And, Xanthua by God, by men Scamander call’d Iliad xx. v. 74.
Which the Goda Chalcia, 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, symbolical character of divine similitude must be admitted to have a subsistence in names. And, moreover, though it should be unknown to us, yet this very circumstance is that which is most venerable in it, for it is too excellent to be divided into knowledge. But in those thus also the names of the one are different from those of the other; sinee 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.”
names which we can scientifically analyze,* we possess a knowledge of the whole divine essence, power, and order, comprehended in the name. And farther still, we preserve in the soul collectively the mystic and arcane image of the Gods, and through this we elevate the soul to the Gods, and when elevated conjoin it as much as possible with them. But you ask, “ Why, of significant names, we ‘prefer such as are Barbaric to our ownf” Of this, also, there is a mystic reason. For because the Gods have shown that the whole dialect of sacred nations, such as those of the Egyptians and Assyrians, is adapted to sacred concerns; on this account we ought to think it necessary that our conference with the Gods should be in a language allied to them. Because, likewise, such a mode of speech is the first and most ancient. And especially because those who first learned the names of the Gods, having mingled them with their own proper tongue, delivered them to us, that we might always preserve immoveable the sacred law of tradition, in a language peculiar and adapted to them.
* 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.
For if any other thing pertains to the Gods, it is evident that the eternal and immutable must he allied to them.
You object, however, “ that he who hears words looks to their signification, so that it is sufficient the conception remains the same, whatever the words may he that are used.'' But the thing is not such as you suspect it to be. For if names subsisted through compact* it would be of no consequence whether some were used instead of others. But if they are suspended from the nature of things, those names which are more adapted to it will also be more dear to the Gods. From this, therefore, it is evident that the language of sacred nations is very reasonably preferred to that of other men. To which may be added, that names do not entirely preserve the same meaning when translated into another language; but there are certain idioms * 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.
in each nation which cannot be signified by language to another nation. And, in the next place, though it should be possible to translate them, yet they no longer,, preserve the same powpr when translated. Barbarous names, likewise, have much emphasis, great conciseness, and participate of less ambiguity, variety, and multitude. Hence, on all these accounts, they are adapted to more excellent natures. Take away, therefore, entirely those suspicions of yours which fall off from the truth, viz. he ivho is invoked is either an Egyptian or uses the Egyptian language.” But rather think that as the Egyptians were the first of men * who * 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.” Atywriot TrpwToi avOpcoTrwv Xeyovrai, Oewv re (.vvoir]V XajSeiv Kai tpa euraxrOat irpiiiTot 8e Kai ovopLara ipa eyvoxrav. Conformably to this, also, an oracle of Apollo, quoted by Eu^bius, says that the E^ptians were the first that disclosed by infinite actions the path that leads to the Gods. This oracle is as follows: Anreivrj yap oSos, p.aKaptuv, Tprj)(€LaT€ ttoXXov, XaAKoScTOiS Ttt TrpuiTa 8iotyop.evrj TrvXetocrii/.
KrpaTTLTOL cacrcnv aOccffyarot eyyeyavtai, Ol TO XttAoV TTtVOVTCS v8u)p NctAcDTlSoS I were allotted the participation of the Gods, the Gods when invoked rejoice in the Egyptian rites. Again, however, if all these were the fraudulent devices of enchanters, how is it possible that things which are in the most eminent degree united to the Gods, which also conjoin us with them, and have powers all but equal to those of superior beings, should be phantastic devices, though without them no sacred operation can be effected? But neither do these veils \hy which arcana are concealed^ originate from our passions, which inimour as- IIoAAas Kai ^otvLKe's o8ov<5 [laKapiMV eSarja-av, AcrarvpiOb, AvSoLTe, Kai E/3patwv (lege XaA8a6(ov) yevo? avS/ocov.
i.e. The path by which to deity we climb.
Is arduous, rough, ineffable, sublime; And the strong massy gates, through which we pass In our first course, are bound with chains of brass. Those men the first who of Egyptian birth Drank the fair water of Nilotic earth.
Disclosed by actions infinite this road.
And many paths to God Phoenicians show'd.
This road th' Assyrians pointed out to view.
And this the Lydians and Chaldeans knew.”
For E/3/)a60)v in this oracle I read XaASauov, because I have no doubt that either Aristobulus the Jew, well known for interpolating the writings of the Heathens, or the wicked Eusebius, as he is called by the Emperor Julian, have fraudu lently substituted the former word for the latter.
crihes to a divine nature '' For beginning, not from our passions, but, on the contraiy, from things allied to the Gods, we make use of words adapted to them. “iVbr do we frame conceptions of a divine nature, contrary to its real mode of subsistence." But conformably to the nature which it possesses, and to the truth concerning it, which those obtained who first established the laws of sacred religion, we persevere in our conceptions of divinity. For if any thing else in religious legal institutions is adapted to the Gods, this must certainly he immutability. And it is necessary that ancient prayers,* like sacred asyla, should he preserved invariably the same, neither taking any thing from them, nor adding any thing to them which is elsewhere derived. F or this is nearly the cause at present that both names and prayers have lost their efficacy, because they are continually changed through the innovation and illegality of the Greeks. For the Greeks are naturally studious of novelty, and are carried about * Prayers of this kind are such as those of which Proclus speaks in Tim. p. 65, when he says, “ The cathartic prayer is that which is offered for the purpose of averting diseases originating from pestilence, and other contagious distempers, such as we have written in our temples.” KaGapriKai Se (ru;(ai), em airoT porr ai<i XoipLtKiDV vocrrjp,OT(DV, rj Travrouov pto-Xv(r/*wv oias 5c Kai cv tois icpois €)(op.€v avayeypappevas.
every where by their volatility; neither possessing any stability themselves, nor preserving what they have received from others; but rapidly relinquishing this, they transform every thing through an unstable desire of discovering something new. But the Barbarians are stable in their manners, and firmly continue to employ the same words. Hence they are dear to the Gods, and proffer words which are grateful to them; but which it is not lawful for any man by any means to change. And thus much we have said in answer to you concerning names, which though they are inexplicable, and are called Barbaric, yet are adapted to sacred concerns.
SECTION VIII.
SECTION VIII.
Leaving, therefore, these particulars, you wish in the next place that I would unfold to you “ What the Egyptians conceive the first cause to he; whether intellect, or above intellect; ivhether alone, or subsisting with some other or others; whether incorporeal, or corporeal; and whether it is the same with the Demiurgus, or is prior to the Demiurgus? Likewise, whether all things are from one principle, or from many principles; whether they have a knowledge of matter, or of primary corporeal qualities; and whether they admit matter to be unbegotten, or to be generated? ” 1, therefore, will in the first place relate to you the cause why in the hooks of the ancient writers of sacred concerns many and various opinions concerning these things are circulated, and also why among those that are still living, and are renowned for their wisdom, the opinion on this subject is not simple and one. I say then, that as there are memj essences, and these differing from each other, the all-various multitude of the principles of these, and which have different orders, were^ delivered by different ancient priests. As Seleucus * narrates, therefore, Hermes described the principles that rank as wholes in two myriads t of books; or, as we are informed by Manetho J, he perfectly unfolded these principles in thre£ myriads six thousand five hundred and twenty five volumes. But different ancient writers differently explained the partial principles of essences. It is necessary, however, by investigation to discover the truth about all these principles, and concisely to unfold it to you as much as possible. And, in the first place, hear concerning that which is the first subject of your inquiry.
* Porphyry, in lib. ii. De Abstinentia, mentions Seleucus the theologist, and Suidas says that Seleucus the Alexandrian wrote 100 books concerning ihe Gods.
t These books (^i^Aoi) were most probably nothing more than short discourses, such as the treatises now are which are circulated as written by Hermes, and which, as lamblichus informs us, contain Hermaic doctrines.
I A great priest, a scribe of the Adyta in Egypt, by birth a Sebanite, and an inhabitant of Heliopolis, as he relates of himself.
Prior to truly existing beings and total principles [or principles that rank as wholes], there is one God, prior to [that deity who is generally believed to he] the first God and king,* immoveable, and abiding in the solitude of his own unity. For neither is the intelligible connected with him, nor any thing else; but he is established as the paradigm of the God who is the father of himself, is self begotten, is father alone, and is truly good. For he is something even greater and prior to this, is the fountain of all things, and the mot of the first intelligible forms. But from this one deity, the God who is sutficient to himself, unfolds himself into light. For this divinity, also, is the principle and God of Gods, ajmonad from the one, prmr to essence, and the principle of essence. For from him entity and essence are derived; and hence, also, he is denominated the principle of intelligibles. These, therefore, are the most ancient principles of all things, which Hermes * In the original, irpioros Kai tov irptuTov Oeov Kai /^acriAews, which Gale translates, prior etiam primo Deo, et rege [sole]. But the addition of sole in his translation is obviously most unappropriate and false: for lamblichus is evidently speaking of a deity much superior to the sun.
arranges prior to the etherial, empyrean, and celestial Gods. He likewise delivered to us the history of the empyrean Gods in one hundred books; of the etherial in an equal number; and of the celestial in a thousand books.
According to another order, however, he arranges the God Emeph* prior to, and as the leader of, the celestial Gods. And he says that this God is an intellect, itself intellectually perceiving itself, and converting intellections to itself. But prior to this, he arranges the impartible one, which he says is the first paradigm, and which he denominates Eicton. In this, also, is contained that which is first intellective, and the first intelligible, and which is to be worshiped through silence alone. Besides these, also, other leaders preside over the fabrication of visible natures. For the demiurgic intellect, who is the curator of truth and wisdom, desce^ing into generation, and leading the power of occult reasons into light, is called in * For Hixrjcf) here, Gale conjectures that we should read Kvrj<^ Kneph: for Plutarch says that the unbegotten Kneph was celebrated with an extraordinary degree of veneration by the Egyptian Thebans.
the Egyptian tongue Amon; but in consequence of perfecting all things with veracity and artificially, he is called Ptha. The Greeks, however, assume Ptha for Vulcan, solely directing their attention to the artificial peculiarity of the God. So far, also, as he is effective of ffood he is called Osiris; and he has other appellations through other powers and energies. With the Egyptians, therefore, there is another domination of the whole elements in generation, and of the powers contained in them; four of these powers being male and four female, which they attribute to the sun. And there is, likewise, another government of the whole of nature about generation, which they assign to the moon.'^’" But dividing the heavens into two, or four, or twelve, or six-andthirty parts, or the doubles of these, they give to the parts a greater or less number of rulers. And over all these they place one ruler, who transcends all the rest. Thus, therefore, the doctrine of the Egyptians concerning principles, proceeding from on high as far as to the last of things, begins from. one principle, and descends to a multitude which is governed by this one; and every where an indefinite nature \ \ Hence the moon is said by Proclus to be avToirrov rrjs <f>v(re(Ds ayaXfia, the self-visible statue or image of nature.
is under the dominion of a certain definite measure, and of the supreme unical cause of all things. But God produced matter by dividing materiality from essentiality;* and this being vital, the Demiurgus receiving, fabricated from it the simple and impassive spheres. But he distributed in an orderly manner the last of it into generable and corruptible bodies.
These things, therefore, having been accurately discussed, the solution of the doubts which you have met with in certain books will be manifest. For the hooks ivhich are circulated under the name of Hermes contain Hermaic opinions, though they frequently employ the language of the philosophers: for th^y were translated from the Egypt * Proclus in Tim. p. 117, cites what is here said as the doctrine of the Egyptians, and also cites for it the authority of lamblichus. But his words are, Kai fi-qv Kai r] t(ov AiyvTTTt(x)V TrapaSocris Ta avra Trepi avT7]<s (tt^s vX.rjs) <f>r](TLV. o yi TOt 6e.LO<5 Iaju,/3A.t;(Os i<sopr)crev on Kai Epp,rjs €k ovcrioT'qro^ rrjv vXorrjTa Trapayecrdai jSovkerai. i. e. ” Moreover the doctrine of the Egyptians asserts the same things concerning matter. For the divine lamblichus relates that Hermes also produces matter from essentiality.”
ian tongue hy men who were not unshilled in ‘philosophy. But Chseremon/"' and any others who have at all discussed the first causes of mundane natures, have unfolded the last rulers of these. And such as have written concerning the planets, the zodiac, the decans, horoscopes, and what are called powerful and leading planets, these have unfolded the partible distributions of the rulers. The particulars, also, contained in the Calendars comprehend a certain very small part of the Hermaic arrangements. And the causes of such things as pertain to the phases or occulations of the stars, or to the increments and decrements of the moon, are assigned by the Egyptians the last of all. The Egyptians, likewise, do not. say tfiaf all things, are physicpLl. F or they separate the life of the soul and the intellectiial life from nature, not only in the universe, but also in us. And admitting intellect and reason to subsist by themselves, they say that generated essences were thus fabricated. They likewise arrange the Demiurgus as the primary father of things in generation; and they acknowledge the ex- * This is most probably the Chaeremon who is said by Porphyry, in lib. iv. De Abstinentia, to be a lover of truth, an accurate writer, and very conversant with the Stoic philosophy.” Totavra /xcv ra Kar KiyvirTiov^ vtt av8po<; (f^L-X.aXr]9ov^ re Kat aKpifSovs, evre tois ^rmKoi^ Trpayp.aTLKW-Tara cf3iXocrocf>Yj(ravTO<s pep.aprvpiip.eva.
X X istence of a vital power, prior to the heavens, and subsisting in the heavens. They also establish a pure intellect above the world, and one impartible intellect in the whole world, and another which is distributed into all the spheres. And these things they do not survey by rnere reason alone, but through the sacerdotal theurgy, they announce that they are able to ascend to more elevated and universal essences, and to those that are established above ^Fate, viz. to God and the Demiurgus; neither employing matter, nor assuming any other thing besides, except the observation of a suitable time.
This deific and anagogic path Hermes, indeed, narrated, but Bitys, the prophet of King Ammon,'“ explained it, having found it in the adyta of Saist in Egypt, written in hieroglyphics; * This was the ninth king in the twenty-sixth dynasty of the Saitan kings, t This city is mentioned by Plato in the Timgeus, who represents Critias as saying “ that there is a certain region of Egypt, called Delta, about the summit of which the streams of the Nile are divided, and in which there is a province called Saitical.” He adds, “ of this province the and the same prophet also delivered the name of God, which pervades through the whole world."^^ But there are, likewise, many other coarrangements of the same things; so that you do not appear to me to act rightly in referring all things with the Egyptians to physical causes. For there are, according to them, many principles and many essences: and also supermundane powers, which they worship through sacerdotal sanctimony. To me, therefore, these " things appear to aJfford common auxiliaries to the solution of all the remaining greatest city is Sais, from which also King Amasis derived his origin. The city has a presiding divinity, whose name is, in the Egyptian tongue, Neith, but in the Greek Athena, or Minerva.” It is singular that Gale, who is not deficient in philology, though but a smatterer in philosophy, should have omitted to remark in his notes this passage of Plato.
* Proclus, in MS. Comment, in Alcibiad. cites one of the Chaldean oracles, which says.
'f icf TTOpdlUOV OVVOfia TO 8’ €V aTTCLpOtS Ko(T/X.06S evdpUiCTKOV.
i. e. " There is a transmitting name which leaps into the infinite worlds.” And in his MS. Scholia in Cratyl. he quotes another of these oracles, viz.
AAAa e^iv ovvopa (repvov aKOLp/t]T(p <zpo(f>aX.iyyt, Kocrjuots €v6p(ji(TKov, KpaLTTvrjv 8ta rraTyoos evarrjv.
i. e There is a venerable name with a sleepless revolution, leaping into the worlds through the rapid reproofs of the father.”
inquiries. But since it is necessary not to leave any one of them uninvestigated, we shall add them to these problems, and examine them on all sides, in order that we may see where there is any thing futile in your opinions.
CHAP. VI.
You say, therefore, “ that according to many of the Egyptians, that which is in our power depends on the motion of the stars'’ What the truth, however, is respecting this, it is necessary to unfold to yon from the Hermaic conceptions. For man, as these writings say, has two souls. And one, indeed, is derived from the first intelligible, and participates of the -power of the Demiurgus; but the o^er is imparted from the circulation of the celestial bodieg, to which the soul that sees God returns. These things, therefore, thus subsisting, the soul that descends to us from the worlds follows the periods of the worlds; but that which is intelligibly present from the_ intelligible, transcends the genesiurgic motion, and through this a liberation from fate, and the ascent to the intelligible Gods, are effected. §.uph theurgy, likewise, a^ leads to an unbegotten nature is perfected conformably to a life of this kind.
Hence that of which you are dubious is not true, ''that all things are hound with the indissoluble bonds of Necessity” which we call Fate. For the soul has ^a proper principle of circumduction to the intelligible, and of a separation from generated natures: and also of a contact with real beiner, and that which is divine. "Nor must ive ascribe fate to the Gods, ivhom ive ivorship in temples and statues, as the dissolvers of fate” For the Gods, indeed, dissolve fate; but the last natures which proceed from them, and are complicated with the generation of the world and with body, give completion to fate. Hence we very properly worship the Gods with all possible sanctity, and the observance of all religious rites, in order that they may liberate us from the evils impending from fate, as they alone rule over necessity through intellectual persuasion. But neither are all things comprehended * in the nature of fate, but there is another principle of the soul, which is superior to all nature and generation, and through which we are capable of being united to the Gods, of transcending * For €)(€Tai in this place, I read 7re/)ie;(€Tat.
the mundane order, and of participating eternal life, and the energy of the supercelestial Gods. Through this principle, therefore, we are able to liberate ourselves from fate. For when the more excellent parts of us energize, and the soul is elevated to natures better than itself/'^ then it is entirely separated from things which detain it in generation, departs from subordinate natures, exchanges the present for another life, and gives itself to another order of things, entirely abandoning the former order with which it was connected.
CHAP. VIII.
What then, is it not possible for a man to‘ liberate himself [from fate] through the Gods that revolve in the heavens, and to consider the same as the leaders of fate, and yet as * Gale, in his translation of this part, has entirely mistaken the meaning of lamblichus, which he frequently does in other places. For the words of lamblichus are, oray yap Srj ra j3eX.Tiova tcjv ev 7]pLtv evepyy, Kai irpo'S ra KpeiTTOva avayerai avT7]s rj i'vxV i version of Gale is " quando enim pars nostri melior operari incipiat, et ad sui portionem meliorem recolligatur anima.” For ra KpeiTTova is not the better part of the soul; but when the better parts of the soul energize, the soul is then intimately converted to itself, and through this conversion is elevated to superior natures.
those that bind our lives with indissoluble bonds? Perhaps nothing prevents this from being the case. For if the Gods comprehend in themselves many essences and powers, there are also in them other immense differences and contrarieties. Moreover, this also may be said, that in each of the Gods, though such as are visible, there are certain intelligible principles through which a liberation to souls from mundane generation is effected. But if some one leaves only two genera of Gods, viz. thip^. mundane and supermundane, the liberation to souls will be effected through the supermundane Gods. These things, therefore, are more accurately discussed in our treatise Concerning the Gods, in which it is shown who are the anagogic Gods, and according to what kind of powers they are so; how they liberate from fate, and through what sacred regressions; and what the order is of mundane nature, and how the most perfect intellectual energy rules over this. So that what you add from Homer, “that the Gods are flexible,” it is not holy to assert. For the works of the sacred ceremonies of religion have Jong since been defined by pure and intellectual laws. Subordinate natures, also, are Jiberated through a greater order and power; and when we abandon inferior natures, we are transferred into a more excellent allotment. This, however, is not effected contrary to any original sacred law, so as to cause the Gnds to be changed, through a sacred operation b^ng afterwards performed; but from the first divinity sent souls hither, in order that they might again return to him. Neither, therefore, is any mutation produced through a reascent of this kind, nor do the descents and ascents of souls oppose each other. For as generation and this universe are suspended from an intellectual essence; thus, also, in the orderly distribution of souls, the liberation from generation accords with the care employed by them about generation.
SECTION IX.
Let us now, therefore, to the utmost of our power, endeavour to discuss the manifold doubt concerning the peculiar daemon, and which also is subject to various objections. Since, however, to speak summarily, the consideration of the peculiar daemon is twofold, the one being theurgic, but the other artificial; and the one drawing this daemon down from supernal causes, but the other from the visible periods in generation; and the one making no use whatever of the calculation of nativities, but the other meddling with methods of this kind; and the one worshiping this daemon in a way more universal and supernatural, but the other partibly conformable to nature; this being the case, you appear to me to have absurdly transferred a more perfect sacred operation to one that is human, and in this to have exercised your inquiries.
In the next place, here also you appear to me to have cut off only a certain small part of the discussion concerning the peculiar daemon. For since it is usual 'with those who artificially operate about nature to invoke this daemon in an orderly manner from the decans, from the dispensators of influxes, from the signs of the zodiac, the stars, the sun and moon, from the greater and lesser bear, from the whole elements, and from the world, this being the case, you do not act rightly in assuming one, and that the smallest part of all these, viz. the lord of the geniture, and making your inquiries about this alone. Flere, likewise, again from one of the things proposed to be considered, you inquire the lord of the geniture gives the peculiar dcemon, and according to what hind of efflux, or life, or power, it descends to us from him^ You also speak concerning the calculation of nativities, and ask “ ivhether there is any reality in it or not; ” and likewise concerning the invention of the lord of the geniture, “ ivhether it is impossible to be found, or possible!' In what respect, however, do these things pertain to the domination of the daemon? For it is evident that our knowledge of the manner in which he subsists, contributes nothing to his essence and the cause of his existence. For in things which belong to the empire of nature, such as are generated in the universe have a proper stability of their own essence, though we should be ignorant how they are produced. In this way, therefore, we reply in common to your doubts. But directing our attention particularly to the subjects of your inquiiy, we shall endeavour to give you solutions of them.
You say, then, “ that he is happy ivho having learned the scheme of his nativity, and knowing his proper daemon, is thus liberated from fate'' To me, however, you appear to assert these things in a way neither consonant to themselves nor to truth. For if our proper daemon is distributed to us from the scheme of our nativity, and from thence we are able to discover him, how can we he liberated from fate, through' a knowledge of the daemon imparted to us by fate 1 But if, as you say, we are truly liberated from necessity through this daemon, how is he allotted to us by fate? Thus, therefore, what is now said by you opposes what you before asserted; and is also discordant with tmtli. For the proper daemon of every one does not entirely accede from the scheme of the peculiar nativity; but his origin is more ancient than this, which we shall hereafter discuss. To which may be added, that if the descending daemon was to be alone surveyed from hence, he will not be happy who obtains the knowledge of his genesiurgic daemon. And who would [willingly] receive this daemon as his leader to a liberation from fate, if he was given to him for this purpose, that he might accomplish the distributions of fate? Farther still, this appears to me to be only a certain and the last part of the theory pertaining to this daemon; and that the whole theory of his essence is omitted by a method of this kind. But these things, indeed, though they are falsely asserted, yet at the same time are not utterly foreign from the purpose. The doubts, however, adduced by you in the next place, concerning “ the enumeration of the canons and the genethlialogical science” as they are inscrutable, are not attended with any ambiguity in the present discussion. For whether these arts are known or are incomprehensible, yet, at the same time, the efflux from the stars distributes to us the daemon, whether we know it or not. But divine divination is able to teach us concerning the stars, in a way which is most true, and [when we are in possession of this] we are not entirely in want of the enumeration of canons, or of the divining art.
If, however, it be necessary, dismissing these particulars, to speak what appears to me to be the truth, you do not rightly infer “ that a knowledge of this mathematical science cannot he obtained, because there is much dissonance concerning it, or because Chseremon, or some other, has ivritten against it” For if this reason were admitted, all things will be incomprehensible. For all sciences have ten thousand controvertists, and the doubts with which they are attended are innumerable. As, therefore, we are accustomed to say in opposition to the contentious, that contraries in things that are true are naturally discordant, and that it is not falsities alone that are hostile to each other; thus, also, we say respecting this mathematical science, that it is indeed true; but that those who wander from the scope of it, being ignorant of the truth, contradict it. This, however * Viz. The science of calculating nativities.