Chapter XVI: Section X: Chap. I (3)

This is because Rhea, the mother of the Gods, is a vivific Goddess,
being filled indeed (says Proclus, in Plat. Theol. lib. v. c. xi.)
from the father prior to her [_i. e._ from Saturn] with intelligible
and prolific power, but filling the Demiurgus [Jupiter], who derives
his existence from her, with vivific abundance.

Footnote 59:

See, concerning this oracle, Scholiastes Apollonii ad i. librum, et
Tacitus ii. Annal.

Footnote 60:

This oracle is mentioned by Herodotus, l. i., by Strabo, l. xiv. and
by Ammian. Marcell. lib. xxix.

Footnote 61:

See Plutarch in his treatise De Defectu Oraculorum.

Footnote 62:

See Plutarch in the above mentioned treatise. Concerning this luciform
spirit, or vehicle, which is immortal, and which is called by
Olympiodorus αυγοειδες χιτων, a _luciform vestment_, see my
Translation of the fifth book of Proclus on the Timæus.

Footnote 63:

It was usual for those who prophesied to carry a wand. Tiresias had a
sceptre, and Abaris an arrow. The Scholiast on Nicander says, that the
Egyptian and Scythian magi, and also many of those in Europe,
prophesied with wands. And Eustathius on the Odyssey, p. 1657,
observes, “that there is a certain magic in divine wands,” esse in
ραβδοις θειοις τινα μαγειαν.

Footnote 64:

That is, to partake of an illumination, which has no σχεσις, or
_habitude_, to any thing material.

Footnote 65:

For ἡ προιουσα here, it seems necessary to read ἢ προιουσα.

Footnote 66:

Proclus, in his MS. Commentary on the First Alcibiades of Plato,
observes, “that in the mysteries some one of the more imperfect dæmons
assumes the appearance of one that is more perfect, and draws down to
himself souls that are not yet purified, and separates them from the
Gods. Hence, in the most holy of the mysteries [_i. e._ in the
Eleusinian mysteries], prior to the manifest presence of the God [who
is invoked], certain terrene dæmons present themselves to the view,
disturbing those that are initiated, divulsing them from undefiled
good, and exciting them to matter. On this account the Gods [in the
Chaldean oracles] order us not to behold them, till we are guarded by
the powers imparted by the mysteries. For they say,

Ου γαρ χρη κεινους σε βλεπειν πριν σωμα τελεσθεις.

_i. e._ It is not proper you should behold them till your body is
purified by initiation. And they add the reason,

Οτι τας ψυχας θελγοντες αει τελετων απαγουσι,

_i. e._ For these dæmons alluring souls, always draw them away from
the mysteries.

Conformably to this, also, Proclus in Plat. Theol. p. 7, says, ωσπερ
εν ταις των τελετων αγιωταταις φασι τους μυστας, την μεν πρωτην
πολυειδεσι, και πολυμορφοις των θεων προβεβλημενοις γενεσιν απανταν,
εισιοντας δε, ακλινεις, και ταις τελεταις πεφραγμενους, αυτην την
θειαν ελλαμψιν ακραιφνως εγκολπιζεσθαι, και γυμνιτας (ως αν εκεινοι
φαιεν) του θειου μεταλαμβανειν, τον αυτον οιμαι τροπον και εν τη
θεωριᾳ των ολων. _i. e._ “As in the most holy of the mysteries, they
say, that the mystics at first meet with the multiform and many shaped
genera [_i. e._ with evil dæmons], which are hurled forth before the
Gods, but on entering the interior parts of the temple, unmoved, and
guarded by the mystic rites, they genuinely receive in their bosom
divine illumination, and divested of their garments, as they would
say, participate of a divine nature; the same mode, as it appears to
me, takes place in the speculation of wholes.”

That mitred sophist, Warburton, as I have elsewhere called him, from
not understanding the former part of this latter extract from Proclus,
ridiculously translates the words πολυειδεσι και πολυμορφοις των θεων
προβεβλημενοις γενεσιν, “multiform shapes and species, that prefigure
the first generation of the Gods.” See his Divine Legation of Moses,
book ii. p. 152, 8vo. a work replete with distorted conceptions and
inaccurate translations. And yet, as great a sophist as Warburton was,
and notwithstanding the work I have just mentioned abounds with false
opinions, and such as are of the most pernicious kind, yet he is
compelled by truth to acknowledge, in book ii. p. 172, “that the
wisest and best men in the Pagan world are unanimous in this, that the
mysteries were instituted pure, and proposed the noblest end by the
worthiest means.” But this by the way.

Footnote 67:

This divination according to the imagination through water, may be
illustrated by the following extract from Damascius (apud Photium):
Γυνη ιερα θεομοιρον εχουσα φυσιν παρᾳλογοτατην. υδωρ γαρ εγχεασα
ακραιφνες ποτηριῳ τινι των υαλινων, εωρα κατα του υδατος εισω του
ποτηριου τα φασματα των εσομενων πραγματων, και προυλεγεν απο της
οψεως αυτα απερ εμελλεν εσεσθαι παντως. η δε πειρα του πραγματος ουκ
ελαθεν ημας. _i. e._ “There was a sacred woman who possessed in a
wonderful manner a divinely gifted nature. For pouring pure water into
a certain glass cup, she saw in the water that was within the cup the
luminous appearances of future events, and from the view of these she
entirely predicted what would happen. But of this experiment we also
are not ignorant.”

Footnote 68:

“The Platonists,” says Psellus (ad Nazianzenum) “assert that light is
spread under divine substances, and is rapidly seized, without any
difficulty, by some who possess such an excellent nature as that which
fell to the lot of Socrates and Plotinus. But others, at certain
periods, experience a mental alienation about the light of the moon.”

Footnote 69:

Concerning this vehicle, in which the phantastic power resides, see
vol. ii. of my translation of Proclus on the Timæus of Plato, p. 407;
the Introduction to my translation of Aristotle on the Soul; and the
long extract from Synesius on Dreams, in vol. ii. of my Proclus on
Euclid.

Footnote 70:

_i. e._ The discursive energy of reason.

Footnote 71:

Proclus in Plat. Polit. having observed that Socrates in the Phædrus,
when he speaks in a divinely inspired manner, and poetically adopts
such names as are employed by the poets, and says that it is not
possible for one who speaks with an insane [_i. e._ with an inspired]
mouth to abstain from them, adds “that an alliance to the dæmoniacal
genus, preparing the soul for the reception of divine light, excites
the phantasy to symbolic narration.” Η προς δαιμονιον γενος οικειοτης,
η προευτρεπιζουσα την του θειου φωτος παρουσιαν, ανακινει την
φαντασιαν εις την συμβολικην απαγγελιαν. p. 396.

Footnote 72:

These words of Heraclitus are also quoted by Plutarch in his treatise
De Defectu Oraculorum.

Footnote 73:

For εικονων here, I read ειδων.

Footnote 74:

Herodian, lib. viii. observes, that the Italians very much believed in
the indications of future events through the viscera: and Strabo, lib.
xvii. asserts the same thing.

Footnote 75:

The auspices were said to be pestiferous when there was no heart in
the entrails, or when the head was wanting in the liver. This was the
case with the animals that were sacrificed by Cæsar on the day in
which he was slain. The same thing also happened to Caius Marius, when
he was sacrificing at Utica. But when Pertinax was sacrificing, both
the heart and the liver of the victim were wanting, whence his death
was predicted, which happened shortly after. In the sacrifices,
likewise, which Marcellus performed prior to the unfortunate battle
with the Carthaginians, the liver was found to be without a head, as
Plutarch and Livy, Pliny and Valerius Maximus relate.

Footnote 76:

Gale observes that this appears to have been a very ancient mode of
divination, and does not differ from that which is comprehended under
the term _wood_. Hence the Scholiast, in Nicandri Theriaca, says,
“that the Magi and Scythians predicted from the wood of the tamarisk.”
For in many places they predict from rods. And that Dinon, in the
first book of his third Syntaxis, observes, “that the Median diviners
predict from rods.” The Scholiast likewise adds the testimony of
Metrodorus, who says, “that the tamarisk is a most ancient plant, and
that the Egyptians, in the solemnity of Jupiter, were crowned with the
tamarisk, and also the Magi among the Medes.” He adds, “that Apollo
also ordained that prophets should predict from this plant, and that
in Lesbos he wears a tamarisk crown, has often been seen thus adorned,
and that in consequence of this he was called by the Lesbians
μυρικαιον, _Muricaion_, [from μυρικη, the tamarisk].” What the
Scholiast here says, is confirmed by Herodotus, in lib. iv. and
elsewhere. To this, also, what every where occurs about prediction
from the laurel pertains. For if the leaves of the laurel when
committed to the fire made a noise, it was considered as a good omen,
but if they made none, a bad one.

Footnote 77:

Gale, in his translation, has totally mistaken the meaning of the
original in this place, and it is not unusual with him to do so. For
the original is αλλ’ ουδε ως οργανον τι μεσον εξι το των κρειττονων
αιτιον, και δρα δια του θεσπιζοντος ο καλων. This he thus translates:
“Sed neque dicendum est fatidicum animum esse instrumentum intermedium
divinorum, sacerdotem vero invocantem esse tanquam efficientem
causam.” In consequence, also, of this mistake, he erroneously
conceives that Iamblichus dissents from himself.

Footnote 78:

God is all things causally, and is able to effect all things. He
likewise does produce all things, yet not by himself alone, but in
conjunction with those divine powers which continually germinate, as
it were, from him, as from a perennial root. Not that he is in want of
these powers to the efficacy of his productive energy, but the
universe requires their cooperation, in order to the distinct
subsistence of its various parts and different forms. For as the
essence of the first cause, if it be lawful so to speak, is full of
deity, his immediate energy must be deific, and his first progeny must
be Gods. But as he is ineffable and superessential, all things proceed
from him ineffably and superessentially. For progressions are
conformable to the characteristics of the natures from which they
proceed. Hence the cooperating energy of his first progeny is
necessary to the evolution of things into effable, essential, and
distinct subsistence. _The supreme God, therefore, is_, as Iamblichus
justly observes, _alone worthy of sedulous attention, esteem, the
energy of reason, and felicitous honour_; but this is not to the
exclusion of paying _appropriate_ attention and honour to other powers
that are subordinate to him, who largely participate of his divinity,
and are more or less allied to him. For in reverencing and paying
attention to these _appropriately_, we also attend to and reverence
him. For that which we sedulously attend to, honour, and esteem in
them, is that alone which is of a _deified_ nature, and is therefore a
portion, as it were, of the ineffable principle of all things.

Gale, from not understanding this, exclaims, “if these things are
true, (_viz._ that God is alone worthy of sedulous attention, &c.) as
they are, indeed, most true, to what purpose, O Iamblichus, is that
mighty study and labour about dæmons and other spirits?” But the
answer to this, by regarding what has been above said, is easy. For
mighty study and labour about these intermediate powers is necessary,
in order to our union with their ineffable cause. For as we are but
the dregs of the rational nature, and the first principle of things is
something so transcendent as to be even beyond essence, it is
impossible that we should be united to him without media; _viz._
without the Gods, and their perpetual attendants, who are on this
account _the true saviours of souls_. For in a union with the supreme
deity our true salvation consists.

Footnote 79:

For these conceptions and these works teach us, that in reality we,
through sacred operations, approach to divinity, but that divinity
does not draw near to us. Hence Proclus in Alcibiad. εν ταις κλησεσι,
και εν ταις αυτοψιαις προσιεναι πως ημιν φαινεται το θειον, ημων
επανατεινομενων επ’ αυτο. _i. e._ “In invocations of the Gods, and
when they are clearly seen, divinity, in a certain respect, appears to
approach to us, though it is we that are extended to him.”

Footnote 80:

Gale, in his note on these words, after having observed that Porphyry
says, that ignorance, darkness, and folly attend the soul in its lapse
into body; and that, according to Servius, the soul, when it begins to
descend into body, drinks of folly and oblivion, quotes also Irenæus
(lib. ii. c. 59), who makes the following stupid remark: “Souls
entering into this life [it is said] drink of oblivion, before they
enter into bodies, from the dæmon who is above this ingress. But
whence do you know this, O Plato, since your soul also is now in body?
For if you remember the dæmon, the cup, and the entrance, it is
likewise requisite that you should know the rest.” To this it is easy
to reply, that a soul purified and enlightened by philosophy, like
that of Plato, is able to recognise many things pertaining to its
preexistent state, even while in the present body, in consequence of
partially emerging from corporeal darkness and oblivion; but that it
is not capable of knowing every thing _distinctly_, till it is
perfectly liberated from the delirium of the body. And Gale, no less
sillily, adds, “respondebunt Platonici hæc omnia cognovisse Platonem
ex narratione, quæ circumferebatur de Ere Armenio, qui Lethes aquam
non biberat.” _i. e._ “The Platonists will answer that Plato knew all
these things from the narration of the Armenian Erus [in the Republic]
who did not drink of the water of Lethe.” For Plato did not obtain
this knowledge from any historical narration, but from possessing in a
transcendent degree the cathartic and theoretic virtues, and from
energizing enthusiastically (or according to a divinely inspired
energy) through the latter of these virtues.

Footnote 81:

Agreeably to this, Porphyry says in his Αφορμαι προς τα νοητα, or
_Auxiliaries to Intelligibles_, ψυχη καταδειται προς το σωμα, τῃ
επιστροφη τῃ προς τα παθη τα απ’ αυτου.——And ψυχη εδησεν εαυτην εν τῳ
σωματι. _i. e._ “The soul is bound to the body, by a conversion to the
passions arising from her union with it.” And, “the soul binds herself
in the body.” Philolaus also says, that the ancient theologists and
prophets asserted, ως δια τινας τιμωριας α ψυχα τῳ σωματι συνεζευκται,
και καθαπερ εν σαματι τουτῳ τεθαπται, “that the soul is conjoined to
the body on account of certain punishments, and that it is buried in
it as in a sepulchre.”

Footnote 82:

This assertion, that the nature which is perfectly exempt can never
become one with that which departs from itself, is opposed by Gale,
who says that man is composed of soul and body, and yet the latter is
far inferior to, and less excellent than, the former. But in adducing
this instance, he clearly shows that he does not understand what
Iamblichus says. For the human soul being a medium between a certain
impartible and partible essence, so far as it partakes of the partible
essence, has a certain alliance with body, and is not perfectly exempt
from it. But this is not the case with divine inspiration and our
soul: for the former in a perfectly exempt manner transcends the
latter. Let it, therefore, be granted him that, as Psellus says,
“hypostatic union conducts different essences or natures to one
hypostasis,” yet such a union can never take place between two things,
one of which has no habitude, proximity, or alliance to the other.
Gale was led into this mistake by not properly attending to the words
_perfectly exempt_, το παντελως εξῃρημενον, which are here employed by
Iamblichus. But such mistakes are usual with Gale, from his inaccurate
and rambling manner of thinking. He likewise forgot, at the time he
was writing notes on Iamblichus, that he was the master of a grammar
school, and not a philosopher.

From what has been said, the absurdity, also, of their opinion is
immediately obvious, who fancy that the divine essence can be mingled
and united with the mortal nature. For if such a union were possible,
it would benefit and exalt the latter, but injure and degrade the
former. Just as in the union of the rational soul with the body (as
Proclus beautifully observes in Tim. p. 339), “the former, by verging
to a material life, kindles indeed a light in the body, but becomes
herself situated in darkness; and by giving life to the body, destroys
both herself and her own intellect [in as great a degree as these are
capable of receiving destruction]. For thus the mortal nature
participates of intellect, but the intellectual part of death, and the
whole, as Plato observes in the Laws, becomes a prodigy composed of
the mortal and the immortal, of the intellectual and that which is
deprived of intellect. For this physical law which binds the soul to
the body is the death of the immortal life, but vivifies the mortal
body.”

Footnote 83:

Here again Gale, from not understanding, opposes Iamblichus. For he
says, “sed nec hoc sequitur. S. Maximus, ubi hypostaticam unionem
declarat; hæc inquit, cernuntur in corpore et anima. Una ex utroque
confit hypostasis composita. Servat autem in se naturam perfectam
utriusque sc. corporis et animæ, και την τουτων διαφοραν ασυμφυρτον
και τα ιδιωματα ασυμφυρτα και ασυγχυτα.” _i. e._ “But neither does
this follow. S. Maximus, where he unfolds hypostatic union, says these
things are perceived in the soul and body. One composite hypostasis is
produced from both. But this hypostasis preserves in itself the
perfect nature of each, and likewise the difference of these
unmingled, end the peculiarities unmingled and unconfused.” This
hypostatic union, however; as we have before observed, cannot take
place between divine inspiration and the soul, because the former is
_perfectly exempt_ from the latter.

Gale adds, “Quæro autem quid velit Iamblichus per αμφοιν? Opinor,
ψυχην et την εξωθεν θειαν επιπνοιαν. Non facile evincet επιπνοιαν esse
αιδιον τι, utpote quæ sit transiens dei actio.” _i. e._ “I ask what
Iamblichus means by _both_. I think _the soul and divine inspiration
externally_ derived. But he will not easily prove that inspiration is
something eternal, because it is a transient energy of God.” Gale is
right in his conjecture, that Iamblichus by the word _both_ in this
place, means the soul and divine inspiration externally derived; for
it can admit of no other meaning; but when he adds, that inspiration
cannot be something eternal, because it is a transient energy of
divinity, he shows himself to be as bad a theologist as he is a
philosopher. For God being an eternal, or rather a supereternal
nature, his energies have nothing to do with time and its transitive
progressions, but are stably simultaneous; so that transition does not
exist in his inspiring influence, but in the recipients of it, these
being of a temporal and mutable nature. Hence it is just as absurd to
call any energy of divinity transient, as it would be to say that the
light of the sun is transient, because it shines through diaphanous,
but not through opaque, substances.

Footnote 84:

Hippocrates was of opinion that physicians ought to be skilled in
astronomy. And Galen derides those physicians who deny that astronomy
is necessary to their art. See his treatise entitled Si quis sit
Medicus eundem esse philosophum. And in lib. viii. cap. 20, of his
treatise De Ingenio Sanitatis, he calls physicians that are ignorant
of astronomy homicides. But by astronomy here, both Hippocrates and
Galen intended to signify what is now called astrology. Roger Bacon
also, in his Epistle to Pope Clement, says, “Opera quæ fiunt hic
inferius, variantur secundum diversitatem cœlestium constellationum,
ut opera medicinæ et alkimiæ.” _i. e._ “The works which are performed
in these inferior realms are varied according to the diversity of the
celestial constellations, as, for instance, the works of medicine and
alchemy.” If, however, as Galen says, and doubtless with great truth,
physicians that are ignorant of this are homicides, how numerous must
the medical homicides be of the present age!

Footnote 85:

According to Proclus, in Alcibiad. Prior, there are three orders of
dæmons, the first of which are more _intellectual_, the second are of
a more _rational nature_, and the third, of which Iamblichus is now
speaking, are _various, more irrational, and more material_.

Footnote 86:

Charonea is a country of Asia Minor, bordering on the river Meander;
and in it there are spiracles which exhale a foul odour. According to
Pliny, there are places of this kind in Italy, in the country of
Puteoli, now Puzzulo. In Amsanctus, also, a place in the middle of
Italy, in the country of the Samnites, there were sulphureous waters,
the steams of which were so pestilential, that they killed all who
came near them. Hence Cicero, in lib. i. De Divin. “Quid enim? Non
videmus, quam sint varia terrarum genera? Ex quibus et mortifera
quædam pars est, ut et Amsancti in Hirpinis, et in Asia Plutonia.”

Footnote 87:

And these irrational spirits, so far as they contribute to wholes, are
more excellent than we are, though through being irrational they are
inferior to us.

Footnote 88:

See the justice of providence in this respect most admirably defended
by Plotinus, in the first of his treatises on Providence, which
treatise forms one of the five books of Plotinus translated by me, in
8vo. 1794.

Footnote 89:

In the original, την ιδιαν της ψυχης αυτοπραγιαν, which Gale very
inadequately translates _proprium animæ officium_.

Footnote 90:

See my translation of Proclus on the Subsistence of Evil, at the end
of my translation of his six books on the Theology of Plato.

Footnote 91:

See cap. 40, 41, 42, of Eunead iv. lib. iv. of Plotinus, from which
the doctrine of this chapter is derived.

Footnote 92:

Agreeably to this, Plotinus, also, in Eunead iv. lib. iv. cap. 32,
says, παν τουτο το εν, και ως ζωον εν ζωον τε οντος, και εις εν
τελουντος, ουδεν ουτω πορρω τοπου ως μη εγγυς ειναι τη του ενος ζωου
προς το συμπαθειν ψυσει, _i. e._ “This universe is one, and is as one
animal. But being an animal and completely effecting one thing,
nothing in it is so distant in place as not to be near to the nature
of the one animal, on account of its sympathy with the whole of
itself.”

Footnote 93:

This art is no other than magic, of which the following account, from
a very rare Greek manuscript of Psellus, _On Dæmons according to the
Dogmas of the Greeks_, will, I doubt not, be acceptable to the reader,
as it illustrates what is here said by Iamblichus, and shows that
magic is not an empty name, but possesses a real power, though at
present this art seems to be totally lost. Ficinus published some
extracts from this manuscript in Latin; but Gale does not appear to
have had it in his possession. Η γοητεια δε εστι τεχνη τις περι τους
ενυλους και χθονιους δαιμονας φαντασιοσκοπουσα τοις εποπταις τα τουτων
ειδωλα. και τους μεν ωσπερ εξ αδου αναγουσα, τους δε υψοθεν καταγουσα,
και τουτους κακωτικους. και ειδωλα αττα υφιστησι φαντασματα τοις
θεωροις των τουτων. και τοις μεν ρευματα τινα εκειθεν κυμαινοντα
επαφιησι· τοις δε δεσμων ανεσεις και τρυφας, και χαριτας επαγγελλεται.
επαγεται δε τας τοιαυτας δυναμεις, και ασμασι και επασμασιν. η δε
μαγεια πολυδυναμον τι χρημα τοις Ελλησιν εδοξε. μεριδα γουν ειναι
ταυτην φασιν εσχατην της ιερατικης επιστημης. ανιχνευουσα γαρ των υπο
την σεληνην παντων την τε ουσαν και φυσιν, και δυναμιν και ποιοτητα.
λεγω δε στοιχειων και των τουτων μεριδων, ζωων, παντοδαπων φυτων, και
των εντευθεν καρπων, λιθων, βοτανων, και απλως ειπειν, παντος
πραγματος, υποστασιν τε και δυναμιν. εντευθεν αρα τα εαυτης εργαζεται.
αγαλματα τε υφιστησιν υγειας περιποιητικα, και σχηματα ποιειται
παντοδαμα· και νοσοποια δεμιουργηματα ετερα. και αετοι μεν, και
δρακοντες, βιωσιμοι αυτοις προς υγειαν υποθεσις´ αιλουροι δε και
κυνες, και κορακες αγρυπνητικα συμβολα. κηρος δε και πηλος εις τας των
μοριων συμπλασεις παραλαμβανονται. φανταζει δε πολλακις, και πυρος
ουρανιου εδοσεις, και διαμειδιωσι επι τουτων αγαλματα· πυρί δε
αυτοματῳ λαμπαδες αναπτονται. _i. e._ “_Goeteia_, or _witchcraft_, is
a certain art respecting material and terrestrial dæmons, whose images
it causes to become visible to the spectators of this art. And some of
these dæmons it leads up, as it were from Hades, but others it draws
down from on high; and these, too, such as are of an evil species.
_This art, therefore, causes certain phantastic images to appear
before the spectators._ And before the eyes of some, indeed, it pours
exuberant streams; but to others it promises freedom from bonds,
delicacies, and favours. They draw down, too, powers of this kind by
songs and incantations. But _magic_, according to the Greeks, is a
thing of a very powerful nature. _For they say that this forms the
last part of the sacerdotal science._ Magic, indeed, investigates the
nature, power, and quality of every thing sublunary; _viz._ of the
elements, and their parts, of animals, all-various plants and their
fruits, of stones, and herbs: and in short, it explores the essence
and power of every thing. From hence, therefore, it produces its
effects. And it forms statues which procure health, makes all-various
figures, and things which become the instruments of disease. It
asserts, too, that eagles and dragons contribute to health; but that
cats, dogs, and crows are symbols of vigilance, to which, therefore,
they contribute. But for the fashioning of certain parts wax and clay
are used. Often, too, celestial fire is made to appear through magic;
and then statues laugh, and lamps are spontaneously enkindled.”

This curious passage throws light on the following extract from the
first book of the Metaphorsis of Apuleius: “Magico susurranime, amnes
agiles reverti, mare pigrum colligari, ventos inanimes expirare, solem
inhiberi, lunam despumari, stellas evelli, diem tolli, noctem teneri.”
_i. e._ “By magical incantation rapid rivers may be made to run back
to their fountains, the sea be congealed, winds become destitute of
spirit, the sun be held back in his course, the moon be forced to
scatter her foam, the stars be torn from their orbits, the day be
taken away, and the night be detained.” For it may be inferred from
Psellus, that witches formerly were able to cause the _appearance_ of
all this to take place. It must also be observed, that this MS. of
Psellus _On Dæmons_ forms no part of his treatise _On the Energy of
Dæmons_, published by Gaulminus; for it never was published.

Footnote 94:

Hence Iamblichus (apud Stob. Eclog. Phys. p. 114), says, Ουχ η αυτη
εστι πασων ψυχων κοινωνια προς τα σωματα. αλλ’ η μεν ολη ωσπερ Πλωτινῳ
δοκει, προσιον εαυτῃ το σωμα εχει εν εαυτῃ, αλλ’ ουκ αυτη προσεισι τῳ
σωματι, ουδε περιεχεται υπ’ αυτου. αι δε μερισται προσερχονται τοις
σωμασι, και των σωματων γιγνονται. _i. e._ “There is not the same
communion of all souls with bodies; but the soul which ranks as a
whole (as it also appeared to Plotinus), approaching to itself,
contains body in itself, but does not itself approach to body, nor is
comprehended by it. Partible souls, however, accede to bodies, and
give themselves up to them.”

Conformably to this Porphyry also, in his Αφορμαι προς τα νοητα, No.
30, says, “No _whole_ and perfect essence is converted to its own
progeny; but all perfect natures are led back to the causes by which
they were generated, even as far as to the mundane body. For this
body, being perfect, is elevated to the mundane soul which is
intellectual, and through this is circularly moved. But the soul of
this body is elevated to intellect, and intellect to that which is
first. All things, therefore, extend themselves to this, beginning
from that which is last, according to the peculiar ability of each.
But the reduction to that which is first is either proximate or
remote. Hence these are not only said to aspire after divinity, but
also to enjoy him as far as they are able. But in partial natures, and
which are able to verge to many things, a conversion to their progeny
belongs. Hence in these guilt, in these disgraceful perfidy, is found.
Matter, therefore, defiles these, because they decline to it, at the
same time that they possess the power of converting themselves to a
divine nature.”

Footnote 95:

Iamblichus here alludes to the excellent treatise of Porphyry, περι
της των εμψυχων αποχης, _On Abstinence from Animal Food_, from which
work the English reader will find several admirable extracts in one of
the Introductory Dissertations prefixed to my translation of Proclus
on Euclid.

Footnote 96:

A celestial body, as is beautifully shown by Proclus in Tim. lib. iii.
contains the summits of all the elements, but is characterized by
vivific unburning fire; so that, in short, it is vitalized extension.

Footnote 97:

The number sixty is no less manifest in the crocodile than in the sun.
For according to Aristotle (in Hist. Anim. lib. v.) the crocodile
brings forth sixty eggs of a white colour and sits on them for sixty
days.

Footnote 98:

“Isis,” says Gale, “is the moon. And a dog attended Isis when she was
diligently seeking her husband Osiris. But the moon perpetually seeks
the sun, and therefore that sagacious animal, the dog, accords with
Isis. In the solemnities, also, of Isis, dogs preceded the
procession.” After this manner others besides Gale; who have not
penetrated the depths of the philosophy and theology of Plato, would
doubtless explain what is fabulously said of Isis. In reality,
however, Isis is not the moon, but one of the divinities that revolve
in the lunar sphere as an attendant on the moon, and who, in modern
language, is one of the satellites of that planet. For, as I have
shown from Proclus, in the Introduction to my translation of the
Timæus of Plato, every planetary sphere is an ολοτης, _or a part of
the universe having a total subsistence_, i. e. _ranking as a whole_,
and is surrounded with a number of satellites analogous to the choir
of the fixed stars. Of these satellites, likewise, the leaders of
which are the planets, the first in order are Gods; after these,
dæmons revolve in lucid orbicular bodies; and these are followed by
partial souls, such as ours. See Proclus in Tim. p. 275 and p. 279·
This theory, as I have elsewhere observed, is the grand key to the
theology and mythology of the ancients, as it shows at one view why
the same God is so often celebrated with the names of other Gods;
which induced Macrobius to think that all the Gods were nothing more
than different powers of the sun. The English reader will find an
abundant confirmation of what is here said in the fourth book of my
translation of the above mentioned admirable work of Proclus.

Footnote 99:

“The Egyptians,” says Horapollo, lib. i. “wishing to signify the moon,
paint a cynocephalus, because this animal is variously affected by the
course of the moon.”

Footnote 100:

In the original μυγαλη. “This word,” says Gale, “is written variously,
_viz._ as μυγάλη, μυγαλὴ, and μυγαλῆ. It is also variously translated,
for it is either _rattus_, or _mus araneus_.” Plutarch, in the fourth
book of his Symposiacs, Quest. 5, says, “that the Egyptians were of
opinion that darkness was prior to light, and that the latter was
produced from mice in the fifth generation, at the time of the new
moon. And further still, they assert that the liver of the weasel
diminishes in the wane of the moon.”

Footnote 101:

With the Egyptians many animals were sacred; for the worship of which
the following admirable apology is made by Plutarch in his treatise of
Isis and Osiris:

“It now remains that we should speak of the utility of these animals
to man, and of their symbolical meaning; some of them partaking of one
of these only, but many of them of both. It is evident, therefore,
that the Egyptians worshiped the ox, the sheep, and the ichneumon, on
account of their use and benefit, as the Lemnians did larks, for
discovering the eggs of caterpillars and breaking them; and the
Thessalians storks, because, as their land produced abundance of
serpents, the storks destroyed all of them as soon as they appeared.
Hence, also, they enacted a law, that whoever killed a stork should be
banished. But the Egyptians honoured the asp, the weasel, and the
beetle, in consequence of observing in them certain dark resemblances
of the power of the Gods, like that of the sun in drops of water. For
at present, many believe and assert that the weasel engenders by the
ear, and brings forth by the mouth, being thus an image of the
generation of reason [or the productive principle of things]. But the
genus of beetles has no female; and all the males emit their sperm
into a sphericle piece of earth, which they roll about, thrusting it
backwards with their hind feet, while they themselves move forward;
just as the sun appears to revolve in a direction contrary to that of
the heavens, in consequence of moving from west to east. They also
assimilated the asp to a star, as being exempt from old age, and
performing its motions, unassisted by organs, with agility and ease.
Nor was the crocodile honoured by them without a probable cause; but
is said to have been considered by them as a resemblance of divinity,
as being the only animal that is without a tongue. For the divine
reason is unindigent of voice, and proceeding through a silent path,
and accompanied with[102] justice, conducts mortal affairs according
to it. They also say it is the only animal living in water that has
the sight of its eyes covered with a thin and transparent film, which
descends from his forehead, so that he sees without being seen, which
is likewise the case with the first God. But in whatever place the
female crocodile may lay her eggs, this may with certainty be
concluded to be the boundary of the increase of the Nile. For not
being able to lay their eggs in the water, and fearing to lay them far
from it, they have such an accurate presensation of futurity, that
though they enjoy the benefit of the river in its access, during the
time of their laying and hatching, yet they preserve their eggs dry
and untouched by the water. They also lay sixty eggs, are the same
number of days in hatching them, and those that are the longest lived
among them live just so many years, which number is the first of the
measures employed by those who are conversant with the heavenly
bodies.

“Moreover, of those animals that were honoured for both reasons, we
have before spoken of the dog. But the ibis, killing indeed all deadly
reptiles, was the first that taught men the use of medical evacuation,
in consequence of observing that she is after this manner washed and
purified by herself. Those priests, also, that are most attentive to
the laws of sacred rites, when they consecrate water for lustration,
fetch it from that place where the ibis had been drinking; for she
will neither drink nor come near unwholesome or infected water; but
with the distance of her feet from each other and her bill she makes
an equilateral triangle. Farther still, the variety and mixture of her
black wings about the white represents the moon when she is gibbous.

“We ought not, however, to wonder if the Egyptians love such slender
similitudes, since the Greeks also, both in their pictures and
statues, employ many such like resemblances of the Gods. Thus in Crete
there was a statue of Jupiter without ears. For it is fit that he who
is the ruler and lord of all things should hear no one.[103] Phidias
also placed a dragon by the statue of Minerva, and a snail by that of
Venus at Elis, to show that virgins require a guard, and that keeping
at home and silence become married women. But the trident of Neptune
is a symbol of the third region of the world, which the sea possesses,
having an arrangement after the heavens and the air. Hence, also, they
thus denominated Amphitrite and the Tritons. The Pythagoreans,
likewise, adorned numbers and figures with the appellations of the
Gods. For they called the equilateral triangle, Minerva Coryphagenes,
or begotten from the summit, and Tritogeneia because it is divided by
three perpendiculars drawn from the three angles. But they called _the
one_ Apollo, being persuaded to this by the obvious meaning of the
word Apollo [which signifies a privation of multitude] and by the
simplicity of the monad[104]. The duad they denominated strife and
audacity, and the triad justice. For since injuring and being injured
are two extremes subsisting according to excess and defect, justice,
through equality, has a situation in the middle. But what is called
the tetractys, being the number 36, was, as is reported, their
greatest oath, and was denominated the world. For this number is
formed from the composition of the four first even and the four first
odd numbers, collected into one sum.[105] If, therefore, the most
approved of the philosophers did not think it proper to neglect or
despise any occult signification of a divine nature when they
perceived it even in things which are inanimate and incorporeal, it
appears to me that they, in a still greater degree, venerated those
peculiarities depending on manners which they saw in such natures as
had sense, and were endued with soul, with passion, and ethical
habits. We must embrace, therefore, not those who honour these things,
but those who reverence divinity through these, as through most clear
mirrors, and which are produced by nature, in a becoming manner,
conceiving them to be the instruments or the art of the God by whom
all things are perpetually adorned. But we ought to think that no
inanimate being can be more excellent than one that is animated, nor
an insensible than a sensitive being, not even though some one should
collect together all the gold and emeralds in the universe. For the
divinity is not ingenerated either in colours, or figures, or
smoothness; but such things as neither ever did, nor are naturally
adapted to participate of life, have an allotment more ignoble than
that of dead bodies. But the nature which lives and sees, and has the
principle of motion from itself, and a knowledge of things appropriate
and foreign to its being, has certainly derived an efflux and portion
of that wisdom which, as Heraclitus says, considers how both itself
and the universe is governed. Hence the divinity is not worse
represented in these animals than in the workmanships of copper and
stone, which in a similar manner suffer corruption and decay, but are
naturally deprived of all sense and consciousness. This then I
consider as the best defence that can be given of the adoration of
animals by the Egyptians.”

Footnote 102:

Instead of και δικης, I read και μετα δικης.

Footnote 103:

_i. e._ Should be perfectly impartial.

Footnote 104:

Instead of διπλοτατοις μοναδος as in the original, which is nonsense,
it is necessary to read, as in the above translation, απλοτητι της
μοναδος.

Footnote 105:

For 2 + 4 + 6 + 8 = 20; and 1 + 3 + 6 + 7 = 16; and 20 + 16 = 36.

Footnote 106:

The cock was sacred to Apollo, and therefore its heart was believed to
be the instrument of divination in sacrifices. The chemic Olympiodorus
says, “that the cock obscurely signifies the essence of the sun and
moon.” See, in the additional notes, what is said by Proclus
concerning the cock, in his treatise On Magic.

Footnote 107:

It is well observed by Ficinus, in lib. i. Eunead. ii. Plotin. “that
the fire which is enkindled by us is more similar to the heavens than
other terrestrial substances. Hence it participates of light, which is
something incorporeal, is the most powerful of all things, is as it
were vital, is perpetually moved, divides all things, without being
itself divided, absorbs all things in itself, and avoids any foreign
mixture: and lastly, when the fuel of it is consumed, it suddenly
flies back again to the celestial fire, which is every where latent.”

Footnote 108:

For this vehicle is luciform, and consists of pure, immaterial,
unburning, and vivific fire. See the fifth book of my translation of
Proclus on the Timæus.

Footnote 109:

Proclus in Tim. lib. v. observes concerning the telestic art, or the
art which operates through mystic ceremonies, “that, as the oracles
teach, it obliterates through divine fire all the stains produced by
generation.” Η τελεστικη δια του θειου πυρος αφανιζει τας εκ της
γενεσεως απασας κηλιδας, ως τα λογια διδασκει. Hence another Chaldean
oracle says, τῳ πυρι γαρ βροτος εμπελασας θεοθεν φαος εξει. _i. e._
“The mortal who approaches to fire will have a light from divinity.”
Hercules, as we also learn from Proclus, was an example of this
telestic purification. For he says, Ηρακλης δια τελεστικης
καθῃραμενος, και των αχραντων καρπων μετασχων, τελειας ετυχε εις τους
θεους αποκαταστασεως, in Plat. Polit. p. 382. _i. e._ “Hercules being
purified through the telestic art, and participating of undefiled
fruits, obtained a perfect restoration to the Gods.”

Footnote 110:

In the original, λεγω δε της θειας ψυχης τε και φυσεως, αλλ’ ουχι της
περικοσμιου τε και γενεσιουργου. But it appears to me that we should
here read, conformably to the above translation, λεγω δε της θειας,
ψυχης τε και ψυσεως, αλλ’ ουχι μονου της περικοσμιου τε και
γενεσιουργου.

Footnote 111:

These media consist of the order of Gods denominated αρχαι, or
_rulers_, and of those called απολυτοι, or _liberated_; the former of
which also are denominated _supermundane_, and the latter
_supercelestial_, in consequence of existing immediately above the
celestial Gods. See, concerning these media, the sixth book of my
translation of Proclus on the Theology of Plato.

Footnote 112:

Proclus on the First Alcibiades observes, “that about every God there
is an innumerable multitude of dæmons, who have the same appellations
with their leaders. And that these are delighted when they are called
by the names of Apollo or Jupiter, because they express in themselves
the characteristic peculiarity of their leading Gods.” In the same
admirable commentary, also, he says, “that in the most holy of the
mysteries [_i. e._ in the Eleusinian mysteries], prior to the
appearance of divinity, the incursions of certain terrestrial dæmons
present themselves to the view, alluring the souls of the spectators
from undefiled good to matter.”

Footnote 113:

It is beautifully observed by Simplicius on Epictetus, “that as if you
take away letters from a sentence, or change them, the form of the
sentence no longer remains, thus also in divine works or words, if any
thing is deficient, or is changed, or is confused, divine illumination
does not take place, but the indolence of him who does this dissolves
the power of what is effected.” Ωσπερ γαρ εαν στοιχεια του λογου
αφελῃς, ἢ υπαλλαξης, ουκ επιγινεται το του λογου ειδος, ουτω και των
θειων εργων ἢ λογων ει ελλειπει τι, ἢ υπηλλακται, ἢ συγκεχυται, ουκ
επιγινεται η του θειου ελλαμψις, αλλα και εξυδαροι την των γινομενων
δυναμιν η του ποιουντος ραθυμια.

Footnote 114:

Conformably to this, Servius, in his Annotations on the words

Diique, deæque omnes—

in the sixth book of the Æneid observes, “more pontificum, per quos
ritu veteri in omnibus sacris post speciales Deos, quos ad ipsum
sacrum, quod fiebat necesse erat invocari, generaliter omnia numina
invocabantur.” _i. e._ “This is spoken after the manner of the
pontiffs, by whom, according to ancient rites, in all sacrifices,
after the appropriate Gods whom it was necessary to invoke to the
sacrifice, all the divinities were invoked in general.” And in his
Annotations on the seventh of the Æneid he informs us, “that king
Œneus offered a sacrifice of first fruits to all the divinities but
Diana, who being enraged sent a boar [as a punishment for the
neglect].” With respect to this anger, however, of Diana, it is
necessary to observe with Proclus, “that the anger of the Gods does
not refer any passion to them, but indicates our inaptitude to
participate of them.” Ο γαρ των θεων χολος, ουκ εις εκεινας αναπεμπει
τι παθος, αλλα την ημων δεικνυσι ανεπιτηδειοτητα της εκεινων μεθεξεως.

Footnote 115:

Plotinus was a man of this description, to whom, most probably,
Iamblichus alludes in what he now says.

Footnote 116:

In the original θυμον τινος: but it is doubtless requisite to read
with Gale, θεσμον τινος. This I have translated _a certain divine
legislation_, because we are informed by Proclus, in Platon. Theol.
lib. iv. p. 206, “that θεσμος is connected with deity, and pertains
more to intelligibles; but that νομος, which unfolds intellectual
distribution, is adapted to the intellectual fathers.” Ο γαρ θεσμος
συμπλεκεται τῳ θεῳ, και προσηκει μαλλον τοις νοητοις ο δε νομος την
νοεραν εμφαινων διανομην, οικειος εσι τοις νοεροις πατρασι.

Footnote 117:

“Perhaps,” says Proclus, in MS. Comment, in Parmenid. “it is necessary
that, as in souls, natures, and bodies, fabrication does not begin
from the imperfect; so likewise in matter, prior to that which is
formless, and which has an evanescent being, there is that which is in
a certain respect form, and which is beheld in one boundary and
permanency.” This, therefore, will be the pure and divine matter of
which Iamblichus is now speaking. Damascius also says, that matter is
from the same order whence form is derived.

Footnote 118:

This particular respecting the apples of gold is added from the
version of Scutellius, who appears to have translated this work from a
more perfect manuscript than that which was used by Gale.

Footnote 119:

The conjecture of Gale, that for ἢ το εν Αβυδῳ in this place, we
should read ἢ το εν αδυτῳ, is, I have no doubt, right. For the highest
order of intelligibles is denominated by Orpheus _the adytum_, as we
are informed by Proclus in Tim. By the arcanum in the adytum,
therefore, is meant the deity who subsists at the extremity of the
intelligible order (_i. e._ Phanes); and of whom it is said in the
Chaldean Oracles, “that he remains in the paternal profundity, and in
the adytum, near to the god-nourished silence.”

Footnote 120:

For εις το φαινομενον και ορφμενον σωμα, I read εις το φερομενον κ. τ.
λ.

Footnote 121:

Here too for Αβυδῳ I read αδυτῳ.

Footnote 122:

Conformably to this, Martianus Capella also, in lib. ii. De Nuptiis
Philol. &c. speaking of the sun, says, “Ibi quandam navim, totius
naturæ cursus diversa cupiditate moderantem, cunctaque flammarum
congestione plenissimam, et beatis circumactam mercibus conspicatur.
Cui nautæ septem, germani tamen, suique similes præsidebant in prora.
Præsidebat in prora felis forma depicta, leonis in arbore, crocodili
in extimo.” For these animals, the cat, the lion, and the crocodile
were peculiarly sacred to the sun. Martianus adds, “In eadem vero
rate, fons quidem lucis æthereæ, arcanisque fluoribus manans, in
totius mundi lumina fundebatur.” _i. e._ “In the same ship there was a
fountain of etherial light flowing with arcane streams, which were
poured into all the luminaries of the world.” Porphyry, likewise, in
his treatise De Antro Nymph. says, “that the Egyptians placed the sun
and all dæmons not connected with any thing solid or stable, but
raised on a sailing vessel.”

Footnote 123:

In the original παν ζωδιον, which Gale erroneously translates
_animalia omnia_.

Footnote 124:

Of this kind are the following names in Alexand. Trallian. lib. ii.
Μευ, Θρευ, Μορ, Φορ, Τευξ, Ζα, Ζων, Θε, Λου, Χρι, Γε, Ζε, Ων, i.e.
_Meu_, _Threu_, _Mor_, _Phor_, _Teux_, _Za_, _Zōn_, _The_, _Lou_,
_Chri_, _Ge_, _Ze_, _Ōn_. By these names Alexander Trallianus says,
the sun becomes fixed in the heavens. He adds, “Again behold the great
name Ιαξ, (lege Ιαω), Αζυφ, Ζυων, Θρευξ, Βαϊν, Χωωκ, i. e. _Iaō_,
_Azuph_, _Zuōn_, _Threux_, _Baïn_, _Chōōk_.” Among the Latins, also,
Cato, Varro, and Marcellus de Medicamentis Empiricis, there are
examples of these names; the power and efficacy of which, as Gale
observes, are testified by history, though it is not easy to explain
the reason of their operation.

Footnote 125:

Proclus, in commenting on the following words of Plato in the Timæus,
(see vol. i. p. 228, of my translation of his Commentary), _viz._
“Let, therefore, this universe be denominated by us _all heaven_, or
_the world_, or whatever other appellation it may be especially
adapted to receive,” beautifully thus observes concerning the _divine_
name of the world. “As of statues established by the telestic art,
some things pertaining to them are manifest, but others are inwardly
concealed, being symbolical of the presence of the Gods, and which are
only known to the mystic artists themselves; after the same manner,
the world being a statue of the intelligible, and perfected by the
father, has indeed some things which are visible indications of its
divinity; but others, which are the invisible impressions of the
participation of being received by it from the father, who gave it
perfection, in order that through these it may be eternally rooted in
real being. _Heaven_, indeed, and _the world_ are names significant of
the powers in the universe; the latter, so far as it proceeds from the
intelligible; but the former, so far as it is converted to it. It is,
however, necessary to know that _the divine name_ of its abiding
power, and which is a symbol of the impression of the Demiurgus,
according to which it does not proceed out of being, is ineffable and
arcane, and known only to the Gods themselves. For there are names
adapted to every order of things; those, indeed, that are adapted to
divine natures being divine, to the objects of dianoia being
dianoetic, and to the objects of opinion doxastic. This also Plato
says in the Cratylus, where he embraces what is asserted by Homer on
this subject, who admits that names of the same things are with the
Gods different from those that subsist in the opinions of men,

Xanthus by God, by men Scamander call’d
ILIAD xx. v. 74.

And,

Which the Gods Chalcis, men Cymindis call.
ILIAD xiv. v. 291.

And in a similar manner in many other names. For as the knowledge of
the Gods is different from that of partial souls, thus also the names
of the one are different from those of the other; since divine names
unfold the whole essence of the things named, but those of men only
partially come into contact with them. Plato, therefore, knowing that
this preexisted in the world, omits the divine and ineffable name
itself, which is different from the apparent name, and with the
greatest caution introduces it as a symbol of the divine impression
which the world contains. For the words, “_or whatever other
appellation_” and “_it may receive_” are a latent hymn of the mundane
name, as ineffable, and as allotted a divine essence, in order that it
may be coordinate to what is signified by it. Hence, also, divine
mundane names are delivered by Theurgists; some of which are called by
them ineffable, but others effable; and some being significant of the
invisible powers in the world, but others of the visible elements from
which it derives its completion. Through these causes, therefore, as
hypotheses, the mundane form, the demiurgic cause and paradigm, and
the apparent and unapparent name of the world are delivered. And the
former name, indeed, is dyadic, but the latter monadic. For the words
“_whatever other_” are significant of oneness. You may also consider
_the ineffable_ name of the universe as significant of its abiding in
the father; but the name _world_, as indicative of its progression;
and _heaven_ of its conversion. But through the three, you have the
final cause, on account of which it is full of good; abiding
ineffably, proceeding perfectly, and converting itself to _the good_
as the antecedent object of desire.”

Footnote 126:

See the additional notes at the end of vol. v. of my translation of
Plato, where many of these names are beautifully unfolded from the MS.
Scholia of Proclus on the Cratylus.

Footnote 127:

See the additional notes at the end of vol. v. of my translation of
Plato, and also the notes to my translation of Aristotle de
Interpretatione, in which the reader will find a treasury of recondite
information concerning names, from Proclus and Ammonius.

Footnote 128:

Most historians give the palm of antiquity to the Egyptians. And
Lucian, in lib. De Syria Dea, says, “that the Egyptians are said to be
the first among men that had a conception of the Gods, and a knowledge
of sacred concerns.——They were also the first that had a knowledge of
sacred names.” Αιγυπτιοι πρωτοι ανθρωπων λεγονται θεων τε εννοιην
λαβειν και ιρα εισασθαι——πρωτοι δε και ονοματα ιρα εγνωσαν.
Conformably to this, also, an oracle of Apollo, quoted by Eusebius,
says that the Egyptians were the first that disclosed by infinite
actions the path that leads to the Gods. This oracle is as follows:

Αιπεινη γαρ οδος, μακαρων, τρηχειατε πολλον,
Χαλκοδετοις τα πρωτα διοιγομενη πυλεωσιν.
Ατραπιτοι δε εασσιν αθεσφατοι εγγεγαυιαι
Ας πρωτοι μεροπων επ’ απειρονα πρηξιν εφηναν,
Οι το καλον πινοντες υδωρ Νειλωτιδος αιης·
Πολλας και Φοινικες οδους μακαρων εδαησαν,
Ασσυριοι, Λυδοιτε, και Εβραιων (lege Χαλδαιων) γενος ανδρων.