. As the givers, therefore, of these manias are\ntranscendently united, and are in each other, the gifts also on this\naccount participate of, and communicate with, each other, and the\nrecipient, which is the soul, possesses an adaptation to all the gifts.\nThis, therefore, is the order, and these are the energies and powers\nwithin the soul itself, of these four manias.\n\n\u201cBut let us also consider their external energies on man, and what they\noutwardly effect about us. The musical mania, therefore, causes us to\nspeak in verse, and to act and be moved rythmically, and to sing in\nmetre, the splendid deeds of divine men, and their virtues and pursuits;\nand, through these, to discipline our life, in the same manner as the\ninward manias coharmonize our soul. But the telestic mania, expelling\nevery thing foreign, contaminating, and noxious, preserves our life\nperfect and innoxious, and banishing an insane and diabolical phantasy,\ncauses us to be sane, entire, and perfect, just as the internal telestic\nmania makes the soul to be perfect and entire. Again, the prophetic\nmania contracts into one the extension and infinity of time, and sees,\nas in one present now, all things, the past, the future, and the\nexisting time. Hence it predicts what will be, which it sees as present\nto itself. It causes us, therefore, to pass through life in an\nirreprehensible manner; just as the internal prophetic mania contracts\nand elevates all the multiplied and many powers and lives of the soul to\n_the one_, in order that it may in a greater degree be preserved and\nconnected. But the amatory mania converts young persons to us, and\ncauses them to become our friends, being instructive of youth, and\nleading them from sensible beauty to our psychical beauty, and from this\nsending them to intelligible beauty; in the same manner as the internal\namatory mania conjoins _the one_ of the soul to the Gods.\n\n\u201cAll the above mentioned manias, therefore, are superior to the prudent\nand temperate energies of the soul. Nevertheless, there is a mania which\nis coordinate with temperance, and which we say has in a certain respect\na prerogative above[161] it. For certain inspirations are produced,\naccording to the middle and also according to the doxastic reasons of\nthe soul, conformably to which artists effect certain things, and\ndiscover theorems beyond expectation, as Asclepius, for instance, in\nmedicine, and Hercules in the practic[162] life.\u201d\n\nAfterwards, in commenting on what Plato says of the mania from the\nMuses, viz. \u201cthat it adorns the infinite deeds of the ancients,\u201d Hermeas\nobserves, \u201cthat the inward energy in the soul of the poetic mania, by\napplying itself to superior and intelligible natures, imparts to\nsubordinate natures harmony and order; but that the external\ndivinely-inspired poetry celebrates the deeds of the ancients, and\ninstructs both its contemporaries and posterity, extending its energies\nevery where.\u201d But Plato says, \u201cthat he who without the divinely-inspired\nmania of the Muses expects to become a divine poet, will, by thus\nfancying, become himself imperfect, and his poetry will be vanquished\nand concealed by the poetry which is the progeny of mania.\u201d Hermeas\nadds, \u201cFor what similitude is there between the poetry of Ch\u00e6rilus and\nCallimachus, and that of Homer and Pindar? For the divinely-inspired\npoets, as being filled from the Muses, always invoke them, and extend to\nthem all that they say.\u201d For a fuller and most admirable account of the\npoetic mania, and of the different species of poetry by Proclus, see the\nnotes on the tenth book of the Republic, in my translation of Plato, and\nalso the Introduction to my translation of the Rhetoric, Poetic, and\nNicomachean Ethics of Aristotle.\n\nFrom what is here said by Hermeas about enthusiasm, the intelligent\nreader will easily see that none of the Roman poets, whose works have\nbeen transmitted to us, possessed that which is primarily, properly, and\ntruly enthusiasm, or that highest species of it in which _the one_ of\nthe soul is illuminated by a divine nature, and through transcendent\nsimilitude is united to it. As to Virgil, indeed, the prince of these\npoets, though he invokes the Muse in the beginning of the \u00c6neid, yet his\ninvocation of her is but a partial and secondary thing. For he only\ncalls on her to unfold to him the causes that involved a man of such\nremarkable piety as \u00c6neas in so many misfortunes:\n\n                      Musa, mihi causa memora, &c.\n\nAnd, confiding in his own genius, he begins his poem without soliciting\nsupernal inspiration,\n\n                        Arma, virumque cano, &c.\n\nTo which may be added, that this placing himself before the Muse,\nresembles the _ego et meus rex_ of Wolsey. On the contrary,\ndivinely-inspired poets, as Hermeas well observes, knock, as it were, at\nthe gates of the Muses, and thus being filled from thence exclaim,\n\n                         \u0395\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bd\u03c5\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u039c\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n\nAnd,\n\n                            \u039c\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b1\u2014\n\nAnd,\n\n                        \u0391\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5 \u039c\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1.\n\nFor being always extended to them, they dispose the whole of what they\nafterwards say as derived from their inspiring influence. With an\narrogance too, peculiar to the Romans, who, as a certain Greek poet[163]\nsays, were a people\n\n                         Beyond measure proud.\n\nHe associates himself, in his fourth Eclogue, with the Muses, as their\nequal:\n\n                 Sicelides Mus\u00e6, paulo majora canamus.\n\nWhich reminds me of what Suetonius relates of Caligula, that he would\nplace himself between the statues of Castor and Pollux, and confer\nprivately with Jupiter Capitolinus, fancying that he was intimate with,\nand of equal dignity with, these divinities. And as to the poets that\nhave lived since the fall of the Roman empire, it would be ridiculous to\nsuppose that they possessed this highest enthusiasm, as they did not\nbelieve in the existence of the sources from whence it is alone\ngenuinely derived.\n\n\nP. 67. _The attentive power of the soul._ This is that part or power of\nthe rational soul which primarily apprehends the operations of the\nsenses. For the rational soul not only has intellect in capacity, the\ndianoetic power, will, and choice, but another power, which is called by\nthe best of the Greek interpreters of Aristotle, as well as by\nIamblichus, \u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, _the attentive_. This power investigates and\nperceives whatever is transacted in man; and says, I understand, I\nthink, I opine, I am angry, I desire. And, in short, this attentive part\nof the rational soul passes through all the rational, irrational,\nvegetable, or physical powers. If, therefore, it is requisite it should\npass through all these powers, it will also proceed through the senses,\nand say, I see, I hear; for it is the peculiarity of that which\napprehends energies thus to speak. Hence if it is the attentive power\nwhich says these things, it is this power which apprehends the energy of\nsensibles; for it is necessary that the nature which apprehends all\nthings should be one, since man also is one. For if one part of it\nshould apprehend _these_, and another _those_ things, it is just, as\nAristotle says, as if you should perceive _this_ thing, and _I_ that. It\nis necessary, therefore, that the attentive power should be one\nindivisible thing.\n\nP. 74. _For the human soul is on all sides darkened by body, which he\nwho denominates the river of Negligence, or the water of Oblivion_,\n&c.\u2014\u2014_will not by such appellations sufficiently express its turpitude_.\n\u201cThe whole of generation, as well as the human body,\u201d says Proclus in\nTim. lib. v. p. 339, \u201cmay be called a river, through its rapid,\nimpetuous, and unstable flux. Thus also in the Republic, Plato calls the\nwhole genesiurgic nature the river of Lethe; in which are contained, as\nEmpedocles says, Oblivion, and the meadow of Ate; the voracity of\nmatter, and the light-hating world, as the Gods say; and the winding\nstreams under which many are drawn down, as the Chaldean oracles\nassert.\u201d\n\n\nP. 105. _But there are a certain few who by employing a certain\nsupernatural power of intellect, are removed from nature_, &c. The class\nto which these few belong is beautifully unfolded, as follows, by\nPlotinus, in the beginning of his Treatise on Intellect, Ideas, and real\nBeing. \u201cSince all men from their birth employ sense prior to intellect,\nand are necessarily first conversant with sensibles, some proceeding no\nfarther, pass through life, considering these as the first and last of\nthings, and apprehending that whatever is painful among these is evil,\nand whatever is pleasant is good; thus thinking it sufficient to pursue\nthe one and avoid the other. Those, too, among them who pretend to a\ngreater share of reason than others, esteem this to be wisdom, being\naffected in a manner similar to more heavy birds, who collecting many\nthings from the earth, and being oppressed with the weight, are unable\nto fly on high, though they have received wings for this purpose from\nnature. But others are in a small degree elevated from things\nsubordinate, the more excellent part of the soul recalling them from\npleasure to a more worthy pursuit. As they are, however, unable to look\non high, and as not possessing any thing else which can afford them\nrest, they betake themselves, together with the name of virtue, to\nactions and the election of things inferior, from which they at first\nendeavoured to raise themselves, though in vain. _In the third class is\nthe race of divine men_, who, through a more excellent power, and with\npiercing eyes, acutely perceive supernal light, to the vision of which\nthey raise themselves above the clouds and darkness, as it were, of this\nlower world, and there abiding despise every thing in these regions of\nsense; being no otherwise delighted with the place which is truly and\nproperly their own, than he who after many wanderings is at length\nrestored to his lawful country.\u201d See my translation of the whole of this\ntreatise.\n\n\nP. 117. _By mire, therefore, understand every thing corporeal-formed and\nmaterial._ \u201cMatter,\u201d says Simplicius in his Commentary on the first book\nof Aristotle\u2019s Physics, \u201cis nothing else than the mutation of sensibles,\nwith respect to intelligibles, deviating from thence, and carried\ndownwards to nonbeing. Those things, indeed, which are the properties of\nsensibles are irrational, corporeal, distributed into parts, and passing\ninto bulk and divulsion, through an ultimate progression into\ngeneration, _viz._ into matter; for matter is always truly the last\nsediment. Hence, also, the Egyptians call the dregs of the first life,\nwhich they symbolically denominate water, matter, being as it were a\ncertain mire. And matter is, as it were, the receptacle of generated and\nsensible natures, not subsisting as any definite form, but as the state\nor condition of subsistence; just as the impartible, the immaterial,\ntrue being, and things of this kind, are the constitution of an\nintelligible nature; all forms, indeed, subsisting both in sensibles and\nintelligibles, but in the former materially, and in the latter\nimmaterially; viz. in the one impartibly and truly, but in the other\npartibly and shadowy. Hence every form is in sensibles distributed\naccording to material interval.\u201d\n\n\nP. 120. _Through the innovation and illegality of the Greeks._\nIamblichus says, that through this innovation and illegality, both names\nand prayers have at present lost their efficacy. For during his time,\nand forborne centuries prior to it, the genuine religion of the Greeks\nwas rapidly declining, through their novelty and volatility, of which he\nhere complains. Hence the Emperor Julian, in the fragments of his\ntreatise against the Christians, preserved by Ciryl, says, speaking of\nthe Christians, \u201cIf any one wishes to consider the truth respecting you,\nhe will find that your impiety consists of the Judaic audacity, and the\n_indolence_ and _confusion of the heathens_. For deriving from both, not\nthat which is most beautiful, but the worst, you have fabricated a web\nof evils.\u2014\u2014Hence, from the innovation of the Hebrews, you have seized\nblasphemy towards the venerable Gods; but from our religion you have\ncast aside reverence to every nature more excellent than man, and the\nlove of paternal institutes.\u201d \u03a4\u03bf \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c5\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, \u03b5\u03ba \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u0399\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03ca\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b8\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd. \u03b5\u03be \u03b1\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\n\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03bb\u03ba\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5.\u2014\u2014\u0391\u03c0\u03bf \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u0395\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf \u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b7\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u00b7 \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd,\n\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5.\n\n\nP. 122. _Prior to truly existing beings, and total principles_, &c. Of\nthe two most ancient principles of all things mentioned in this chapter,\nas celebrated by Hermes, the first corresponds to _the one itself_ of\nPlato, and the second to _being itself_, or superessential being, the\nsummit of the intelligible triad; which two principles are beautifully\nunfolded by Proclus in the second and third books of his treatise on the\nTheology of Plato.\n\nP. 122. _He arranges the God Eneph prior to, and as the leader of, the\ncelestial Gods.\u2014But prior to this he arranges the impartible one, which\nhe says is the first paradigm, and which he denominates Eicton._ It\nappears to me that the former of these two divinities is the same with\nSaturn, who is the summit of the intellectual order of Gods; and that\nthe latter is _the animal itself_ of Plato, or the Phanes of Orpheus,\nwho subsists at the extremity of the intelligible triad. For the God\nEneph is said by Iamblichus to be an intellect intellectually perceiving\nitself, and converting intellections to itself; and these are the\ncharacteristics of Saturn. And the God Eicton is said to be the first\nparadigm, and this is also asserted of Phanes.\n\n\nP. 123. _For the books which are circulated under the name of Hermes,\ncontain Hermaic opinions, though they frequently employ the language of\nthe philosophers: for they were translated from the Egyptian tongue by\nmen who were not unskilled in philosophy._ A few only of these books are\nnow extant, but what is here said by Iamblichus sufficiently proves\ntheir authenticity, and that they contain the genuine doctrines of\nHermes. They have doubtless, however, been occasionally interpolated by\nsome of the early Christians, though not to that extent which modern\ncritics, and that mitred sophist Warburton, suppose.\n\n\nP. 123. _And such as have written concerning the decans._ The twelve\nparts, mentioned in the preceding chapter, into which the Egyptians\ndivide the heavens, are the twelve signs of the zodiac. But the\nthirty-six parts are the twelve houses of the planets, divided into\nthree other portions, which they call decans. Ptolemy, however, in his\nQuadripartite, subverts this doctrine of the Egyptians. Concerning these\ndecans, see Scaliger ad Manilium, Kircher II. parte Oedipi, and\nSalmasius de Annis climactericis. Gale also gives the following extract\nfrom Hermes relative to the decans, which had not been before published,\nand which he derived from a MS. copy of Stob\u00e6us in the possession of\nVossius. \u03a6\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c9 \u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1. \u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c9\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u2014\u2014\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bb\u03db \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03b6\u03c9\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5.\u2014\u2014\u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c9\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ca\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff3\n\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\u2014\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd.\u2014\u2014\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5\n\u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c9 \u03a4\u03b1\u03c4, \u03bf\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. \u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\n\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03c9\u03bb\u03c5\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u2019\n\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b7\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2. \u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03c9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c9\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff3 \u03bd\u03c5\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd.\u2014\u2014\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd. _i. e._ \u201cWe say, O son, that the body [of the\nuniverse] is comprehensive of all things. Conceive, therefore, this to\nbe as it were of a circular form.\u2014\u2014But under the circle of this body the\nthirty-six decans are arranged, as the media of the whole circle of the\nzodiac.\u2014\u2014These, likewise, must be understood to preside as guardians\nover every thing in the world, connecting and containing all things\u2014\u2014and\npreserving the established order of all things.\u2014\u2014Farther still,\nunderstand, O Tat, that these decans are impassive to the things which\nthe other stars suffer. For neither being detained, do they stop their\ncourse, nor being impeded do they recede, nor are they, like the other\nstars, concealed as with a veil by the light of the sun. But being\nliberated above all things, they comprehend the universe as the\nguardians and accurate inspectors of it, in the Nycthemeron [or the\nspace of night and day].\u2014\u2014They also possess, with respect to us, the\ngreatest power.\u201d\n\n\nP. 125. _So that what you add from Homer, \u201cthat the Gods are flexible,\u201d\nit is not holy to assert._ The words of Homer are \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9, and are to be found in Iliad ix. v. 493. But when Iamblichus\nsays, it is not holy to assert the Gods are flexible, he means that it\nis not holy according to the literal signification of the words; divine\nflexibility indicating nothing more than this, that those who through\ndepravity were before unadapted to receive the illuminations of the\nGods, and in consequence of this were subject to the power of avenging\nd\u00e6mons; when afterwards they obtain pardon of their guilt through\nprayers and sacrifices, and through methods of this kind apply a remedy\nto their vices, again become partakers of the goodness of the Gods. So\nthat divine flexibility is a resumption of the participation of divine\nlight and goodness by those who through inaptitude were before deprived\nof it.\n\n\nP. 130. _D\u00e6mons preside over the parts of our body._ Proclus in the\nfragments of his Ten Doubts concerning Providence, preserved by\nFabricius in the eighth vol. of his Bibliotheca Gr\u00e6ca, observes, \u201cThat\nthe Gods, with an exempt transcendency, extend their providence to all\nthings, but that d\u00e6mons, dividing their superessential subsistence,\nreceive the guardianship of different herds of animals, distributing the\nprovidence of the Gods, as Plato says, as far as to the most ultimate\ndivision. Hence some of them preside over men, others over lions or\nother animals, and others over plants; and still more partially, some\nare the inspective guardians of the eye, others of the heart, and others\nof the liver.\u201d He adds, \u201call things, however, are full of Gods, some of\nwhom exert their providential energies immediately, but others through\nd\u00e6mons as media: not that the Gods are incapable of being present to all\nthings, but that ultimate are themselves unable to participate primary\nnatures.\u201d Hence it must be said that there is one principal d\u00e6mon, who\nis the guardian and governor of every thing that is in us, and many\nd\u00e6mons subordinate to him, who preside over our parts.\n\n\nP. 134. _Hence it is requisite to consider how he may be liberated from\nthese bonds._ \u201cThe one salvation of the soul herself,\u201d says Proclus in\nTim. lib. v. p. 330, \u201cwhich is extended by the Demiurgus, and which\nliberates her from the circle of generation, from abundant wanderings,\nand an inefficacious life, is her return to the intellectual form, and a\nflight from every thing which naturally adheres to us from generation.\nFor it is necessary that the soul, which is hurled like seed into the\nrealms of generation, should lay aside the stubble and bark, as it were,\nwhich she obtained from being disseminated into these fluctuating\nrealms; and that purifying herself from every thing circumjacent, she\nshould become an intellectual flower and fruit, delighting in an\nintellectual life, instead of doxastic nutriment, and pursuing the\nuniform and simple energy of the period of sameness, instead of the\nabundantly wandering motion of the period which is characterized by\ndifference. For she contains each of these circles, and twofold powers.\nAnd of her horses one is good, but the other the contrary [as is said in\nthe Ph\u00e6drus]. And one of these leads her to generation, but the other\nfrom generation to true being. The one also leads her round the\ngenesiurgic, but the other round the intellectual circle. For the period\nof the same and the similar elevates to intellect, and an intelligible\nnature, and to the first and most excellent habit. But this habit is\nthat according to which the soul being winged governs the whole world,\nbecoming assimilated to the Gods themselves. And this is the universal\nform of life in the soul, just as that is the partial form, when she\nfalls into the last body, and becomes something belonging to an\nindividual, instead of belonging to the universe. The middle of these,\nalso, is the partial universal, when she lives in conjunction with her\nmiddle vehicle, as a citizen of generation. Dismissing, therefore, her\nfirst habit, which subsists according to an alliance to the whole of\ngeneration, and laying aside the irrational nature which connects her\nwith generation, likewise governing her irrational part by reason, and\nextending opinion to intellect, she will be circularly led to a happy\nlife from the wanderings about the regions of sense; which life those\nthat are initiated by Orpheus in the mysteries of Bacchus and\nProserpine, pray that they may obtain, together with the allotments of\nthe [celestial] sphere, and a cessation of evil. But if our soul\nnecessarily lives well, when living according to the circle of sameness,\nmuch more must this be the case with divine souls. It is, however,\npossible for our soul to live according to the circle of sameness, when\npurified, as Plato says. Cathartic virtue, therefore, alone must be\ncalled the salvation of souls; since this cuts off, and vehemently\nobliterates, material natures, and the passions which adhere to us from\ngeneration; separates the soul and leads it to intellect; and causes it\nto leave on earth the vehicles with which it is invested. For souls in\ndescending receive from the elements different vehicles, aerial,\naquatic, and terrestrial; and thus at last enter into this gross bulk.\nFor how, without a medium, could they proceed into this body from\nimmaterial spirits?\u201d\n\n\n                                THE END.\n\n\n\n\n                 _Printed by_ BALLANTYNE, HANSON & CO.\n                         _Edinburgh and London_\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  According to this theology, as I have elsewhere shown, in every order\n  of things, a triad is the immediate progeny of a monad. Hence the\n  intelligible triad proceeds immediately from the ineffable principle\n  of things. Phanes, or intelligible intellect, who is the last of the\n  intelligible order, is the monad, leader, and producing cause of a\n  triad, which is denominated \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, i. e. _intelligible,\n  and at the same time intellectual_. In like manner the extremity of\n  this order produces immediately from itself the intellectual triad,\n  Saturn, Rhea, and Jupiter. Again, Jupiter, who is also the Demiurgus,\n  is the monad of the supermundane triad. Apollo, who subsists at the\n  extremity of the supermundane order, produces a triad of liberated\n  Gods. (\u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9.) And the extremity of the liberated order\n  becomes the monad of a triad of mundane Gods. This theory, too, which\n  is the progeny of the most consummate science, is in perfect\n  conformity with the Chaldean theology. And hence it is said in one of\n  the Chaldean oracles, \u201c_In every world a triad shines forth, of which\n  a monad is the ruling principle_.\u201d (\u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b7\u03c2\n  \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9). I refer the reader, who is desirous of being fully\n  convinced of all this, to my translation of Proclus on the Theology of\n  Plato.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  _Viz._ The Philosophical Works of Proclus, together with those of\n  Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Syrianus, Ammonius, Damascius,\n  Olympiodorus, and Simplicius.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  \u0395\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b3\u1fc3 \u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bf\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n  \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff3.\n  \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf \u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf \u03b7\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\n  \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf \u03b1\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2. \u03ba\u1fb3\u03bd \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1fc3\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n  \u03b7\u03ca\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u1fb3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1, \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03c5\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9. Dissert. i. Edit. Princ.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  \u201cDiogenes Laertius says of Pythagoras, that he _charged his disciples\n  not to give equal degrees of honour to the Gods and heroes_. Herodotus\n  (in Euterpe) says of the Greeks, _That they worshiped Hercules two\n  ways, one as an immortal deity, and so they sacrificed to him; and\n  another as a Hero, and so they celebrated his memory_. Isocrates\n  (Encom. Helen.) distinguishes between the honours of heroes and Gods,\n  when he speaks of Menelaus and Helena. But the distinction is no where\n  more fully expressed than in the Greek inscription upon the statue of\n  Regilla, wife to Herodes Atticus, as Salmasius thinks, which was set\n  up in his temple at Triopium, and taken from the statue itself by\n  Sirmondus; where it is said, _That she had neither the honour of a\n  mortal nor yet that which was proper to the Gods_. \u039f\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2,\n  \u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1 \u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1. It seems by the inscription of Herodes, and\n  by the testament of Epicteta, extant in Greek in the _Collection of\n  Inscriptions_, that it was in the power of particular families to keep\n  festival days in honour of some of their own family, and to give\n  _heroical honours_ to them. In that noble inscription at Venice, we\n  find three days appointed every year to be kept, and a _confraternity_\n  established for that purpose with the laws of it. The first day to be\n  observed in honour of the Muses, and sacrifices to be offered to them\n  as _deities_. The second and third days in honour of the _heroes_ of\n  the family; between which honour and that of deities, they showed the\n  difference by the distance of time between them, and the preference\n  given to the other. But whereinsoever the _difference_ lay, that there\n  was a _distinction_ acknowledged among them appears by this passage of\n  Valerius, in his excellent oration, extant in Dionysius Halicarnass.\n  Antiq. Rom. lib. ii. p. 696. _I call_, says he, _the Gods to witness,\n  whose temples and altars our family has worshiped with common\n  sacrifices; and next after them, I call the Genii of our ancestors, to\n  whom we give \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2, the second honours next to the Gods_, (as\n  Celsus calls those, \u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2, _the due honours that\n  belong to the lower d\u00e6mons_.) From which we take notice, that the\n  Heathens did not confound all _degrees of divine worship_, giving to\n  the lowest object the same which they supposed to be due to the\n  _celestial deities_, or the _supreme_ God. So that if the distinction\n  of divine worship will excuse from idolatry, the Heathens were not to\n  blame for it.\u201d See Stillingfleet\u2019s Answer to a book entitled Catholics\n  no Idolaters, p. 510, 513, &c.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  See the extracts from Plutarch, in which this is shown, in the\n  Introduction to my translation of Proclus on the Theology of Plato.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  Answer to Catholics no Idolaters. Lond. 1676. p. 211.\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  Arrian. de Exped. Alex. l. iv. et Curt. lib. viii.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n  Vit. Artaxerx. \u00c6lian. Var. Hist. lib. i. c. 21.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  Justin. lib. vi.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  Panegyr.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  Lib. vii.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n  Lib. vi. cap. iii.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n  \u039a\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u03c5\u03ba \u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2. \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n  \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u03b5\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03b2\u03b9\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\n  \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u03b5\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\n  \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03ba\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. Cap. xviii.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\n  \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u1fb3\u03bd \u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u1fc3, \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u03c0\u2019 \u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\n  \u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u00b7\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b7 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. \u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03b5\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd,\n  \u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n  \u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b7\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b7\u03b4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c9\u03c2\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c9\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc3 \u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u1fb3 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd, \u03bf\u03c5 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. \u03bc\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\n  \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c9\u03bd\n  \u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03c2, \u03bf\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\n  \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. \u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n  \u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. Simplic. in Epict. Enchir. p. 207. Lond. 1670. 8vo.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n  Of the first principles, says Damascius in MS. \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd, the\n  Egyptians said nothing, but celebrated it as a darkness beyond all\n  intellectual conception, a thrice unknown darkness. \u03a0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd\n  \u03b1\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\n  \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n  For farther particulars respecting this most extraordinary man, see\n  the introduction to my translation of his Life of Pythagoras, and my\n  History of the Restoration of the Platonic Theology.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n  Iliad, lib. x. v. 493.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n  Gale has omitted to give the original of the sentence contained in the\n  brackets; the translation of which I have added from the answer of\n  Iamblichus to this epistle.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n  Here also the original is omitted by Gale, and the translation of it\n  is given by me from the text of Iamblichus.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n  The paragraph within the brackets is omitted in the original; but I\n  have supplied it from the following answer of Iamblichus to this\n  Epistle. This omission is not noticed by Gale.\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n  Here likewise the words within the brackets, which are omitted in the\n  original, are added from Iamblichus; but the omission is not noticed\n  by Gale.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n  The following testimony of an anonymous Greek writer, prefixed to the\n  manuscript of this treatise, which Gale published, proves that this\n  work was written by Iamblichus: \u0399\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\n  \u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a0\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2, \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bf\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\n  \u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd, \u03bf \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\n  \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u0399\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd,\n  \u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u0391\u03b9\u03b3\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u0391\u03b2\u03b1\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\n  \u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd,  \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd, \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1. _i. e._ \u201cIt is requisite to know that the philosopher\n  Proclus, in his Commentary on the Enneads of the great Plotinus, says\n  that it is the divine Iamblichus who answers the prefixed Epistle of\n  Porphyry, and who assumes the person of a certain Egyptian of the name\n  of Abammon, through the affinity and congruity of the hypothesis. And,\n  indeed, the conciseness and definiteness of the diction, and the\n  efficacious, elegant, and divine nature of the conceptions, testify\n  that the decision of Proclus is just.\u201d That this, indeed, was the\n  opinion of Proclus, is evident from a passage in his Commentaries on\n  the Tim\u00e6us of Plato, which has escaped the notice of Gale, and which\n  the reader will find in a note on the fourth chapter of the eighth\n  section of the following translation.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n  In the original \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2, which Gale erroneously\n  translates _contra communes opiniones_.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n  Damascius \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd says, \u201cthat _difference_ not existing, there will\n  not be knowledge.\u201d And, \u201cthat the contact as of one with one is above\n  knowledge.\u201d Likewise, \u201cthat the intellectual perception of the first\n  intelligible is without any difference or distinction. \u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\n  \u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2, \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. Et \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c6\u03b7 \u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bd, \u03c5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n  Alibi, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n  Between souls that always abide on high with purity, such as the souls\n  of _essential_ heroes, and those that descend into the regions of\n  mortality, and are defiled with vice, such as the souls of the greater\n  part of mankind, the class of _undefiled_ souls subsists. These\n  descend into the realms of generation, partly from that necessity by\n  which all human souls are, at times, drawn down to the earth, and\n  partly for the benevolent purpose of benefiting those of an inferior\n  class. But they descend without being defiled with vice. They are also\n  called heroes, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, _i. e._ according to _habitude_, in order\n  to distinguish them from _essential_ heroes. And, in the Pythagoric\n  Golden Verses, they are denominated the _terrestrial_ heroes.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n  For \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd in this place, it is necessary to read \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\n  \u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n  For \u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c7\u03b7 here, I read \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c7\u03b7.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n  _Viz._ In the plenitudes, or _total_ perfections, of the Gods.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n  _i. e._ Without habitude, proximity, or alliance to the things which\n  it illuminates.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n  What is here asserted by Iamblichus is perfectly true, and confirmed\n  by experience, _viz._ that the passions, when _moderately_ gratified,\n  are vanquished without violence. But Gale, not understanding this,\n  says, \u201cHoc adeo verum est, ac si dixisset, ignem extingues, oleum\n  addendo camino.\u201d For a moderate gratification of the passions does not\n  resemble the pouring of oil on fire; since this similitude is only\n  applicable to them when they are _immoderately_ indulged.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n  See my Dissertation on the Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n  In the original, \u039a\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b7, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u201c\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\u201d \u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u03c3\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u03b5\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, which Gale most\n  erroneously translates as follows: \u201cSed et ratio possit reddi\n  _supplicationum, quibus divinam iram procuramus_, si recte\n  intelligamus, qualis sit deorum ira.\u201d\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n  _Viz._ Punishments produced by the realms of generation, or the\n  sublunary region.\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n  It is well observed by Proclus, \u201cthat divine necessity concurs with\n  the divine will.\u201d \u0398\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc3 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u1fb3 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9. Procl. in\n  Tim. lib. i.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n  For \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd here, it is obviously necessary to read \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n  For \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf here, it is necessary to read \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n  For as a celestial body consists of light so pure and simple, that,\n  compared with a terrestrial body, it may be said to be immaterial;\n  hence, like the light of the sun, it cannot be divided, or in other\n  words, one part of it cannot be separated from another.\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n  For \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd in this place, I read \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1.\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n  The nature of _the one_, as it is _all-receptive_, and\n  _all-productive_ (\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c6\u03c5\u03b7\u03c2) exhibits in itself a certain\n  representation and indication of multitude; for it is all things prior\n  to all.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n  For the Gods are essentialized in _the one_; or, as Damascius\n  observes, speaking Chaldaically, in the paternal peculiarity. For in\n  every God there is father, power, and intellect; _father_ being the\n  same as hyparxis and _the one_.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n  _Viz._ According to the difference which there is between the\n  invisibility of Gods and the invisibility of d\u00e6mons.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n  The _cosmocrators_, or governors of the world, are the _planets_. See\n  the fourth book of my translation of Proclus on the Tim\u00e6us of Plato.\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n  For \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c9\u03c2 in this place, I read \u03b5\u03bc\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c9\u03c2. For the empyrean world,\n  according to the Chaldeans, is above the material worlds, and emits a\n  supermundane fire or light.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n  For \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 here, it is necessary to read \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n  These are terrestrial d\u00e6mons, to whom the Chaldean oracle alludes,\n  which says, \u201cThe wild beasts of the earth shall inhabit thy vessel,\u201d\n  _i. e._ as Psellus explains it, the composite temperature of the soul.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n  For \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd here, it seems requisite to read \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd. Gale\n  also, in his version, in this place has fictum.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n  _i. e._ The inexplicable theurgic signs or symbols.\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n  For \u03c5\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 here, it is necessary to read \u03b1\u03c5\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. For Iamblichus has\n  before shown that divine dreams are not produced in sleep, but either\n  when sleep leaves us, or between sleeping and waking, or when we are\n  perfectly awake. The necessity of this emendation is also evident from\n  what Iamblichus shortly after adds, viz. _that we must take away from\n  divine dreams the being asleep_; i. e. the being in a profound sleep.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n  In the original there is nothing more than \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5 in this\n  place; but the sense requires that we should read \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\n  \u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5. And this emendation is confirmed by the versions of Scutellius\n  and Gale.\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n  For \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba. \u03bb, I read \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba. \u03bb.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n  \u201cAmong the deeds of Pythagoras,\u201d says Iamblichus, in his Life of that\n  father of philosophy, (chap. xxv.) \u201cit is said, that once through the\n  spondaic [_i. e._ Doric] song of a piper he extinguished the rage of a\n  Tauromenian lad, who had been feasting by night, and intended to burn\n  the vestibule of his mistress, in consequence of seeing her coming\n  from the house of his rival. For the lad was inflamed and excited [to\n  this rash attempt] by a Phrygian song; which, however, Pythagoras most\n  rapidly suppressed. But Pythagoras, as he was astronomizing, happened\n  to meet with the Phrygian piper at an unseasonable time of night, and\n  persuaded him to change his Phrygian for a spondaic song; through\n  which the fury of the lad being immediately repressed, he returned\n  home in an orderly manner, though a little before this he could not be\n  in the least restrained, nor would, in short, bear any admonition; and\n  even stupidly insulted Pythagoras when he met him. When a certain\n  youth, also, rushed with a drawn sword on Anchilus, the host of\n  Empedocles, because, being a judge, he had publicly condemned his\n  father to death, and would have slain him as a homicide, Empedocles\n  changed the intention of the youth, by singing to his lyre that verse\n  of Homer,\n\n              Nepenthe, without gall, o\u2019er every ill\n              Oblivion spreads.\n                                              ODYSS. lib. 4.\n\n  And thus snatched his host Anchilus from death, and the youth from the\n  crime of homicide. It is also related, that the youth from that time\n  became the most celebrated of the disciples of Pythagoras. Farther\n  still, the whole Pythagoric school produced, by certain appropriate\n  songs, what they called _exartysis_, or adaptation; _synarmoga_, or\n  elegance of manners; and _epaphe_, or contact, usefully conducting the\n  dispositions of the soul to passions contrary to those which it before\n  possessed. For when they went to bed, they purified the reasoning\n  power from the perturbations and noises to which it had been exposed\n  during the day, by certain odes and peculiar songs, and by this means\n  procured for themselves tranquil sleep, and few and good dreams. But\n  when they rose from bed, they again liberated themselves from the\n  torpor and heaviness of sleep, by songs of another kind. Sometimes,\n  also, by musical sounds alone, unaccompanied with words, they healed\n  the passions of the soul and certain diseases, enchanting, as they\n  say, in reality. And it is probable that from hence this name _epode_,\n  _i. e._ enchantment, came to be generally used. After this manner,\n  therefore, Pythagoras, through music, produced the most beneficial\n  correction of human manners and lives.\u201d\n\n  Proclus also, in his MS. Commentary on the First Alcibiades of Plato,\n  observes, \u201cthat of musical instruments some are repressive, and others\n  motive; some are adapted to rest, and others to motion. The\n  repressive, therefore, are most useful for education, leading our\n  manners into order, repressing the turbulency of youth, and bringing\n  its agitated nature to quietness and temperance. But the motive\n  instruments are adapted to enthusiastic energy; and hence, in the\n  mysteries and mystic sacrifices, the pipe is useful; for the motive\n  power of it is employed for the purpose of exciting the reasoning\n  power to a divine nature. For here it is requisite that the irrational\n  part should be laid asleep, and the rational excited. Hence those that\n  instruct youth use repressive instruments, but initiators such as are\n  motive. For that which is disciplined is the irrational part; but it\n  is reason which is initiated, and which energizes enthusiastically.\u201d\n\n  See, likewise, on this subject, Ptolem. Harmonic, lib. iii. cap. 7 and\n  8, who observes among other things, \u201cthat our souls directly\n  sympathize with the energies of melody, recognizing, as it were, their\n  alliance to them\u2014and that at one time the soul is changed to a quiet\n  and repressed condition, but at another to fury and enthusiasm. \u03a4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2\n  \u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff3\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b7\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\n  \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c9\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2\u2014\u2014et, \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b7\u03c3\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bf\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31\u03c3\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd. And, in the\n  last place, see Plato in his Io, and Aristotle in his Politics.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n  Proclus in Polit. p. 865, says, \u201cthat the melodies of Olympus were the\n  causes of ecstasy.\u201d \u03a4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u039f\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7 \u03b5\u03ba\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n  The nature of the Corybantes, and the order to which they belong, is\n  unfolded as follows by Proclus, in Plat. Theol. lib. vi. cap. 13. \u201cTo\n  what has been said we shall add the theory pertaining to the\n  unpolluted[54] Gods among the ruling divinities [_i. e._ among the\n  divinities that subsist immediately after the intellectual Gods]. For\n  Plato also gives us an opportunity of mentioning these, since it is\n  necessary that the rulers and leaders of wholes should subsist\n  analogous to the intellectual kings, though they make their\n  progression in conjunction with division, and a separation into parts.\n  For as they imitate the paternal generative and convertive powers of\n  the intellectual kings, thus also it is necessary that they should\n  receive the immutable monads in themselves, according to the ruling\n  peculiarity, and establish over their own progressions secondary\n  causes of a guardian characteristic. And the mystic tradition, indeed,\n  of Orpheus makes mention of these more clearly. But Plato being\n  persuaded by the mysteries, and by what is performed in them,\n  indicates concerning these unpolluted Gods. And in the Laws, indeed,\n  he reminds us of the inflation of the pipe by the Corybantes, which\n  represses every inordinate and tumultuous motion. But in the\n  Euthydemus, he makes mention of the collocation on a throne, which is\n  performed in the Corybantic mysteries; just as in other dialogues he\n  mentions the Curetic order, speaking of the armed sports of the\n  Curetes. For the Curetes are said to surround and to dance round the\n  Demiurgus of wholes, when he was unfolded into light from Rhea. In the\n  intellectual Gods, therefore, the first Curetic order is allotted its\n  hypostasis. But the order of the Corybantes, which precedes Core\n  [_i. e._ Proserpine], and guards her on all sides, as the theology\n  says, is analogous to the Curetes in the intellectual order. If,\n  however, you are willing to speak conformably to Platonic custom,\n  because these divinities preside over purity, and preserve the Curetic\n  order undefiled, and also preserve immutability in their generations,\n  and stability in their progressions[55] into the worlds, on this\n  account they were called Corybantes. For \u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, _to koron_, is\n  every where significant of purity, as Socrates says in the Cratylus;\n  since, also, you may say that our mistress Core was no otherwise\n  denominated than from purity and an unpolluted life. But, in\n  consequence of her alliance to this order, she produces twofold\n  guardian triads, one in conjunction with her father, but the other\n  herself by and from herself, imitating in this respect the whole\n  vivific Goddess [Rhea] who constitutes the first Curetes.\u201d\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n  These Gods are called _unpolluted_, because they are the causes of\n  _purity_. For every God begins his own energy from himself, and is\n  that primarily which his effects are secondarily.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n  For \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 here, it is necessary to read \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n  Servius, in commenting on the \u201cMystica vannus Iacchi\u201d of Virgil,\n  observes, that the sacred rites of Bacchus pertained to the\n  purification of souls, \u201cLiberi patris sacra ad purgationem animarum\n  pertinebant.\u201d And elsewhere he says, \u201cAnim\u00e6 aere ventilantur, quod\n  erat in sacris Liberi purgationis genus.\u201d Euripides also, in Bacchis,\n  exclaims,\n\n                   \u03a9 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1 \u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd\n                   \u0395\u03b9\u03b4\u03c9\u03c2, \u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03b5\u03b9,\n                   \u039a\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u03bd,\n                   \u0395\u03bd \u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b2\u03b1\u03ba\u03c7\u03b5\u03c5\u03c9\u03bd\n                   \u039f\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n  _i. e._ \u201cO blessed and happy he, who knowing the mysteries of the\n  Gods, sanctifies his life, and purifies his soul, celebrating orgies\n  in the mountains, with holy purifications.\u201d\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n  \u201cIn the greatest diseases and labours (says Plato in the Ph\u00e6drus) to\n  which certain persons are sometimes subject _through the ancient\n  indignation of the Gods, in consequence of former guilt_, mania when\n  it takes place, predicting what they stand in need of, discovers a\n  liberation from such evils by flying to prayer and the worship of the\n  Gods. Hence, obtaining by this means purifications and the advantages\n  of initiation, it renders him who possesses it free from disasters\n  both for the present and future time, by discovering to him who is\n  properly insane, and possessed by divinity, a solution of the present\n  evils.\u201d And the Platonic Hermias beautifully unfolds the meaning of\n  this ancient indignation of the Gods, through former guilt, as\n  follows: \u201cOffences which have been committed for a great length of a\n  time, are more difficult to be washed away, and a liberation from them\n  can alone be effected by the telestic art; but those that have been\n  committed for a shorter time are more easily cured. Thus, also, we see\n  in the medical art, that maladies which have existed but for a little\n  time, if they are paid attention to at their commencement, are easily\n  remedied, but that when they are of long standing, they are more\n  difficultly healed. For the evil in this case becomes as it were\n  natural and confirmed by habit, and resembles an indurated ulcer. A\n  similar thing to this, therefore, takes place in guilty conduct.\n  Hence, if he who has committed an injury, immediately repents, and\n  acknowledges his guilt to him whom he has injured, he dissolves the\n  injury, and renders himself no longer obnoxious to justice. But when\n  some one dissolves an injury committed by his father, by restoring,\n  for instance, land which he had unjustly taken, he then makes himself\n  to be unobnoxious to justice, and lightens and benefits the soul of\n  his father. These things, however, the telestic art more swiftly\n  remedies. Moreover, if it should happen that the whole race of some\n  one successively use land which had originally been plundered, in this\n  case, the injury in the first place becomes immanifest, and on this\n  account is more difficult to be cured; and, in the next place, time\n  causes the evil to become as it were natural. Hence the Gods\n  frequently predict to men that they should go to such or such places,\n  and that an apology should be made to this man, who was never known to\n  them, and that he should be appeased, in order that thus they may\n  obtain a remedy and be liberated from their difficulties, and that the\n  punishments inflicted on them by the Furies may cease. The Gods,\n  however, predict, not for the purpose of taking away punishment, but\n  in order that justice may be done, and that we may be amended. The\n  telestic art, therefore, renders him better who possesses the mania\n  which it imparts, and through him saves also many others. Thus, for\n  instance, it is related of one who was cutting down an oak, and though\n  he was called on by a Nymph not to cut it down, yet persisted in\n  felling it, that he was punished for so doing by the avenging Furies,\n  that he was in want of necessary food, and that if at any time he met\n  with it, it was immediately taken from him, till one who possessed the\n  telestic art told him to raise an altar and sacrifice to this Nymph,\n  for thus he would be liberated from his calamities. Another person,\n  likewise, who had slain his mother, was freed from the punishment\n  inflicted on him by the Furies by migrating to another country,\n  conformably to the mandate of divinity, and there fixing his abode.\u201d\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n  This is because Rhea, the mother of the Gods, is a vivific Goddess,\n  being filled indeed (says Proclus, in Plat. Theol. lib. v. c. xi.)\n  from the father prior to her [_i. e._ from Saturn] with intelligible\n  and prolific power, but filling the Demiurgus [Jupiter], who derives\n  his existence from her, with vivific abundance.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n  See, concerning this oracle, Scholiastes Apollonii ad i. librum, et\n  Tacitus ii. Annal.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n  This oracle is mentioned by Herodotus, l. i., by Strabo, l. xiv. and\n  by Ammian. Marcell. lib. xxix.\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n  See Plutarch in his treatise De Defectu Oraculorum.\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n  See Plutarch in the above mentioned treatise. Concerning this luciform\n  spirit, or vehicle, which is immortal, and which is called by\n  Olympiodorus \u03b1\u03c5\u03b3\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, a _luciform vestment_, see my\n  Translation of the fifth book of Proclus on the Tim\u00e6us.\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n  It was usual for those who prophesied to carry a wand. Tiresias had a\n  sceptre, and Abaris an arrow. The Scholiast on Nicander says, that the\n  Egyptian and Scythian magi, and also many of those in Europe,\n  prophesied with wands. And Eustathius on the Odyssey, p. 1657,\n  observes, \u201cthat there is a certain magic in divine wands,\u201d esse in\n  \u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n  That is, to partake of an illumination, which has no \u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, or\n  _habitude_, to any thing material.\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n  For \u1f21 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 here, it seems necessary to read \u1f22 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1.\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n  Proclus, in his MS. Commentary on the First Alcibiades of Plato,\n  observes, \u201cthat in the mysteries some one of the more imperfect d\u00e6mons\n  assumes the appearance of one that is more perfect, and draws down to\n  himself souls that are not yet purified, and separates them from the\n  Gods. Hence, in the most holy of the mysteries [_i. e._ in the\n  Eleusinian mysteries], prior to the manifest presence of the God [who\n  is invoked], certain terrene d\u00e6mons present themselves to the view,\n  disturbing those that are initiated, divulsing them from undefiled\n  good, and exciting them to matter. On this account the Gods [in the\n  Chaldean oracles] order us not to behold them, till we are guarded by\n  the powers imparted by the mysteries. For they say,\n\n            \u039f\u03c5 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b2\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n  _i. e._ It is not proper you should behold them till your body is\n  purified by initiation. And they add the reason,\n\n              \u039f\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9,\n\n  _i. e._ For these d\u00e6mons alluring souls, always draw them away from\n  the mysteries.\n\n  Conformably to this, also, Proclus in Plat. Theol. p. 7, says, \u03c9\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\n  \u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\n  \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd,\n  \u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5, \u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\n  \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c6\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03c0\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 (\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n  \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd) \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7\n  \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u1fb3 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd. _i. e._ \u201cAs in the most holy of the mysteries, they\n  say, that the mystics at first meet with the multiform and many shaped\n  genera [_i. e._ with evil d\u00e6mons], which are hurled forth before the\n  Gods, but on entering the interior parts of the temple, unmoved, and\n  guarded by the mystic rites, they genuinely receive in their bosom\n  divine illumination, and divested of their garments, as they would\n  say, participate of a divine nature; the same mode, as it appears to\n  me, takes place in the speculation of wholes.\u201d\n\n  That mitred sophist, Warburton, as I have elsewhere called him, from\n  not understanding the former part of this latter extract from Proclus,\n  ridiculously translates the words \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u201cmultiform shapes and species, that prefigure\n  the first generation of the Gods.\u201d See his Divine Legation of Moses,\n  book ii. p. 152, 8vo. a work replete with distorted conceptions and\n  inaccurate translations. And yet, as great a sophist as Warburton was,\n  and notwithstanding the work I have just mentioned abounds with false\n  opinions, and such as are of the most pernicious kind, yet he is\n  compelled by truth to acknowledge, in book ii. p. 172, \u201cthat the\n  wisest and best men in the Pagan world are unanimous in this, that the\n  mysteries were instituted pure, and proposed the noblest end by the\n  worthiest means.\u201d But this by the way.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n  This divination according to the imagination through water, may be\n  illustrated by the following extract from Damascius (apud Photium):\n  \u0393\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fb3\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd. \u03c5\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\n  \u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c6\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c5\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03c9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n  \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n  \u03bf\u03c8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2. \u03b7 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\n  \u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2. _i. e._ \u201cThere was a sacred woman who possessed in a\n  wonderful manner a divinely gifted nature. For pouring pure water into\n  a certain glass cup, she saw in the water that was within the cup the\n  luminous appearances of future events, and from the view of these she\n  entirely predicted what would happen. But of this experiment we also\n  are not ignorant.\u201d\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n  \u201cThe Platonists,\u201d says Psellus (ad Nazianzenum) \u201cassert that light is\n  spread under divine substances, and is rapidly seized, without any\n  difficulty, by some who possess such an excellent nature as that which\n  fell to the lot of Socrates and Plotinus. But others, at certain\n  periods, experience a mental alienation about the light of the moon.\u201d\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n  Concerning this vehicle, in which the phantastic power resides, see\n  vol. ii. of my translation of Proclus on the Tim\u00e6us of Plato, p. 407;\n  the Introduction to my translation of Aristotle on the Soul; and the\n  long extract from Synesius on Dreams, in vol. ii. of my Proclus on\n  Euclid.\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n  _i. e._ The discursive energy of reason.\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n  Proclus in Plat. Polit. having observed that Socrates in the Ph\u00e6drus,\n  when he speaks in a divinely inspired manner, and poetically adopts\n  such names as are employed by the poets, and says that it is not\n  possible for one who speaks with an insane [_i. e._ with an inspired]\n  mouth to abstain from them, adds \u201cthat an alliance to the d\u00e6moniacal\n  genus, preparing the soul for the reception of divine light, excites\n  the phantasy to symbolic narration.\u201d \u0397 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2,\n  \u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\n  \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd. p. 396.\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n  These words of Heraclitus are also quoted by Plutarch in his treatise\n  De Defectu Oraculorum.\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n  For \u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd here, I read \u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n  Herodian, lib. viii. observes, that the Italians very much believed in\n  the indications of future events through the viscera: and Strabo, lib.\n  xvii. asserts the same thing.\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n  The auspices were said to be pestiferous when there was no heart in\n  the entrails, or when the head was wanting in the liver. This was the\n  case with the animals that were sacrificed by C\u00e6sar on the day in\n  which he was slain. The same thing also happened to Caius Marius, when\n  he was sacrificing at Utica. But when Pertinax was sacrificing, both\n  the heart and the liver of the victim were wanting, whence his death\n  was predicted, which happened shortly after. In the sacrifices,\n  likewise, which Marcellus performed prior to the unfortunate battle\n  with the Carthaginians, the liver was found to be without a head, as\n  Plutarch and Livy, Pliny and Valerius Maximus relate.\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n  Gale observes that this appears to have been a very ancient mode of\n  divination, and does not differ from that which is comprehended under\n  the term _wood_. Hence the Scholiast, in Nicandri Theriaca, says,\n  \u201cthat the Magi and Scythians predicted from the wood of the tamarisk.\u201d\n  For in many places they predict from rods. And that Dinon, in the\n  first book of his third Syntaxis, observes, \u201cthat the Median diviners\n  predict from rods.\u201d The Scholiast likewise adds the testimony of\n  Metrodorus, who says, \u201cthat the tamarisk is a most ancient plant, and\n  that the Egyptians, in the solemnity of Jupiter, were crowned with the\n  tamarisk, and also the Magi among the Medes.\u201d He adds, \u201cthat Apollo\n  also ordained that prophets should predict from this plant, and that\n  in Lesbos he wears a tamarisk crown, has often been seen thus adorned,\n  and that in consequence of this he was called by the Lesbians\n  \u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, _Muricaion_, [from \u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7, the tamarisk].\u201d What the\n  Scholiast here says, is confirmed by Herodotus, in lib. iv. and\n  elsewhere. To this, also, what every where occurs about prediction\n  from the laurel pertains. For if the leaves of the laurel when\n  committed to the fire made a noise, it was considered as a good omen,\n  but if they made none, a bad one.\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n  Gale, in his translation, has totally mistaken the meaning of the\n  original in this place, and it is not unusual with him to do so. For\n  the original is \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03be\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\n  \u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd. This he thus translates:\n  \u201cSed neque dicendum est fatidicum animum esse instrumentum intermedium\n  divinorum, sacerdotem vero invocantem esse tanquam efficientem\n  causam.\u201d In consequence, also, of this mistake, he erroneously\n  conceives that Iamblichus dissents from himself.\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n  God is all things causally, and is able to effect all things. He\n  likewise does produce all things, yet not by himself alone, but in\n  conjunction with those divine powers which continually germinate, as\n  it were, from him, as from a perennial root. Not that he is in want of\n  these powers to the efficacy of his productive energy, but the\n  universe requires their cooperation, in order to the distinct\n  subsistence of its various parts and different forms. For as the\n  essence of the first cause, if it be lawful so to speak, is full of\n  deity, his immediate energy must be deific, and his first progeny must\n  be Gods. But as he is ineffable and superessential, all things proceed\n  from him ineffably and superessentially. For progressions are\n  conformable to the characteristics of the natures from which they\n  proceed. Hence the cooperating energy of his first progeny is\n  necessary to the evolution of things into effable, essential, and\n  distinct subsistence. _The supreme God, therefore, is_, as Iamblichus\n  justly observes, _alone worthy of sedulous attention, esteem, the\n  energy of reason, and felicitous honour_; but this is not to the\n  exclusion of paying _appropriate_ attention and honour to other powers\n  that are subordinate to him, who largely participate of his divinity,\n  and are more or less allied to him. For in reverencing and paying\n  attention to these _appropriately_, we also attend to and reverence\n  him. For that which we sedulously attend to, honour, and esteem in\n  them, is that alone which is of a _deified_ nature, and is therefore a\n  portion, as it were, of the ineffable principle of all things.\n\n  Gale, from not understanding this, exclaims, \u201cif these things are\n  true, (_viz._ that God is alone worthy of sedulous attention, &c.) as\n  they are, indeed, most true, to what purpose, O Iamblichus, is that\n  mighty study and labour about d\u00e6mons and other spirits?\u201d But the\n  answer to this, by regarding what has been above said, is easy. For\n  mighty study and labour about these intermediate powers is necessary,\n  in order to our union with their ineffable cause. For as we are but\n  the dregs of the rational nature, and the first principle of things is\n  something so transcendent as to be even beyond essence, it is\n  impossible that we should be united to him without media; _viz._\n  without the Gods, and their perpetual attendants, who are on this\n  account _the true saviours of souls_. For in a union with the supreme\n  deity our true salvation consists.\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n  For these conceptions and these works teach us, that in reality we,\n  through sacred operations, approach to divinity, but that divinity\n  does not draw near to us. Hence Proclus in Alcibiad. \u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9,\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c8\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b7\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\n  \u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf. _i. e._ \u201cIn invocations of the Gods, and\n  when they are clearly seen, divinity, in a certain respect, appears to\n  approach to us, though it is we that are extended to him.\u201d\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n  Gale, in his note on these words, after having observed that Porphyry\n  says, that ignorance, darkness, and folly attend the soul in its lapse\n  into body; and that, according to Servius, the soul, when it begins to\n  descend into body, drinks of folly and oblivion, quotes also Iren\u00e6us\n  (lib. ii. c. 59), who makes the following stupid remark: \u201cSouls\n  entering into this life [it is said] drink of oblivion, before they\n  enter into bodies, from the d\u00e6mon who is above this ingress. But\n  whence do you know this, O Plato, since your soul also is now in body?\n  For if you remember the d\u00e6mon, the cup, and the entrance, it is\n  likewise requisite that you should know the rest.\u201d To this it is easy\n  to reply, that a soul purified and enlightened by philosophy, like\n  that of Plato, is able to recognise many things pertaining to its\n  preexistent state, even while in the present body, in consequence of\n  partially emerging from corporeal darkness and oblivion; but that it\n  is not capable of knowing every thing _distinctly_, till it is\n  perfectly liberated from the delirium of the body. And Gale, no less\n  sillily, adds, \u201crespondebunt Platonici h\u00e6c omnia cognovisse Platonem\n  ex narratione, qu\u00e6 circumferebatur de Ere Armenio, qui Lethes aquam\n  non biberat.\u201d _i. e._ \u201cThe Platonists will answer that Plato knew all\n  these things from the narration of the Armenian Erus [in the Republic]\n  who did not drink of the water of Lethe.\u201d For Plato did not obtain\n  this knowledge from any historical narration, but from possessing in a\n  transcendent degree the cathartic and theoretic virtues, and from\n  energizing enthusiastically (or according to a divinely inspired\n  energy) through the latter of these virtues.\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n  Agreeably to this, Porphyry says in his \u0391\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1, or\n  _Auxiliaries to Intelligibles_, \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1, \u03c4\u1fc3\n  \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7 \u03c4\u1fc3 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5.\u2014\u2014And \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b7 \u03b5\u03b4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff3\n  \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9. _i. e._ \u201cThe soul is bound to the body, by a conversion to the\n  passions arising from her union with it.\u201d And, \u201cthe soul binds herself\n  in the body.\u201d Philolaus also says, that the ancient theologists and\n  prophets asserted, \u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b6\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b5\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u201cthat the soul is conjoined to\n  the body on account of certain punishments, and that it is buried in\n  it as in a sepulchre.\u201d\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n  This assertion, that the nature which is perfectly exempt can never\n  become one with that which departs from itself, is opposed by Gale,\n  who says that man is composed of soul and body, and yet the latter is\n  far inferior to, and less excellent than, the former. But in adducing\n  this instance, he clearly shows that he does not understand what\n  Iamblichus says. For the human soul being a medium between a certain\n  impartible and partible essence, so far as it partakes of the partible\n  essence, has a certain alliance with body, and is not perfectly exempt\n  from it. But this is not the case with divine inspiration and our\n  soul: for the former in a perfectly exempt manner transcends the\n  latter. Let it, therefore, be granted him that, as Psellus says,\n  \u201chypostatic union conducts different essences or natures to one\n  hypostasis,\u201d yet such a union can never take place between two things,\n  one of which has no habitude, proximity, or alliance to the other.\n  Gale was led into this mistake by not properly attending to the words\n  _perfectly exempt_, \u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03be\u1fc3\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, which are here employed by\n  Iamblichus. But such mistakes are usual with Gale, from his inaccurate\n  and rambling manner of thinking. He likewise forgot, at the time he\n  was writing notes on Iamblichus, that he was the master of a grammar\n  school, and not a philosopher.\n\n  From what has been said, the absurdity, also, of their opinion is\n  immediately obvious, who fancy that the divine essence can be mingled\n  and united with the mortal nature. For if such a union were possible,\n  it would benefit and exalt the latter, but injure and degrade the\n  former. Just as in the union of the rational soul with the body (as\n  Proclus beautifully observes in Tim. p. 339), \u201cthe former, by verging\n  to a material life, kindles indeed a light in the body, but becomes\n  herself situated in darkness; and by giving life to the body, destroys\n  both herself and her own intellect [in as great a degree as these are\n  capable of receiving destruction]. For thus the mortal nature\n  participates of intellect, but the intellectual part of death, and the\n  whole, as Plato observes in the Laws, becomes a prodigy composed of\n  the mortal and the immortal, of the intellectual and that which is\n  deprived of intellect. For this physical law which binds the soul to\n  the body is the death of the immortal life, but vivifies the mortal\n  body.\u201d\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n  Here again Gale, from not understanding, opposes Iamblichus. For he\n  says, \u201csed nec hoc sequitur. S. Maximus, ubi hypostaticam unionem\n  declarat; h\u00e6c inquit, cernuntur in corpore et anima. Una ex utroque\n  confit hypostasis composita. Servat autem in se naturam perfectam\n  utriusque sc. corporis et anim\u00e6, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1.\u201d _i. e._ \u201cBut neither does\n  this follow. S. Maximus, where he unfolds hypostatic union, says these\n  things are perceived in the soul and body. One composite hypostasis is\n  produced from both. But this hypostasis preserves in itself the\n  perfect nature of each, and likewise the difference of these\n  unmingled, end the peculiarities unmingled and unconfused.\u201d This\n  hypostatic union, however; as we have before observed, cannot take\n  place between divine inspiration and the soul, because the former is\n  _perfectly exempt_ from the latter.\n\n  Gale adds, \u201cQu\u00e6ro autem quid velit Iamblichus per \u03b1\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd? Opinor,\n  \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd et \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u03be\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd. Non facile evincet \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd esse\n  \u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9, utpote qu\u00e6 sit transiens dei actio.\u201d _i. e._ \u201cI ask what\n  Iamblichus means by _both_. I think _the soul and divine inspiration\n  externally_ derived. But he will not easily prove that inspiration is\n  something eternal, because it is a transient energy of God.\u201d Gale is\n  right in his conjecture, that Iamblichus by the word _both_ in this\n  place, means the soul and divine inspiration externally derived; for\n  it can admit of no other meaning; but when he adds, that inspiration\n  cannot be something eternal, because it is a transient energy of\n  divinity, he shows himself to be as bad a theologist as he is a\n  philosopher. For God being an eternal, or rather a supereternal\n  nature, his energies have nothing to do with time and its transitive\n  progressions, but are stably simultaneous; so that transition does not\n  exist in his inspiring influence, but in the recipients of it, these\n  being of a temporal and mutable nature. Hence it is just as absurd to\n  call any energy of divinity transient, as it would be to say that the\n  light of the sun is transient, because it shines through diaphanous,\n  but not through opaque, substances.\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n  Hippocrates was of opinion that physicians ought to be skilled in\n  astronomy. And Galen derides those physicians who deny that astronomy\n  is necessary to their art. See his treatise entitled Si quis sit\n  Medicus eundem esse philosophum. And in lib. viii. cap. 20, of his\n  treatise De Ingenio Sanitatis, he calls physicians that are ignorant\n  of astronomy homicides. But by astronomy here, both Hippocrates and\n  Galen intended to signify what is now called astrology. Roger Bacon\n  also, in his Epistle to Pope Clement, says, \u201cOpera qu\u00e6 fiunt hic\n  inferius, variantur secundum diversitatem c\u0153lestium constellationum,\n  ut opera medicin\u00e6 et alkimi\u00e6.\u201d _i. e._ \u201cThe works which are performed\n  in these inferior realms are varied according to the diversity of the\n  celestial constellations, as, for instance, the works of medicine and\n  alchemy.\u201d If, however, as Galen says, and doubtless with great truth,\n  physicians that are ignorant of this are homicides, how numerous must\n  the medical homicides be of the present age!\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n  According to Proclus, in Alcibiad. Prior, there are three orders of\n  d\u00e6mons, the first of which are more _intellectual_, the second are of\n  a more _rational nature_, and the third, of which Iamblichus is now\n  speaking, are _various, more irrational, and more material_.\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n  Charonea is a country of Asia Minor, bordering on the river Meander;\n  and in it there are spiracles which exhale a foul odour. According to\n  Pliny, there are places of this kind in Italy, in the country of\n  Puteoli, now Puzzulo. In Amsanctus, also, a place in the middle of\n  Italy, in the country of the Samnites, there were sulphureous waters,\n  the steams of which were so pestilential, that they killed all who\n  came near them. Hence Cicero, in lib. i. De Divin. \u201cQuid enim? Non\n  videmus, quam sint varia terrarum genera? Ex quibus et mortifera\n  qu\u00e6dam pars est, ut et Amsancti in Hirpinis, et in Asia Plutonia.\u201d\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n  And these irrational spirits, so far as they contribute to wholes, are\n  more excellent than we are, though through being irrational they are\n  inferior to us.\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n  See the justice of providence in this respect most admirably defended\n  by Plotinus, in the first of his treatises on Providence, which\n  treatise forms one of the five books of Plotinus translated by me, in\n  8vo. 1794.\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n  In the original, \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, which Gale very\n  inadequately translates _proprium anim\u00e6 officium_.\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n  See my translation of Proclus on the Subsistence of Evil, at the end\n  of my translation of his six books on the Theology of Plato.\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n  See cap. 40, 41, 42, of Eunead iv. lib. iv. of Plotinus, from which\n  the doctrine of this chapter is derived.\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n  Agreeably to this, Plotinus, also, in Eunead iv. lib. iv. cap. 32,\n  says, \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c9\u03c2 \u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03bd \u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bd\n  \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c1\u03c9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7 \u03b5\u03b3\u03b3\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03c5\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, _i. e._ \u201cThis universe is one, and is as one\n  animal. But being an animal and completely effecting one thing,\n  nothing in it is so distant in place as not to be near to the nature\n  of the one animal, on account of its sympathy with the whole of\n  itself.\u201d\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n  This art is no other than magic, of which the following account, from\n  a very rare Greek manuscript of Psellus, _On D\u00e6mons according to the\n  Dogmas of the Greeks_, will, I doubt not, be acceptable to the reader,\n  as it illustrates what is here said by Iamblichus, and shows that\n  magic is not an empty name, but possesses a real power, though at\n  present this art seems to be totally lost. Ficinus published some\n  extracts from this manuscript in Latin; but Gale does not appear to\n  have had it in his possession. \u0397 \u03b3\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c7\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n  \u03b5\u03bd\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n  \u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03b1. \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c9\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b5\u03be \u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c5\u03c8\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1,\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c5\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n  \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n  \u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c6\u03b9\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n  \u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. \u03b7 \u03b4\u03b5\n  \u03bc\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u0395\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b5. \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1 \u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2. \u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\n  \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1.\n  \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b6\u03c9\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd, \u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b2\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd. \u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n  \u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c5\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c5\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1. \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03b2\u03b9\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c5\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\u00b4 \u03b1\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1. \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n  \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n  \u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u00b7 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03af \u03b4\u03b5\n  \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. _i. e._ \u201c_Goeteia_, or _witchcraft_, is\n  a certain art respecting material and terrestrial d\u00e6mons, whose images\n  it causes to become visible to the spectators of this art. And some of\n  these d\u00e6mons it leads up, as it were from Hades, but others it draws\n  down from on high; and these, too, such as are of an evil species.\n  _This art, therefore, causes certain phantastic images to appear\n  before the spectators._ And before the eyes of some, indeed, it pours\n  exuberant streams; but to others it promises freedom from bonds,\n  delicacies, and favours. They draw down, too, powers of this kind by\n  songs and incantations. But _magic_, according to the Greeks, is a\n  thing of a very powerful nature. _For they say that this forms the\n  last part of the sacerdotal science._ Magic, indeed, investigates the\n  nature, power, and quality of every thing sublunary; _viz._ of the\n  elements, and their parts, of animals, all-various plants and their\n  fruits, of stones, and herbs: and in short, it explores the essence\n  and power of every thing. From hence, therefore, it produces its\n  effects. And it forms statues which procure health, makes all-various\n  figures, and things which become the instruments of disease. It\n  asserts, too, that eagles and dragons contribute to health; but that\n  cats, dogs, and crows are symbols of vigilance, to which, therefore,\n  they contribute. But for the fashioning of certain parts wax and clay\n  are used. Often, too, celestial fire is made to appear through magic;\n  and then statues laugh, and lamps are spontaneously enkindled.\u201d\n\n  This curious passage throws light on the following extract from the\n  first book of the Metaphorsis of Apuleius: \u201cMagico susurranime, amnes\n  agiles reverti, mare pigrum colligari, ventos inanimes expirare, solem\n  inhiberi, lunam despumari, stellas evelli, diem tolli, noctem teneri.\u201d\n  _i. e._ \u201cBy magical incantation rapid rivers may be made to run back\n  to their fountains, the sea be congealed, winds become destitute of\n  spirit, the sun be held back in his course, the moon be forced to\n  scatter her foam, the stars be torn from their orbits, the day be\n  taken away, and the night be detained.\u201d For it may be inferred from\n  Psellus, that witches formerly were able to cause the _appearance_ of\n  all this to take place. It must also be observed, that this MS. of\n  Psellus _On D\u00e6mons_ forms no part of his treatise _On the Energy of\n  D\u00e6mons_, published by Gaulminus; for it never was published.\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n  Hence Iamblichus (apud Stob. Eclog. Phys. p. 114), says, \u039f\u03c5\u03c7 \u03b7 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\n  \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1. \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03b7 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u03bb\u03b7 \u03c9\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03a0\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff3\n  \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03c4\u03bf \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b5\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1fc3, \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03bf\u03c5\u03ba \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff3\n  \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, \u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c5\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5. \u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n  \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. _i. e._ \u201cThere is not the same\n  communion of all souls with bodies; but the soul which ranks as a\n  whole (as it also appeared to Plotinus), approaching to itself,\n  contains body in itself, but does not itself approach to body, nor is\n  comprehended by it. Partible souls, however, accede to bodies, and\n  give themselves up to them.\u201d\n\n  Conformably to this Porphyry also, in his \u0391\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1, No.\n  30, says, \u201cNo _whole_ and perfect essence is converted to its own\n  progeny; but all perfect natures are led back to the causes by which\n  they were generated, even as far as to the mundane body. For this\n  body, being perfect, is elevated to the mundane soul which is\n  intellectual, and through this is circularly moved. But the soul of\n  this body is elevated to intellect, and intellect to that which is\n  first. All things, therefore, extend themselves to this, beginning\n  from that which is last, according to the peculiar ability of each.\n  But the reduction to that which is first is either proximate or\n  remote. Hence these are not only said to aspire after divinity, but\n  also to enjoy him as far as they are able. But in partial natures, and\n  which are able to verge to many things, a conversion to their progeny\n  belongs. Hence in these guilt, in these disgraceful perfidy, is found.\n  Matter, therefore, defiles these, because they decline to it, at the\n  same time that they possess the power of converting themselves to a\n  divine nature.\u201d\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n  Iamblichus here alludes to the excellent treatise of Porphyry, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\n  \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03bc\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2, _On Abstinence from Animal Food_, from which\n  work the English reader will find several admirable extracts in one of\n  the Introductory Dissertations prefixed to my translation of Proclus\n  on Euclid.\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n  A celestial body, as is beautifully shown by Proclus in Tim. lib. iii.\n  contains the summits of all the elements, but is characterized by\n  vivific unburning fire; so that, in short, it is vitalized extension.\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n  The number sixty is no less manifest in the crocodile than in the sun.\n  For according to Aristotle (in Hist. Anim. lib. v.) the crocodile\n  brings forth sixty eggs of a white colour and sits on them for sixty\n  days.\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n  \u201cIsis,\u201d says Gale, \u201cis the moon. And a dog attended Isis when she was\n  diligently seeking her husband Osiris. But the moon perpetually seeks\n  the sun, and therefore that sagacious animal, the dog, accords with\n  Isis. In the solemnities, also, of Isis, dogs preceded the\n  procession.\u201d After this manner others besides Gale; who have not\n  penetrated the depths of the philosophy and theology of Plato, would\n  doubtless explain what is fabulously said of Isis. In reality,\n  however, Isis is not the moon, but one of the divinities that revolve\n  in the lunar sphere as an attendant on the moon, and who, in modern\n  language, is one of the satellites of that planet. For, as I have\n  shown from Proclus, in the Introduction to my translation of the\n  Tim\u00e6us of Plato, every planetary sphere is an \u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, _or a part of\n  the universe having a total subsistence_, i. e. _ranking as a whole_,\n  and is surrounded with a number of satellites analogous to the choir\n  of the fixed stars. Of these satellites, likewise, the leaders of\n  which are the planets, the first in order are Gods; after these,\n  d\u00e6mons revolve in lucid orbicular bodies; and these are followed by\n  partial souls, such as ours. See Proclus in Tim. p. 275 and p. 279\u00b7\n  This theory, as I have elsewhere observed, is the grand key to the\n  theology and mythology of the ancients, as it shows at one view why\n  the same God is so often celebrated with the names of other Gods;\n  which induced Macrobius to think that all the Gods were nothing more\n  than different powers of the sun. The English reader will find an\n  abundant confirmation of what is here said in the fourth book of my\n  translation of the above mentioned admirable work of Proclus.\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n  \u201cThe Egyptians,\u201d says Horapollo, lib. i. \u201cwishing to signify the moon,\n  paint a cynocephalus, because this animal is variously affected by the\n  course of the moon.\u201d\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n  In the original \u03bc\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7. \u201cThis word,\u201d says Gale, \u201cis written variously,\n  _viz._ as \u03bc\u03c5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7, \u03bc\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74, and \u03bc\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc6. It is also variously translated,\n  for it is either _rattus_, or _mus araneus_.\u201d Plutarch, in the fourth\n  book of his Symposiacs, Quest. 5, says, \u201cthat the Egyptians were of\n  opinion that darkness was prior to light, and that the latter was\n  produced from mice in the fifth generation, at the time of the new\n  moon. And further still, they assert that the liver of the weasel\n  diminishes in the wane of the moon.\u201d\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n  With the Egyptians many animals were sacred; for the worship of which\n  the following admirable apology is made by Plutarch in his treatise of\n  Isis and Osiris:\n\n  \u201cIt now remains that we should speak of the utility of these animals\n  to man, and of their symbolical meaning; some of them partaking of one\n  of these only, but many of them of both. It is evident, therefore,\n  that the Egyptians worshiped the ox, the sheep, and the ichneumon, on\n  account of their use and benefit, as the Lemnians did larks, for\n  discovering the eggs of caterpillars and breaking them; and the\n  Thessalians storks, because, as their land produced abundance of\n  serpents, the storks destroyed all of them as soon as they appeared.\n  Hence, also, they enacted a law, that whoever killed a stork should be\n  banished. But the Egyptians honoured the asp, the weasel, and the\n  beetle, in consequence of observing in them certain dark resemblances\n  of the power of the Gods, like that of the sun in drops of water. For\n  at present, many believe and assert that the weasel engenders by the\n  ear, and brings forth by the mouth, being thus an image of the\n  generation of reason [or the productive principle of things]. But the\n  genus of beetles has no female; and all the males emit their sperm\n  into a sphericle piece of earth, which they roll about, thrusting it\n  backwards with their hind feet, while they themselves move forward;\n  just as the sun appears to revolve in a direction contrary to that of\n  the heavens, in consequence of moving from west to east. They also\n  assimilated the asp to a star, as being exempt from old age, and\n  performing its motions, unassisted by organs, with agility and ease.\n  Nor was the crocodile honoured by them without a probable cause; but\n  is said to have been considered by them as a resemblance of divinity,\n  as being the only animal that is without a tongue. For the divine\n  reason is unindigent of voice, and proceeding through a silent path,\n  and accompanied with[102] justice, conducts mortal affairs according\n  to it. They also say it is the only animal living in water that has\n  the sight of its eyes covered with a thin and transparent film, which\n  descends from his forehead, so that he sees without being seen, which\n  is likewise the case with the first God. But in whatever place the\n  female crocodile may lay her eggs, this may with certainty be\n  concluded to be the boundary of the increase of the Nile. For not\n  being able to lay their eggs in the water, and fearing to lay them far\n  from it, they have such an accurate presensation of futurity, that\n  though they enjoy the benefit of the river in its access, during the\n  time of their laying and hatching, yet they preserve their eggs dry\n  and untouched by the water. They also lay sixty eggs, are the same\n  number of days in hatching them, and those that are the longest lived\n  among them live just so many years, which number is the first of the\n  measures employed by those who are conversant with the heavenly\n  bodies.\n\n  \u201cMoreover, of those animals that were honoured for both reasons, we\n  have before spoken of the dog. But the ibis, killing indeed all deadly\n  reptiles, was the first that taught men the use of medical evacuation,\n  in consequence of observing that she is after this manner washed and\n  purified by herself. Those priests, also, that are most attentive to\n  the laws of sacred rites, when they consecrate water for lustration,\n  fetch it from that place where the ibis had been drinking; for she\n  will neither drink nor come near unwholesome or infected water; but\n  with the distance of her feet from each other and her bill she makes\n  an equilateral triangle. Farther still, the variety and mixture of her\n  black wings about the white represents the moon when she is gibbous.\n\n  \u201cWe ought not, however, to wonder if the Egyptians love such slender\n  similitudes, since the Greeks also, both in their pictures and\n  statues, employ many such like resemblances of the Gods. Thus in Crete\n  there was a statue of Jupiter without ears. For it is fit that he who\n  is the ruler and lord of all things should hear no one.[103] Phidias\n  also placed a dragon by the statue of Minerva, and a snail by that of\n  Venus at Elis, to show that virgins require a guard, and that keeping\n  at home and silence become married women. But the trident of Neptune\n  is a symbol of the third region of the world, which the sea possesses,\n  having an arrangement after the heavens and the air. Hence, also, they\n  thus denominated Amphitrite and the Tritons. The Pythagoreans,\n  likewise, adorned numbers and figures with the appellations of the\n  Gods. For they called the equilateral triangle, Minerva Coryphagenes,\n  or begotten from the summit, and Tritogeneia because it is divided by\n  three perpendiculars drawn from the three angles. But they called _the\n  one_ Apollo, being persuaded to this by the obvious meaning of the\n  word Apollo [which signifies a privation of multitude] and by the\n  simplicity of the monad[104]. The duad they denominated strife and\n  audacity, and the triad justice. For since injuring and being injured\n  are two extremes subsisting according to excess and defect, justice,\n  through equality, has a situation in the middle. But what is called\n  the tetractys, being the number 36, was, as is reported, their\n  greatest oath, and was denominated the world. For this number is\n  formed from the composition of the four first even and the four first\n  odd numbers, collected into one sum.[105] If, therefore, the most\n  approved of the philosophers did not think it proper to neglect or\n  despise any occult signification of a divine nature when they\n  perceived it even in things which are inanimate and incorporeal, it\n  appears to me that they, in a still greater degree, venerated those\n  peculiarities depending on manners which they saw in such natures as\n  had sense, and were endued with soul, with passion, and ethical\n  habits. We must embrace, therefore, not those who honour these things,\n  but those who reverence divinity through these, as through most clear\n  mirrors, and which are produced by nature, in a becoming manner,\n  conceiving them to be the instruments or the art of the God by whom\n  all things are perpetually adorned. But we ought to think that no\n  inanimate being can be more excellent than one that is animated, nor\n  an insensible than a sensitive being, not even though some one should\n  collect together all the gold and emeralds in the universe. For the\n  divinity is not ingenerated either in colours, or figures, or\n  smoothness; but such things as neither ever did, nor are naturally\n  adapted to participate of life, have an allotment more ignoble than\n  that of dead bodies. But the nature which lives and sees, and has the\n  principle of motion from itself, and a knowledge of things appropriate\n  and foreign to its being, has certainly derived an efflux and portion\n  of that wisdom which, as Heraclitus says, considers how both itself\n  and the universe is governed. Hence the divinity is not worse\n  represented in these animals than in the workmanships of copper and\n  stone, which in a similar manner suffer corruption and decay, but are\n  naturally deprived of all sense and consciousness. This then I\n  consider as the best defence that can be given of the adoration of\n  animals by the Egyptians.\u201d\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n  Instead of \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2, I read \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n  _i. e._ Should be perfectly impartial.\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n  Instead of \u03b4\u03b9\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 as in the original, which is nonsense,\n  it is necessary to read, as in the above translation, \u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n  \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n  For 2 + 4 + 6 + 8 = 20; and 1 + 3 + 6 + 7 = 16; and 20 + 16 = 36.\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n  The cock was sacred to Apollo, and therefore its heart was believed to\n  be the instrument of divination in sacrifices. The chemic Olympiodorus\n  says, \u201cthat the cock obscurely signifies the essence of the sun and\n  moon.\u201d See, in the additional notes, what is said by Proclus\n  concerning the cock, in his treatise On Magic.\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n  It is well observed by Ficinus, in lib. i. Eunead. ii. Plotin. \u201cthat\n  the fire which is enkindled by us is more similar to the heavens than\n  other terrestrial substances. Hence it participates of light, which is\n  something incorporeal, is the most powerful of all things, is as it\n  were vital, is perpetually moved, divides all things, without being\n  itself divided, absorbs all things in itself, and avoids any foreign\n  mixture: and lastly, when the fuel of it is consumed, it suddenly\n  flies back again to the celestial fire, which is every where latent.\u201d\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n  For this vehicle is luciform, and consists of pure, immaterial,\n  unburning, and vivific fire. See the fifth book of my translation of\n  Proclus on the Tim\u00e6us.\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n  Proclus in Tim. lib. v. observes concerning the telestic art, or the\n  art which operates through mystic ceremonies, \u201cthat, as the oracles\n  teach, it obliterates through divine fire all the stains produced by\n  generation.\u201d \u0397 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03ba \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n  \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b7\u03bb\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9. Hence another Chaldean\n  oracle says, \u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03b9. _i. e._\n  \u201cThe mortal who approaches to fire will have a light from divinity.\u201d\n  Hercules, as we also learn from Proclus, was an example of this\n  telestic purification. For he says, \u0397\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c7\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n  \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, in Plat. Polit. p. 382. _i. e._ \u201cHercules being\n  purified through the telestic art, and participating of undefiled\n  fruits, obtained a perfect restoration to the Gods.\u201d\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n  In the original, \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03bf\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n  \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5. But it appears to me that we should\n  here read, conformably to the above translation, \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2,\n  \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03bf\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5.\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n  These media consist of the order of Gods denominated \u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9, or\n  _rulers_, and of those called \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9, or _liberated_; the former of\n  which also are denominated _supermundane_, and the latter\n  _supercelestial_, in consequence of existing immediately above the\n  celestial Gods. See, concerning these media, the sixth book of my\n  translation of Proclus on the Theology of Plato.\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n  Proclus on the First Alcibiades observes, \u201cthat about every God there\n  is an innumerable multitude of d\u00e6mons, who have the same appellations\n  with their leaders. And that these are delighted when they are called\n  by the names of Apollo or Jupiter, because they express in themselves\n  the characteristic peculiarity of their leading Gods.\u201d In the same\n  admirable commentary, also, he says, \u201cthat in the most holy of the\n  mysteries [_i. e._ in the Eleusinian mysteries], prior to the\n  appearance of divinity, the incursions of certain terrestrial d\u00e6mons\n  present themselves to the view, alluring the souls of the spectators\n  from undefiled good to matter.\u201d\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n  It is beautifully observed by Simplicius on Epictetus, \u201cthat as if you\n  take away letters from a sentence, or change them, the form of the\n  sentence no longer remains, thus also in divine works or words, if any\n  thing is deficient, or is changed, or is confused, divine illumination\n  does not take place, but the indolence of him who does this dissolves\n  the power of what is effected.\u201d \u03a9\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03b5\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\n  \u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u1fc3\u03c2, \u1f22 \u03c5\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u03b7\u03c2, \u03bf\u03c5\u03ba \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n  \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f22 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9 \u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9, \u1f22 \u03c5\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f22 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\n  \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2, \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03be\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\n  \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c1\u03b1\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1.\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n  Conformably to this, Servius, in his Annotations on the words\n\n                          Diique, de\u00e6que omnes\u2014\n\n  in the sixth book of the \u00c6neid observes, \u201cmore pontificum, per quos\n  ritu veteri in omnibus sacris post speciales Deos, quos ad ipsum\n  sacrum, quod fiebat necesse erat invocari, generaliter omnia numina\n  invocabantur.\u201d _i. e._ \u201cThis is spoken after the manner of the\n  pontiffs, by whom, according to ancient rites, in all sacrifices,\n  after the appropriate Gods whom it was necessary to invoke to the\n  sacrifice, all the divinities were invoked in general.\u201d And in his\n  Annotations on the seventh of the \u00c6neid he informs us, \u201cthat king\n  \u0152neus offered a sacrifice of first fruits to all the divinities but\n  Diana, who being enraged sent a boar [as a punishment for the\n  neglect].\u201d With respect to this anger, however, of Diana, it is\n  necessary to observe with Proclus, \u201cthat the anger of the Gods does\n  not refer any passion to them, but indicates our inaptitude to\n  participate of them.\u201d \u039f \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u03c5\u03ba \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\n  \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b7\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n  Plotinus was a man of this description, to whom, most probably,\n  Iamblichus alludes in what he now says.\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n  In the original \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2: but it is doubtless requisite to read\n  with Gale, \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. This I have translated _a certain divine\n  legislation_, because we are informed by Proclus, in Platon. Theol.\n  lib. iv. p. 206, \u201cthat \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 is connected with deity, and pertains\n  more to intelligibles; but that \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, which unfolds intellectual\n  distribution, is adapted to the intellectual fathers.\u201d \u039f \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2\n  \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff3, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf \u03b4\u03b5 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\n  \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd, \u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n  \u201cPerhaps,\u201d says Proclus, in MS. Comment, in Parmenid. \u201cit is necessary\n  that, as in souls, natures, and bodies, fabrication does not begin\n  from the imperfect; so likewise in matter, prior to that which is\n  formless, and which has an evanescent being, there is that which is in\n  a certain respect form, and which is beheld in one boundary and\n  permanency.\u201d This, therefore, will be the pure and divine matter of\n  which Iamblichus is now speaking. Damascius also says, that matter is\n  from the same order whence form is derived.\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n  This particular respecting the apples of gold is added from the\n  version of Scutellius, who appears to have translated this work from a\n  more perfect manuscript than that which was used by Gale.\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n  The conjecture of Gale, that for \u1f22 \u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u03bd \u0391\u03b2\u03c5\u03b4\u1ff3 in this place, we\n  should read \u1f22 \u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u03b4\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff3, is, I have no doubt, right. For the highest\n  order of intelligibles is denominated by Orpheus _the adytum_, as we\n  are informed by Proclus in Tim. By the arcanum in the adytum,\n  therefore, is meant the deity who subsists at the extremity of the\n  intelligible order (_i. e._ Phanes); and of whom it is said in the\n  Chaldean Oracles, \u201cthat he remains in the paternal profundity, and in\n  the adytum, near to the god-nourished silence.\u201d\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n  For \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1, I read \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba. \u03c4.\n  \u03bb.\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n  Here too for \u0391\u03b2\u03c5\u03b4\u1ff3 I read \u03b1\u03b4\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff3.\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n  Conformably to this, Martianus Capella also, in lib. ii. De Nuptiis\n  Philol. &c. speaking of the sun, says, \u201cIbi quandam navim, totius\n  natur\u00e6 cursus diversa cupiditate moderantem, cunctaque flammarum\n  congestione plenissimam, et beatis circumactam mercibus conspicatur.\n  Cui naut\u00e6 septem, germani tamen, suique similes pr\u00e6sidebant in prora.\n  Pr\u00e6sidebat in prora felis forma depicta, leonis in arbore, crocodili\n  in extimo.\u201d For these animals, the cat, the lion, and the crocodile\n  were peculiarly sacred to the sun. Martianus adds, \u201cIn eadem vero\n  rate, fons quidem lucis \u00e6there\u00e6, arcanisque fluoribus manans, in\n  totius mundi lumina fundebatur.\u201d _i. e._ \u201cIn the same ship there was a\n  fountain of etherial light flowing with arcane streams, which were\n  poured into all the luminaries of the world.\u201d Porphyry, likewise, in\n  his treatise De Antro Nymph. says, \u201cthat the Egyptians placed the sun\n  and all d\u00e6mons not connected with any thing solid or stable, but\n  raised on a sailing vessel.\u201d\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n  In the original \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd \u03b6\u03c9\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, which Gale erroneously translates\n  _animalia omnia_.\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n  Of this kind are the following names in Alexand. Trallian. lib. ii.\n  \u039c\u03b5\u03c5, \u0398\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5, \u039c\u03bf\u03c1, \u03a6\u03bf\u03c1, \u03a4\u03b5\u03c5\u03be, \u0396\u03b1, \u0396\u03c9\u03bd, \u0398\u03b5, \u039b\u03bf\u03c5, \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9, \u0393\u03b5, \u0396\u03b5, \u03a9\u03bd, i.e.\n  _Meu_, _Threu_, _Mor_, _Phor_, _Teux_, _Za_, _Z\u014dn_, _The_, _Lou_,\n  _Chri_, _Ge_, _Ze_, _\u014cn_. By these names Alexander Trallianus says,\n  the sun becomes fixed in the heavens. He adds, \u201cAgain behold the great\n  name \u0399\u03b1\u03be, (lege \u0399\u03b1\u03c9), \u0391\u03b6\u03c5\u03c6, \u0396\u03c5\u03c9\u03bd, \u0398\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03be, \u0392\u03b1\u03ca\u03bd, \u03a7\u03c9\u03c9\u03ba, i. e. _Ia\u014d_,\n  _Azuph_, _Zu\u014dn_, _Threux_, _Ba\u00efn_, _Ch\u014d\u014dk_.\u201d Among the Latins, also,\n  Cato, Varro, and Marcellus de Medicamentis Empiricis, there are\n  examples of these names; the power and efficacy of which, as Gale\n  observes, are testified by history, though it is not easy to explain\n  the reason of their operation.\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n  Proclus, in commenting on the following words of Plato in the Tim\u00e6us,\n  (see vol. i. p. 228, of my translation of his Commentary), _viz._\n  \u201cLet, therefore, this universe be denominated by us _all heaven_, or\n  _the world_, or whatever other appellation it may be especially\n  adapted to receive,\u201d beautifully thus observes concerning the _divine_\n  name of the world. \u201cAs of statues established by the telestic art,\n  some things pertaining to them are manifest, but others are inwardly\n  concealed, being symbolical of the presence of the Gods, and which are\n  only known to the mystic artists themselves; after the same manner,\n  the world being a statue of the intelligible, and perfected by the\n  father, has indeed some things which are visible indications of its\n  divinity; but others, which are the invisible impressions of the\n  participation of being received by it from the father, who gave it\n  perfection, in order that through these it may be eternally rooted in\n  real being. _Heaven_, indeed, and _the world_ are names significant of\n  the powers in the universe; the latter, so far as it proceeds from the\n  intelligible; but the former, so far as it is converted to it. It is,\n  however, necessary to know that _the divine name_ of its abiding\n  power, and which is a symbol of the impression of the Demiurgus,\n  according to which it does not proceed out of being, is ineffable and\n  arcane, and known only to the Gods themselves. For there are names\n  adapted to every order of things; those, indeed, that are adapted to\n  divine natures being divine, to the objects of dianoia being\n  dianoetic, and to the objects of opinion doxastic. This also Plato\n  says in the Cratylus, where he embraces what is asserted by Homer on\n  this subject, who admits that names of the same things are with the\n  Gods different from those that subsist in the opinions of men,\n\n             Xanthus by God, by men Scamander call\u2019d\n                                             ILIAD xx. v. 74.\n\n  And,\n\n            Which the Gods Chalcis, men Cymindis call.\n                                            ILIAD xiv. v. 291.\n\n  And in a similar manner in many other names. For as the knowledge of\n  the Gods is different from that of partial souls, thus also the names\n  of the one are different from those of the other; since divine names\n  unfold the whole essence of the things named, but those of men only\n  partially come into contact with them. Plato, therefore, knowing that\n  this preexisted in the world, omits the divine and ineffable name\n  itself, which is different from the apparent name, and with the\n  greatest caution introduces it as a symbol of the divine impression\n  which the world contains. For the words, \u201c_or whatever other\n  appellation_\u201d and \u201c_it may receive_\u201d are a latent hymn of the mundane\n  name, as ineffable, and as allotted a divine essence, in order that it\n  may be coordinate to what is signified by it. Hence, also, divine\n  mundane names are delivered by Theurgists; some of which are called by\n  them ineffable, but others effable; and some being significant of the\n  invisible powers in the world, but others of the visible elements from\n  which it derives its completion. Through these causes, therefore, as\n  hypotheses, the mundane form, the demiurgic cause and paradigm, and\n  the apparent and unapparent name of the world are delivered. And the\n  former name, indeed, is dyadic, but the latter monadic. For the words\n  \u201c_whatever other_\u201d are significant of oneness. You may also consider\n  _the ineffable_ name of the universe as significant of its abiding in\n  the father; but the name _world_, as indicative of its progression;\n  and _heaven_ of its conversion. But through the three, you have the\n  final cause, on account of which it is full of good; abiding\n  ineffably, proceeding perfectly, and converting itself to _the good_\n  as the antecedent object of desire.\u201d\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n  See the additional notes at the end of vol. v. of my translation of\n  Plato, where many of these names are beautifully unfolded from the MS.\n  Scholia of Proclus on the Cratylus.\n\nFootnote 127:\n\n  See the additional notes at the end of vol. v. of my translation of\n  Plato, and also the notes to my translation of Aristotle de\n  Interpretatione, in which the reader will find a treasury of recondite\n  information concerning names, from Proclus and Ammonius.\n\nFootnote 128:\n\n  Most historians give the palm of antiquity to the Egyptians. And\n  Lucian, in lib. De Syria Dea, says, \u201cthat the Egyptians are said to be\n  the first among men that had a conception of the Gods, and a knowledge\n  of sacred concerns.\u2014\u2014They were also the first that had a knowledge of\n  sacred names.\u201d \u0391\u03b9\u03b3\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03bd\n  \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b9\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\u2014\u2014\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b9\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b5\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\n  Conformably to this, also, an oracle of Apollo, quoted by Eusebius,\n  says that the Egyptians were the first that disclosed by infinite\n  actions the path that leads to the Gods. This oracle is as follows:\n\n       \u0391\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd,\n       \u03a7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n       \u0391\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c5\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\n       \u0391\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03be\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u03c6\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd,\n       \u039f\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c5\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u039d\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u03b9\u03b7\u03c2\u00b7\n       \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03a6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd,\n       \u0391\u03c3\u03c3\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, \u039b\u03c5\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u0395\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd (lege \u03a7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd) \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n           _i.e._ \u201cThe path by which to deity we climb,\n           Is arduous, rough, ineffable, sublime;\n           And the strong massy gates, through which we pass\n           In our first course, are bound with chains of brass.\n           Those men the first who of Egyptian birth\n           Drank the fair water of Nilotic earth,\n           Disclosed by actions infinite this road,\n           And many paths to God Ph\u0153nicians show\u2019d.\n           This road th\u2019 Assyrians pointed out to view,\n           And this the Lydians and Chaldeans knew.\u201d\n\n  For \u0395\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd in this oracle I read \u03a7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd, because I have no doubt\n  that either Aristobulus the Jew, well known for interpolating the\n  writings of the Heathens, or _the wicked Eusebius_ as he is called by\n  the Emperor Julian, have fraudulently substituted the former word for\n  the latter.\n\nFootnote 129:\n\n  Prayers of this kind are such as those of which Proclus speaks in Tim.\n  p. 65, when he says, \u201cThe _cathartic_ prayer is that which is offered\n  for the purpose of averting diseases originating from pestilence, and\n  other contagious distempers, _such as we have written in our\n  temples_.\u201d \u039a\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5 (\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u1f30, \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f22\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u2019 \u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 130:\n\n  Porphyry, in lib. ii. De Abstinentia, mentions Seleucus the\n  theologist, and Suidas says that Seleucus the Alexandrian wrote 100\n  books _concerning the Gods_.\n\nFootnote 131:\n\n  These books (\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9) were most probably nothing more than short\n  discourses, such as the treatises now are which are circulated as\n  written by Hermes, and which, as Iamblichus informs us, contain\n  Hermaic doctrines.\n\nFootnote 132:\n\n  A great priest, a scribe of the Adyta in Egypt, by birth a Sebanite,\n  and an inhabitant of Heliopolis, as he relates of himself.\n\nFootnote 133:\n\n  In the original, \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, which Gale\n  translates, prior etiam primo Deo, et rege [sole]. But the addition of\n  _sole_ in his translation is obviously most unappropriate and false:\n  for Iamblichus is evidently speaking of a deity much superior to the\n  sun.\n\nFootnote 134:\n\n  For \u0397\u03bc\u03b7\u03c6 here, Gale conjectures that we should read \u039a\u03bd\u03b7\u03c6 _Kneph_: for\n  Plutarch says that the unbegotten _Kneph_ was celebrated with an\n  extraordinary degree of veneration by the Egyptian Thebans.\n\nFootnote 135:\n\n  Hence the moon is said by Proclus to be \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1,\n  the self-visible statue or image of nature.\n\nFootnote 136:\n\n  Proclus in Tim. p. 117, cites what is here said as the doctrine of the\n  Egyptians, and also cites for it the authority of Iamblichus. But his\n  words are, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b7 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u0391\u03b9\u03b3\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n  (\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c5\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2) \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. \u03bf \u03b3\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u0399\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u0395\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b5\u03ba\n  \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9., _i. e._ \u201cMoreover the\n  doctrine of the Egyptians asserts the same things concerning matter.\n  For the divine Iamblichus relates that Hermes also produces matter\n  from essentiality.\u201d\n\nFootnote 137:\n\n  This is most probably the Ch\u00e6remon who is said by Porphyry, in lib.\n  iv. De Abstinentia, \u201cto be a lover of truth, an accurate writer, and\n  very conversant with the Stoic philosophy.\u201d \u03a4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019\n  \u0391\u03b9\u03b3\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c5\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03a3\u03c4\u03c9\u03ca\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1.\n\nFootnote 138:\n\n  This was the ninth king in the twenty-sixth dynasty of the Saitan\n  kings.\n\nFootnote 139:\n\n  This city is mentioned by Plato in the Tim\u00e6us, who represents Critias\n  as saying \u201cthat there is a certain region of Egypt, called Delta,\n  about the summit of which the streams of the Nile are divided, and in\n  which there is a province called Saitical.\u201d He adds, \u201cof this province\n  the greatest city is Sa\u00efs, from which also King Amasis derived his\n  origin. The city has a presiding divinity, whose name is, in the\n  Egyptian tongue, Neith, but in the Greek Athena, or Minerva.\u201d It is\n  singular that Gale, who is not deficient in philology, though but a\n  smatterer in philosophy, should have omitted to remark in his notes\n  this passage of Plato.\n\nFootnote 140:\n\n  Proclus, in MS. Comment, in Alcibiad. cites one of the Chaldean\n  oracles, which says,\n\n                   \u2014\u2014\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u2019 \u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n                   \u039a\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n  _i. e._ \u201cThere is a transmitting name which leaps into the infinite\n  worlds.\u201d And in his MS. Scholia in Cratyl. he quotes another of these\n  oracles, _viz._\n\n              \u0391\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u03b3\u03b9,\n              \u039a\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd.\n\n  _i. e._ \u201cThere is a venerable name with a sleepless revolution,\n  leaping into the worlds through the rapid reproofs of the father.\u201d\n\nFootnote 141:\n\n  For \u03b5\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 in this place, I read \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 142:\n\n  Gale, in his translation of this part, has entirely mistaken the\n  meaning of Iamblichus, which he frequently does in other places. For\n  the words of Iamblichus are, \u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03b4\u03b7 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03b2\u03b5\u03bb\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03bd \u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd\n  \u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u1fc3, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b7 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b7; and the version\n  of Gale is \u201cquando enim pars nostri melior operari incipiat, et ad sui\n  portionem meliorem recolligatur anima.\u201d For \u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 is not the\n  better part of the soul; but when the better parts of the soul\n  energize, the soul is then intimately converted to itself, and through\n  this conversion is elevated to superior natures.\n\nFootnote 143:\n\n  _Viz._ The science of calculating nativities.\n\nFootnote 144:\n\n  _i. e._ The joint risings and settings.\n\nFootnote 145:\n\n  _i. e._ Through a period of 300,000 years; and Procl. in Tim. lib. iv.\n  p. 277, informs us that the Chaldeans had observations of the stars\n  which embraced whole mundane periods. What Proclus likewise asserts of\n  the Chaldeans is confirmed by Cicero in his first book on Divination,\n  who says that they had records of the stars for the space of 370,000\n  years; and by Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. lib. xi. p. 118, who says that\n  their observations comprehended the space of 473,000 years.\n\nFootnote 146:\n\n  \u201cWe say,\u201d says Hephestion, \u201cthat a star is the lord of the geniture,\n  which has five conditions of the lord of the nativity in the\n  horoscope; _viz._ if that star receives the luminaries in their proper\n  boundaries, in their proper house, in their proper altitude, and in\n  the proper triangle.\u201d He also adds, \u201cand if besides it has contact,\n  effluxion, and configuration.\u201d See likewise Porphyry in Ptolem\u00e6um, p.\n  191.\n\nFootnote 147:\n\n  According to the Egyptians every one received his proper d\u00e6mon at the\n  hour of his birth; nor did they ascend any higher, in order to obtain\n  a knowledge of it. For they alone considered the horoscope. See\n  Porphyry apud Stob\u00e6um, p. 201, and Hermes in Revolut. cap. iv.\n\nFootnote 148:\n\n  In the original \u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b7 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b7\n  \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2. But instead of \u03b7 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2, which\n  appears to me to be defective, I read \u03b7 \u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 149:\n\n  For \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 here, I read \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 150:\n\n  In the original, by a strange mistake, \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd is inserted here\n  instead of \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, which is obviously the true reading. The\n  version of Gale also has _intelligibilium_.\n\nFootnote 151:\n\n  _i. e._ Man, considered as a rational soul, connected with the\n  irrational life; for this man has dominion in the realms of\n  generation.\n\nFootnote 152:\n\n  See the second edition of this work in Nos. XV. and XVI. of the\n  Pamphleteer.\n\nFootnote 153:\n\n  _i. e._ Of natures which are not connected with body.\n\nFootnote 154:\n\n  For in these, all are in each, but not all in all.\n\nFootnote 155:\n\n  By an unaccountable mistake here \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is inserted instead of\n  \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2; but the mistake is not noticed by the German editor of\n  these Scholia.\n\nFootnote 156:\n\n  And in consequence of this mistake, for \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf in this place, we must\n  read \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1.\n\nFootnote 157:\n\n  Odyss. xi. 612.\n\nFootnote 158:\n\n  Iliad xv. 605.\n\nFootnote 159:\n\n  For \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 here, it is necessary to read \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 160:\n\n  And for \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd read \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7.\n\nFootnote 161:\n\n  For \u03c5\u03c0\u03bf here, it is necessary to read \u03c5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1.\n\nFootnote 162:\n\n  The German editor of these Scholia, instead of \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc3 which is the\n  true reading in this place, and which he found in the manuscript,\n  absurdly substitutes for it \u03c0\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc3, as if Hercules was a pugilist.\n  See my translation of the Dissertation at Maximus Tyrius, on the\n  Practic and Theoretic Life.\n\nFootnote 163:\n\n  Vid. Olympiodor. in Aristot. Meteor.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n                  _BOOKS PUBLISHED BY BERTRAM DOBELL_\n\n                In Two Volumes. Post 8vo. Price 12s. 6d.\n\n\n                           THE POETICAL WORKS\n\n                                   OF\n\n                             JAMES THOMSON\n\n                           (\u201cBYSSHE VANOLIS\u201d)\n\n                        EDITED BY BERTRAM DOBELL\n\n              _With a Memoir and Portraits of the Author_\n\n\n  \u201c\u2018The City of Dreadful Night\u2019 ranks with Omar Khayyam\u2019s Rubaiyat as a\n  lyrical expression of despair, and it strikes a deeper note.\u201d\u2014_Daily\n  News._\n\n  \u201cThomson\u2019s work ... has intensity, it has grip, it has that power of\n  imaginative realism which gives to conceptions, embodied in words, the\n  arresting quality of objects present to sense.... He was a creator and\n  a singer, and in his creation and in his song his powers were finely\n  co-ordinated to imaginative ends. Even his most repellently\n  pessimistic verse has the fascination of gloomy grandeur, and when, as\n  in such poems as \u2018The Happy Poet\u2019 and \u2018Sunday up the River,\u2019 he rises\n  into an ampler ether, a diviner air, his verse has not only the\n  impressiveness of power, but the witchery of delight.\u201d\u2014_Westminster\n  Gazette._\n\n  \u201cMessrs. Reeves & Turner and Mr. Dobell have published in two volumes\n  the collected works of James Thomson, the poet of that \u2018melancholia\n  which transcends all wit,\u2019 as he terms it himself. The sad story of\n  his life is told with sympathy and fairness in a memoir by Mr. Bertram\n  Dobell, who has edited the work. The pessimistic and heterodox\n  utterances of the author of \u2018The City of Dreadful Night\u2019 were never\n  likely to be very popular, but this excellent edition will be very\n  welcome to many who know the strength and true poetry of many of his\n  writings.\u201d\u2014_Daily Telegraph._\n\n\n                   Crown 8vo, pp. 334. Price 7s. 6d.\n\n                              THE LIFE OF\n                             JAMES THOMSON\n\n                            BY HENRY S. SALT\n\n                           _WITH A PORTRAIT_\n\n\n  \u201cSuch is the story which Mr. Salt tells, and tells simply and\n  sympathetically. He \u2018had not the advantage of personal acquaintance\n  with James Thomson,\u2019 but he writes as if he had. There is a brighter\n  side to the picture, and to this also the biographer does justice. He\n  throws into relief the brighter qualities of this unhappy man; his\n  social gifts, his brilliant talk, his capacity of friendship,\n  receptivity and humour, and above all, his popularity. We are treated\n  to plenty of his letters, and these really are a treat.... But\n  whatever the demerits of Mr. Salt\u2019s criticism, this seems certain:\n  that the perusal of his \u2018Life of James Thomson\u2019 will prove in most\n  cases a prelude to the perusal of James Thomson\u2019s works.\u201d\u2014_Scots\n  Observer._\n\n\n                     Crown 8vo, pp. 282. Price 6s.\n\n                      POEMS, ESSAYS, AND FRAGMENTS\n\n                            BY JAMES THOMSON\n\n                                (\u201cB.V.\u201d)\n\n\n  \u201cOf the essays in this volume, the principal are those on Emerson,\n  Burns, Shelley, Blake, and Walt Whitman. All these contain solid,\n  though unequal work,\u2014the first named, for instance, reproducing\n  Emerson\u2019s peculiar _staccato_ style too closely to be pleasant. Those\n  on Blake and Walt Whitman are, we think, his best, though we are not\n  sure that we agree with Mr. Robertson in thinking that Thomson was\n  really more competent in prose than in poetry.\u201d\u2014_The Speaker._\n\n\n                                CATALOGUE\n\n                                   OF A\n\n                  COLLECTION OF PRIVATELY PRINTED BOOKS\n\n                        COMPILED AND ANNOTATED BY\n\n                              BERTRAM DOBELL\n\n _Parts I. to III. now ready. Price One Shilling each. To be completed in\n                           five or six parts._\n\n\n  \u201cMr. Bertram Dobell has now issued the second part of his \u2018Catalogue\n  of Privately Printed Books,\u2019 coming down to the letter N. This\n  consists, it may be as well to state, entirely of such books as are in\n  Mr. Dobell\u2019s own possession; but as he has been collecting them for\n  many years past, and as he appends copious notes to the titles, the\n  work will always possess a permanent bibliographical value. We observe\n  that he describes a large number of pieces printed at the private\n  press of Charles Clark, of Great Totham, Essex, which possess little\n  interest beyond curiosity; but he seems to have none of the dialect\n  specimens of Prince L. L. Buonaparte, and the only examples of Mr.\n  Daniel\u2019s Oxford Press, that we have found are under the head of Canon\n  Dixon [others have since been noticed]. The Appleton Press of Mr. W.\n  J. Linton is fairly represented, and so is that of the late\n  Halliwell-Phillipps. Altogether the curious reader will find here much\n  to interest him in one of the by-paths of literature.\u201d\u2014_The Academy._\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                          TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTES\n\n\n 1. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in\n      spelling.\n 2. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed.\n 3. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.\n 4. Enclosed bold or blackletter font in =equals=.","title":"Iamblichus on the mysteries of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Assyrians","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":89166}