Chapter XV: Section X: Chap. I (2)

“In the next place, let us discuss the order and the use of the four manias, and show why the philosopher makes mention of these alone. Is it because there are no other than these, or because these were sufficient for his purpose? That there are, therefore, many other divine inspirations and manias Plato himself indicates as he proceeds, and prior to this, he makes mention of the inspiration from the Nymphs. But there are also inspirations from Pan, from the mother of the Gods, and from the Corybantes, which are elsewhere mentioned by Plato. Here, however, he alone delivers these four manias; in the first place, because these alone are sufficient to the soul, in the attainment of its proper apocatastasis, as we shall afterwards show; and in the next place, because he delivers the proximate steps of ascent to the soul. For the gifts of the Gods to all beings are many and incomprehensible. But now he delivers to us the energies of the Gods which are extended to souls. He delivers, however, these four manias, not as if one of them was not sufficient, and especially the amatory, to lead back the soul to its pristine felicity; but at present the series and regular gradation of them, and the orderly perfection of the soul, are unfolded. As, therefore, it is possible for the tyrannic life, when suddenly changed, to become aristocratic, through employing strenuous promptitude and a divine allotment, but the gradual ascent is from a tyrannic to a democratic, and from this to an oligarchic life, afterwards to a timocratic, and at last to an aristocratic life, but the descent and lapse are vice versa; thus also here, the soul being about to ascend, and be restored to its former felicity, is in the first place possessed with the musical mania, afterwards with the telestic, then with the prophetic, and, in the last place, with the amatory mania. These inspirations, however; conspire with, and are in want of, each other; so abundant is their communion. For the telestic requires the prophetic[159] mania; since the latter[160] interprets many things pertaining to the former. And again, the prophetic requires the telestic mania. For the telestic mania perfects and establishes oracular predictions. Farther still, the prophetic uses the poetic and musical mania. For prophets, as I may say, always speak in verse. And again, the musical uses the prophetic mania spontaneously, as Plato says. But what occasion is there to speak about the amatory and musical manias? For nearly the same persons exercise both these, as, for instance, Sappho, Anacreon, and the like, in consequence of these not being able to subsist without each other. But it is very evident that the amatory mania contributes to all these, since it is subservient to enthusiasm of every kind: for no enthusiasm can be effected without amatory inspiration. And you may see how Orpheus appears to have applied himself to all these, as being in want of, and adhering to, each other. For we learn that he was most telestic, and most prophetic, and was excited by Apollo; and besides this, that he was most poetic, on which account he is said to have been the son of Calliope. He was likewise most amatory, as he himself acknowledges to Musæus, extending to him divine goods, and rendering him perfect. Hence he appears to have been possessed with all the manias, and this by a necessary consequence. For there is an abundant union, conspiration, and alliance with each other, of the Gods who preside over these manias, viz. of the Muses, Bacchus, Apollo, and Love.

“It remains, therefore, that we should unfold the nature of each of the manias, previously observing that those which are internal, and originate from the soul itself, and give perfection to it, are of one kind; but the external energies of them, and which preserve the outward man, and our nature, are of another. The four external, however, are analogous to the four internal manias. Let us consider, therefore, in the first place, the internal, and which alone originate from the soul itself, and let us see what they effect in the soul. In order, likewise, that this may become manifest, and also their arrangement, let us survey from on high, the descent, as Plato says, and defluxion of the wings of the soul. From the beginning, therefore, and at first, the soul was united to the Gods, and its unity to their one. But afterwards the soul departing from this divine union descended into intellect, and no longer possessed real beings unitedly, and in one, but apprehended and surveyed them by simple projections, and, as it were, contacts of its intellect. In the next place, departing from intellect, and descending into reasoning and dianoia, it no longer apprehended real beings by simple intuitions, but syllogistically and transitively, proceeding from one thing to another, from propositions to conclusions. Afterwards, abandoning true reasoning, and the dissolving peculiarity, it descended into generation, and became filled with much irrationality and perturbation. It is necessary, therefore, that it should recur to its proper principles and again return to the place from whence it came. To this ascent and apocatastasis, however, these four manias contribute. And the musical mania, indeed, leads to symphony and harmony, the agitated and disturbed nature of the parts of the soul, which were hurried away to indefiniteness and inaptitude, and were filled with abundant tumult. But the telestic mania causes the soul to be perfect and entire, and prepares it to energize intellectually. For the musical mania alone harmonizes and represses the parts of the soul; but the telestic causes the whole of it to energize, and prepares it to become entire, so that the intellectual part of it may energize. For the soul, by descending into the realms of generation, resembles a thing broken and relaxed. And the circle of _the same_, or the intellectual part of it, is fettered; but the circle of _the different_, or the doxastic part, sustains many fractures and turnings. Hence, the soul energizes partially, and not according to the whole of itself. The Dionysiacal inspiration, therefore, after the parts of the soul are coharmonized, renders it perfect, and causes it to energize according to the whole of itself, and to live intellectually. But the Apolloniacal mania converts and coexcites all the multiplied powers, and the whole of the soul, to _the one_ of it. Hence Apollo is denominated as elevating the soul from multitude to _the one_. And the remaining mania, the amatory, receiving the soul united, conjoins this one of the soul to the Gods, and to intelligible beauty. As the givers, therefore, of these manias are transcendently united, and are in each other, the gifts also on this account participate of, and communicate with, each other, and the recipient, which is the soul, possesses an adaptation to all the gifts. This, therefore, is the order, and these are the energies and powers within the soul itself, of these four manias.

“But let us also consider their external energies on man, and what they outwardly effect about us. The musical mania, therefore, causes us to speak in verse, and to act and be moved rythmically, and to sing in metre, the splendid deeds of divine men, and their virtues and pursuits; and, through these, to discipline our life, in the same manner as the inward manias coharmonize our soul. But the telestic mania, expelling every thing foreign, contaminating, and noxious, preserves our life perfect and innoxious, and banishing an insane and diabolical phantasy, causes us to be sane, entire, and perfect, just as the internal telestic mania makes the soul to be perfect and entire. Again, the prophetic mania contracts into one the extension and infinity of time, and sees, as in one present now, all things, the past, the future, and the existing time. Hence it predicts what will be, which it sees as present to itself. It causes us, therefore, to pass through life in an irreprehensible manner; just as the internal prophetic mania contracts and elevates all the multiplied and many powers and lives of the soul to _the one_, in order that it may in a greater degree be preserved and connected. But the amatory mania converts young persons to us, and causes them to become our friends, being instructive of youth, and leading them from sensible beauty to our psychical beauty, and from this sending them to intelligible beauty; in the same manner as the internal amatory mania conjoins _the one_ of the soul to the Gods.

“All the above mentioned manias, therefore, are superior to the prudent and temperate energies of the soul. Nevertheless, there is a mania which is coordinate with temperance, and which we say has in a certain respect a prerogative above[161] it. For certain inspirations are produced, according to the middle and also according to the doxastic reasons of the soul, conformably to which artists effect certain things, and discover theorems beyond expectation, as Asclepius, for instance, in medicine, and Hercules in the practic[162] life.”

Afterwards, in commenting on what Plato says of the mania from the Muses, viz. “that it adorns the infinite deeds of the ancients,” Hermeas observes, “that the inward energy in the soul of the poetic mania, by applying itself to superior and intelligible natures, imparts to subordinate natures harmony and order; but that the external divinely-inspired poetry celebrates the deeds of the ancients, and instructs both its contemporaries and posterity, extending its energies every where.” But Plato says, “that he who without the divinely-inspired mania of the Muses expects to become a divine poet, will, by thus fancying, become himself imperfect, and his poetry will be vanquished and concealed by the poetry which is the progeny of mania.” Hermeas adds, “For what similitude is there between the poetry of Chærilus and Callimachus, and that of Homer and Pindar? For the divinely-inspired poets, as being filled from the Muses, always invoke them, and extend to them all that they say.” For a fuller and most admirable account of the poetic mania, and of the different species of poetry by Proclus, see the notes on the tenth book of the Republic, in my translation of Plato, and also the Introduction to my translation of the Rhetoric, Poetic, and Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle.

From what is here said by Hermeas about enthusiasm, the intelligent reader will easily see that none of the Roman poets, whose works have been transmitted to us, possessed that which is primarily, properly, and truly enthusiasm, or that highest species of it in which _the one_ of the soul is illuminated by a divine nature, and through transcendent similitude is united to it. As to Virgil, indeed, the prince of these poets, though he invokes the Muse in the beginning of the Æneid, yet his invocation of her is but a partial and secondary thing. For he only calls on her to unfold to him the causes that involved a man of such remarkable piety as Æneas in so many misfortunes:

Musa, mihi causa memora, &c.

And, confiding in his own genius, he begins his poem without soliciting supernal inspiration,

Arma, virumque cano, &c.

To which may be added, that this placing himself before the Muse, resembles the _ego et meus rex_ of Wolsey. On the contrary, divinely-inspired poets, as Hermeas well observes, knock, as it were, at the gates of the Muses, and thus being filled from thence exclaim,

Εσπετε νυν μοι Μουσαι

And,

Μηνιν αειδε θεα—

And,

Ανδρα μοι εννεπε Μουσα.

For being always extended to them, they dispose the whole of what they afterwards say as derived from their inspiring influence. With an arrogance too, peculiar to the Romans, who, as a certain Greek poet[163] says, were a people

Beyond measure proud.

He associates himself, in his fourth Eclogue, with the Muses, as their equal:

Sicelides Musæ, paulo majora canamus.

Which reminds me of what Suetonius relates of Caligula, that he would place himself between the statues of Castor and Pollux, and confer privately with Jupiter Capitolinus, fancying that he was intimate with, and of equal dignity with, these divinities. And as to the poets that have lived since the fall of the Roman empire, it would be ridiculous to suppose that they possessed this highest enthusiasm, as they did not believe in the existence of the sources from whence it is alone genuinely derived.

P. 67. _The attentive power of the soul._ This is that part or power of the rational soul which primarily apprehends the operations of the senses. For the rational soul not only has intellect in capacity, the dianoetic power, will, and choice, but another power, which is called by the best of the Greek interpreters of Aristotle, as well as by Iamblichus, το προσεκτικον, _the attentive_. This power investigates and perceives whatever is transacted in man; and says, I understand, I think, I opine, I am angry, I desire. And, in short, this attentive part of the rational soul passes through all the rational, irrational, vegetable, or physical powers. If, therefore, it is requisite it should pass through all these powers, it will also proceed through the senses, and say, I see, I hear; for it is the peculiarity of that which apprehends energies thus to speak. Hence if it is the attentive power which says these things, it is this power which apprehends the energy of sensibles; for it is necessary that the nature which apprehends all things should be one, since man also is one. For if one part of it should apprehend _these_, and another _those_ things, it is just, as Aristotle says, as if you should perceive _this_ thing, and _I_ that. It is necessary, therefore, that the attentive power should be one indivisible thing.

P. 74. _For the human soul is on all sides darkened by body, which he who denominates the river of Negligence, or the water of Oblivion_, &c.——_will not by such appellations sufficiently express its turpitude_. “The whole of generation, as well as the human body,” says Proclus in Tim. lib. v. p. 339, “may be called a river, through its rapid, impetuous, and unstable flux. Thus also in the Republic, Plato calls the whole genesiurgic nature the river of Lethe; in which are contained, as Empedocles says, Oblivion, and the meadow of Ate; the voracity of matter, and the light-hating world, as the Gods say; and the winding streams under which many are drawn down, as the Chaldean oracles assert.”

P. 105. _But there are a certain few who by employing a certain supernatural power of intellect, are removed from nature_, &c. The class to which these few belong is beautifully unfolded, as follows, by Plotinus, in the beginning of his Treatise on Intellect, Ideas, and real Being. “Since all men from their birth employ sense prior to intellect, and are necessarily first conversant with sensibles, some proceeding no farther, pass through life, considering these as the first and last of things, and apprehending that whatever is painful among these is evil, and whatever is pleasant is good; thus thinking it sufficient to pursue the one and avoid the other. Those, too, among them who pretend to a greater share of reason than others, esteem this to be wisdom, being affected in a manner similar to more heavy birds, who collecting many things from the earth, and being oppressed with the weight, are unable to fly on high, though they have received wings for this purpose from nature. But others are in a small degree elevated from things subordinate, the more excellent part of the soul recalling them from pleasure to a more worthy pursuit. As they are, however, unable to look on high, and as not possessing any thing else which can afford them rest, they betake themselves, together with the name of virtue, to actions and the election of things inferior, from which they at first endeavoured to raise themselves, though in vain. _In the third class is the race of divine men_, who, through a more excellent power, and with piercing eyes, acutely perceive supernal light, to the vision of which they raise themselves above the clouds and darkness, as it were, of this lower world, and there abiding despise every thing in these regions of sense; being no otherwise delighted with the place which is truly and properly their own, than he who after many wanderings is at length restored to his lawful country.” See my translation of the whole of this treatise.

P. 117. _By mire, therefore, understand every thing corporeal-formed and material._ “Matter,” says Simplicius in his Commentary on the first book of Aristotle’s Physics, “is nothing else than the mutation of sensibles, with respect to intelligibles, deviating from thence, and carried downwards to nonbeing. Those things, indeed, which are the properties of sensibles are irrational, corporeal, distributed into parts, and passing into bulk and divulsion, through an ultimate progression into generation, _viz._ into matter; for matter is always truly the last sediment. Hence, also, the Egyptians call the dregs of the first life, which they symbolically denominate water, matter, being as it were a certain mire. And matter is, as it were, the receptacle of generated and sensible natures, not subsisting as any definite form, but as the state or condition of subsistence; just as the impartible, the immaterial, true being, and things of this kind, are the constitution of an intelligible nature; all forms, indeed, subsisting both in sensibles and intelligibles, but in the former materially, and in the latter immaterially; viz. in the one impartibly and truly, but in the other partibly and shadowy. Hence every form is in sensibles distributed according to material interval.”

P. 120. _Through the innovation and illegality of the Greeks._ Iamblichus says, that through this innovation and illegality, both names and prayers have at present lost their efficacy. For during his time, and forborne centuries prior to it, the genuine religion of the Greeks was rapidly declining, through their novelty and volatility, of which he here complains. Hence the Emperor Julian, in the fragments of his treatise against the Christians, preserved by Ciryl, says, speaking of the Christians, “If any one wishes to consider the truth respecting you, he will find that your impiety consists of the Judaic audacity, and the _indolence_ and _confusion of the heathens_. For deriving from both, not that which is most beautiful, but the worst, you have fabricated a web of evils.——Hence, from the innovation of the Hebrews, you have seized blasphemy towards the venerable Gods; but from our religion you have cast aside reverence to every nature more excellent than man, and the love of paternal institutes.” Το γαρ αληθες ει τις υπερ υμων εθελοι σκοπειν, ευρησει την υμετεραν ασεβειαν, εκ τε της Ιουδαϊκης τολμης και της παρα τοις εθνεσιν αδιαφοριας και χυδαιοτητος συγκειμενην. εξ αμφοιν γαρ ουτι το καλλιστον αλλα το χειρον ελκυσαντες, παρυφην κακων ειργασασθε.——Απο μεν ουν της Εβραιων καινοτομιας το βλασφημειν τιμωμενους θεους ηρπασατε· απο δε της παρ’ ημιν θρησκειας το μεν ευλαβες τε ομου προς απασαν την κρειττονα φυσιν, και των πατριων αγαπητικον, απολελοιπατε.

P. 122. _Prior to truly existing beings, and total principles_, &c. Of the two most ancient principles of all things mentioned in this chapter, as celebrated by Hermes, the first corresponds to _the one itself_ of Plato, and the second to _being itself_, or superessential being, the summit of the intelligible triad; which two principles are beautifully unfolded by Proclus in the second and third books of his treatise on the Theology of Plato.

P. 122. _He arranges the God Eneph prior to, and as the leader of, the celestial Gods.—But prior to this he arranges the impartible one, which he says is the first paradigm, and which he denominates Eicton._ It appears to me that the former of these two divinities is the same with Saturn, who is the summit of the intellectual order of Gods; and that the latter is _the animal itself_ of Plato, or the Phanes of Orpheus, who subsists at the extremity of the intelligible triad. For the God Eneph is said by Iamblichus to be an intellect intellectually perceiving itself, and converting intellections to itself; and these are the characteristics of Saturn. And the God Eicton is said to be the first paradigm, and this is also asserted of Phanes.

P. 123. _For the books which are circulated under the name of Hermes, contain Hermaic opinions, though they frequently employ the language of the philosophers: for they were translated from the Egyptian tongue by men who were not unskilled in philosophy._ A few only of these books are now extant, but what is here said by Iamblichus sufficiently proves their authenticity, and that they contain the genuine doctrines of Hermes. They have doubtless, however, been occasionally interpolated by some of the early Christians, though not to that extent which modern critics, and that mitred sophist Warburton, suppose.

P. 123. _And such as have written concerning the decans._ The twelve parts, mentioned in the preceding chapter, into which the Egyptians divide the heavens, are the twelve signs of the zodiac. But the thirty-six parts are the twelve houses of the planets, divided into three other portions, which they call decans. Ptolemy, however, in his Quadripartite, subverts this doctrine of the Egyptians. Concerning these decans, see Scaliger ad Manilium, Kircher II. parte Oedipi, and Salmasius de Annis climactericis. Gale also gives the following extract from Hermes relative to the decans, which had not been before published, and which he derived from a MS. copy of Stobæus in the possession of Vossius. Φαμεν ω τεκνον, περιεκτικον των απαντων ειναι το σωμα. εννοησον ουν αυτο ωσπερ κυκλοειδες σχημα——υπο δε τον κυκλον του σωματος τουτου τεταχθαι τους λϛ δεκανους, μεσους του παντος κυκλου του ζωδιακου.——νοησωμεν ωσπερει φυλακας αυτους προϊστασθαι των εν κοσμῳ απαντων παντα συνεχοντας——και τηρουντας την των παντων ευταξιαν.——ετι δε νοησον ω Τατ, οτι απαθεις εισιν ων οι αλλοι αστερες πασχουσιν. ουτε γαρ επεχομενοι τον δρομον στηριζουσιν, ουτε κωλυομενοι αναποδιζουσιν, αλλ’ ουδε μην απο του φωτος του ηλιου σκεπονται, απερ πασχουσιν οι αλλοι αστερες. ελευθεροι δε οντες υπερανω παντων, ωσπερ φυλακες και επισκοποι ακριβεις του παντος, περιεχονται τῳ νυχθημερῳ το παν.——εχουσι προς ημας την μεγιστην δυναμιν. _i. e._ “We say, O son, that the body [of the universe] is comprehensive of all things. Conceive, therefore, this to be as it were of a circular form.——But under the circle of this body the thirty-six decans are arranged, as the media of the whole circle of the zodiac.——These, likewise, must be understood to preside as guardians over every thing in the world, connecting and containing all things——and preserving the established order of all things.——Farther still, understand, O Tat, that these decans are impassive to the things which the other stars suffer. For neither being detained, do they stop their course, nor being impeded do they recede, nor are they, like the other stars, concealed as with a veil by the light of the sun. But being liberated above all things, they comprehend the universe as the guardians and accurate inspectors of it, in the Nycthemeron [or the space of night and day].——They also possess, with respect to us, the greatest power.”

P. 125. _So that what you add from Homer, “that the Gods are flexible,” it is not holy to assert._ The words of Homer are στρεπτοι δε τε και θεοι αυτοι, and are to be found in Iliad ix. v. 493. But when Iamblichus says, it is not holy to assert the Gods are flexible, he means that it is not holy according to the literal signification of the words; divine flexibility indicating nothing more than this, that those who through depravity were before unadapted to receive the illuminations of the Gods, and in consequence of this were subject to the power of avenging dæmons; when afterwards they obtain pardon of their guilt through prayers and sacrifices, and through methods of this kind apply a remedy to their vices, again become partakers of the goodness of the Gods. So that divine flexibility is a resumption of the participation of divine light and goodness by those who through inaptitude were before deprived of it.

P. 130. _Dæmons preside over the parts of our body._ Proclus in the fragments of his Ten Doubts concerning Providence, preserved by Fabricius in the eighth vol. of his Bibliotheca Græca, observes, “That the Gods, with an exempt transcendency, extend their providence to all things, but that dæmons, dividing their superessential subsistence, receive the guardianship of different herds of animals, distributing the providence of the Gods, as Plato says, as far as to the most ultimate division. Hence some of them preside over men, others over lions or other animals, and others over plants; and still more partially, some are the inspective guardians of the eye, others of the heart, and others of the liver.” He adds, “all things, however, are full of Gods, some of whom exert their providential energies immediately, but others through dæmons as media: not that the Gods are incapable of being present to all things, but that ultimate are themselves unable to participate primary natures.” Hence it must be said that there is one principal dæmon, who is the guardian and governor of every thing that is in us, and many dæmons subordinate to him, who preside over our parts.

P. 134. _Hence it is requisite to consider how he may be liberated from these bonds._ “The one salvation of the soul herself,” says Proclus in Tim. lib. v. p. 330, “which is extended by the Demiurgus, and which liberates her from the circle of generation, from abundant wanderings, and an inefficacious life, is her return to the intellectual form, and a flight from every thing which naturally adheres to us from generation. For it is necessary that the soul, which is hurled like seed into the realms of generation, should lay aside the stubble and bark, as it were, which she obtained from being disseminated into these fluctuating realms; and that purifying herself from every thing circumjacent, she should become an intellectual flower and fruit, delighting in an intellectual life, instead of doxastic nutriment, and pursuing the uniform and simple energy of the period of sameness, instead of the abundantly wandering motion of the period which is characterized by difference. For she contains each of these circles, and twofold powers. And of her horses one is good, but the other the contrary [as is said in the Phædrus]. And one of these leads her to generation, but the other from generation to true being. The one also leads her round the genesiurgic, but the other round the intellectual circle. For the period of the same and the similar elevates to intellect, and an intelligible nature, and to the first and most excellent habit. But this habit is that according to which the soul being winged governs the whole world, becoming assimilated to the Gods themselves. And this is the universal form of life in the soul, just as that is the partial form, when she falls into the last body, and becomes something belonging to an individual, instead of belonging to the universe. The middle of these, also, is the partial universal, when she lives in conjunction with her middle vehicle, as a citizen of generation. Dismissing, therefore, her first habit, which subsists according to an alliance to the whole of generation, and laying aside the irrational nature which connects her with generation, likewise governing her irrational part by reason, and extending opinion to intellect, she will be circularly led to a happy life from the wanderings about the regions of sense; which life those that are initiated by Orpheus in the mysteries of Bacchus and Proserpine, pray that they may obtain, together with the allotments of the [celestial] sphere, and a cessation of evil. But if our soul necessarily lives well, when living according to the circle of sameness, much more must this be the case with divine souls. It is, however, possible for our soul to live according to the circle of sameness, when purified, as Plato says. Cathartic virtue, therefore, alone must be called the salvation of souls; since this cuts off, and vehemently obliterates, material natures, and the passions which adhere to us from generation; separates the soul and leads it to intellect; and causes it to leave on earth the vehicles with which it is invested. For souls in descending receive from the elements different vehicles, aerial, aquatic, and terrestrial; and thus at last enter into this gross bulk. For how, without a medium, could they proceed into this body from immaterial spirits?”

THE END.

_Printed by_ BALLANTYNE, HANSON & CO.
_Edinburgh and London_

-----

Footnote 1:

According to this theology, as I have elsewhere shown, in every order
of things, a triad is the immediate progeny of a monad. Hence the
intelligible triad proceeds immediately from the ineffable principle
of things. Phanes, or intelligible intellect, who is the last of the
intelligible order, is the monad, leader, and producing cause of a
triad, which is denominated νοητος και νοερος, i. e. _intelligible,
and at the same time intellectual_. In like manner the extremity of
this order produces immediately from itself the intellectual triad,
Saturn, Rhea, and Jupiter. Again, Jupiter, who is also the Demiurgus,
is the monad of the supermundane triad. Apollo, who subsists at the
extremity of the supermundane order, produces a triad of liberated
Gods. (Θεοι απολυτοι.) And the extremity of the liberated order
becomes the monad of a triad of mundane Gods. This theory, too, which
is the progeny of the most consummate science, is in perfect
conformity with the Chaldean theology. And hence it is said in one of
the Chaldean oracles, “_In every world a triad shines forth, of which
a monad is the ruling principle_.” (Παντι γαρ εν κοσμῳ λαμπει τριας ης
μονας αρχει). I refer the reader, who is desirous of being fully
convinced of all this, to my translation of Proclus on the Theology of
Plato.

Footnote 2:

_Viz._ The Philosophical Works of Proclus, together with those of
Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Syrianus, Ammonius, Damascius,
Olympiodorus, and Simplicius.

Footnote 3:

Ενα ιδοις αν εν πασα γῃ ομοφωνον νομον και λογον, οτι θεος εις παντων
βασιλευς και πατηρ, και θεοι πολλοι, θεου παιδες, συναρχοντες θεῳ.
ταυτα και ο ελλην λεγει, και ο βαρβαρος λεγει, και ο ηπειρωτης και ο
θαλαττιος, και ο σοφος και ο ασοφος. κᾳν επι του ωκεανου ελθῃς τας
ηϊονας, κᾳκει θεοι, τοις μεν ανισχοντες αγχου μαλα, τοις δε
καταδυομενοι. Dissert. i. Edit. Princ.

Footnote 4:

“Diogenes Laertius says of Pythagoras, that he _charged his disciples
not to give equal degrees of honour to the Gods and heroes_. Herodotus
(in Euterpe) says of the Greeks, _That they worshiped Hercules two
ways, one as an immortal deity, and so they sacrificed to him; and
another as a Hero, and so they celebrated his memory_. Isocrates
(Encom. Helen.) distinguishes between the honours of heroes and Gods,
when he speaks of Menelaus and Helena. But the distinction is no where
more fully expressed than in the Greek inscription upon the statue of
Regilla, wife to Herodes Atticus, as Salmasius thinks, which was set
up in his temple at Triopium, and taken from the statue itself by
Sirmondus; where it is said, _That she had neither the honour of a
mortal nor yet that which was proper to the Gods_. Ουδε ιερα θνητοις,
αταρ ουδε θεοισιν ομοια. It seems by the inscription of Herodes, and
by the testament of Epicteta, extant in Greek in the _Collection of
Inscriptions_, that it was in the power of particular families to keep
festival days in honour of some of their own family, and to give
_heroical honours_ to them. In that noble inscription at Venice, we
find three days appointed every year to be kept, and a _confraternity_
established for that purpose with the laws of it. The first day to be
observed in honour of the Muses, and sacrifices to be offered to them
as _deities_. The second and third days in honour of the _heroes_ of
the family; between which honour and that of deities, they showed the
difference by the distance of time between them, and the preference
given to the other. But whereinsoever the _difference_ lay, that there
was a _distinction_ acknowledged among them appears by this passage of
Valerius, in his excellent oration, extant in Dionysius Halicarnass.
Antiq. Rom. lib. ii. p. 696. _I call_, says he, _the Gods to witness,
whose temples and altars our family has worshiped with common
sacrifices; and next after them, I call the Genii of our ancestors, to
whom we give δευτερας τιμας, the second honours next to the Gods_, (as
Celsus calls those, τας προσηκουσας τιμας, _the due honours that
belong to the lower dæmons_.) From which we take notice, that the
Heathens did not confound all _degrees of divine worship_, giving to
the lowest object the same which they supposed to be due to the
_celestial deities_, or the _supreme_ God. So that if the distinction
of divine worship will excuse from idolatry, the Heathens were not to
blame for it.” See Stillingfleet’s Answer to a book entitled Catholics
no Idolaters, p. 510, 513, &c.

Footnote 5:

See the extracts from Plutarch, in which this is shown, in the
Introduction to my translation of Proclus on the Theology of Plato.

Footnote 6:

Answer to Catholics no Idolaters. Lond. 1676. p. 211.

Footnote 7:

Arrian. de Exped. Alex. l. iv. et Curt. lib. viii.

Footnote 8:

Vit. Artaxerx. Ælian. Var. Hist. lib. i. c. 21.

Footnote 9:

Justin. lib. vi.

Footnote 10:

Panegyr.

Footnote 11:

Lib. vii.

Footnote 12:

Lib. vi. cap. iii.

Footnote 13:

Και κολασεως δε ειδος ειναι αθειαν ουκ απεικος. τους γαρ γνοντας
θεους, και καταφρονησαντας, ευλογον εν ετερῳ βιῳ και της γνωσεως
στερεσθαι, και τους εαυτων βασιλεας ως θεους τιμησαντας, εδει την
δικην αυτων ποιησαι των θεων εκπεσειν. Cap. xviii.

Footnote 14:

και χρη τον επι τας αρχας αναβαινοντα ζητειν, ει δυνατον ειναι τι
κρειττον της υποτεθεισης αρχης κᾳν ευρεθῃ, παλιν επ’ εκεινου ζητειν,
εως αν εις τας ακροτατας εννοιας ελθωμεν, ων ουκετι σεμνοτερας εχομεν·
και μη στησαι την αναβασιν. ουδε γαρ ευλαβητεον μη κενεμβατωμεν,
μειζονα τινα και υπερβαινοντα τας πρωτας αρχας περι αυτων εννοουντες.
ου γαρ δυνατον τηλικουτον πηδημα πηδησαι τας ημετερας εννοιας, ως
παρισωθηναι τῃ αξιᾳ των πρωτων αρχων, ου λεγω και υπερπτηναι. μια γαρ
αυτη προς θεον ανατασις αριστη, και ως δυνατον απταιστος. και ων
εννοουμεν αγαθων τα σεμνοτατα, και αγιωτατα, και πρωτουργα, και
ονοματα και πραγματα αυτῳ ανατιθεντας ειδεναι βεβαιως, οτι μηδεν
ανατεθεικαμεν αξιον. αρκει δε ημιν εις συγγνωμην, το μηδεν εχειν
εκεινων υπερτερον. Simplic. in Epict. Enchir. p. 207. Lond. 1670. 8vo.

Footnote 15:

Of the first principles, says Damascius in MS. περι αρχων, the
Egyptians said nothing, but celebrated it as a darkness beyond all
intellectual conception, a thrice unknown darkness. Πρωτην αρχην
ανυμνηκασιν, σκοτος υπερ πασαν νοησιν, σκοτος αγνωστον τρις τουτο
επιφημιζοντες.

Footnote 16:

For farther particulars respecting this most extraordinary man, see
the introduction to my translation of his Life of Pythagoras, and my
History of the Restoration of the Platonic Theology.

Footnote 17:

Iliad, lib. x. v. 493.

Footnote 18:

Gale has omitted to give the original of the sentence contained in the
brackets; the translation of which I have added from the answer of
Iamblichus to this epistle.

Footnote 19:

Here also the original is omitted by Gale, and the translation of it
is given by me from the text of Iamblichus.

Footnote 20:

The paragraph within the brackets is omitted in the original; but I
have supplied it from the following answer of Iamblichus to this
Epistle. This omission is not noticed by Gale.

Footnote 21:

Here likewise the words within the brackets, which are omitted in the
original, are added from Iamblichus; but the omission is not noticed
by Gale.

Footnote 22:

The following testimony of an anonymous Greek writer, prefixed to the
manuscript of this treatise, which Gale published, proves that this
work was written by Iamblichus: Ιστεον οτι ο φιλοσοφος Προκλος
υπομνηματιζων τας του μεγαλου Πλωτινου εννεαδας, λεγει οτι ο
αντιγραφων εις την προκειμενην του Πορφυριου επιστολην, ο θεσπεσιος
εστιν Ιαμβλιχος· και δια το της υποθεσεως οικειον και ακολουθον,
υποκρινεται προσωπον Αιγυπτιου τινος Αβαμωνος· αλλα και το της λεξεως
κομματικον και αφοριστικον, και το των εννοιων πραγματικον, και
γλαφυρον, και ενθουν, μαρτυρει τον Προκλον καλως και κριναντα, και
ιστορησαντα. _i. e._ “It is requisite to know that the philosopher
Proclus, in his Commentary on the Enneads of the great Plotinus, says
that it is the divine Iamblichus who answers the prefixed Epistle of
Porphyry, and who assumes the person of a certain Egyptian of the name
of Abammon, through the affinity and congruity of the hypothesis. And,
indeed, the conciseness and definiteness of the diction, and the
efficacious, elegant, and divine nature of the conceptions, testify
that the decision of Proclus is just.” That this, indeed, was the
opinion of Proclus, is evident from a passage in his Commentaries on
the Timæus of Plato, which has escaped the notice of Gale, and which
the reader will find in a note on the fourth chapter of the eighth
section of the following translation.

Footnote 23:

In the original κατα τας κοινας εννοιας, which Gale erroneously
translates _contra communes opiniones_.

Footnote 24:

Damascius περι αρχων says, “that _difference_ not existing, there will
not be knowledge.” And, “that the contact as of one with one is above
knowledge.” Likewise, “that the intellectual perception of the first
intelligible is without any difference or distinction. ετεροτητος μη
ουσης, μηδε γνωσις εσται. Et συναφη ως ενος προς εν, υπερ γνωσιν.
Alibi, διακριτος η του πρωτου νοητου νοησις.

Footnote 25:

Between souls that always abide on high with purity, such as the souls
of _essential_ heroes, and those that descend into the regions of
mortality, and are defiled with vice, such as the souls of the greater
part of mankind, the class of _undefiled_ souls subsists. These
descend into the realms of generation, partly from that necessity by
which all human souls are, at times, drawn down to the earth, and
partly for the benevolent purpose of benefiting those of an inferior
class. But they descend without being defiled with vice. They are also
called heroes, κατα σχεσιν, _i. e._ according to _habitude_, in order
to distinguish them from _essential_ heroes. And, in the Pythagoric
Golden Verses, they are denominated the _terrestrial_ heroes.

Footnote 26:

For αυτην εαυτοις ουσαν in this place, it is necessary to read αυτην
εαυτης ουσαν.

Footnote 27:

For εποχη here, I read μετοχη.

Footnote 28:

_Viz._ In the plenitudes, or _total_ perfections, of the Gods.

Footnote 29:

_i. e._ Without habitude, proximity, or alliance to the things which
it illuminates.

Footnote 30:

What is here asserted by Iamblichus is perfectly true, and confirmed
by experience, _viz._ that the passions, when _moderately_ gratified,
are vanquished without violence. But Gale, not understanding this,
says, “Hoc adeo verum est, ac si dixisset, ignem extingues, oleum
addendo camino.” For a moderate gratification of the passions does not
resemble the pouring of oil on fire; since this similitude is only
applicable to them when they are _immoderately_ indulged.

Footnote 31:

See my Dissertation on the Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries.

Footnote 32:

In the original, Και δη, και “αι της μηνιδος εξιλασεις” εσονται
σαφεις, εαν την μηνιν των δεων καταμαθωμεν, which Gale most
erroneously translates as follows: “Sed et ratio possit reddi
_supplicationum, quibus divinam iram procuramus_, si recte
intelligamus, qualis sit deorum ira.”

Footnote 33:

_Viz._ Punishments produced by the realms of generation, or the
sublunary region.

Footnote 34:

It is well observed by Proclus, “that divine necessity concurs with
the divine will.” Θεια αναγκη συντρεχει τῃ θειᾳ βουλησει. Procl. in
Tim. lib. i.

Footnote 35:

For νοητον here, it is obviously necessary to read νοερον.

Footnote 36:

For τουτο here, it is necessary to read ταυτο.

Footnote 37:

For as a celestial body consists of light so pure and simple, that,
compared with a terrestrial body, it may be said to be immaterial;
hence, like the light of the sun, it cannot be divided, or in other
words, one part of it cannot be separated from another.

Footnote 38:

For προς αυτην in this place, I read προς αυτα.

Footnote 39:

The nature of _the one_, as it is _all-receptive_, and
_all-productive_ (πανδεχης και παντοφυης) exhibits in itself a certain
representation and indication of multitude; for it is all things prior
to all.

Footnote 40:

For the Gods are essentialized in _the one_; or, as Damascius
observes, speaking Chaldaically, in the paternal peculiarity. For in
every God there is father, power, and intellect; _father_ being the
same as hyparxis and _the one_.

Footnote 41:

_Viz._ According to the difference which there is between the
invisibility of Gods and the invisibility of dæmons.

Footnote 42:

The _cosmocrators_, or governors of the world, are the _planets_. See
the fourth book of my translation of Proclus on the Timæus of Plato.

Footnote 43:

For πυριως in this place, I read εμπυριως. For the empyrean world,
according to the Chaldeans, is above the material worlds, and emits a
supermundane fire or light.

Footnote 44:

For περιουσια here, it is necessary to read παρουσια.

Footnote 45:

These are terrestrial dæmons, to whom the Chaldean oracle alludes,
which says, “The wild beasts of the earth shall inhabit thy vessel,”
_i. e._ as Psellus explains it, the composite temperature of the soul.

Footnote 46:

For πεπλανημενην here, it seems requisite to read πεπλασμενην. Gale
also, in his version, in this place has fictum.

Footnote 47:

_i. e._ The inexplicable theurgic signs or symbols.

Footnote 48:

For υπνος here, it is necessary to read αυπνος. For Iamblichus has
before shown that divine dreams are not produced in sleep, but either
when sleep leaves us, or between sleeping and waking, or when we are
perfectly awake. The necessity of this emendation is also evident from
what Iamblichus shortly after adds, viz. _that we must take away from
divine dreams the being asleep_; i. e. the being in a profound sleep.

Footnote 49:

In the original there is nothing more than λεγουσι δε ταδε in this
place; but the sense requires that we should read λεγουσι δε οι σοφοι
ταδε. And this emendation is confirmed by the versions of Scutellius
and Gale.

Footnote 50:

For κατα τα μεταξυ διαλαμβανομενα κ. λ, I read μετα κ. λ.

Footnote 51:

“Among the deeds of Pythagoras,” says Iamblichus, in his Life of that
father of philosophy, (chap. xxv.) “it is said, that once through the
spondaic [_i. e._ Doric] song of a piper he extinguished the rage of a
Tauromenian lad, who had been feasting by night, and intended to burn
the vestibule of his mistress, in consequence of seeing her coming
from the house of his rival. For the lad was inflamed and excited [to
this rash attempt] by a Phrygian song; which, however, Pythagoras most
rapidly suppressed. But Pythagoras, as he was astronomizing, happened
to meet with the Phrygian piper at an unseasonable time of night, and
persuaded him to change his Phrygian for a spondaic song; through
which the fury of the lad being immediately repressed, he returned
home in an orderly manner, though a little before this he could not be
in the least restrained, nor would, in short, bear any admonition; and
even stupidly insulted Pythagoras when he met him. When a certain
youth, also, rushed with a drawn sword on Anchilus, the host of
Empedocles, because, being a judge, he had publicly condemned his
father to death, and would have slain him as a homicide, Empedocles
changed the intention of the youth, by singing to his lyre that verse
of Homer,

Nepenthe, without gall, o’er every ill
Oblivion spreads.
ODYSS. lib. 4.

And thus snatched his host Anchilus from death, and the youth from the
crime of homicide. It is also related, that the youth from that time
became the most celebrated of the disciples of Pythagoras. Farther
still, the whole Pythagoric school produced, by certain appropriate
songs, what they called _exartysis_, or adaptation; _synarmoga_, or
elegance of manners; and _epaphe_, or contact, usefully conducting the
dispositions of the soul to passions contrary to those which it before
possessed. For when they went to bed, they purified the reasoning
power from the perturbations and noises to which it had been exposed
during the day, by certain odes and peculiar songs, and by this means
procured for themselves tranquil sleep, and few and good dreams. But
when they rose from bed, they again liberated themselves from the
torpor and heaviness of sleep, by songs of another kind. Sometimes,
also, by musical sounds alone, unaccompanied with words, they healed
the passions of the soul and certain diseases, enchanting, as they
say, in reality. And it is probable that from hence this name _epode_,
_i. e._ enchantment, came to be generally used. After this manner,
therefore, Pythagoras, through music, produced the most beneficial
correction of human manners and lives.”

Proclus also, in his MS. Commentary on the First Alcibiades of Plato,
observes, “that of musical instruments some are repressive, and others
motive; some are adapted to rest, and others to motion. The
repressive, therefore, are most useful for education, leading our
manners into order, repressing the turbulency of youth, and bringing
its agitated nature to quietness and temperance. But the motive
instruments are adapted to enthusiastic energy; and hence, in the
mysteries and mystic sacrifices, the pipe is useful; for the motive
power of it is employed for the purpose of exciting the reasoning
power to a divine nature. For here it is requisite that the irrational
part should be laid asleep, and the rational excited. Hence those that
instruct youth use repressive instruments, but initiators such as are
motive. For that which is disciplined is the irrational part; but it
is reason which is initiated, and which energizes enthusiastically.”

See, likewise, on this subject, Ptolem. Harmonic, lib. iii. cap. 7 and
8, who observes among other things, “that our souls directly
sympathize with the energies of melody, recognizing, as it were, their
alliance to them—and that at one time the soul is changed to a quiet
and repressed condition, but at another to fury and enthusiasm. Ταις
ενεργειαις της μελῳδιας συμπασχειν ημων αντικρυς τας ψυχας, την
συγγενειαν ωσπερ επιγινωσκουσας——et, ποτε μεν εις ησυχιαν και
κατασολην τρεπεσθαι, ποτε δε εις οἱσρον και ενθυσιασμον. And, in the
last place, see Plato in his Io, and Aristotle in his Politics.

Footnote 52:

Proclus in Polit. p. 865, says, “that the melodies of Olympus were the
causes of ecstasy.” Τα του Ολυμπου μελη εκσατικα.

Footnote 53:

The nature of the Corybantes, and the order to which they belong, is
unfolded as follows by Proclus, in Plat. Theol. lib. vi. cap. 13. “To
what has been said we shall add the theory pertaining to the
unpolluted[54] Gods among the ruling divinities [_i. e._ among the
divinities that subsist immediately after the intellectual Gods]. For
Plato also gives us an opportunity of mentioning these, since it is
necessary that the rulers and leaders of wholes should subsist
analogous to the intellectual kings, though they make their
progression in conjunction with division, and a separation into parts.
For as they imitate the paternal generative and convertive powers of
the intellectual kings, thus also it is necessary that they should
receive the immutable monads in themselves, according to the ruling
peculiarity, and establish over their own progressions secondary
causes of a guardian characteristic. And the mystic tradition, indeed,
of Orpheus makes mention of these more clearly. But Plato being
persuaded by the mysteries, and by what is performed in them,
indicates concerning these unpolluted Gods. And in the Laws, indeed,
he reminds us of the inflation of the pipe by the Corybantes, which
represses every inordinate and tumultuous motion. But in the
Euthydemus, he makes mention of the collocation on a throne, which is
performed in the Corybantic mysteries; just as in other dialogues he
mentions the Curetic order, speaking of the armed sports of the
Curetes. For the Curetes are said to surround and to dance round the
Demiurgus of wholes, when he was unfolded into light from Rhea. In the
intellectual Gods, therefore, the first Curetic order is allotted its
hypostasis. But the order of the Corybantes, which precedes Core
[_i. e._ Proserpine], and guards her on all sides, as the theology
says, is analogous to the Curetes in the intellectual order. If,
however, you are willing to speak conformably to Platonic custom,
because these divinities preside over purity, and preserve the Curetic
order undefiled, and also preserve immutability in their generations,
and stability in their progressions[55] into the worlds, on this
account they were called Corybantes. For το κορον, _to koron_, is
every where significant of purity, as Socrates says in the Cratylus;
since, also, you may say that our mistress Core was no otherwise
denominated than from purity and an unpolluted life. But, in
consequence of her alliance to this order, she produces twofold
guardian triads, one in conjunction with her father, but the other
herself by and from herself, imitating in this respect the whole
vivific Goddess [Rhea] who constitutes the first Curetes.”

Footnote 54:

These Gods are called _unpolluted_, because they are the causes of
_purity_. For every God begins his own energy from himself, and is
that primarily which his effects are secondarily.

Footnote 55:

For περιοδοις here, it is necessary to read προοδοις.

Footnote 56:

Servius, in commenting on the “Mystica vannus Iacchi” of Virgil,
observes, that the sacred rites of Bacchus pertained to the
purification of souls, “Liberi patris sacra ad purgationem animarum
pertinebant.” And elsewhere he says, “Animæ aere ventilantur, quod
erat in sacris Liberi purgationis genus.” Euripides also, in Bacchis,
exclaims,

Ω μακαρ οστις ευδαιμων τελετας Θεων
Ειδως, βιοταν αγιστευει,
Και θιασευεται ψυχαν,
Εν ορεσι βακχευων
Οσιοισι καθαρμοις.

_i. e._ “O blessed and happy he, who knowing the mysteries of the
Gods, sanctifies his life, and purifies his soul, celebrating orgies
in the mountains, with holy purifications.”

Footnote 57:

“In the greatest diseases and labours (says Plato in the Phædrus) to
which certain persons are sometimes subject _through the ancient
indignation of the Gods, in consequence of former guilt_, mania when
it takes place, predicting what they stand in need of, discovers a
liberation from such evils by flying to prayer and the worship of the
Gods. Hence, obtaining by this means purifications and the advantages
of initiation, it renders him who possesses it free from disasters
both for the present and future time, by discovering to him who is
properly insane, and possessed by divinity, a solution of the present
evils.” And the Platonic Hermias beautifully unfolds the meaning of
this ancient indignation of the Gods, through former guilt, as
follows: “Offences which have been committed for a great length of a
time, are more difficult to be washed away, and a liberation from them
can alone be effected by the telestic art; but those that have been
committed for a shorter time are more easily cured. Thus, also, we see
in the medical art, that maladies which have existed but for a little
time, if they are paid attention to at their commencement, are easily
remedied, but that when they are of long standing, they are more
difficultly healed. For the evil in this case becomes as it were
natural and confirmed by habit, and resembles an indurated ulcer. A
similar thing to this, therefore, takes place in guilty conduct.
Hence, if he who has committed an injury, immediately repents, and
acknowledges his guilt to him whom he has injured, he dissolves the
injury, and renders himself no longer obnoxious to justice. But when
some one dissolves an injury committed by his father, by restoring,
for instance, land which he had unjustly taken, he then makes himself
to be unobnoxious to justice, and lightens and benefits the soul of
his father. These things, however, the telestic art more swiftly
remedies. Moreover, if it should happen that the whole race of some
one successively use land which had originally been plundered, in this
case, the injury in the first place becomes immanifest, and on this
account is more difficult to be cured; and, in the next place, time
causes the evil to become as it were natural. Hence the Gods
frequently predict to men that they should go to such or such places,
and that an apology should be made to this man, who was never known to
them, and that he should be appeased, in order that thus they may
obtain a remedy and be liberated from their difficulties, and that the
punishments inflicted on them by the Furies may cease. The Gods,
however, predict, not for the purpose of taking away punishment, but
in order that justice may be done, and that we may be amended. The
telestic art, therefore, renders him better who possesses the mania
which it imparts, and through him saves also many others. Thus, for
instance, it is related of one who was cutting down an oak, and though
he was called on by a Nymph not to cut it down, yet persisted in
felling it, that he was punished for so doing by the avenging Furies,
that he was in want of necessary food, and that if at any time he met
with it, it was immediately taken from him, till one who possessed the
telestic art told him to raise an altar and sacrifice to this Nymph,
for thus he would be liberated from his calamities. Another person,
likewise, who had slain his mother, was freed from the punishment
inflicted on him by the Furies by migrating to another country,
conformably to the mandate of divinity, and there fixing his abode.”

Footnote 58: