happens not in this science alone, but likewise in all the sciences, which are imparted by the Gods to men. For time always proceeding the divine mode of knowledge becomes evanescent, through being frequently mingled and contaminated with much of what is mortal. This divine mode is indeed [in astrology also], and a certain clear indication of truth, though it is but small, is at the same time preserved in it. For it places before our eyes manifest signs of the mensuration of the divine periods, when it predicts the eclipses of the sun and moon, and the concursions’'^ of the moon with the fixed stars, and when the experience of the sight is seen to accord with the prediction. Moreover, the observations of the celestial bodies through the whole of timef both by the Chaldeans and by us, testify that this science is true. Indications, also, more known than these might be adduced, if the present discussion was precedaneously about these particulars. But * i. e. The joint risings and settings.
t i. e. Through a period of 300,000 years; and Procl. m Tim, lib. iv. p. 277, informs us that the Chaldeans had observations of the stars which embraced whole mundane periods. What Proclus likewise asserts of the Chaldeans is confirmed by Cicero in his first book on Divination, who says that they had records of the stars for the space of 370,000 yeax*s; and by Diodorus Siculus, Bibl, lib. xi. p. 118, who says that their observations comprehended the space of 473,000 years.
as they are superfluous, and do not pertain to the knowledge of the peculiar daemon, I shall, as it is fit so to do, omit them, and pass on to things more appropriate than these.
You say then, in your epistle, “ that the discovery of the lord or lords of the geniture^ if there are more than one in a nativity, can scarcely be obtained, and by astrologers themselves is confessed to be unattainable; and yet they say that the peculiar dcemon is from thence to he hiown.” But how can astrologers confess that the knowledge of the lord of the geniture is not to be obtained by them, when they deliver clear methods for the discovery of it, and teach us rules by which we may discover the doubts; some, indeed, giving us five,^' others more and others less than five rules? Omitting this, however, let us direct our attention to a thing of greater consequence, viz. the accidents per- * “We say,” says Hephestion, “that a star is the lord of the geniture, which has five conditions of the lord of the nativity in the horoscope; viz. if that star receives the luminaries in their proper boundaries, in their proper house, in their proper altitude, and in the proper triangle.” He also adds, “ and if besides it has contact, effluxion, and configuration.” See likewise Porphyiy in Ptolemteum, p, 191.
taining to both these. For if it is possible to discover the lord of the geniture, the djemon imparted by him will be known; but if this knowledge is unattainable, we shall be ignorant of the lord of the geniture according to this hypothesis, and yet, nevertheless, he will have an existence, and also the daemon imparted by him. What therefore hinders, but that the discovery of him may be difficult through prediction from the nativity, and yet through sacred divination, or theurgy, there may be a great abundance of scientific knowledge on this subject? In short, the daemon is not alone imparted by the lord of the geniture, but there are many other principles of it more universal than this. And farther still, a method of this kind introduces a certain artificial and human disquisition concerning the peculiar daemon. Hence, in these doubts of yours there is nothing sane.
According to the Egyptians eveiy one received his proper daemon at the hour of his birth; nor did they ascend any higher, in order to obtain a knowledge of it. For they alone considered the horoscope. See Porphyry apud Stobaeum, p. 201, and Hermes in Revolut. cap. iv.
CHAP. VI.
If, however, it be requisite to unfold to you the truth concerning the peculiar dsemon, we must say that he is not distributed to us from one part of the heavens, or from some one of the visible elements; but that from the whole world, the all various life contained in it, and the all various body through which the soul descends into generation, a certain peculiar portion is distributed to each of the parts in us, according to a peculiar prefecture. This dsemon, therefore, is established in the paradigm before the soul descends into generation; and when the soul has received him as its leader, the dsemon immediately presides over the soul, gives completion to its lives, and binds it to body when it descends. He likewise governs the common animal of the soul, directs its < peculiar life, and imparts to us the principles of all our thoughts and reasonings. We also perform such things as he suggests to our intellect, and he continues to govern us till, through sacerdotal theurgy, we obtain a God for the inspective guardian and leader of the soul. For then the dsemon either yields or delivers his government to a more excellent nature, or is Y Y subjected to him, as contributing to his guardianship, or in some other way is ministrant to him as to his lord.
CHAP. YII.
From these things, therefore, it is easy to answer your next question. For the peculiar daemon does not rule over one of the parts in us, but, in short, over all the parts at once, and extends to eveiy principle within us, in the same manner as he was distributed to us from the total orders in the universe. For that which it appears to you proper to add as an indication “ that dcBmons preside over the parts of our body, so that one is the guardian of health, another of the form of the body, and another of the corporeal habits, and that there is one dcemon ivho presides in common over all these; ” this you should consider as an argument that there is one daemon who is the guardian and governor of every thing that is in us. You must not, therefore, distribute one daemon to the body, but another to the soul, and another to intellect: for it is absurd that the animal should be one, but the daemon that presides over it multiform. For every where the natures that govern are more simple than the natures that are governed. And it will be still more absurd if the many daemons that rule over the parts are not connascent, but separated from each other. But you also make contrariety among them. For you speak as if “ some of them were good, hut others hadT Evil daemons, however, have no where a ruling allotment, nor are they oppositely divided to such as are good with equal authority and power.
CHAP. YlII.
Afterwards, abandoning these particulars, you pass on to the opinion of philosophy. But you subvert the whole hypothesis concerning the peculiar daemon. For if [as you say] “ this doemon is a part of the soulf such, for instance, as the intellectual part, and he is happy ivho is in possession of a wise intellect,'^ there will no longer be any other more excellent or daemoniacal order, presiding over, as transcending the human soul. But certain parts of the soul, or a certain divided power, will have dominion over many of the forms of life that are in us; and will rule over these, not connascently, but as naturally exempt, and as transcending the whole of our composition.
* * After this, therefore, you also mention another disquisition concerning the peculiar daemon, which represents “ some as ivorshiping tivo, hut others three, dcemons of this kind” The whole of this, however, is erroneous. For it is a false mode of proceeding to divide the causes that preside over us, and not refer them to one; since this wanders from the union which has dominion over all things. The opinion, likewise, which distributes this daemon into body, and the government of body, draws down his domination to a certain most minute part. So that what necessity is there for those who embrace this opinion to direct their attention to sacred operations, the first principle of them being futile? There is, therefore, of each of us one peculiar presiding daemon; but it is not proper to think that this daemon is common to all men; nor again, that he is common, but is peculiarly present with each individual. For division, according to species and difference of matter, do not receive the communion and sameness of things essentially incorporeal. ‘‘ Why then [you say] is the peculiar dcemon invoked by a common mode by all men f ” Because the invocation of him is effected through one God, who is the lord of daemons; who from the first defined to every one his peculiar daemon; and who, in sacred operations, unfolds to every one his proper daemon, according to his own proper wfill. For always in the theurgic order secondary are invoked through primary natures. Among daemons, therefore, one common leader of the cosmocrators about generation sends to each of us his peculiar daemon. Hence, when the peculiar daemon is present with each of us, he then unfolds the worship which is proper to be paid to him and his name, and likewise delivers the proper mode of invoking him.
And this order is adapted to daemons; one part of it being allied to those that are invoked; another being derived from more ancient causes; and the third part efifecting a common completion from both the others. Do not, therefore, assimilate divine invocations to such as are human, nor those that are ineffable to those that are eflfable; nor compare those that are prior to every boundary, and every indefinite mode, to those that are defined by men, or to indefinite actions. For our concerns have nothing in common with theirs, whose whole genus and whole order transcend and govern the whole of our essence and nature. But here, especially, the greatest errors happen to men, when from human imhecility they infer any thing concerning the domination of daemons, and from things which are small, of no worth, and distributed into parts, form a conjecture of great, excellent, and perfect natures. And thus much in answer to you concerning the peculiar daemon, in addition to what has been before said.
SECTION X.
SECTION X.
It now remains, in the last place, that we should speak concerning felicity, about which you make various inquiries, first of all proposing objections, afterwards doubting, and then interrogating. Adducing, therefore, all that is said by you, we shall answer it appropriately. You inquire, then, ''whether there is not some other latent way to felicity'' But how, in that path which recedes from the Gods, is it probable there can be an ascent to felicity? For if the essence and perfection of all good are comprehended in the Gods, and the first and ancient power of them is with us priests, and if by those who similarly adhere to more excellent natures, and genuinely obtain a union with them, the beginning and end of all good is earnestly pursued; if this be the case, here the contemplation of truth, and the possession of intellectual science are to be found.* And a knowledge of the Gods is accompanied with a conversion to, and the knowledge of, ourselves.
Hence you in vain doubt, “ that it is not proper to look to human opinions.'^ For what leisure can he have whose intellect is directed to the Gods to look downward to the praises of men? Nor do you rightly doubt in what follows, viz. “ that the soul devises great things from casual circumstances!^ For w^hat principle of fictions can there be in truly existing beings 1 Is it not the phantastic power in us which is the maker of images X But the phantasy is never excited ivhen the intellectual life energizes perfectly. And is not truth essentially coexistent with the Gods? Is it not, likewise, concordantly established in intelligibles? It is in vain, therefore, that things of this kind are disseminated by you and others. But neither do those * In the original evravOa 8rj ovv Kai rj rrj^ aX.rjd€ias Trapes L 6ea, Kai rj Ti]s voepa's But instead of r] Tr]<s voepa<i a7n^'i]pr)<s, which appears to me to be defective, I read ■>] KTr^cris T7]s voepas things for which certain futile and arrogant men calumniate the worshipers of the Gods, the like to which have been asserted by you, at all pertain to true theology and theurgy, xlnd if certain things of this kind germinate in the sciences of divine concerns, as in other arts evil arts blossom forth; these are doubtless more contrary to such sciences than to any thing else. For evil is more hostile to good than to that which is not good.
I WISH, in the next place, to reply to such assertions as calumniate divine prediction. For you compare with it “ certain other methods ivhich are conversant with the prediction of future events!' To me, however, it does not appear to be any thing honourable if a certain natural aptitude is ingenerated in us to the indication of the future, just as in animals there is a foreknowledge of earthquakes, or winds, or tempests. For an innate presage of this kind is the consequence of acuteness of sensation, or sympathy, or some other conjoint motion of the physical powers, and is not attended with any thing venerable and supernatural. Nor if some one, by human reasoning, or artificial observation, conjectures from signs those things of which the signs are indicative (as physicians foreknow that a fever will take place from the systole and torpor of the pulse), neither does he appear to me to possess any thing honourable and good. For he conjectures after a human manner, and concludes from our reasoning power about things which are acknowledged to be effected naturally, and forms a judgment not very remote from the corporeal-formed order. Hence, if there is in us a certain natural presentiment of the future, in the same manner as in all other animals, this power is clearly seen to energize; this presentiment does not in reality possess any thing which is most blessed. For what is there among the things which are implanted in us -by nature in the realms of generation that is a genuine, perfect, and eternal good?
Divine divination, therefore, which is conjoined with the Gods, alone truly imparts to us a divine life; since it participates of [divine] foreknowledge, and divine intellections, and renders us in reality divine. It likewise causes us to be genuine participants of the good, be- I cause the most blessed intellectual perception of the Gods is filled with all good. Hence those who possess this divination “ do not” as you conjecture, foresee future events, and are nevertheless unhappy.” For all divine foreknowledge is honiform. Nor “ do they foresee, indeed, what is future, hut do not know how to ^Lse this hnoivledge properly,” For, together with the foreknowledge, they receive the beautiful itself, and true and appropriate order: and utility is also present with it. For the Gods, in conjunction with it, deliver a transcendent power of defence against the inconveniences which accede from nature. And when it is necessary to exercise virtue, and the ignorance of future events contributes to this, then the Gods conceal what will be for the sake of rendering the soul better. But when the ignorance of what is future does not at all contribute to this, and foreknowledge is advantageous to souls, for the sake of their salvation and reascent [to divinity], then the Gods insert the foreknowledge which pertains to divination in the penetralia of the essences of souls.
i i But why am I prolix about these particulars? For I have abundantly shown, in what has been before said, the transcendency of divine above human divination. It is better, therefore, in compliance with your request, “ to 'point out to 'you the way to felicity, and sJioiv you in ivhat the essence of it is placed.''' For from this the truth will be discovered, and at the same time all the doubts may be easily dissolved. I say, therefore, that the more divine * intelligible man, who was formerly united to the Gods by the vision of them, afterwards entered into another soul, which is coadapted to the human form, and through this became fettered with the bonds of necessity and fate. Hence it is requisite to consider how he may be liberated from these bonds. There is, therefore, no other dissolution of them than the knowledge of the Gods. For to know scientifically the good is the idea of felicity; just as the oblivion of good, and deception about evil, happen to be the idea of evil. The former, therefore, is present with divinity;, but the latter, which is an inferior destiny, is inseparable from the mortal nature.
* For dmTos here, I read ^ewre/aos.
And the former, indeed, measures the essences of intelligibles* by sacred ways; hut the latter, abandoning principles, gives itself up to the measurement of the idea of body. The former is a knowledge of the father; but the latter is a departure from him, and an oblivion of the God who is a superessential father, and sufficient to himself. The former, likewise, preserves the true life of the soul, and leads it back to its father; but the latter draws down the generation-rulingt man, as far as to that which is never permanent, but is always flowing. You must understand, therefore, that this is the flrst path to felicity, affording to souls an intellectual plenitude of divine union. But the sacerdotal and theurgic gift of felicity is called, indeed, the gate to the Demiurgus of wholes, or the seat, or palace, of the good. In the first place, likewise, it possesses a power of purifying the soul, much more perfect than the power which purifies the body; afterwards it causes a coaptation of the reasoning power to the participation and vision of the * In the original, by a strange mistake, twv dv'qTiav is inserted here instead of tcov vorjTwv, which is obviously the true reading. The version of Gale also has intelligibilium.
t i. e. Man, considered as a rational soul, connected with the irrational life; for this man has dominion in the realms of generation.
good, and a liberation from every thing of a contrary nature; and, in the last place, produces a union with the Gods, who are the givers of every good.
Moreovee, after it has conjoined the soul to the several parts of the universe, and to the total divine powers which pass through it; then it leads the soul to, and deposits it in, the whole Demiurgus, and causes it to be independent of all matter, and to be counited with the eternal reason alone. But my meaning is, that it peculiarly connects the soul with the self-begotten and self-moved God, and with the all-sustaining, intellectual, and all-adorning powers of the God, and likewise with that power of him which elevates to truth, and with his self-perfect, effective, and other demiui'gic powers; so that the theurgic soul becomes perfectly established in the energies and demiurgic intellections of these powers. Then, also, it inserts the soul in the whole demiurgic God. And this is the end with the Egyptians of the sacerdotal elevation of the soul to divinity.
With respect to the good, likewise, they conceive that one kind is divine, and this is the God who is prior to the intelligible; but that the other is human, and is a union with the former. And these two kinds of good Bitys has unfolded from the Hermaic books. This part, therefore, is not, as you suspect, omitted by the Egyptians, but is divinely delivered by them. Nor do “ theur gists disturb the divine intellect about trifling concerns; ” but they consult it about things which pertain to the purification, liberation, and salvation of the soul. Neither do they studiously employ themselves in things which are indeed difficult, yet useless to mankind; hut, on the contraiy, they direct their attention to things which are of all others most beneficial to the soul. Nor, in the last place, are “ they deceived by a certain fraudulent dcemon,’' who, having vanquished a fallacious and dsemoniacal nature, ascend to an intelligible and divine essence.
And thus we have answered, to the utmost of our ability, your inquiries concerning divination and theurgy. It remains, therefore, at the end of this discussion, that I should beseech the Gods to afford me an immutable guard of true conceptions, to insert in me truth eternally, and to supply me abundantly with the participation of more perfect conceptions of the Gods, in which the most blessed end of our good is posited, and the confirmation of our concordant friendship with each other.
ADDITIONAL NOTES ADDITIONAL NOTES Page 9- Aneho. Porphyry in his Life of Plotinus, and also in the second book of his Treatise on Abstinence from Animals, informs us that he was familiar with a certain Egyptian priest, who, as Gale conjectures, is probably the priest to whom Porphyry now writes. The diction, indeed, as Gale observes, denotes that the person to whom this Epistle is addressed was a very great prophet, who, nevertheless, is afterwards said to be a priest. This, however, is not any thing novel or incongruous. For by Apuleius in Metamorph. lib. xi. the Egyptian Zaclas is said to be propheta priiyiarius et sacerdos, a chief prophet and priest.
Page 9- Hennes the God who presides over language. The Egyptians celebrated two Hermes, the former of which is here signified by lamblichus. This deity is the source of invention, and hence he is said to be the son of Maia; because search, which is implied by Maia, leads inveyition into light. He bestows too mathesis on souls, by unfolding the will of his father Jupiter; and this he accomplishes as the angel or messenger of Jupiter. Proclus in MS. Comment, in Alcibiad. observes, “ that this deity is the inspective guardian of gymnastic exercises; and hence hermoe, or carved statues of Mercury, were placed in the Palaestrae; of music, and hence he is honoured as the lyrist kvpaios among the celestial constellations; and of disciplines, because the invention of geometry, reasoning, and discourse is referred to this God. He presides, therefore, over every species of erudition, leading us to an intelligible essence from this mortal abode, governing the different herds of souls, and dispersing the sleep and oblivion with which they are oppressed. He is likewise the supplier of recollection, the end of which is a genuine intellectual apprehension of divine natures.”
P. 10. The ancient pillars of Hermes. These pillars, according to Amm. Marcellinus, lib. xxii. were concealed prior to the deluge in certain caverns, which were called Z a-vpiyyes, s^ringex, not far from the Egyptian Thebes. The second Hermes interpreted these pillars^ and his interpretation formed many volumes, as lamblichus informs us in Section viii. of this work. These pillai's are mentioned by Laertius in his Life of Democritus; by Dio Chrysostom in Orat. 49; by Achilles Tatius on Aratus; and by others of the ancients.
P. 15. There is, therefore, the good itself which is beyond essence, and there is that good which subsists according to essence. There are three orders of good; viz. that which is imparticipable and superessential; that which isimparticipable and essential; and that which is essential and participate. Of these, the last is such as our nature contains; the good which ranks among forms is essential; and that which is beyond essence is superessential. Or we say that the good which subsists in us may be considered as a habit, in consequence of subsisting in a subject; the next to this ranks as essence, and a part of essence, I mean the good which ranks among forms; and the good which is beyond essence, is neither a habit, nor a part. With respect to the good, also, which subsists according to essence, it must be observed, that since forms are twofold, some alone distinguishing the essences of the things fashioned by form, but others their perfections, the genus of essence, same and different, and the form of animal, horse, and man, and every thing of this kind, give distinction to essence and subjects; but the form of the good, the beautiful, and the just, and in like manner the form of virtue, of health, strength, and every thing of a similar nature, are perfective of the beings to which they belong: and of some, essence is the leader, but of others the good. For, as Plato says, every thing except the one, must necessarily participate of essence; and whatever preserves, gives perfection to, or defends any being, must be good. Hence, since these two are leaders, the one of forms which give subsistence to things, and the other of such as are the sources of their perfection; it is necessary that one of these should be subordinate to the other; I mean that the good which is allotted a coordination among forms that are the sources of perfection, should be subordinate to essence, which ranks among causes, whence subsistence originates, if the good is being, and a certain being. For it is either the same with, or different from, essence, which the Elean guest or stranger in the Sophista of Plato shows to be the genus of being. And if the good is the same with essence, an absurdity must ensue: for being and well-being are not the same. But if the good is something different from essence, it must necessarily participate of essence, in consequence of essence being the genus of all forms. But if genera are more ancient than forms, the good which ranks among forms, and is posterior to their genus, will not be the superessential good which reigns over intelligibles; but this must be asserted of that good, under which this and every form is arranged, which possesses being, and which is the leader of the other genera of being.
P. 15. Bid the other medium, which is susjjended from the Gods, though it is far inferior to them, is that of dcemons. In addition to what is said in this work by lamblichus concerning daemons, the following information about them from Olympiodorus, in his MS. Scholia on the Phaedo of Plato, is well worthy the attention of the philosophical reader: " Since there are in the universe things which subsist differently at different times, and since there are also natures which are conjoined with the superessential unities, it is necessary that there should be a certain middle genus, which is neither immediately suspended from deity, nor subsists differently at different times, according to better and worse, but which is always perfect, and does not depart from its proper virtue; and is immutable indeed, but is not conjoined with the superessential [which is the characteristic of deity]. The whole of this genus is daemoniacal. There are, also, different genera of daemons: for they are placed under the mundane Gods. The highest of these subsists according to the one of the Gods, and is called an unific and divine genus of daemons. The next subsists according to the intellect which is suspended from deity, and is called intellectual. The third subsists according to soul, and is called rational.
The fourth, according to nature, and is denominated physical. The fifth according to body, which is called corporealformed. And the sixth according to matter, and this is denominated material.” Olympiodorus adds, “or after another manner it may be said, that some of these are celestial, others etherial, others aerial, others aquatic, others terrestrial, and others subterranean. With respect to this division also, it is evident that it is derived from the parts of the universe. But irrational daemons originate from the aerial governors, whence, also, the Chaldean Oracle says, Bepuov eXarqpa kvv(x)v ^0ovto)v re uai xjypwv.
i. e. being the charioteer of the aerial^ terrestrial^ and aquatic dogs." Our guardian daemons, however, belong to that order of daemons which is arranged under the Gods that preside over the ascent and descent of souls. For a more copious account of daemons see the notes on the First Alcibiades in vol. i. of my translation of Plato.
P. 22. One and the best solution will be obtained by sur veymg the mode of divine allotmeiit.
The manner in which divine allotments subsist is admirably unfolded by Proclus in Tim. p. 43, as follows: “ Since, according to a division of the universe into two parts, we have distributed allotments into the celestial and sublunary, there can be no doubt what the former are, and whether they possess an invariable sameness of subsistence. But the sublunary allotments are deservedly a subject of admiration, whether they are said to be perpetual or not. For since all things in generation are continually changing and flowing, how can the allotments of the providential rulers of them be said to be perpetual } For things in generation are not perpetual. But if their allotments are not perpetual, how is it possible to suppose that divine government can subsist differently at different times? For an allotment is neither a certain separate energy of the Gods, so that sublunary natures changing, we might say that it is exempt, and remains immutable, nor is it that which is governed alone, so that no absurdity would follow from admitting that an allotment is in a flowing condition, and is conversant with all various mutations; but it is a providential inspection, and unrestrained government of divinity over sublunary concerns. Such being the doubts with which this subject is attended, the following appears to be a solution of the difficulty, "We must say, then, that it is not proper to consider all the natures that are in generation, and generation itself, as alone consisting of things mutable and flowing, but that there is also something immutable in these, and which is naturally adapted to remain perpetually the same. For the interval which receives and comprehends in itself all the parts of the world, and which has an arrangement through all bodies, is immoveable, lest, being moved, it should require another place, and thus should proceed from one receptacle to another, ad infinitum. The etherial vehicles, also, of divine souls, with which they are circularly invested, and which imitate the lives in the heavens, have a perpetual essence, and are eternally suspended from these divine souls themselves, being full of prolific powers, and performing a circular motion, according to a certain secondary revolution of the celestial orbs. And, in the third place, the wholeness (oAoti^s) of the elements has a permanent subsistence, though the parts are all-variously corrupted. For it is necessary that every form in the universe should be never-failing, in order that the universe may be perfect, and that, being generated from an immoveable cause, it may be immoveable in its essence. every wholeness is a form, or rather it is that which it is said to he through the participation of one all-perfect form.
“ And here we may see the orderly progression of the nature of bodies. For the interval of the universe is immoveable according to eveiy kind of motion. But the vehicles of divine souls alone receive a mutation according to place; for such a motion as this is most remote from essential mutation. And the wholeness of the elements admits in its parts the other motions of bodies, but the whole remains perfectly immutable. The celestial allotments also, which proximately divide the interval of the universe, codistribute likewise the heavens themselves. But those in the sublunary region are primarily, indeed, allotted the parts which are in the interval of the universe, but afterwards they make a distribution according to the definite vehicles of souls. And, in the third place, they remain pei*petually the same, according to the total parts of generation. The allotments of the Gods, therefore, do not change, nor do they subsist differently at different times; for they have not their subsistence proximately in that which may be changed.