CHAP. I.
The doubts also that follow in the next place require for their solution
the assistance of the same divinely-wise Muse. But I am desirous,
previous to this, to unfold to you the peculiarity of the theology of
the Egyptians. For they, imitating the nature of the universe, and the
fabricative energy of the Gods, exhibit certain images through symbols
of mystic, occult, and invisible intellections; just as nature, after a
certain manner, expresses invisible reasons [or productive powers]
through visible forms. But the fabricative energy of the Gods delineates
the truth of forms, through visible images. Hence the Egyptians,
perceiving that all superior natures rejoice in the similitude to them
of inferior beings, and thus wishing to fill the latter with good,
through the greatest possible imitation of the former, very properly
exhibit a mode of theologizing adapted to the mystic doctrine concealed
in the symbols.
CHAP. II.
Hear, therefore, the intellectual interpretation of symbols, according
to the conceptions of the Egyptians; at the same time removing from your
imagination and your ears the image of things symbolical, but elevating
yourself to intellectual truth. By “_mire_,” therefore, understand every
thing corporeal-formed and material; or that which is nutritive and
prolific; or such as the material species of nature is, which is borne
along in conjunction with the unstable flux of matter; or a thing of
such a kind as that which the river of generation receives, and which
subsides together with it; or the primordial cause of the elements, and
of all the powers distributed about the elements, and which must be
antecedently conceived to exist analogous to a foundation. Being,
therefore, a thing of this kind, the God who is the cause of generation,
of all nature, and of all the powers in the elements, as transcending
these, and as being immaterial, incorporeal, and supernatural,
unbegotten and impartible, wholly derived from himself, and concealed in
himself,—this God precedes all things, and comprehends all things in
himself. And because, indeed, he comprehends all things, and imparts
himself to all mundane natures, he is from these unfolded into light.
Because, however, he transcends all things, and is by himself expanded
above them, on this account he presents himself to the view as separate,
exempt, elevated, and expanded by himself above the powers and elements
in the world. The following symbol, likewise, testifies the truth of
this. For by the God “_sitting above the lotus_,” a transcendency and
strength which by no means come into contact with the mire, are
obscurely signified, and also indicate his intellectual and empyrean
empire. For every thing belonging to the lotus is seen to be circular,
_viz._ both the form of the leaves and the fruit; and circulation is
alone allied to the motion of intellect, which energizes with invariable
sameness, in one order, and according to one reason. But the God is
established by himself, and above a dominion and energy of this kind,
venerable and holy, superexpanded, and abiding in himself, which his
being seated is intended to signify. When the God, also, is represented
as “_sailing in a ship_,”[122] it exhibits to us the power which governs
the world. As, therefore, the pilot being separate from the ship
presides over the rudder of it, thus the sun having a separate
subsistence, governs the helm of the whole world. And as the pilot
directs all things from the stem, giving from himself a small principle
of motion to the vessel; thus, also, by a much greater priority, the God
indivisibly imparts supernally from the first principles of nature, the
primordial causes of motions. These particulars, therefore, and still
more than these, are indicated by the God sailing in a ship.
CHAP. III.
Since, however, every part of the heavens, every sign of the
zodiac,[123] all the motion of the heavens, every period of time
according to which the world is moved, and all things contained in the
wholes of the universe, receive the powers which descend from the sun,
some of which are complicated with these wholes, but others transcend a
commixture with them, the symbolical mode of signification represents
these also, indicating “_that the sun is diversified according to the
signs of the zodiac, and that every hour he changes his form_.” At the
same time, also, it indicates his immutable, stable, never failing, and
at once collected communication of good to the whole world. But since
the recipients of the impartible gift of the God are variously affected
towards it, and receive multiform powers, from the sun, according to
their peculiar motions, hence the symbolical doctrine evinces through
the multitude of the gifts, that the God is one, and exhibits his one
power through multiform powers. Hence, likewise, it says that he is one
and the same, but that the vicissitudes of his form, and his
configurations, must be admitted to exist in the recipients. On this
account it asserts “that he is changed every hour, according to the
signs of the zodiac,” in consequence of these being variously changed
about the God, according to the many modes by which they receive him.
The Egyptians use prayers to the sun, conformable to these assertions,
not only in visions which are seen by the bodily eyes, but also in their
more common supplications, all which have such a meaning as this, and
are offered to the God conformably to a symbolic and mystic doctrine of
this kind. Hence it would not be reasonable in any one to undertake a
defence of them.
CHAP. IV.
But the inquiries which follow in the next place, require a more
abundant doctrine, in order to their elucidation. At the same time,
however, it is necessary to discuss the truth concerning them with
brevity. For you inquire “_what efficacy there is in names that are not
significant_.”[124] They are not, however, as you think, without
signification; but let them be indeed unknown to us (though some of them
are known to us, the explications of which we receive from the Gods),
yet to the Gods all of them are significant, though not according to an
effable mode; nor in such a way as that which is significant and
indicative with men through imaginations; but either intellectually,
conformably to the divine intellect which is in us; or ineffably, and in
a way more excellent and simple, and conformably to the intellect which
is united to the Gods. It is requisite, therefore, to take away all
conceptions derived by an abstraction from sensibles, and all logical
evolutions from divine names;[125] and likewise the connascent physical
similitudes of language to things which exist in nature. But the
intellectual and divine 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 names which we can, scientifically analyze,[126]
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 own?_” 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. For if any other thing pertains
to the Gods, it is evident that the eternal and immutable must be allied
to them.
CHAP. V.
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 be that are used_.” But the thing is not such as
you suspect it to be. For if names subsisted through compact[127] 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 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 power 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. “_if he
who is invoked is either an Egyptian or uses the Egyptian language_.”
But rather think that as the Egyptians were the first of men[128] who
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 [by which arcana are
concealed] originate from our passions, which rumour ascribes to a
divine nature_.” For beginning, not from our passions, but, on the
contrary, from things allied to the Gods, we make use of words adapted
to them. “_Nor 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 be
immutability. And it is necessary that ancient prayers,[129] like sacred
asyla, should be preserved invariably the same, neither taking any thing
from them, nor adding any thing to them which is elsewhere derived._ For
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 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.