CHAPTER XXXIX.

The third, therefore, to the Saviour, as they say, and let us direct our attention to the demiurgic monad, unfolding itself into light together with the coordinate Gods it contains. In the first place, then, here also the communion of the one with other things is apparent, and we must no longer consider the one alone by itself, but according to its habitude towards other things. Because, therefore, the demiurgic order produces wholes from itself, and arranges and adorns a corporeal nature, it also generates all the second and ministrant causes of the Gods. For what occasion is there to say that the term other things, is a sign of a corporeal condition of being, since formerly the Pythagoreans thought fit to characterize an incorporeal nature by the one, but indicated to us the nature which is divisible about body, through the term others? In the second place, the number of the conclusions [in this part of the Parmenides] is doubled. For the one is no longer demonstrated to be alone same, or different, as it is to be in itself, and in another, or to be moved, and stand still, but it is demonstrated to be the same with itself, and different from itself, and to be different from other things, and the same with other things. But this twice appeared to us before to be entirely adapted to the demiurgic monad, both according to other theologists, and to Socrates in the Cratylus, who says that the demiurgic name is composed from two words. In the third place, therefore, the multitude of causes is here separated, and all the monads of the Gods present themselves to the view, according to the demiurgic progression. For the demiurgic order is apparent, the prolific power coordinate with it, the undefiled monad the cause of exempt providence, and the distributive fountain of wholes; and together with these, as I may say, all the orders about the demiurgus are apparent, according to which he produces and preserves all things, and being exempt from the things produced, is firmly established in himself, and separates his own kingdom, from the united empire of his father.

How, therefore, and through what particulars do these things become apparent? We reply, that the same with itself (for this Parmenides first demonstrates) represents to us about the nature of the one, the monadic and paternal peculiarity, according to which the demiurgus also subsists. Hence, likewise, the one is said to be the same with itself. For the another is in the demiurgus according to the transcendency of different causes; but the same, appears to be a sign of his proper, viz. of his paternal, hyparxis. For being one, and the exempt father and demiurgus of wholes, he establishes his proper union in himself. And in this one, Parmenides in a remarkable manner shows the uniform, and that which is allied to bound. But the same with other things, is the singular good of prolific power, and of a cause proceeding to, and pervading through all things without impediment. For the demiurgus is present to all things which he produces, and is in all things the same, which he arranges and adorns, pre-establishing in himself the generative essence of wholes. If, therefore, we rightly assert these things, bound and infinity subsist in him demiurgically. And the one indeed is in the sameness which is separate from other things, but the other is in the power which generates other things. For every where power is prolific of secondary natures. But the principle which subsists according to bound, is the supplier of an united and stable hypostasis.

Moreover, the different from other things, manifests his undefiled purity, and his transcendency which is exempt from all secondary natures. For the first intellect was on this account pure and incorruptible, as Socrates says in the Cratylus, because it is established above coordination or communion with all sensible natures. For as some one of the Gods says, he does not incline his power to matter, but is at once exempt from all fabrication. But the demiurgic intellect receiving from thence total power, and a royal dominion, adorns indeed sensibles, and constitutes the whole of a corporeal nature. Together however, with prolific abundance, and the providential attention to secondary natures, he transcends his progeny, and abides in his own accustomed manner, as Timæus says, through the inflexible guard which subsists with him, and the power imparted to him from it, which is uncontaminated with other participants. Hence, through the never-failing supply of good, and providential energies, and the generation of subordinate natures, he is the same with them. For he is participated by them, and fills his progeny with his own providential care. But through his purity, undefiled power, and inflexible energies, he is separate from wholes, is disjoined from them, and is imparticipable by other things. And as the first king of intellectuals is allotted his non-inclination to matter, through the guard which is united to him, and through the undefiled monad; and as the vivific goddess possesses her stable and inflexible power from the second cause of the guardian Gods; thus also the demiurgic intellect preserves a transcendency exempt from other things, and a union separated from multitude, through the third monad of the leaders of purity. For the cause of separate providence is a guard coordinate with the demiurgus, who hastens to produce all things, and to pervade through all things. But the guard which is the supplier of stable power, is coordinate with the vivific deity, who is moved to the generation of wholes. And with the intellect that is multiplied according to intellectual conceptions [i.e. with Saturn,] the guard is coordinate, that imparts an undefiled union of the conversion of all his energies to himself. The monad, therefore, remains, which is arranged as the seventh of these intellectual monads, which is present with, and energizes with all of them, but particularly unfolds itself into light in the demiurgic order, and which Parmenides also producing for us together with the whole demiurgus, defines it in difference, in the same manner as he does the undefiled cause in the demiurgus. He says however, that this difference separates the demiurgic monad itself from itself. For we have before observed that this order is the supplier of separation to all the Gods. As therefore, the demiurgus is the same with himself, through the paternal union, after the same manner he is separated from himself and his father through this difference. Whence therefore, does he derive this power? From being in himself, says Parmenides, and in another. For these were indeed unitedly in the first father, but separately in the third. Separation therefore, pre-existed there according to cause; but in the demiurgus it shines forth, and unfolds the power of itself.

That the cause however of division, is in a certain respect in the first father, Parmenides manifests in the first hypothesis, when he says, “that every thing which is in itself is in a certain respect a duad, and is separated from itself.” There however, the duad is occultly; but here it subsists more clearly, where also all intellectual multitude shines forth to the view. For difference is the progeny of the firmly-abiding duad which is there. This therefore separates the demiurgic intellect from the Gods prior to it, and divides the monads in it from each other. For if so far as it is in another, it is united to the intelligible of itself, but so far as it is in itself it is separated from it, because it proceeds according to each order of its own intelligible,--if this be the case, it is necessary that this difference should be the cause to it of separation from its father. All the intellectual monads therefore, have appeared to us to subsist coordinately with each other. And the subsistence indeed, in another is the sign of the father. But the subsistence in itself, is the sign of the first unpolluted monad. Again, motion is the sign of vivific goodness; but permanency of the inflexible power conjoined with motion. And sameness with itself, and with another, is the sign of the demiurgic peculiarity; but the being different from other things, is the sign of the guard about the demiurgus. And in the last place, the being different from itself, is the sign of the seventh intellectual monad, which is according to cause indeed, and occultly in the first father, but is allotted its hypostasis more clearly in the demiurgus. Parmenides likewise appears to me, when dividing the signs of fabrication, to have unfolded in the middles themselves, the peculiarities of the undefiled monad, and of the dividing monad, so far as they also are in a certain respect comprehended in the fabrication. For he shows in the first of the conclusions that the one is the same with itself; in the second, that it is different from itself; in the third, that it is different from other things; and in the fourth that it is the same with other things. For he co-arranges indeed, the dividing power with the paternal union; but connects with a transcendency separate from secondary natures, the providential cause of them. For in the Gods, it is necessary that union should exist prior to separation, and a purity unmingled with secondary natures, prior to a providential inspection of them; through which likewise, being every where, they are no where, being present with all things, they are exempt from all things, and being all things, they are not any of their progeny.

END OF VOL. I.

FOOTNOTES:

P. 139.

i.e. The highest order of intelligibles.

Viz. the present and other works of Proclus, together with those of Plotinus, Porphyry, Jamblichus, Syrianus, Ammonius, Damascius, Olympiodorus, and Simplicius.

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

In his commentary on the second book of Aristotle’s treatise On the Heavens.

See Gaffarel’s Unheard-of Curiosities, p. 391.

Apud Cyril.

What these are will be shortly explained, when we come to speak of the Apostle Paul.

Synesius does not here speak conformably to the Chaldean theologists, from whom he has derived these appellations. For the ζωναιοι and the αζωνοι, are according to them Gods, the former being the divinities of the stars, and the latter forming that order of Gods which is called by Proclus in the sixth book of this work απολυτος, liberated. Both these orders therefore, are superior to the angelic series. This unscientific manner however of calling both the highest and lowest divine powers by the common name of angels, is not peculiar to Synesius and the Jews, but to all the fathers of the church, and all the Christian divines that succeeded them.

Dr. Gregory, in the 70th proposition of, the first book of his Elements of Astronomy, says of Kepler, “That his archetypal ratios, geometrical concinnities, and harmonic proportions, show such a force of genius as is not to be found in any of the writers of physical astronomy before him. So that Jeremiah Horrox, a very competent judge of these matters, though a little averse to Kepler, in the beginning of his astronomical studies, after having in vain tried others, entirely falling in with Kepler’s doctrine and physical reasons, thus addresses his reader: Kepler is a person whom I may justly admire above all mortals beside: I may call him great, divine, or even something more; since Kepler is to be valued above the whole tribe of philosophers. Him alone let the bards sing of.--Him alone let the philosophers read; being satisfied of this, that he who has Kepler has all things.”

I quote this passage, not from the justness of the encomium it contains; for it is extravagant, and by no means true; but that the reader may see what an exalted opinion some of the greatest of the moderns have had of the genius of Kepler.

“Et primum quidem de anima totius universi etsi non repugno, nihil tamen hoc libro IV. dicam. Videtur (si est talis aliqua) in centro mundi, quod mihi sol est, residere, indeque in omnem ejus amplitudinem commercio radiorum lucis, qui sint loco spirituum in corpore animali propagari.”

“Denique terræ globus tale corpus erit, quale est alicujus animalis: quodque animali est sua anima, hoc erit telluri hæc, quam quærimus, natura sublunaris.”

“Videbam pleraque omnia, quæ ex corpore animantis provenientia, testantur animam in illo inesse, provenire etiam ex telluris corpore. Ut enim corpus in cutis superficie pilos, sic terra plantas arboresque profert; inque iis ibi pediculi, hic crucæ, cicadæ, variaque insecta et monstra marina nascuntur: et ut corpus lachrymas, blennam, auriumque recrementa, est ubi et gummi ex faciei pustulis, sic tellus electrum, bitumen: utque vesica urinam, sic montes flumina fundunt; et ut corpus excrementum sulphurei odoris, crepitusque, qui etiam inflammari possunt, sic terra sulphur, ignes subterraneos, tonitrua, fulgura: utque in venis animantis generatur sanguis, et eum eo sudor, extra corpus ejectus; sic in venis terræ, metalla et fossilia, vaporque pluvius.”

“Relucet igitur in anima telluris imago quædam circuli sodiaci sensibilis, totinsque adeo firmamenti, vinculum sympathiæ rerum cœlestium et terrestrium.”

Proclus begins the sixth book of the following work with observing that he has celebrated in the preceding book the hebdomadic æon of the intellectual Gods. The æones therefore, though the cause of them exists in the intelligible, properly belong to the intellectual order; and the Demiurgus or artificer of the universe subsists at the extremity of that order. But the demiurgus according to Orpheus, prior to the fabrication of the world absorbed in himself Phanes the exemplar of the universe. Hence he became full of ideas of which the forms in the sensible universe are the images. And as all intellectual natures are in each, it is evident that things which are seen were generated from the invisible æones, conformably to the assertion of Paul.

I refer the reader who is desirous of being fully convinced of this to the notes accompanying my translation of that dialogue, in vol. 3 of my Plato.

Ad Laurentium, c. 58.

Here we see the æones are acknowledged by Irenæus to be beings of an order superior to angels.

Ad Cap. 18. Matthæi.

De Myst. p. 206.

See my Collection of these Oracles in the old Monthly Magazine.

The Synoches form the second triad of the intelligible, and at the same time intellectual order of Gods.

Παλιν τῃ εξ αυτου θεωσει, τῳ κατα δυναμιν εκαστου θεοειδει θεων πολλων γιγνομενων, δοκει μεν ειναι και λεγεται του ενος θεου διακρισις και πολλαπλασιασμοσ· εστι δε ουδεν ηττον ο αρχιθεος και υπερθεος υπερουσιως, εις θεος, αμεριστος εν τοις μεριστοις, ηνωμενος εαυτῳ, και τοις πολλοις αμιγης και απληθυντος. Και τουτο υπερφυως εννοησας ο κοινος ημων και του καθηγεμονος επι την θειαν φωτοδοσιαν χειραγωγος, ο πολυς τα θεια, το φως του κοσμου, τα δε φησιν ενθεαστικως εν τοις ιεροις αυτου γραμμασι. Και γαρ ειπερ εισι λεγομενοι θεοι, ειτε εν ουρανῳ, ειτε επι γης, κ.λ.----Και γαρ επι των θειων αι ενωσεις των διακρισεων επικρατουσι και προκαταρχουσι, και ουδεν ηττον εστιν ηνωμενα, και μετα την του ενος ανεκφοιτητον και ενιαιαν διακρισιν.

Ταις πρωταις ουσιαις, αι μετα την ουσιοποιον αυτων θεαρχιαν ιδρυμεναι, και οιον εν προθυροις αυτης τεταγμεναι, πασης εισιν αορετου και ορατης υπερβεβηκυιαι γεγονυιας δυναμεως, ως οικειον οιητεον ειναι, και κατα παν ομοειδη την ιεραρχιαν. De Cœlest. Hierarch. cap. 7.

“Diogenes Laertius says of Pythagoras, That he charged his disciples not to give equal degrees of honour to the Gods and heroes. Herodotus (in Euterpe) says of the Greeks, That they worshipped Hercules two ways, one as an immortal deity and so they sacrificed to him: and another as a Hero, and so they celebrated his memory. Isocrates (Encom. Helen.) distinguishes between the honours of heroes and Gods, when he speaks of Menelaus and Helena. But the distinction is no where more fully expressed than in the Greek inscription upon the statue of Regilla, wife to Herodes Atticus, as Salmasius thinks, which was set up in his temple at Triopium, and taken from the statue itself by Sirmondus; where it is said, That she had neither the honour of a mortal, nor yet that which was proper to the Gods: ουδε ιερα θνητοῖς, αταρ ουδε θεοισιν ομοια. It seems by the inscription of Herodes, and by the testament of Epicteta extant in Greek in the Collection of Inscriptions, that it was in the power of particular families to keep festival days in honour of some of their own family, and to give heroical honours to them. In that noble inscription at Venice, we find three days appointed every year to be kept, and a confraternity established for that purpose with the laws of it. The first day to be observed in honour of the Muses, and sacrifices to be offered to them as deities. The second and third days in honour of the heroes of the family; between which honour and that of deities, they shewed the difference by the distance of time between them, and the preference given to the other. But wherein soever the difference lay, that there was a distinction acknowledged among them appears by this passage of Valerius in his excellent oration extant in Dionysius Halicarnass. Antiq. Rom. lib. 11. p. 696. I call, says he, the Gods to witness, whose temples and altars our family has worshipped with common sacrifices; and next after them, I call the Genii of our ancestors, to whom we give δευτερας τιμας, the second honours next to the Gods, as Celsus calls those τας προσηκουσας τιμας the due honours that belong to the lower dæmons. From which we take notice, that the Heathens did not confound all degrees of divine worship, giving to the lowest object the same which they supposed to be due to the celestial deities, or the supreme God. So that if the distinction of divine worship will excuse from idolatry, the Heathens were not to blame for it.” See Stillingfleet’s answer to a book entitled Catholics no Idolaters, p. 510, 513, &c.

Both Arnobius therefore and Minucius Felix were very unfortunate in quoting this impostor to prove that the Gods of the ancients had formerly been men. Vid. Arnob. lib. 4. Adversus Gentes, et Minucii Felicis Octavo. p. 350. 8vo. Parisiis, 1605.

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

Arrian. de Exped. Alex. l. 4, et Curt. lib. 8.

Vit. Artaxerx. Ælian. Var. hist. lib. 1. c. 21.

Justin. lib. 6.

Panegyr.

Lib. 7.

Lib. 6. Cap. 3.

Καὶ κολασεως δε ειδος ειναι αθειαν ουκ απεικος. Τους γαρ γνοντας θεους, και καταφρονησαντας, ευλογον εν ετερῳ βιῳ και της γνωσεως στερεσθαι, και τους ταυτων βασιλιας ως θεους τιμησαντας, εδει την δικην αυτων ποιησαι των θεων εκπεσειν. Cap. 18.

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

Of the first principle, says Damascius (in M. S. περι αρχων) the Egyptians said nothing, but celebrated it as a darkness beyond all intellectual conception, a thrice unknown darkness, πρωτην αρχην ανυμνηκασαν, σκοτος υπερ πασαν νοησιν, σκοτος αγνωστον, τρις τουτο επιφημιζοντες.

See chap. 15 and 16, of my translation of this excellent work.

See Vol. 2 of my translation of his Dissertations, Dissertat. 38, the title of which is, “Whether statues should be dedicated to the Gods.”

The philosopher Isidorus was a man of this description, as we are informed by Damascius in the extracts from his life preserved by Photius. For he says of him: ουτε τα αγαλματα προσκυνειν εθελων, αλλ’ ηδη επ’ αυτους τους θεους ιεμενος, εισω κρυπτομενους ουκ εν αδυτοις, αλλ’ εν αυτῳ τῳ απορρητῳ, ο, τι ποτε εστι της παντελους αγνωσιας· πως ουν επ’ αυτους ιετο τοιουτους οντας; ερωτι δεινῳ απορρητῳ και τουτῳ· και τις δε αλλος η αγνωστος και ο ερως; και τινα τουτο φαμεν, ισασιν οι πειραθεντες· ειπειν δε αδυνατον, καὶ νοησαι γε ουδεν μαλλον ραδιον. i.e. “He was not willing to adore statues, but approached to the Gods themselves, who are inwardly concealed not in adyta, but in the occult itself, whatever it may be of all-perfect ignorance. How therefore to them being such did he approach? Through vehement love, this also being occult. And what else indeed, could conduct him to them than a love which is also unknown? What my meaning is those who have experienced this love know; but it is impossible to reveal it by words, and it is no less difficult to understand what it is.”

Instead of και δικης, I read και μετα δικης.

i.e. Should be perfectly impartial.

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

For 2 + 4 + 6 + 8 = 20; and 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 = 16; and 20 + 16 = 36.

For τελος εχειν φιλοσοφιαν, it is necessary to read as in the translation, τελος εχειν φιλοσοφιας.

Meaning those divine bodies the celestial orbs, which in consequence of participating a divine life from the incorporeal powers from which they are suspended, may be very properly called secondary Gods.

Dr. Stillingfleet quotes this part of the extract, in his answer to a book entitled Catholics no Idolaters, and calls Julian the devout emperor.

“Dio Chrysostome (says Dr. Stillingfleet in the before-cited work, p. 414) at large debates the case about images, in his Olympic Oration; wherein he first shows, that all men have a natural apprehension of one supreme God the father of all things; and that this God was represented by the statue made by Phidias of Jupiter Olympius, for so he said παρ’ ῳ νυν εσμεν, before whom we now are; and then describes him to be the king, ruler, and father of all, both Gods and men. This image he calls the most blessed, the most excellent, the most beautiful, the most beloved image of God. He says there are four ways of coming to the knowledge of God, by nature, by the instructions of the poets, by the laws, and by images; but neither poets, nor lawgivers, nor artificers were the best interpreters of the deity, but only the philosophers who both understood and explained the divine nature most truly and perfectly. After this, he supposes Phidias to be called to account for making such an image of God, as unworthy of him; when Iphitus, Lycurgus, and the old Eleans, made none at all of him, as being out of the power of man to express his nature. To this Phidias replies, that no man can express mind and understanding by figures, or colours, and therefore they are forced to fly to that in which the soul inhabits, and from thence they attribute the seat of wisdom and reason to God, having nothing better to represent him by. And by that means joining power and art together, they endeavour by something which may be seen and painted, to represent that which is invisible and inexpressible. But it may be said, we had better then have no image or representation of him at all. No, says he; for mankind doth not love to worship God at a distance, but to come near and feel him, and with assurance to sacrifice to him and crown him. Like children newly weaned from their parents, who put out their hands towards them in their dreams as if they were still present; so do men out of the sense of God’s goodness and their relation to him, love to have him represented as present with them, and so to converse with him. Thence have come all the representations of God among the barbarous nations, in mountains, and trees, and stones.”

The same conceptions also about statues are entertained by the Brachmans in Benares on the Ganges. For Monsieur Bernier when he was at their university, and was discoursing with one of the most learned men among them, proposed to him the question about the adoration of their idols, and reproaching him with it as a thing very unreasonable, received from him this remarkable answer: “We have indeed in our temples many different statues, as those of Brahma, Mahaden, Genick, and Gavani, who are some of the chief and most perfect Deutas (or Deities); and we have also many others of less perfection, to whom we pay great honour, prostrating ourselves before them, and presenting them flowers, rice, oyles, saffron, and the like, with much ceremony. But we do not believe these statues to be Brahma or Bechen, &c. themselves, but only their images and representations, and we only give them that honour on account of the beings they represent. They are in our temples, because it is necessary in order to pray well, to have something before our eyes that may fix the mind. And when we pray, it is not the statue we pray to, but he that is represented by it.” The Brahmans have also another way of defending their worship of statues, of which the same author gives the following account: “That God, or that sovereign being whom they call Achar (immutable) has produced or drawn out of his own substance, not only souls, but also whatever is material and corporeal in the universe, so that all things in the world are but one and the same thing with God himself, as all numbers are but one and the same unity repeated.” Bernier Memoires, tome 3. p. 171. 178.

From this latter extract it appears that the Brachmans as well as the ancient Egyptians, believe that the supreme principle is all things. According to the best of the Platonists likewise, this principle is all things prior to all. For by being the one, it is all things after the most simple manner, i.e. so as to transcend all multitude.

See its Homilies, tome 2. p. 46.

Tome 2. p. 54.

p. 49.

The ineffable principle of things, as is demonstrated in the Elements of Theology in this work, is beyond self-subsistence. Hence the first ineffable evolution from him consists of self-subsistent natures. As we therefore are only the dregs of the rational nature, many media are necessary to conjoin us with a principle so immensely exalted above us. And these media are the golden chain of powers that have deified summits, or that have the ineffable united with the effable.

Σχεδον γαρ ως εμοι δοκει, ουκ εστι τουτων προς τους πολλους καταγελαστοτερα ακουσματα, ου δ’ αυ προς τους ευφυεις θαυμαστοτερα τε καὶ ενθουσιαστικωτερα. Epist. 2.

Plato means by this, that he has never written perspicuously about intelligibles or true beings, the proper objects of intellect.

This light is a thing of a very different kind from that which is produced by the evidence arising from truths perceptible by the multitude, as those who have experienced it well know.

Τοσονδε γε μην περι παντων εχω φραζειυ των γεγραφοτων και γραψαντων, οσοι φασιν ειδεναι περι ων εγω σπουδαζω, ειτ’ εμου ακηκοοτες, ειτ’ αλλων, ειθ’ ως ευροντες αυτοι, τουτους ουκ εστι κατα γε την εμην δοξαν περι του πραγματος επαϊειν ουδεν. ουκ ουν εμον γε περι αυτων εστι συγγραμμα, ουδε μη ποτε γεγηται· ρητον γαρ ουδαμως εστιν, ως αλλα μαθηματα, αλλ’ εκ πολλης συνουσιας γιγνομενης περι το πραγμα αυτο, και του συζην, εξαιφνης οιον απο πυρος πηδησαντος (lege πηδησαν) εξαφθεν φως, εν τῃ ψυχῃ γενομενον αυτο εαυτο ηδη τρεφει.----Ει δε μοι εφαινετο γραπτεα θ’ ικανως ειναι προς τους πολλους και ρητα, τι τουτου καλλιον επεπρακτ’ αν ημιν εν τῳ βιῳ, η τοις τε ανθρωποισι μεγα οφελος γραψαι, και την φυσιν εις φως τοις πασι προσαγαγειν; αλλ’ ουτε ανθρωποις ηγουμαι την επιχειρησιν περι αυτων λεγομενην αγαθον, ει μη τισιν ολιγοις, οποσοι δυνατοι ανευρειν αυτοι δια μικρας ενδειξεως· των τε δη αλλων, τους μεν καταφρονησεως ουκ ορθως εμπλησειεν αν ουδαμῃ εμμελους, τους δε υψηλης και χαυνης ελπιδος, ως σεμν’ αττα μεμαθηκοτας.

See the sixth book of the Republic of Plato.

This Olympiodorus is not the same with the philosopher of that name whose learned commentaries on certain dialogues of Plato are extant in manuscript; as in these, not only Proclus, but Damascius who flourished after Proclus is celebrated.

This truly great man appears to have been the first who thoroughly penetrated the profundity contained in the writings of the more ancient philosophers, contemporary with and prior to Plato, and to have demonstrated the admirable agreement of their doctrines with each other. Unfortunately but few of his works are extant.

Socrates in the Phædo of Plato, Orphically calls the multitude thyrsus-bearers as living Titannically. For the thyrsus, says Olympiodorus, (in MS. comment in Phæd.) is a symbol of material and partible fabrication, on account of its divulsed continuity, whence also it is a Titannic plant. “For it is extended, says he, before Bacchus, instead of his paternal sceptre, and through this they call him into a partial nature. He adds, “Besides the Titans are thyrsus-bearers; and Prometheus concealed fire in a reed, whether by this we are to understand that he draws down celestial light into generation, or impels soul into body, or calls forth divine illumination, the whole of which is ungenerated, into generation.”

Alluding to the beautiful description given of Ulysses in the third book of the Iliad, v. 22. which is thus elegantly paraphrased by Pope.

But when he speaks what elocution flows! Soft as the fleeces of descending snows The copious accents fall with easy art; Melting they fall and sink into the heart.

Nicephorus in his commentary on Synesius de Insomniis, p. 362. informs us that the Hecatic orb is a golden sphere, which has a sapphire stone inclosed in its middle part, and through its whole extremity characters, and various figures. He adds, that turning this sphere round, the Chaldeans perform invocations which they call Iyngæ. Thus too, according to Suidas, the magician Julian of Chaldæa, and Arnuphis the Egyptian brought down showers of rain, by a magical power. And by an artifice of this kind, Empedocles was accustomed to restrain the fury of the winds; on which account he was called αλεξανεμος, an expeller of wind.

This signifies that the divine splendor which is the cause of the prophetic energy, would leave the earth, in consequence of the then existing inaptitude of persons, places, and instruments, to receive it.

No opinion is more celebrated, than that of the metempsychosis of Pythagoras; but perhaps no doctrine is more generally mistaken. By most of the present day it is exploded as ridiculous; and the few who retain some veneration for its founder, endeavour to destroy the literal, and to confine it to an allegorical meaning. By some of the ancients this mutation was limited to similar bodies; so that they conceived the human soul might transmigrate into various human bodies, but not into those of brutes. And this was the opinion of Hierocles, as may be seen in his Commentary on the Golden Verses. But why may not the human soul become connected with subordinate, as well as with superior lives, by a tendency of inclination? Do not similars love to be united; and is there not in all kinds of life something similar and common? Hence when the affections of the soul verge to a baser nature, while connected with a human body, these affections, on the dissolution of such a body, become enveloped as it were, in a brutal nature, and the rational eye, in this case, clouded with perturbations, is oppressed by the irrational energies of the brute, and surveys nothing but the dark phantasms of a degraded imagination. But this doctrine is vindicated by Proclus with his usual acuteness, in his admirable Commentaries on the Timæus, lib. 5. p. 329, as follows: “It is usual, says he, to enquire how human souls can descend into brute animals. And some indeed, think that there are certain similitudes of men to brutes, which they call savage lives: for they by no means think it possible that the rational essence can become the soul of a savage animal. On the contrary, others allow it may be sent into brutes, because all souls are of one and the same kind; so that they may become wolves and panthers, and ichneumons. But true reason indeed, asserts that the human soul may be lodged in brutes, yet in such a manner, as that it may obtain its own proper life, and that the degraded soul may, as it were, be carried above it, and be bound to the baser nature by a propensity and similitude of affection. And that this is the only mode of insinuation, we have proved by a multitude of arguments, in our Commentaries on the Phædrus. If however, it be requisite to take notice, that this is the opinion of Plato, we add that in his Republic he says, that the soul of Thersites assumed an ape, but not the body of an ape: and in the Phædrus, that the soul descends into a savage life, but not into a savage body. For life is conjoined with its proper soul. And in this place he says it is changed into a brutal nature. For a brutal nature is not a brutal body, but a brutal life.”

Proclus at the end of the first book of this work says, “that divine names will be accurately discussed by him, when he comes to speak of partial powers.” This, however, is not done by him in any one of the six books that are extant; which shows that another book is wanting.

Ποιει α κρινεις ειναι καλα, κᾳν ποιων μελλης αδοξησειν· φαυλος γαρ κριτης καλου πραγματος οχλος. Demophilus.

The 12th chapter is not marked in the original; but it begins conformably to my translation.

The 15th chapter also is not marked in the original; and is comprehended in my translation in the 14th chapter. Perhaps it should begin at the words, “If therefore the Gods produce all things,” in p. 49.

Such is the title of this chapter in the Greek, which is obviously erroneous. For the proper title is, “What that is which unites us to the good; and that it is divine faith.” What is said indeed in the Greek to be the contents of this, belong to the preceding chapter.

For εν φαιδρῳ it is necessary to read εν φαιδωνι.

In the Greek το μονοειδες the uniform, but it should evidently be το νοητον, the intelligible.

For υποθεσεως I read υποστασεως.

These four chapters are comprehended in one in my translation, as they are not marked in the Greek; and I had not divided them, when this work was sent to the press, as I have done the chapters of the other books, in which there is a similar defect in the original.

The fifth and sixth chapters are comprehended in the second chapter in my translation.

For ουσιαι it is necessary to read αιτιαι.

The seventh and eighth chapters form the third in my translation.

For εν, it is necessary to read ον.

And the ninth and tenth are the fourth and fifth chapters in my translation.

This is the sixth chapter in my translation.

It appears from this account of the contents of the twelfth chapter, that a considerable part of it is wanting in the original; because nothing is said in it about the manner in which the second triad proceeds analogous to the first.

For πλατωνος, it is necessary to read παντος.

The contents of chapter thirty-seven in the original erroneously form the conclusion of the contents of chapter thirty-six. And instead of ως την ακροτητα, it is therefore necessary to read πως την ακροτητα. Hence what are marked as κεφ. λζ, κεφ. λη, and κεφ. λθ, should be marked κεφ. λη, κεφ. λθ, and κεφ. μ’. It will be found also that chapter forty is wanting.

Meaning Plato.

Meaning his preceptor Syrianus.

The word μονον is omitted in the original.

Instead of νοησις μετα λογου, it is necessary to read, νοησει μετα λογου.

Hyparxis, is the summit of any nature, or blossom, as it were, of its essence.

Wherever this word occurs in this translation, it signifies that which is characterized by unity.

i.e. Of the nature of the one.

i.e. The discursive energy of reason, or the power of the soul that reasons scientifically.

i.e. The object of opinion.

i.e. Evil dæmons.

εν τιμαιῳ is omitted in the Greek.

For οικειαις it is necessary to read οικειας.

τριαδος is omitted in the original.

των θεων, is omitted in the original.

For μυθικων, it is necessary to read, τα μεν ηθικων.

For επιστολας it is necessary to read επιβολας.

For μονον αρμοστεον, it is necessary to read ειδος αναρμοστεον.

τελος is omitted in the original.

For διαιτης, I read διατριβης.

For πραξεων, it is necessary to read ταξεων.

For εχοντων, it is necessary to read εχομενων.

For αποστασεως, it is necessary to read υποστασεως.

For ανομοιοτητα, it is necessary to read ομοιοτητα.

Instead of οτε ως τα ολα, read ουτε ως τα ενυλα.

For αρχῃ δευτερα, it is necessary to read αρχειοτερα.

For αξων read αζων.

For και της εναδος, read, και απο της εναδος.

For και ο νου, ενοειδη μια και η ψυχη, read, και ο νους ενοειδης, και η ψυχη μια.

For αιων ενεργειᾳ, read, αει ων ενεργειᾳ.

The sense requires that θειου should be here supplied.

Instead of ομοιου μη κατα δυναμιν, it is necessary to read και κατα δυναμιν τῳ παντι ομοιον, as both the sense of the whole sentence and the version of Portus require.

It seems requisite to supply here the word υπερκοσμιων as in the translation.

For δευτερον read δευτερα.

It is necessary here to supply the words, εκ των νοερων θεων.

και is omitted in the original.

For απῃωρηται it is requisite to read, παρῃρηνται.

For αυτου it is necessary to read αυτων.

For αλλων it is necessary to read ολων.

For εμβαινοντα read εκβαινοντα.

It is necessary here to supply the word αιτιον.

For παρασκευαζοντα it is requisite to read περισκιαζοντα.

For το it is necessary to read τῃ.

ουχ is omitted in the original.

After απλουν in the original, it is requisite to insert ειναι και.

δυνατον is erroneously printed instead of αγαθον.

Instead of μονιμῳ it is necessary to read γονιμῳ.

For γεννησεως it is requisite to read γνωσεως.

The same emendation is necessary here as above.

Instead of προς αυτον it is requisite to read πρωτιστοις.

For το ον it is necessary to read τῳ οντι.

For γευσεσθε read τευξεσθε.

πατρικον is omitted in the original.

και is omitted in the original.

For ουσιαν it is necessary to read αιτιαν.

For ουτος it is necessary to read αυτος.

Ουχ is omitted in the original.

Instead of το ον it is necessary to read το εν.

The εν in the original which immediately precedes ουχ εν seems to be superfluous, and is therefore omitted in the translation.

The words ασωματος εστι are omitted in the original.

For essence and the one being two things will participate of the many, i.e. of the first many, or two.

For ον it is necessary to read εν.

viz. which are multitude only without any participation of the one.

For εξῃρηται it is necessary to read εξηρτηται. The punctuation also of the text in this place, must be altered agreeably to the translation.

For αυτο το εν is necessary to read αυτο το ον.

This sentence is very erroneous in the original, as will be evident from comparing it with the above translation.

For εν it is necessary to read ον.

Here also ον must be substituted for εν.

For παντα παροντα, I read παντα τα οντα.

For και here, it is necessary to read αλλα.

For σοφως, it is necessary to read σαφως.

In the original μη is wanting after ει.

For πραξιν, it is necessary to read ταξιν.

For της απλοτητος, I read την απλοτητα.

For του θεου, it is necessary to read των θεων.

For αιτιον it is necessary to read αιτιου.

For δι’ ου, it is necessary to read δι’ ο; since the former denotes the instrumental, but the latter the final cause.

For αδυνατων, it is necessary to read αδυτων. For the occult and invisible order of Night and Phanes is called by Orpheus the adytum. So that by the first adyta, Proclus means the highest order of intelligibles.

For των θεων, it is necessary to read τοις θεοις.

For αιτιαν, it is necessary to read αιτιᾳ.

For αναλυσεως it is necessary to read αναλογιας.

For εν it is necessary to read ον.

For παροντος it appears requisite to read παραγοντος.

Here also for εν it is necessary to read ον.

For ανομοιων it is necessary to read ομοιων.

οντως is omitted in the original.

Instead of τα μεν γαρ πλειονων αιτια, και των παντων αιτιων κατα την δυναμιν των προ αυτων ποικιλωτερων κατα την ουσιαν εστιν, it is necessary to read τα μεν γαρ πλειονων αιτια, και των παντων αιτιον κατα δυναμιν μιμουνται, τα δε των ελασσονων των προ αυτων ποικιλωτερα κατα την ουσιαν εστιν.

For αυτοειδεσιν it is requisite to read αυγοειδεσιν.

In the original here, about a line and a half is so defective, that not being able to supply the deficiency, I have not attempted to translate it.

Instead of ζωης here it is necessary to read ψυχης.

For εντονοις it is necessary to read εν τορνοις.

For αυτοις read αυτης.

For αιτιων it is necessary to read αιτιας.

For τινος it is necessary to read τινες.

For εξηρηται it is necessary to read εξηρτηται.

Here also it is necessary for εξηρηται to read εξηρτηται.

μενειν is omitted in the original.

For εσχατων it is necessary to read εσχατως.

The word γεννητικης is omitted in the original.

τριτον is omitted in the original.

For πληθος in the original it is necessary to read ειδος.

The punctuation in the latter part of this sentence in the original is erroneous: for instead of και την εν εκεινῃ του πληθους ωδινα δυναμει γενομενη, το πληθος απεικασατο, it should be και την εν εκεινῃ του πληθους ωδινα δυναμει γενομενη το πληθος, απεικασατο.

For πρωτου here, it is necessary to read εσχατου. For in this place, Proclus is speaking of body.

For αλογων it is necessary to read αναλογων.

The words των μετα in the original immediately before το νοητον θεων γενος, are to be rejected as superfluous.

εκφαινει is omitted in the original.

For εκεινοις, it is necessary to read εκεινης.

viz. Intelligible life, or life itself, or the first life.

For Φαιδρῳ it is necessary to read Φαιδωνι.

It is here necessary to supply αλλ’ ουδε κατα τον νουν τον νοῃτον.

ο χρονος is omitted in the original.

Instead of αϊδιοτητα, it is necessary to read ιδιοτητα.

ζωης is omitted in the original.

Instead of προ του περατος, and προ της απειριας, it is necessary to read προς του περατος, and προς της απειριας.

For νοητοις it is necessary to read νοεροις.

For δευτερα it is necessary to read δευτερως.

Instead of το πραγμα τῳ ονοματι, it is necessary to read το ονομα τῳ πραγματι.

For νοερας here it is necessary to read νοητας.

It is requisite here to supply το εν.

For αυτο το ενεργειν it is necessary to read αυτῳ τῳ ενεργειν.

For προσχοντες it is necessary to read προεχοντες.

In the original εν ον, but the true reading is evidently εν alone.

Instead of οντος it is necessary to read ενος.

It is necessary to correct the text here, and to read as follows: τι ουν; των μοριων εκατερον τουτων του ενος οντος το, τε εν και το ον αρα απολειπεσθον, ἢ το εν. κ. τ. λ.

Instead of απειριας, it is necessary to read αποριας.

It seems requisite to supply the word αιτιον after the words το εν νοητον ειδος.

Instead of τα καθ’ ενωσιν, it is requisite to read παντα καθ’ ενωσιν, and then the end of this book will be complete, and not defective as the Latin translator Portus imagined it was.

For αυτης it is necessary to read αυτων.

It is necessary to supply in this place in the original, νοεροι θεοι.

In the original, after και νουν in this sentence, it is necessary to supply νοητως και νοερως, το δε νοερον. And after νοερως, it is also requisite to supply και νοητως, as in the above translation.

For τελειοτατοι it is necessary to read τελειοτητος.

After την υπουρανιαν αψιδα, it is obviously necessary to add και τον υπερουρανιον τοπον.

The sentence that immediately follows this in the original, is so defective, as to be perfectly unintelligible. I have not therefore, attempted to translate it.

“The word τελετη or initiation,” says Hermeas, in his MS. Commentary on the Phædrus, “was so denominated from rendering the soul perfect. The soul therefore was once perfect. But here it is divided, and is not able to energize wholly by itself.” He adds: “But it is necessary to know that telete, muesis, and epopteia, τελετη, μυησις, and εποπτεια, differ from each other. Telete, therefore, is analogous to that which is preparatory to purifications. But muesis, which is so called from closing the eyes, is more divine. For to close the eyes in initiation is no longer to receive by sense those divine mysteries, but with the pure soul itself. And εποπτεια epopteia is to be established in, and become a spectator of the mysteries.”

φυσει is omitted in the original.

Instead of ως εν τοις πρωτιστοις νοητοις νοερος, it is necessary to read ως εν τοις πρωτιστοις νοεροις νοητος.

For αυτην, it is necessary to read αυτοις.

δε is omitted in the original, which the sense evidently requires to be inserted.

For ενωσεως it is necessary to read νοησεως.

Here also it is requisite to adopt the same reading as before, p. 252.

Instead of κατα την προσηκουσαν εκεινῃ, it seems requisite to read κατα την προσηκουσαν αξιαν, ωσπερ εκεινη, as in the translation.

For εικων I read αιτιων.

i.e. Perfection proceeding every where.

For κηρυγματι, it is requisite to read κηρυγμα τι.

For νοητων, it is necessary to read νοερων.

For συνεχον, it is necessary to read συνεχομενον.

For των ολων it is necessary to read την ολην.

i.e. That which connectedly contains.

For εκατερον I read εκατερα, in order that it may agree with αψις.

Viz. as forming the celestial profundity.

For δυναμεων it is necessary to read δυναμεως.

For πρωτην it is necessary to read τριτην.

For γονιμου it is necessary to read μονιμου.

For εκεινη it is necessary to read συνεκτικη.

For λογον it is necessary to read λογων.

It is here necessary to supply και την ουσιαν του ενος.

Instead of ἢ μεθεξις, I read ἡ μεθεξις.

It appears to me that the word προαγει is wanting in the original, and I have therefore supplied it in the translation.

It is requisite to supply in this place εν τῃ ακροτητι ταυτῃ.

For νοερων, it is necessary to read νοητων.

For υπουρανια, it seems to be necessary that we should read ουρανια.

In the original αριθμος is omitted.

το αρτιοπερισσον is omitted in the original.

Instead of πανταχου γαρ τα πρωτιστα των υφισταμενων, την ιδιαν εχει μορφην, it is necessary to read πανταχου γαρ τα πρωτιστα των υφειμενων, των προϋφισταμενων, την ιδιαν εχει μορφην.

Instead of αλληλοις, I read αλλοις.

Instead of απαγων ημας απο των νοητων επι την αισθητην φυσιν, it is necessary to read επαγων ημας επι των νοητων απο της αισθητης φυσεως.

Every perpetually circulating body is called by Plato, a divine generated nature.

εν τῃ ενεργειᾳ is omitted in the original.

For αϊδιοτητος, it is necessary to read ιδιοτητος.

το μικτον is omitted in the original.

For περιοδου it is necessary to read προοδου.

After και it is necessary to supply τα μεν ενουται και.

For νοερων, it is necessary to read νοητων.

It appears from the version of Portus, that the words ο μεν κατα την νοητην δυναμιν των νοερων are omitted in the original. Indeed, the sense requires that they should be inserted.

For πρωτην, it is necessary to read πρωτως. It was also requisite to alter the punctuation in the preceding sentence.

For το γαρ it is necessary to read εκεινος γαρ.

For εκειναις, it is necessary to read εκεινοις.

For εμφανους it is necessary to read αφανους.

For υπερουρανιαν in this place, it is necessary to read υπουρανιαν.

For [Greek: ακμαιος], it is necessary to read [Greek: ακμαιοις].

For εξηρηται, it appears to me that we should read εκει ειρηται.

ολικως is omitted in the original.

For νοερως, it is necessary to read νοητως.

For φυρομενων read φερομενων.

There is evidently something wanting in the original in this part; and as it appears to me after καθαπερ (οιμαι) και ο συμπας ουτοσι κοσμος, it is requisite to supply the words εις τους εγκοσμιους θεους ανηρτηται, οι.

It appears from the version of Portus that the words θεια γενη are omitted in the original.

For πασι, it is necessary to read πασαι.

For ποιουμενον, it is necessary to read ποιουμενης.

Morphe pertains to the colour, figure, and magnitude of superficies.

For δημιουργου, it is necessary to read δημιουργει.

For αυτων it seems necessary to read αυτου.

i.e. Of the father of Tantalus.

For δυσειδες, it is necessary to read δυοειδες.

In the original διο, but it is evidently necessary to read δια.

For ενεστι, it is necessary to read εν εστι.

For διαφερει, it is necessary to read αναφερει.

For τελεσιουργα it is necessary to read γενεσιουργα.

For και γαρ it is necessary to read ου γαρ.

For εν αλλοις, it is requisite to read εν αλληλοις.

δυναμιν is omitted in the original.

For πλεον it is evidently necessary to read ηττον.

For αριστοις, it is necessary to read αρρητοις.

For αρρητον, it is necessary to read αριστον.

Instead of του παντος, it is doubtless necessary to read τα παντα. For the demiurgus also has an hypostasis which is above the forms of the universe.

For εξηρημενοις, it is necessary to read εξηρτημενοις.

The words τα δε μεριστα are omitted in the original, but evidently ought to be inserted.

For δεχομεθα, it is necessary to read δεχομενα.

For αυτου, it is necessary to read αυτων.

το εσχατον is omitted in the original.

For αυτων, it is necessary to read αυτου.

The same emendation is here also necessary, as above.

For αυτης, it is requisite to read αυτου.

Κρατης is erroneously printed in the original for Σωκρατης.

For καθ’ εν it is necessary to read καθ’ ην.

For εν αυτῳ, it is necessary to read εν εαυτῳ.

For νοητων, it is obviously necessary to read νοερων.

For πρωτων, it is necessary to read προ των.

For εαυτοτητι read παντοτητι.

For εκφοιτητα read ανεκφοιτητα.

For αναλυοντες, it is necessary to read ανακαλουντες.

In the original, after εν δε τοις νοητοις και νοεροις, it is necessary to supply καθ’ υπαρξιν, εν δε τοις νοεροις, κ. τ. λ.

In the original ἡ δε is omitted.

After αλλα in the original it is necessary to supply the words και ταυτον εαυτῳ, καὶ ετερον εαυτου.

For κοινωνιαν, it is necessary to read κοινωνιας.

The word παραγειν is omitted in the original, but ought doubtless to be inserted.

Transcriber’s Notes:

1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been corrected silently.

2. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have been retained as in the original.

3. Italics are shown as xxx.