But Hesiod says that Ceres is the daughter of Rhea. It is however
evident, that these theologists harmonize: for whether this goddess
proceeds from union with Saturn to a secondary order, or whether she
is the first progeny of Rhea, she is still the same. Ceres therefore,
thus subsisting, and receiving the most ancient and ruling order from
the whole vivific Rhea, (της ολης Ζωογονου ρεας) and comprehending the
middle centres of whole vivification, (της ολης Ζωογονιας) she fills
all supermundane natures with the rivers of all-perfect life, pouring
upon all things vitally, indivisibly, and uniformly.
Prior however to all this, she unfolds to us the demiurgic intellect,
(Jupiter) and imparts to him the power of vivifying wholes. For as
Saturn supplies her from on high with the cause of being; so Ceres from
on high, and from her own prolific bosoms, pours forth vivification to
the demiurgus. But possessing herself the middle of all vivific deity,
she governs the whole fountains which she contains, and comprehends the
one bond of the first and last powers of life. She stably convolves
too, and contains all secondary fountains. But she leads forth the
uniform causes of prior natures to the generation of others. This
goddess too comprehends _Vesta_ and _Juno_: in her right hand parts
Juno, who pours forth the whole order of souls; but in her left hand
parts Vesta, who leads forth all the light of virtue. Hence, Ceres
is with great propriety called by Plato,[462] _mother_, and, at the
same time the _supplier of aliment_. For, so far as she comprehends in
herself the cause of Juno, she is a mother; but as containing Vesta in
her essence, she is the supplier of aliment. But the paradigm of this
goddess is _Night: for immortal Night is called the nurse of the Gods_.
Night however is the cause of aliment intelligibly:[463] for that which
is intelligible is, according to the oracle,[464] the aliment of the
intellectual orders of Gods. But Ceres first of all separates the two
kinds of aliment in the Gods, as Orpheus says:
Μησατο γαρ προπολους, και αμφιπολους, και σπαδους·
Μησατο δ’ αμβροσιην, και ερυθρου νεκταρος αρθρον·
Μησατο δ’ αγλαα εργα μελισσαων εριβομβων.[465]
i.e. She cares for pow’rs ministrant, whether they
Or Gods _precede_, or _follow_, or _surround_:
_Ambrosia_, and _tenacious nectar red_
Are too the objects of her bounteous care.
Last to the bee her providence extends,
Who gathers honey with resounding hum.
Ceres therefore, our sovereign mistress (δεσποινα) not only generates
life, but that which gives perfection to life; and this from supernal
natures to such as are last: _for virtue is the perfection of souls_.
Hence mothers who are connected with the circulations of time, bring
forth their offspring in imitation of this twofold and eternal
generation of Ceres. For, at the same time that they send forth their
young into the light, they extend to them milk naturally produced as
their food.
That the conjunction of the demiurgic intellect with the vivific causes
is triple: for it is conjoined with the fountains prior to itself; is
present with its kindred co-ordinate natures; and co-energizes with
the orders posterior to itself. For it is present with the mother
prior to itself, _convertively_; (επιστρεπτικως) with Proserpine
posterior to itself, _providentially_; (προνοητικως) and with Juno
co-ordinate to itself with an _amatory energy_ (ερασμιως). Hence
Jupiter is said to be enamoured of Juno,
ως σεο νυν εραμαι[466]
As now I love thee,----
And this love indeed is legal, but the other two appear to be illegal.
This goddess therefore produces from herself in conjunction with the
demiurgus and father all the genera of souls, the supermundane and
mundane, the celestial and sublunary, the divine, angelic, dæmoniacal,
and partial. After a certain manner too, she is divided from the
demiurgus, but in a certain respect she is united to him: for Jupiter
is said, in the Philebus, to contain a royal intellect and a royal
soul. For he contains uniformly the paternal and maternal cause of the
world; and the fountain of souls is said to be in Jupiter; just as
again, the intelligence of Jupiter is said to be first participated by
Juno. For no other divinity, says Jupiter in Homer, knows my mind prior
to Juno. Through this ineffable union therefore of these divinities,
the world participates of intellectual souls. They also give
subsistence to intellects who are carried in souls, and who together
with them give completion to the whole fabrication of things.
That the series of our sovereign mistress Juno, beginning from on high
pervades to the last of things; and her allotment in the sublunary
region is the air. For _air_ is a symbol of _soul_, according to which
also, soul is called a _spirit_ (πνευμα); just as _fire_ is an image of
_intellect_, but _water_ of _nature_, by which the world is nourished,
(της κοσμοτρφου φυσεως) through which all nutriment and increase are
produced. But _earth_ is the image of _body_, through its gross and
material nature. Hence Homer obscurely signifying this, represents Juno
suspended with two anvils under her feet: for the air is allotted two
heavy elements beneath itself.
For
ηλιον δ’ ακαμαντα βοωπις ποτνια ηρη
πεμψεν επ’ ωκεανοιο ροας
i.e. “Fair-eyed venerable Juno sent the sun to the streams of the
ocean,”--is from the same conception.
For he calls the thick cloud produced by Juno, the setting of the sun.
The assertion likewise that the end of this name will be conjoined
with the beginning, if any one frequently repeats the name of the
goddess, evinces the conversion of rational souls to her which proceed
from her; and that voice is air that is struck. On this account also
the voice of rational animals is especially dedicated to this goddess,
who made the horse of Achilles to become vocal. But Socrates now
delivers these three vivific monads in a consequent order, viz. Ceres,
Juno, Proserpine; calling the first the mother, the second the sister,
and the third the daughter of the demiurgus. All of them however are
partakers of the whole of fabrication; the first in an exempt manner
and intellectually, the second in a fontal manner and at the same time
in a way adapted to a principle (αρχικως) and the third, in a manner
adapted to a principle and leader (αρχικως και ηγεμονικως).
Of these goddesses the last possesses triple powers, and impartibly
and uniformly comprehends three monads of Gods. But she is called
Core (κορη) through the purity of her essence, and her undefiled
transcendency in her generations. She also possesses a first, middle
and last empire. And according to her summit indeed, she is called
Diana by Orpheus; but according to her middle Proserpine; and according
to the extremity of the order Minerva. Likewise, according to an
hyparxis transcending the other powers of this triple vivific order,
the dominion of Hecate is established; but according to a middle power,
and which is generative of wholes, that of Soul; and according to
intellectual conversion that of virtue.[467] Core therefore, subsisting
on high, and among the supermundane Gods, uniformly extends this triple
order of divinities; and together with Jupiter generates Bacchus,
who impartibly presides over partible fabrication. But beneath, in
conjunction with Pluto, she is particularly beheld according to the
middle peculiarity; for it is this which proceeding every where imparts
vivification to the last of things. Hence she is called Proserpine,
because she especially associates with Pluto, and together with him
orderly distributes the extremities of the universe. And according
to her extremities indeed, she is said to be a virgin, and to remain
undefiled; but according to her middle, to be conjoined with Hades,
and to beget the Furies in the subterranean regions. She therefore is
also called Core, but after another manner than the supermundane and
ruling Core. For the one is the connective unity of the three vivific
principles; but the other is the middle of them, in herself possessing
the peculiarities of the extremes. Hence in the Proserpine conjoined
with Pluto, you will find the peculiarities of Hecate and Minerva; but
these extremes subsist in her occultly, while the idiom of the middle
shines forth, and that which is characteristic of ruling soul, which
in the supermundane Core _was of a ruling_[468] nature, but here
subsists according to a mundane peculiarity.
That Proserpine is denominated, either through judging of forms
and separating them from each other, thus obscurely signifying the
ablation of slaughter (δια το κρινειν τα ειδη και χωριζειν αλληλων,
ως του φονου την αναιρεσιν αινιττομενον) or through separating souls
perfectly from bodies, through a conversion to things on high, which
is the most fortunate slaughter and death, to such as are worthy
of it. (η δια το χωριζειν τας ψυχας τελεως εκ των σωματων δια της
προς τα ανω επιστροφης, οπερ εστιν ευτυχεστατος φονος και θανατος
τοις αξιουμενοις τουτου.) But the name φερεφαττα _Pherephatta_,
according to a contact with generation is adapted to Proserpine; but
according to wisdom and counsel to Minerva. At the same time however
all the appellations by which she is distinguished are adapted to the
perfection of soul. On this account also she is called Proserpine,
and not by the names of the extremes; since that which was ravished
by Pluto is the middle; the extremes at the same time being firmly
established in themselves, according to which Core is said to remain a
virgin.
With respect to our sovereign mistress Diana, Plato delivers three
peculiarities of her, the undefiled, the mundane, and the anagogic.
And through the first of these indeed, the goddess is said to be a
lover of virginity; but through the second, according to which she is
perfective of works (τελεσιουργος) she is said to be the inspective
guardian of virtue; and through the third she is said to hate the
impulses arising from generation. Of these three likewise, the first
is especially adapted to the progression of the goddess, according
to which she is allotted an hyparxis in the vivific triad of the
supermundane Gods; whether we call this deity Hecatic, as Theurgists
say, or Diana with Orpheus. For there being established, she is filled
with undefiled powers from the Gods called _Amilicti_.[469] But
she looks to the fountain of virtue, and embraces its virginity. For
the virginity which is there does not proceed forth, as the Oracle
says, but abiding gives subsistence to Diana, and to supermundane
virtue, and is exempt from all communion, conjunction and progression,
according to generation. Hence Core also, according to the Diana and
Minerva which she contains, is said to remain a virgin; but according
to the prolific power of Proserpine, she is said to proceed forth, and
to be conjoined with the third demiurgus, and to bring forth as Orpheus
says, “nine azure-eyed, flower-producing daughters;”
εννεα θυγατερας γλαυκωπιδας ανθεσιουργους.
since the Diana and the Minerva which she contains preserve their
virginity always the same. For the former of these is characterised
according to her stability, but the latter according to her convertive
energy. But that which is generative is allotted in her a middle order.
They say too, that she aspires after virginity, since the form of her
is comprehended in the vivific fountain, and she understands fontal
virtue, gives subsistence to supermundane and anagogic virtue, and
despises all material sexual connexion, though she inspects the fruits
arising from it.
She appears also to be averse to the generations and progressions of
things, but to introduce perfections to them. And she gives perfection
indeed to souls through a life according to virtue; but to mortal
animals she imparts a restitution to form. But that there is a great
union between Diana, the mundane Hecate, and Core, is evident to
those that are in the least degree conversant with the writings of
Orpheus; from which it appears that Latona is comprehended in Ceres,
and together with Jupiter gives subsistence to Core, and the mundane
Hecate. To which we may also add that Orpheus[470] calls Diana Hecate.
So that it is nothing wonderful, if we should elsewhere call the Diana
contained in Core Hecate.
“Again, theologists especially celebrate two powers of our sovereign
mistress Minerva, the _defensive_, and the _perfective_; the former
preserving the order of wholes undefiled, and unvanquished by
matter, and the latter filling all things with intellectual light,
and converting them to their cause. And on this account, Plato also
in the Timæus, analogously celebrates Minerva as _philopolemic_ and
_philosophic_. But three orders of this Goddess are delivered by
theologists; the one fontal and intellectual, according to which she
establishes herself in her father Jupiter, and subsists in unproceeding
union with him; but the second ranks among the supermundane Gods,
according to which she is present with Core, and bounds and converts
all the progression of that Goddess to herself. And the third is
_liberated_, according to which she perfects and guards the whole
world, and circularly invests it with her powers, as with a veil;
binding together all the mundane summits, and giving subsistence
to all the allotments in the heavens, and to those which proceed
into the sublunary region. Now therefore Socrates celebrates her
_guardian_ power, through the name of _Pallas_; but her perfective
power through that of _Minerva_. She is the cause therefore of orderly
and measured motion, which she first imparts to the Curetic order, and
afterwards to the other Gods. For Minerva according to this power is
the leader of the Curetes, as Orpheus says, whence also, as well as
those divinities she is adorned with empyrean arms, through which she
represses all disorder, preserves the demiurgic series immoveable, and
unfolds dancing through rhythmical motion. She also guards reason as
it proceeds from intellect; through this power vanquishing matter.
For the visible region, says Timæus, is mingled from intellect and
necessity, the latter being obedient to the former, and all material
causes being in subjection to the will of the father. It is this
goddess therefore, who arranges necessity under the productions of
intellect, raises the universe to the participation of Jupiter, excites
and establishes it in the port of its father, and eternally guards and
defends it. Hence, if the universe is said to be indissoluble, it is
this goddess who supplies its permanency; and if it moves in measured
motion, through the whole of time, according to one reason and order,
she is the source of this supply. She watchfully surveys therefore all
the fabrication of her father, and connects and converts it to him; and
vanquishes all material indefiniteness. Hence she is called _Victory_
and _Health_; the former because she causes intellect to rule over
necessity, and form over matter; and the latter, because she preserves
the universe perpetually whole, perfect, exempt from age, and free from
disease. It is the property therefore of this goddess to elevate and
distribute, and through an intellectual dance as it were, to connect,
establish, and defend inferior natures in such as are more divine.”[471]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] For γονων, it is necessary to read γενων.
[2] It appears to me that πρωτως is in this place omitted in the
original.
[3] For αριστα, I read αριστην.
[4] For κατα τουτο, it is necessary to read κατα ταυτον.
[5] For διακρινον, it is necessary to read διατεινον.
[6] For αυτο, I read αυτῳ.
[7] Instead of εκ της διακοσμησεως, it is necessary to read εκ ταυτης
διακοσμησεως.
[8] For οπως, it is necessary to read πως, and in consequence of this,
the sentence should not be, as it is in the original, interrogatory.
[9] From the version of Portus, it appears necessary after the words
τους μεν, αφ’εαυτου τε, to supply the words του νοερου πατρος, τους δε
αφ’εαυτου τε κ. τ. λ.
[10] For της ολης, it is necessary to read τοις ολοις.
[11] For τοις ολοις, it is necessary to read τοις πολλοις.
[12] The word αστρον is omitted in the original.
[13] εν is omitted in the original.
[14] For παντος it is necessary to read πατρος.
[15] αφ’ου signifies an occult, but υφ’ου, a manifest progression.
[16] For εξῃρηται, it is necessary to read εξηρτηται.
[17] For επιστησωμεν, I read επισκεψωμεν.
[18] For γονιμου, it is necessary to read μονιμου.
[19] For νεαρας, it is necessary to read νοερας.
[20] The following observations were written in the margin of the
manuscript copy of this work of Proclus, by some scholiast or
commentator: “For end and that which is perfected, and the possession
of beginning, middles and end, first subsist in the intelligible and
at the same time intellectual Gods. And on this account figure, also,
there presents itself to the view. This triad, therefore, in the whole
assimilative series is analogous to intelligibles and intellectuals, as
having from them[21] the beginning, middles, and end. For the demiurgus
produced this triad according to the similitude of the perfective
triad, and connected the straight and the circular with motion. For to
bound in a direct path, and to proceed circularly, are definitive of
motion, as was said by Proclus in the Chapter prior to this. And as
this triad has these properties from intelligibles and intellectuals,
thus also the whole series of assimilative Gods possess them from
this triad. Hence this triad of partial demiurgi, is analogous to the
intelligible and intellectual fathers, i.e. to the perfective power.”
[21] For απ’ αυτης, it is necessary to read απ’ αυτων.
[22] For δε ὄντως, it is necessary to read δεοντως.
[23] It appears to me that after και αι ζητησεις in the original, there
are wanting the words των προνοουντων, ωσπερ.
[24] For τριας here, it is necessary to read τριαδος.
[25] The word μιας is omitted in the original.
[26] For των αγαθων, it is necessary to read τῳ αγαθῳ.
[27] For θειον νοητον, it is necessary to read θειον γεννητον; every
perpetually circulating body being thus denominated by Plato.
[28] For νοητοις here, it is necessary to read γεννητοις.
[29] For περιοδοις, it is necessary to read προοδοις.
[30] For υπ’ αλληλων it is necessary to read υπ’ αλλων.
[31] For πασης, it is necessary to read πασι.
[32] For παρα τι, it is necessary to read περατι.
[33] It is necessary here to supply the word ομοιου.
[34] For εαυτῳ, it is necessary to read εαυτο.
[35] For υλικης, it is necessary to read ολικης.
[36] It is necessary here to substitute και for το.
[37] Instead of περι αυτων, it is necessary to read περι αυτην.
[38] i.e. Phanes, or in Platonic language animal itself, subsisting at
the extremity of the intelligible order.
[39] i.e. Imitating Saturn and Phanes.
[40] The Greek scholiast observes on this part of the text of
Proclus as follows: “By the _intellectual_, Proclus means the
_ruling_ Gods; but by an immaterial and separate intellect the
whole demiurgus. And by _essence_ he means a partial hypostasis,
such as that of soul, of a dæmon, and of the intellect which is
co-ordinate to partial souls.”
[41] For νοητου here, it is necessary to read νοερου.
[42] viz. The genera of being, essence, sameness, difference, motion
and permanency.
[43] For εσχατον, it is necessary to read εχουσιν.
[44] For εν δε, if is necessary to read αι δε.
[45] By intelligible souls, we must understand partial, but undefiled
souls.
[46] For χωρικον, it is necessary to read χωριστον.
[47] Instead of περι τον κοσμον, it is necessary to read υπερ τον
κοσμον.
[48] For περιοδους, it is necessary to read προοδους.
[49] For δυαδος, it is necessary to read δυναμεως.
[50] For εξηςτηται, it is necessary to read εξηρηται.
[51] For ουτε, it is necessary to read ουκουν.
[52] For οχετον, I read οχλον.
[53] For την απογεννησιν, it is necessary to read της απογεννησεως.
[54] For γονιμον, it is necessary to read μονιμον.
[55] For αφαιρησωμεθα, it is necessary to read αφορισωμεθα.
[56] For αρρητον, it is necessary to read αρρηκτον.
[57] For αυτοτελες, it is necessary to read ατελες.
[58] For περιφορας, I read περιγραφας.
[59] For μερων, it is necessary to read Μοιρων.
[60] In the original το δε μελλον is omitted.
[61] For τα παραγοντα, it is necessary to read τα παροντα.
[62] In the original ουχ απτομενον is omitted.
[63] In the original χωριστον εστι, is wanting.
[64] For περιοδῳ, it is necessary to read προοδῳ.
[65] Vid. Sallust. de Diis et Mundo, Cap. 6.
[66] Vid. Procl. in Tim. p. 45.
[67] Vid. Jamblich. de Mysteriis Sect. I. Cap. 8.
[68] Vid. Jamblich. de Myst. Sect. I. Cap. 9.
[69] Vid. Jamblich. de Myst. Sect. I. Cap. 17.
[70] Vid. Jamblich. de Myst. Sect. I. Cap. 19.
[71] See the 5th Book of this work, in which this speech is admirably
discussed by Proclus, though not so fully as in these extracts.
[72] For μεν ειναι το παμπαν αθανατους in the original, it is necessary
to read μη ειναι κ. τ. λ.
[73] Instead of νοητον, it is requisite to read νοητῳ.
[74] This divinity is Vulcan.
[75] παρ’ ετερου is omitted in the original.
[76] The words και λυτον απλως παρ’ εαυτου και παρ’ ετερου, are omitted
in the original.
[77] For ενδοσιν, it is necessary to read ενωσιν.
[78] Κεχαρασμενην is erroneously printed for κεχαλασμενην.
[79] After την παραδειγματικην it is necessary to supply the words δια
του καλως, την δημιουργικην, which are wanting in the original.
[80] The words και λυτοι are omitted in the original.
[81] For αυτου φυσιν, it is necessary to read αυτων φυσιν.
[82] Instead of του μη θνητου, it is necessary to read του θνητου.
[83] The original has erroneously μονας instead of μονον.
[84] For μετα βουλης, I read μεταβολης. For the mundane Gods are in no
part of the Timæus represented as consulting about the fabrication of
things.
[85] i.e. Proserpine.
[86] For τελειοτατα, it is necessary to read τελειοτητα.
[87] For τα θειοτα, it is necessary to read τα θειοτατα.
[88] Iliad xx. v. 24.
[89] Instead of δια τινων εγκοσμιων, it is necessary to read δια τι των
εγκοσμιων.
[90] αθανατως is omitted in the original.
[91] For εξ ου σωματος, it is necessary to read εξω σωματος.
[92] For λυπης, it is requisite to read λοιπης.
[93] i.e. Jupiter, who is so called in this place by Proclus, because
he contains in himself by participation, the Phanes or Protogonus who
is the paradigm of the universe.
[94] For πονηρια, it is necessary to read πενια.
[95] For ιδρυαν, it is necessary to read ιδρυσιν.
[96] σαφῃ is erroneously printed for αφῃ.
[97] For και βαθεων, it is necessary to read και βαθμων.
[98] For πατρος, it is necessary to read παντος.
[99] Here also for πατρι, it is necessary to read παντι.
[100] Vid. Proclum in Tim. p. 275.
[101] These ολοτητες, according to the Platonic philosophy, have so
far as they are wholes, a perpetual subsistence, and are the spheres
of the fixed stars, the spheres of the planets, the sphere of air, the
globe on which we live, and the ocean. See more on this subject in my
Dissertation on the Philosophy of Aristotle.
[102] Vid. Procl. in Tim. p. 257 and 279.
[103] Hence, we may perceive at one view, as I have elsewhere observed,
why the sun in the Orphic hymns is called Jupiter, why Apollo is called
Pan, and Bacchus the Sun; and why the moon seems to be the same with
Rhea, Ceres, Proserpine, Juno, Venus, &c. For from this theory it
follows, that every sphere contains a Jupiter, Neptune, Vulcan, Vesta,
Minerva, Mars, Ceres, Juno, Diana, Mercury, Venus, Apollo, and in
short, every deity,--each sphere at the same time conferring on these
Gods the peculiar characteristics of its nature; so that for instance,
in the sun they possess a solar property; in the moon a lunar one; and
so of the rest.
This theory too is one of the grand keys to the theology of the Greeks;
as it shows why one God is so often celebrated by the appellations of
another; an ignorance of the cause of which led Macrobius to think that
all the Gods were nothing more than the different powers of the sun,
and has been one great source of the idle conjectures of the moderns
about the divinities of the ancients.
[104] Vid. Procl. in Tim. lib. 4. p. 263.
[105] For περιοδον, it is necessary to read προοδον.
[106] For γνωριζειν, it is necessary to read οριζει.
[107] According to the Chaldaic dogmas, as explained by Psellus, there
are seven corporeal worlds, one empyrean and the first; after this
three etherial; and then three material worlds, viz. the inerratic
sphere, the seven planetary spheres, and the sublunary region. They
also assert that there are two solar worlds; one which is subservient
to the etherial profundity; the other zonaic, being one of the seven
spheres.
[108] Viz. The supermundane Gods.
[109] It must be carefully observed, however, that this is only true of
the Gods characteristically called supermundane. For it does not apply
to the Gods who are _primarily_ intellectual, since they are above
the supermundane order, to which the sun and Apollo belong.
[110] That is, according to the Chaldæan oracles, the sun is the middle
of the empyrean, etherial, and material worlds, the two last of which,
as I have observed in a former note, receive a triple division.
[111] These verses are not in Gesner’s collection of the Orphic
fragments.
[112] These lines are from Empedocles, and in the original are as
follow:
Ενθα κοτος τε φονος τε και αλλων εθνεα κηρων,
Αυχμηραι τε νοσοι, και σηψεις, εργα τε ρευστα.
[113] Vide Jamblich. de Myst. lib. i. cap. 18.
[114] In Tim, lib. i. p. 51.
[115] For χορευτων in this place, it is necessary to read χορων των.
[116] Iliad. viii.
[117] Iliad. viii.
[118] In Tim. p. 48.
[119] This triad consists of Minerva, Diana, and Proserpine.
[120] The former part of this inscription is to be found in Plutarch’s
treatise of Isis and Osiris; but the latter part, viz. _the fruit
which I brought forth was the sun_, is only to be found in the above
Commentary of Proclus. The original is, ον εγω καρπον ετεκον ηλιος
εγενετο.
[121] viz. In _ether_ or _bound_, the summit of the intelligible triad.
[122] Instead of σχηματος, it is necessary to read οχηματος.
[123] For according to Plato, plants also, as having life, are animals.
[124] For δαιμονικας here, it is necessary to read ηγεμονικας.
[125] παντικα is erroneously printed in the original for μαντικα.
[126] For αιωνιοι, it is evidently necessary to read in this place
παιωνιοι.
[127] Apud Porphyr. de Abstin.
[128] It is necessary here to supply the word θειον.
[129] It is requisite to read κατ εκεινον, instead of κατ εκεινην.
[130] The word ουρανιων is omitted in the original.
[131] It is obviously necessary here for εαυτων to read εαυτου.
[132] εγγονοι is omitted in the original.
[133] This is doubtless the Sibyl, of whom Proclus also observes (in
Tim. p. 325.) “that proceeding into light, she knew her own order, and
manifested that she came from the Gods, saying I am the medium between
Gods and men.” ειδε γαρ τοι Σιβυλλα εις φως, και την ταξιν εαυτης, και
ως εκ θεων ηκει δεδηλwκεν, ειμι δ’ εγω μεση τε θεων εἰπουσα μεση τ’
ἀνθρωπων.
[134] For επιπορευοντων, it is necessary to read επιτροπευοντων.
[135] Some of the moderns, from being profoundly ignorant of this
circumstance, have stupidly supposed that the Gods of the ancients were
nothing more than dead men deified; taking for their guides on this
important subject, mere historians, philologists, and rhetoricians,
instead of philosophers.
[136] For επι της, it is necessary to read επι γης.
[137] For αποκαταστασεως, it is requisite to read αποστασεως.
[138] In the original αλογων is erroneously printed for αναλογων.
[139] This is a very ancient Egyptian doctrine. And hence Kircher in
his Oedipus Egyptiacus says that he read the following words engraved
in a stone near Memphis: _Coelum sursum, coelum deorsum, quod sursum id
omne deorsum, hæc cape et beaberis_, _i.e._ _Heaven is above and heaven
is Beneath. Every thing which is above is also beneath. Understand
this, and you will be blessed._ Conformably to this also the celebrated
Smaragdine Table, which is of such great authority with the Alchemists,
and which whether originally written or not by Hermes Trismegistus, is
doubtless of great antiquity, says that all that is beneath resembles
all that is above. But the Table itself is as follows: “Verum sine
mendacio, certum et verissimum: quod est inferius, est sicut id quod
est superius, et quod est superius, est sicut id, quod est inferius
ad perpetrandum miraculum unius rei. Et sicut res omnes fuerunt ab
uno mediatione unius, sic omnes res natæ ab hac re adoptatione. Pater
ejus est sol, mater ejus luna. Portavit illud ventus in ventre suo.
Nutrix ejus terra, pater omnis telesmi totius mundi est hic. Virtus
ejus integra est, si versa fuerit in terram. Separabis terram ab igne,
subtile a spisso suaviter cum magno ingenio. Ascendit a terra in
coelum, iterumque descendit in terram, et recipit vim superiorum et
inferiorum. Sic habebis gloriam totius mundi, ideo fugiet à te omnis
obscuritas. Hæc est totius fortitudinis fortitudo fortis, quia vincet
omnem rem subtilem, omniaque solida penetrabit. Sic mundus creatus est.
Hinc erunt adoptationes mirabiles, quarum modus hic est. Itaque vocatus
sum Hermes Trismegistus habens tres partes philosophiæ totius mundi.
Completum est quod dixi de opere solis.” i.e. “It is true without a
lie, certain, and most true, that what is beneath is like that which is
above, and what is above is like that which is beneath, for the purpose
of accomplishing the miracle of one thing. And as all things were
from one through the mediation of one, so all things were generated
from this thing by adoption [i.e. by participation.] The sun is its
father, and the moon its mother. The wind carried it in its belly.
The earth is its nurse. This is the father of all the perfection of
the whole world. Its power is entire when it is converted into earth.
You must separate the earth from the fire, the subtil from the thick
sweetly with great genius. It ascends from earth to heaven, and again
descends to the earth, and receives the power of things superior and
inferior. Thus you will have the glory of the whole world, and thus
all obscurity will fly from you. This is the strong fortitude of all
fortitude, because it vanquishes every subtile thing, and penetrates
all solid substances. Thus the world was fabricated. Hence admirable
adoptions will take place of which this is the mode. I am therefore
called Hermes Trismegistus possessing three parts of the philosophy of
the whole world. That which I have said concerning the work of the sun
is complete.”
[140] Instead of και γαρ ουρανιαν και την σεληγην Ορφευς προσηγορευσεν,
the sense requires we should read και γαρ ουρανιαν γην την σεληνην, κ.
λ.
[141] For εκ τ’ αυτου, it is necessary to read εκ τ’ αγαθου.
[142] Instead of λεγω δη τοις του Ουρανου τουδε συνοχικης μεσοτηρος, it
is requisite to read λεγω δια της του Ουρανου, κ. λ.
[143] For τριαδην, it is necessary to read τριαδαις.
[144] For νοερων, read νοητων.
[145] For αποριαν, read απειριαν.
[146] For ενιαυτον here, it is necessary to read ενιαιον.
[147] Plato, in the 10th book of the Laws, distinguishes the genus of
motions into ten species, viz. circulation about an immoveable centre,
local transition, condensation, rarefaction, increase, decrease,
generation, corruption, mutation or alteration, produced in another by
another, and a mutation produced from a thing itself, both in itself,
and in another. This last is the motion of an essence separate from
bodies, and is the motion of soul.
[148] For γονιμον here, it is necessary to read μονιμον.
[149] πατρος is erroneously printed instead of πατερες.
[150] As this is a remarkably curious Orphic fragment, and is not to be
found in Gesner’s collection of the Orphic remains, I shall give the
original for the sake of the learned reader. και τοι γε οτι ο κρονος
υπερτερος εστι του ωκεανου, δεδηλωκεν ο θεολογος παλιν λεγων· τον μεν
κρονον αυτον καταλαμβανειν τον ουρανιον ολυμπον, κᾳκει θρονισθεντα,
βασιλευειν των τιτανων· τον δε ωκεανον την ληξιν απασαν την μεσην·
ναιειν γαρ αυτον εν τοις θεσπεσιοις ρειθροις τοις μετα τον ολυμπον, και
τον εκει περιεπειν ουρανον, αλλ’ου τον ακροτατον, ως δε φησιν ό μυθος,
τον εμπεσοντα του ολυμπου, και εχει τεταγμενον.
Procl. in Tim. p. 296.
[151] For μετ’αυτου, it is necessary to read μετ’αυτης.
[152] For Θαυμαντα, it is requisite to read Θαυμαντος; and for ποντον,
ποντῳ.
[153] The original here is evidently erroneous; for it is, ου γαρ εστιν
ο φορκυς ουρανιδης αλλα ο φορκυς, ως εστι δηλον εκ της θεογονιας. For
αλλα ο φορκυς, therefore, I read αλλα ο Ωκεανος; Ocean, according to
the Theogony of Hesiod, being the progeny of Heaven and Earth.
[154] Κρονος is erroneously printed for χρονος.
[155] For της υγρας υλης ουσιας, I read της υγρας ολης ουσιας.
[156] The words ημεις δε εκομενως are omitted in the original.
[157] For διανοηθεις, it is necessary to read διακινηθεις.
[158] For αφανη here it is necessary to read εμφανη.
[159] The meaning of Proclus in asserting that the ennead proceeds
from the monad as far as to the extremities without retrogression is
as follows: The ennead, according to the Pythagoreans, circulates
all numbers within itself, and there can be no number beyond it. For
the natural progression of numbers is as far as to 9, but after it
their retrogression takes place. For 10 becomes as it were again the
monad. Thus, if from each of the numbers 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18, and 19, the number 9 is subtracted, the numbers that remain
will be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. And vice versa, the progression
will receive an increase by the addition of 9. For, if to each of the
numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, &c. 9 is added, the numbers produced will be 10,
11, 12, 13, &c. Likewise by subtracting from 20 twice 9, from 30 thrice
9, from 40 four times 9, from 50 five times 9 &c, the numbers 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, &c will be produced. By taking likewise from 100 eleven times 9,
we again return to the monad. And after the same manner we may proceed
to infinity. Hence it is not possible there should be any elementary
number beyond the ennead. Hence too the Pythagoreans, called it Ocean
and the Horizon, because all numbers are comprehended by and revolve
within it. On this account likewise, it was called by them Halios,
(παρα το αλιζειν) and Concord and Perseïa because it congregates
all numbers, and collects them into one, and does not permit the
conspiration of the numbers beyond it to be dissipated. Vid. Anonym. in
opere quod inscripsit τα θεολογουμενα της αριθμητικης.
[160] For εισι, it is requisite to read προεισι.
[161] προοδους is omitted in the original.
[162] In the original it is παραπετα instead of παραπετασματα.
[163] These thirty-six decadarchs are the divinities alluded to by the
Emperor Julian in his Oration to the Sun, when he says, “that the Sun
divides the zodiac into twelve powers of Gods, and each of these into
three others, so that thirty-six are produced in the whole.”
[164] This is implied by Socrates telling him that he inquires about
_great_ things.
[165] In Tim. p. 184.
[166] This is according to the psychical mode of interpreting fables.
See my translation of Sallust On the Gods and the World.
[167] This is a life pertaining to her own will; for the soul in this
case gives herself up to the will of divinity.
[168] For an account of divine fables, and specimens of the mode in
which they ought to be explained, see the Introduction to the second
Book of the Republic, in Vol. I. of my translation of Plato.
[169] Iliad. lib. viii.
[170] For the irrational soul is an _immaterial body_, or in other
words, _vitalized extension_, such as the mathematical bodies
which we frame in the phantasy; and the celestial bodies are of this
kind.
[171] It is necessary here to supply the word θειων.
[172] For τρεφει here, it is necessary to read στρεφει.
[173] For δεσμων here read θεσμων.
[174] In Tim. p. 59.
[175] Lib. ii. p. 81.
[176] i.e. Angels, dæmons, and heroes.
[177] Lib. iv. p. 240, &c.
[178] Viz. the Sun considered as subsisting in the supermundane order
of Gods.
[179] “But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our
own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out
drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our
kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of
Jerusalem: for _then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and
saw no evil_. But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of
heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, _we have wanted all
things_, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine.”
Jeremiah, Chap. xliv, v. 17, 18.
[180] In this dialogue, Plato assimilates the intimate form of the soul
to a winged chariot and charioteer, drawn by two horses; and says,
“that all the horses and chariots of the Gods are good, and composed of
things that are good.” In which passage, by the chariots of the Gods
are to be understood all the inward discursive powers of their souls,
which pursue the intelligence of all things, and can at the same time
equally contemplate and provide for inferior concerns. But the horses
signify the efficacy and motive vigour of these powers. And the wings
are elevating powers, which particularly belong to the charioteer, or
intellect.
[181] I. e. In the summit of that order which is called intelligible
and at the same time intellectual.
[182] ποιμαινων πραπεδεσσιν ανομματον ωκυν ερωτα.
[183] The author of these verses comprehends the triple genera that
are more excellent than man, viz. angels, dæmons and heroes, under the
appellation of illustrious heroes.
[184] It must however, be carefully observed, that this divine cause
illuminates, invigorates, and excites these circles in the most
unrestrained and impassive manner, without destroying freedom of energy
in the circles themselves, or causing any partial affection, sympathy
or tendency in illuminating deity.
[185] See a most masterly defence of the character of Achilles as a
hero in my translation of Proclus’s noble apology for Homer, in the
first Volume of my Plato.
[186] Vid. Iamblich. de vita Pythag. Cap. 2.
[187] And this essence, as is shown in the 4th book, subsists at the
summit of the intelligible and at the same time intellectual order.
[188] This forms the middle of the above-mentioned order.
[189] This forms the extremity of that order.
[190] Viz. to Saturn, who subsists at the summit of the intellectual
order.
[191] Instead of και δια το μη λεγειν, το διδον αει γινομενος, it is
necessary to read δια το μη ληγειν το διδον, αει γινομενος.
[192] For ορωμενος here, it is necessary to read ορμωμενος.
[193] Wholes whether corporeal or incorporeal are thus denominated.
[194] For συνεκτεινατο, it is necessary to read συνετεκταινετο.
[195] i.e. a circular motion.
[196] Proclus elsewhere informs us in these Commentaries, that the soul
of the world is called by Orpheus _Ippa_.
[197] i.e. Vesta.
[198] i.e. Juno.
[199] i.e. Having a good dæmon.
[200] Instead of εις δαιμων εγενετο μεγας αρχος απο παντων, it is
requisite to read εις δαιμων γενετο μεγας αρχος απαντων.
[201] For αφανη here, it is necessary to read εμφανη.
[202] For συμβολικης των θεων παρουσιας, it is requisite to read
συμβολικα της των, κ. λ.
[203] After του οντως here, it is requisite to supply οντος.
[204] The part within the brackets is wanting in the original, in which
there is evidently a defect, as the stars at the end of the proposition
indicate.
[205] Here also the part within the brackets is wanting in the original.
[206] For εαυτῳ here it is necessary to read εαυτο.
[207] It is here necessary to supply the words αφ’ εαυτου.
[208] This is asserted by Aristotle in his Posterior Analytics.
[209] In Prop. 5.
[210] For τοις αιτιοις here, it is obviously necessary to read τοις
αιτιατοις.
[211] For ων το μεν αυτην διδωσι, it is necessary to read ων το μετ’
αυτην διδωσι.
[212] From the 11th Proposition.
[213] From the 7th Proposition.
[214] ει is wanting in the original.
[215] This is asserted in the Phædrus of Plato.
[216] That if an essence is inseparable from body, it is impossible
that the energy proceeding from this essence should be separate from
body, Aristotle also demonstrates in his treatise On the Soul.
[217] The words within the brackets are wanting in the original, though
perfectly necessary to the demonstration of the Proposition. Hence, the
words ολον κινει, μερος δε κινειται, η, must be supplied.
[218] For if the whole moves, the part which is moved will at the same
time be motive.
[219] The truth of this may be exemplified in light. Thus for instance
we see many species of light; one kind emanating from the sun, another
from fire and the stars, another from the moon, and another from
the eyes of many animals. But this light though various, is every
where similar, and discovers in its operations a unity of nature. On
account of its uniformity therefore, it requires one principle and not
different principles. But the sun is the only principle of all mundane
light. And though there are many participants of light posterior to
the solar orb, yet they scatter their uniform light, through one solar
nature, property and power. But if we again seek for the principle of
light in the sun, we cannot say that the solar orb is this principle;
for the various parts of it diffuse many illuminations. There will
therefore, be many principles. But we now require one first principle
of light. And if we say that the soul of the sun generates light, we
must observe that this is not effected by her psychical multiplicity,
or she would diffuse different lights. Hence we must assert that she
generates visible by intellectual light. But again this production does
not subsist through intellectual variety, but rather through the unity
of intellect which is its flower and summit. This unity is a symbol
of that simple unity which is the principle of the universe. And to
this principle the solar intellect is united by its unity; and through
this it becomes a God. This divine unity of the sun therefore, is the
principle of the uniform light of the world, in the same manner as
simple unity and goodness is the source of intelligible light to all
intelligible natures.
[220] The imparticipable is that which is not consubsistent with a
subordinate nature. Thus imparticipable intellect is the intellect
which is not consubsistent with soul, but is exempt from it. And
imparticipable soul is the soul which is not consubsistent with body.
And so in other things.
[221] Instead of ει γαρ αγονον, it is necessary to read η γαρ αγονον.
[222] The original here is both defective and incorrect. Instead
therefore of τινος γενομενον υφ’ ου μαχεται, I read παν δε τινος
γενομενον υφ’ ου μετεχεται.
[223] Instead of και οτι αλλο in this place, it appears to me to be
necessary to read και οτι αλλως.
[224] Instead of μετ’ αυτου here, it is necessary to read μετ’ αυτο.
[225] For παρον here, it is necessary to read παραγον.
[226] Instead of προς παν here, it is necessary to read προς αιτιον.
[227] Instead of πως το διακριθεν, it is necessary to read πως το μη
διακριθεν.
[228] For το απ’ αυτου here, it is necessary to read τῳ απ’ αυτου.
[229] For το επιστρεφον, it is requisite to read το μη επιστερφον.
[230] There is a defect here in the original, which may be supplied, if
instead of εστι την απο της ουσιας προς εαυτο επιστρεπτικον we read ει
ουν εστι κατα την απο της ουσιας ενεργειαν προς εαυτο επιστρεπτικον.
[231] ουπω is omitted in the original.
[232] For μεριστην εαυτου, it is requisite to read μεριστον εαυτον.
[233] The truth of this reasoning may be evinced by the following
considerations. Every thing which is measured by time, and such is
every corporeal nature, depends on time for the perfection of its
being. But time is composed of the past, present and future. And if
we conceive that any one of these parts is taken away from the nature
with which it is connected, that nature must immediately perish. Time
therefore is so essentially and intimately united with the natures
which it measures, that their being such as it is, depends on the
existence of time. But time, as is evident, is perpetually flowing,
and this in the most rapid manner imagination can conceive. It is
evident therefore, that the natures to which it is so essential, must
subsist in a manner equally transitory and flowing; since, unless they
flowed in conjunction with time, they would be separated from it, and
would consequently perish. Hence, as we cannot affirm with propriety
of any part of time, that it _is_; since even before we can form
the assertion, the present time is no more; so with respect to all
corporeal natures, from their subsistence in time, before we can say
they exist, they lose all identity of being.
Such then is the unreal condition of every thing existing in time, or
of every thing corporeal, and entangled with matter. But this shadowy
essence of body is finely unfolded by Plotinus, in the 6th book of
his 3rd Ennead, as follows: “Being (says he) properly so called is
neither body, nor is subject to corporeal affections; but body and
its properties belong to the region of non-entity. But you will ask,
how is it possible, that visible matter should possess no real being;
that matter in which stones and mountains reside, the solid earth, and
bodies which mutually resist; since bodies which impel each other,
confess by their collision, the reality of their existence? You will
likewise ask after what manner things which neither strike against,
nor resist each other, which neither externally act, nor internally
suffer, nor are in any respect the objects of sight, viz. soul and
intellect, are to be reckoned true and real beings. We reply, that on
the contrary, things more corpulent are more sluggish and inert, as is
evident in bulky masses of earth. But whatever is less ponderous is
more moveable, and the more elevated the more moveable. Hence fire, the
most moveable of all the elements, flies as it were from a corporeal
nature. Besides, as it appears to me, whatever is more sufficient to
itself, disturbs others less and brings less inconvenience; but such
things as are more ponderous and terrene, unable from their defect of
being to raise themselves on high and becoming debile and languid,
strike and oppress surrounding bodies, by their falling ruin and
sluggish weight. Since it is evident that bodies destitute of life,
fall with molestation on any proximate substance, and more vehemently
impel and pain whatever is endued with sense. On the contrary, animated
beings, as participating more of entity, by how much the more of
being they possess, by so much the more harmless they impinge their
neighbouring bodies. Hence motion, which is a kind of life, or soul, or
an imitation of life in bodies, is more present with whatever is less
corpulent; as if more of body was necessarily produced where a defect
of being happens in a greater degree.
Again, it will more manifestly appear from passivity, that whatever
is more corpulent is more passive; earth in a greater degree than
the other elements; and the rest in a similar proportion. For some
things when divided, suddenly return to their former union, when no
obstacle prevents their conjunction. But from the section of a terrene
body, the divided portions always remain separate, as if destitute
of natural vigour, and without any inherent desire of union and
consent. Hence, they are ready by every trifling impulse, to remain
as they are impelled; to rush from the embraces of bound, and hasten
into multitude and non-entity. So that whatever becomes corporeal in
an eminent degree, as falling fast into non-entity, has but little
power of recalling itself into one. And on this account ponderous and
vehement concussions are attended with ruin, when by mutual rushing
one thing impels another. But when debility runs against debility,
the one is valid against the other, in the same manner as non-entity
rushing on non-entity. And this we think a sufficient confutation of
their opinion, who only place being in the genus of body, persuaded by
the testimony of impulses and concussions, and the phantasms perceived
through the senses, which testify that sense is the only standard of
truth. Such as these are affected in a manner similar to those in a
dream, who imagine that the perceptions of sleep are true. For sense is
alone the employment of the dormant soul; since as much of the soul as
is merged in body, so much of it sleeps. But a true elevation, and true
vigilance are a resurrection from, and not with the dull mass of body.
For indeed a resurrection with body, is only a transmigration from
sleep to sleep, and from dream to dream, like a man passing in the dark
from bed to bed. But that elevation is perfectly true, which entirely
rises from the dead weight of bodies. For these possessing a nature
repugnant to soul, possess something opposite to essence. And this is
farther evident, from their generation, and their continual flowing and
decay, which are properties entirely foreign from the nature of being
substantial and real.”
[234] ποτε is omitted in the original.
[235] It is necessary here to supply the word αυθυποστατων.
[236] For εις το αιτιωτερον, it is necessary to read εις το αιτιατον.
[237] ολον is omitted in the original.
[238] i.e. Any thing which is not universal (το τι).
[239] του οντος seems to be wanting here in the original.
[240] αιτιου is omitted in the original.
[241] i.e. As the Greek Scholiast observes in the margin of this
Proposition, from the efficacious cause of that which acts, and the
aptitude of that which suffers.
[242] The words το ποιουν ενεργειᾳ ον ο αυτο δυναμει, are wanting in
the original.
[243] The Proposition ends here in the Greek, though very erroneously;
and its conclusion forms the beginning of the next Proposition, which
should begin at the words εαν το οντως ον. But instead of εαν, we must
read παν.
[244] i.e. With natures rising into existence, or becoming to be, as
opposed to the things which are, or to beings _truly_ so called
(τα οντως οντα).
[245] Instead of παντως το οντως ον, it is doubtless necessary to read
παν το οντως ον.
[246] Instead of δει πρωτον εξ αμφοιν ειναι, it is necessary to read
δει προ του εξ αμφοιν ειναι.
[247] τι is omitted in the original.
[248] After οτι, there is a chasm in the original, and the words that
are wanting appear to be δε αϊδιοτης απειρια τις εστιν.
[249] There is evidently a very gross error here in the original which
is as follows: και γαρ εν τοις μεριστοις αι δυναμεις συναγομεναι
μεν, πολλαπλασιαζονται, μεριζομεναι δε, αμυδρουνται. For powers when
congregated are not multiplied, but united. Hence it is necessary to
read και γαρ εν τοις μεριστοις αι δυναμεις συναγομεναι μεν, ενιζονται,
μεριζομεναι δε, πολλαπλασιαζονται, και αμυδρουνται.
[250] By a strange mistake the original has απειρον here, instead of
πεπερασμενον, and in the next line πεπερασμενον instead of απειρον.
[251] For αιτιοις here it is necessary to read αιτιατοις.
[252] Hence, as all things proceed from _the ineffable_, that
which is imparticipable proceeds also from it, yet not as from a cause,
but as from that which is better than cause. The procession, therefore,
of the imparticipable from the ineffable is αρρητος εκφανσις, _an
ineffable evolution into light_.
[253] Instead of πολλα γαρ ζῃ μεν, ζῃ, και νοει, it is necessary to
read πολλα γαρ οντα μεν ουδε ζῃ, ουδε νοει.
[254] For του θανατου here, it is necessary to read του αθανατου.
[255] Instead of ως δι’ ομοιων ανομοιον, it is necessary to read ως δι’
ομοιων εις ομοιον.
[256] Instead of πως here it is necessary to read πας, and consequently
the proposition is not interrogatory as in the original.
[257] It is necessary here to supply the word μεθεξεις.
[258] It is here requisite to supply νου.
[259] For υποκειμενοις, it is necessary to read υπερκειμενοις.
[260] There are two chasms in this sentence in the original, which I
have endeavoured to supply in the translation.
[261] That the principle of all things is something beyond intellect
and being itself, was asserted by the most ancient Pythagoreans, as
well as by Plato and his best disciples, as the following citations
will abundantly evince.
And in the first place, this is evident from a fragment of Archytas,
a most ancient Pythagorean, On the Principles of Things, preserved by
Stobæus, Eclog. Phys. p. 82. and in which the following extraordinary
passage occurs: ωστ’ αναγκα τρεις ειμεν τας αρχας, ταν τε εστω των
πραγματων, και ταν μορφω, και το εξ αυτου κινατικον και αορατον
δυναμει· το δε τοιουτον ον ου μονον[262] ειμεν δει, αλλα και νοω τι
κρεσσον· νοω δε κρεσσον εστι, οπερ ονομαζομεν θεον φανερον.--i.e.
“So that it is necessary to assert that there are three principles;
_that which is [the subject] of things (or matter), form, and that
which is of itself motive, and invisible in power_. With respect to
the last of which, it is not only necessary that it should have a
subsistence, _but that it should be something better than intellect_.
But that which is better than intellect is evidently the same with
that which we denominate god.” It must here however be observed, that
by the word _god_ we are not only to understand the first cause, but
every god: for, according to the Pythagoric theology, every deity,
considered according to the characteristic of his nature, is superior
to intellectual essence. Agreeably to the above passage is that also
of Brotinus, as cited by Syrianus in Arist. Meta. p. 102, b. who
expressly asserts that the first cause νου παντος και ουσιας δυναμει
και πρεσβειᾳ υπερεχει--“surpasses every intellect and essence both in
power and dignity.” Again, according to the same Syrianus, p. 103,
b. we are informed “that the Pythagoreans called god the one, as the
cause of union to the universe, and on account of his superiority
to every being, to all life, and to all-perfect intellect. But they
denominated him the measure of all things, on account of his conferring
on all things through illumination, essence and bound; and containing
and bounding all things by the ineffable supereminence of his nature,
which is extended beyond every bound.” Των θειων ανδρων εν μεν λεγοντων
τον θεον ως ενωσεως τοις ολοις αιτιον, και παντος του οντος, και
πασης ζωης, και νου του παντελους επεκεινα. μετρον δε των παντων ως
πασι την ουσιαν, και το τελος επιλαμποντα, και ως παντα περιεχοντα,
και οριζοντα ταις αφραστοις αυτου, και παντος υπερηπλωμεναις περατος
υπεροχαις. And again, this is confirmed by Clinius the Pythagorean, as
cited by Syrianus, p. 104, in which place _præclari_ is erroneously
substituted for _Clinii_. “That which is _the one_, and _the measure
of all things_ (says he), is not only entirely exempt from bodies, and
mundane concerns, but likewise from intelligibles themselves: since he
is the venerable principle of beings, the measure of intelligibles,
ingenerable, eternal, and alone (μονον), possessing absolute dominion
(κυριωδες), and himself manifesting himself (αυτο το εαυτο δηλουν).”
This fine passage I have translated agreeably to the manuscript
corrections of the learned Gale, the original of which he has not
inserted. To this we may likewise add the testimony of Philolaus; who,
as Syrianus informs us, p. 102, knew that cause which is superior to
the two first elements of things, _bound_ and _infinite_. For (says he)
“Philolaus asserts that the deity established _bound_ and _infinite_:
by bound indeed exhibiting every co-ordination, which is more allied
to _the one_; but by infinity a nature subjected to _bound_. And prior
to these two principles he places one, and a singular cause, separated
from the universality of things, which Archainetus (Αρχαινετος)
denominates a cause prior to cause; but which, according to Philolaus,
is the principle of all things.” To all these respectable authorities
for the superessential nature of the first cause, we may add the
testimony of Sextus Empiricus himself. For in his books against the
Mathematicians (p. 425) he informs us “that the Pythagoreans placed
_the one_ as transcending the genus of things which are essentially
understood.” και δη των μεν καθ’ αυτα νοουμενων γενος υπεστησαντο
Πυθαγορικοι παιδες, ως επαναβεβηκος το εν. In which passage, by
things which are essentially understood, nothing more is meant than
intelligible essences, as is obvious to every tyro in the Platonic and
Pythagoric philosophy.
But in consequence of this doctrine of the ancients concerning _the
one_, or the first principle of things, we may discover the meaning
and propriety of those appellations given by the Pythagoreans to
unity, according to Photius and others: such as αλαμπια, σκοτωδια,
αμιξία, βαραθρον υποχθονιον, Απολλων, &c. viz. _obscurity_,
or _without illumination_, _darkness_, _without mixture_, _a
subterranean profundity_, _Apollo_, &c. For, considered as ineffable,
incomprehensible, and superessential, he may be very properly
called _obscurity_, _darkness_, and _a subterranean profundity_;
but considered as perfectly simple and one, he may with no less
propriety be denominated _without mixture_, and _Apollo_; since
Apollo signifies a privation of multitude. “For (says Plotinus) the
Pythagoreans denominated the first God _Apollo_, according to a more
secret signification, implying a negation of many.” Ennead. 5, lib.
5. To which we may add, that the epithets _darkness_ and _obscurity_
wonderfully agree with the appellation of _a thrice unknown darkness_,
employed by the Egyptians, according to Damascius,[263] in their most
mystical invocations of the first God; and at the same time afford
a sufficient reason for the remarkable silence of the most ancient
philosophers and poets concerning this highest and ineffable cause.
This silence is indeed remarkably obvious in Hesiod, when in his
Theogony he says:
ητοι μεν πρωτιστα Χαος γενετ’,----
That is, “_Chaos was the first thing which was generated_”--and
consequently there must be some cause prior to Chaos, through which
it was produced; for there can be no effect without a cause. Such,
however, is the ignorance of the moderns, that in all the editions
of Hesiod, γενετο is translated _fuit_, as if the poet had said
that _Chaos was the first of all things_; and he is even accused by
Cudworth on this account, as leaning to the atheistical system. But
the following testimonies clearly prove, that in the opinion of all
antiquity, γενετο was considered as meaning _was generated_, and not
_was_ simply. And in the first place, this is clearly asserted by
Aristotle in lib. 3, de Cælo. “There are certain persons (says he)
who assert that there is nothing unbegotten, but that all things are
_generated_.--And this is especially the case with the followers of
Hesiod.”--εισι γαρ τινες οι φασιν ουθεν αγεννητον ειναι, αλλα παντα
γιγνεσθαι.----μαλιστα μεν οι περι τον Ησιοδον. And again, by Sextus
Empiricus in his treatise Adversus Mathemat. p. 383, edit. Steph. who
relates, that this very passage was the occasion of Epicurus applying
himself to philosophy. “For (says he) when Epicurus was as yet but a
young man, he asked a grammarian, who was reading to him this line of
Hesiod,
Chaos of all things was the first produc’d,
from what Chaos was _generated_, if it was the first thing generated.
And upon the grammarian replying that it was not his business to teach
things of this kind, but was the province of those who are called
philosophers.--To those then, says Epicurus, must I betake myself,
since they know the truth of things.” κομιδη γαρ μειρακισκος ων, ῃρετο
τον επαναγινωσκοντα αυτῳ Γραμματιστην (η τοι μεν πρωτιστα Χαος γενετ’)
εκ τινος το χαος εγενετο, ειπερ πρωτον εγενετο. τουτου δε ειποντος μη
αυτου εργον ειναι τα τοιαυτα διδασκειν, αλλα των καλουμενων φιλοσοφων·
τοινυν εφησεν ο Επικουρος, επ’ εκεινους μοι βαδιστεον εστιν, ειπερ
αυτοι την των οντων αληθειαν ισασιν.
Simplicius too, in commenting on the passage above cited from
Aristotle, beautifully observes as follows: “Aristotle (says he) ranks
Hesiod among the first physiologists, because he sings Chaos was first
_generated_. He says, therefore, that Hesiod in a particular manner
makes all things to be generated, because that which is first is by
him said to be generated. But it is probable that Aristotle calls
Orpheus and Musæus the first physiologists, who assert that _all
things are generated, except the first_. It is, however, evident that
those theologists, singing in fabulous strains, meant nothing more by
_generation_ than the procession of things from their causes; on which
account _all of them consider the first cause as unbegotten_. For
Hesiod also, when he says that _Chaos was first generated_, insinuates
that there was something prior to Chaos, from which Chaos was produced.
For it is always necessary that every thing which is generated should
be generated from something. But this likewise is insinuated by Hesiod,
that the first cause is above all knowledge and every appellation.” (De
Cœlo, p. 147.)
[262] Instead of ον ου μονον, which is evidently the true reading,
ονομον μονον is erroneously printed in Stobæus.
[263] περι αρχων.
[264] Instead of μαλλον here, it is necessary to read ηττον.
[265] η πλειονων is omitted in the original.
[266] δυναμενον is omitted in the original.
[267] By the echo of soul, Proclus means that vital quality by which
the soul is united to the body; and which is nothing more than the
last image and shadow of the soul. The necessity of such a connecting
quality will easily appear, from considering that a truly incorporeal
nature, like that of soul, cannot be connected with body, without a
vital medium. In consequence of this we may consider with Plotinus
(Ennead. 4. lib. 4.) the animated body as resembling illuminated and
heated air. And the pains and pleasures of the body will be conversant
with this shadow of the soul.
[268] The original here is defective: for it is ενωσιν δε θειαν, απο
της μετεχο **** εαυτου υπαρξεως μεταδιδωσι τοις εφεξης. From the
version of Patricius, however, the defect may be supplied as follows:
ενωσιν δε θειαν, απο της μετεχομενης εναδος. εκαστον γαρ τουτων εαυτου
κ. τ. λ. This emendation is adopted in the above translation.
[269] For το υπερουσιον ον, it is necessary to read το υπερουσιον εν.
[270] Thus too Hippocrates, ξυρροια μια, συμπνοια μια, παντα συμπαθεα.
i.e. “_there is one conflux, one conspiration, and all things
sympathize with all_.” He who understands this will see that the
_magic_ cultivated by the ancient philosophers, is founded in a
theory no less sublime than rational and true. Such a one will survey
the universe as one great animal, all whose parts are in union and
consent with each other; so that nothing is foreign and detached;
nothing, strictly speaking, void of sympathy and life. For though
various parts of the world, when considered as separated from the
whole, are destitute of _peculiar_ life; yet they possess some
degree of animation, however inconsiderable, when viewed with relation
to the universe. Life indeed may be compared to a perpetual and
universal sound; and the soul of the world resembles a lyre, or some
other musical instrument, from which we may suppose this sound to be
emitted. But from the unbounded diffusion as it were of the mundane
soul, every thing participates of this harmonical sound, in greater
or less perfection, according to the dignity of its nature. So that
while life every where resounds, the most abject of beings may be said
to retain a faint echo of the melody produced by the mundane lyre. It
was doubtless from profoundly considering this sympathy between the
mundane soul, and the parts of the world, that the ancient philosophers
were enabled to procure the presence of divinity, and perform effects
beyond the comprehension of the vulgar. And that this was the opinion
of Plotinus, the following passage evinces: “It appears to me that
the ancient wise men, who wished to procure the presence of the Gods,
by fabricating statues and performing sacred rites, directed their
intellectual eye to the nature of the universe, and perceived that the
nature of soul was every where easy to be attracted, when a proper
subject was at hand, easily passive to its influence. But every thing
adapted to imitation, is readily passive, and is like a mirror able to
seize a certain form, and reflect it to the view.” Ennead 4. lib. 3.
[271] The word στερησεως is omitted in the original.
[272] For μετα δε παντα θεων, it is necessary to read μεστα δε παντα
θεων.
[273] There is a chasm here in the original. And it appears from the
version of Patricius, that the words και γαρ απειρος εστιν οντως
εκαστος, are wanting.
[274] In Prop. 93.
[275] The words within the brackets are wanting in the original, which
I have supplied from the version of Patricius. In the Greek therefore
it is necessary to supply the words παν το τελειον εν τοις θεοις.
[276] For εξῃρημενων it is necessary to read εξῃρημενον.
[277] Here also we must read ενιδρυμενον for ενιδρυμενων.
[278] The words αιτια γεννητικη, αλλα πασα αιτια γεννητικη ουκ εστι
ζωογονικη, are wanting in the original.
[279] The words within the brackets are wanting in the original, which
I have supplied from the version of Patricius. Hence, in the printed
Greek text it is necessary to supply the words, εν τοις θεοις αρα, η
μεν καθαροτης εστι και πρωτως αγαθον, και η φρουρα, και παν τοιουτον.
[280] For τι εν, it appears requisite to read τι ον.
[281] From the version of Patricius, it is necessary to supply the
words η προς εαυτον, η προς το κρειττον επιστρεφεται which are wanting
in the original.
[282] For νῳ here it is necessary to read νοητον.
[283] For μεθεκτου here, it is necessary to read αμεθεκτου.
[284] For τον νουν, it is necessary to read το ον.
[285] The original in the beginning of this proposition is both
defective and erroneous. For it is as follows: παν το πληθος των εναδων
των μετεχομενων υπο τινος ***** γαρ εστι των του κοσμου μερων, και
δια μεσου, και της ψυχης. From the version of Patricius, however, the
defect and error may be removed by reading παν το πληθος των εναδων των
μετεχομενων υπο τινος αισθητου σωματος εγκοσμιον εστι. επιλαμπει γαρ
των του κοσμου μερων, και δια μεσου νου, και της ψυχης.
[286] Instead of νοητον εστι τουτο here, it is necessary to read νοητον
εστι τουτῳ.
[287] For ει γαρ εαυτον νοει, πας νους, it is requisite to read ἢ γαρ
εαυτον νοει πας νους.
[288] δηλον is omitted in the original.
[289] For ακινητος here, it is requisite to read αιωνιος.
[290] From the version of Patricius, it is here necessary to supply the
words καθεν. ει γαρ.
[291] The word παντα is omitted in the original.
[292] Here also it is requisite to supply the words ομοιως παντα
νοησουσι.
[293] By an intellectual perception of all things _according to
one_, Proclus means a perception of all things in one. For all
intellectual forms are in each; so that a perception of one, is a
perception of all forms, and therefore of all things.
[294] It is here necessary from the version of Patricius to supply the
words και ακινητος, αμεριστος εστι. παν γαρ.
[295] From the version of Patricius, it is likewise necessary to supply
in this place the words κατα την αυτου ουσιαν αρα οριζει.
[296] The words within the brackets are omitted in the original, but
may be supplied from the version of Patricius by reading after το
ειναι, as follows, αει εχει εν τῳ ποιειν. η νοησις αρα εν τῳ ποειν.
[297] αμεγεθει is omitted in the original.
[298] Instead of οι δε μετ’ εκεινους, δια πλειονων, ελασσω κατα την
δυναμιν ουν ελλαμψιν εκεινοι, κ. λ. it is necessary to read οι δε μετ’
εκεινους, δια πλειονων ελασσω, κατα την δυναμεως ελλεεψιν. ει ουν
εκεινοι, κ. λ.
[299] It is here requisite to supply from the version of Patricius, the
words εκ των δευτερων διηρημενως.
[300] It is necessary here to read and supply from the version of
Patricius, πορρωτερον του ενος, ο δε νοερος αριθμος εγγυτερω του ενος.
[301] For ει here it is necessary to read η.
[302] From the version of Patricius, it is here necessary to supply the
words δει τον νουν μη μετεχοντα.
[303] The words και νους θειος are omitted in the original.
[304] θειος is omitted in the original.
[305] θειαι is omitted in the original.
[306] For των νοερων, it is necessary to read το νοερον.
[307] From the version of Patricius, it is here necessary to supply the
words και χωριστος του σωματος.
[308] The words ψυχης ου λογιζομενης are wanting in the original; but
from the version of Patricius ought to be added.
[309] Here too, the words οτι ζωης εξωθεν, are wanting in the original.
[310] The original here is defective, but may be restored to the true
sense by reading αλλα και ουσιας, ειπερ ζωης δηλον. προ γαρ ψυχης κ.λ.
instead of αλλα και ουσιας, ειπερ ζωης. δηλον γαρ ψυχης κ.λ.
[311] Instead of οτι δε και το πρωτως ζωτικον, ουκ εστι φανερον, it is
necessary to read οτι δε και το πρωτως γνωστικον ουκ εστι, φανερον.
[312] It is here requisite to supply the words κατ’ ενεργειαν δε του
χρονου μετεχουσα.
[313] The words ζωη και γνωσις are wanting in the original. And
immediately after, for ου γνωσεται, it is requisite to read ου γαρ
γνωσεται.
[314] For ανους here, it is necessary to read ανουσιος.
[315] ουχ is omitted in the original.
[316] For η διακινησις, it is necessary to read ιδια κινησις.
[317] For φυσικως here, it is necessary to read ψυχικως.
[318] There is a chasm here in the original after the word δεχομενων,
which may be supplied by reading ει γαρ θεια ηγεμονικην κ. λ.; and
γεννητικην must be substituted for γενικην.
[319] For εξῃρηται τοις χρωμενοις αυτῳ ψυχης, it is necessary to read
εξηρτηται της χρωμενης αυτῳ ψυχης.
[320] Instead of ωστε και η μερικη ψυχη, και το αιτιον αρα του οχηματος
αυτης, it appears to me to be necessary to read ωστε και το αιτιον της
μερικης ψυχης, και αρα του οχηματος αυτης.
[321] There is a chasm here in the original, which as it is not
supplied in the version of Patricius, I have filled up by conjecture.
Hence, I have added the words καθαραν, ανατρεχει εις την αυτης αρχαιαν
φυσιν. το γαρ οχημα.
[322] For τας ψυχας here, it is necessary to read των ψυχων.
[323] For εαυτων here, the sense as well as the version of Patricius,
require that we should read εαυτης.
[324] That is, not through the medium of dæmoniacal and divine souls.
[325] From the version of Patricius, it is here necessary to supply the
words και του ποτε νοουντος.
[326] The barbarous version of Morbeka has _insinuare_ here,
but the word employed by Proclus was, I have no doubt, παρεισαγειν
_adducere_.
[327] “Differenter elucidata.” So Morbeka; _differenter_ being
doubtless his version of διαφεροντως.
[328] “Summa enim totorum.” This I suppose was in the Greek ολως γαρ.
[329] “Separavit ejus epistasiam, id est superstationem.” So Morbeka.
[330] Propter meliorem vicinitatem ipsi animam, in Morbeka’s
translation, should doubtless be, propter vicinitatem hujus animæ ad
meliorem naturam.
[331] Accessibus in Morbeka, was I suppose in the original εφοδοις,
expositions or discussions.
[332] “Quia est utrumque,” with Morbeka.
[333] “Qualificat,” with Morbeka.
[334] “Et sunt tria hæc differentia ab invicem, faciens, quod fit,
actio.” So Morbeka. But _actio_ was doubtless in the original
ποιησις.
[335] “Operatio,” with Morbeka; in the original ενεργεια.
[336] ψυχικην, with Morbeka _animalem_.
[337] ολως; _totaliter_ Morbeka.
[338] _aspirantur_ in Morbeka, should evidently be _inspirantur_.
[339] In Morbeka opportunitatem.
[340] “Sed et in hoc omni.” So Morbeka.
[341] “Ubi autem in corporeis penitus.” So Morbeka.
[342] “Intellectu participante necessitati corporum.” _Participante_
here is perhaps an error of the transcriber; for Morbeka I have no
doubt wrote _principante_.
[343] “Velut lumen Sol,” should be _velut lumen sole_.
[344] Iram is omitted here in the version of Morbeka.
[345] “Dicens quod neque audimus, circum nihil, neque videmus.” So
Morbeka.
[346] Virtutes in Morbeka, i.e. δυναμεις in the original.
[347] “Multam habere partem.” So Morbeka.
[348] In Morbeka, sobrietate meliorem.
[349] Divinæ partis. So Morbeka.
[350] In Morbeka, “obtinetur et ab aliorum regnante causa.”
[351] In Morbeka _captat_ instead of _copulat_.
[352] “Quicunque autem pacis opera intelligentes reverendi fient,
sortis fatalem alam effugiunt.” So Morbeka; in which, for _pacis_ read
_patris_, and for _alam_, _aleam_. This oracle in the original is as
follows:
Νοησασαι τα εργα του πατρος
Μοιρης ειμαρμενης το πτερον φευγουσιν αναιδες.
See my Collection of Chaldæan Oracles in the Monthly Magazine.
[353] In Morbeka, _concupiscentiæ_; but in the Greek it was
doubtless επιθυμιας. This word as used by Plato and Aristotle,
signifies an appetite of the soul directed to the possession and
enjoyment of eternal good.
[354] “Et nondum purgatus illud,” in Morbeka, i.e. illum oculum.
[355] Morbeka’s version of this part is as follows: “Omnis igitur anima
secundum quod virtute participat, et quod est liberam esse: secundum
quod autem malitia et debilitate et eo quod est servire aliis,” &c.
But it should be, conformably to the above version; Omnis igitur anima
secundum quod virtute participat, et quod est, liberam esse; secundum
quod autem malitia et debilitate, et eo quod non est, servire aliis.
[356] This is barbarously expressed in the version of Morbeka, as
follows, “et servire quidem aut desuper principatum, aut desuptus.”
[357] In the version of Morbeka, “quæ sine causa solam cognoscentem
ipsius quia veritatem.”
[358] In Morbeka, “agibilia;” but in the Greek, I have no doubt, τα
πρακτα.
[359] In Morbeka rejungentem, but I read adaptantem.
[360] In Morbeka “_solvere_,” instead of _scire_.
[361] “Et totaliter agibilium politicam.” So Morbeka. This in the
original was, I suppose, και ολως τοις πρακτοις τῃν πολιτικην.
[362] Instead of “quia et aliis animalibus necesse partibus entibus
omnes et facere, sed et pati,” as in Morbeka, it is necessary to read,
in order to make sense of the passage, quia et aliis animalibus necesse
partibus entibus, non modo et facere, sed et pati.
[363] This in Morbeka is, “neque rursum sequestrare animam a dominis
electionum.”
[364] Morbeka has _quia_ here instead of _nisi_.
[365] _Quando_ in Morbeka, instead of _aliquando_.
[366] Here too Morbeka has _quando_ instead of _aliquando_.
[367] “Inecferribile in universum.” Morbeka.
[368] Morbeka has _differentem_ here, instead of _indifferentem_.
[369] The words _ad seipsam convertitur_, are omitted by Morbeka.
[370] Morbeka has _directionem_, but the original was I have no
doubt κατορθωσιν.
[371] του ουρανου υπεραστρονομουσα. So Plato.
[372] In decisione lineæ. So Morbeka.
[373] The Greek of this, agreeably to my translation, was I have no
doubt τ’ αγαθον μονον εξηρημενον ειναι.
[374] “Mediam habens notitiam, et solummodo scientiam, et eorum qui
non totaliter.” So Morbeka; but the sense requires the following
emendation: Mediam habens notitiam, et solummodo scientiam, et eorum
qui totaliter, et eorum qui non totaliter.
[375] Morbeka has αυτοπεριγραπτον; but it should obviously be
αυτοαπεριγραπτον.
[376] Morbeka has _contra_ here, instead of _nihilominus_.
[377] _Superessentialiter_ is omitted here in the version of
Morbeka.
[378] “Neque enim tua fictio,” should be, neque enim si tua factio,
(i.e. ars mechanica).
[379] See Plutarch’s admirable treatise, concerning those who are
slowly punished by divinity; from which Proclus has derived much in
what follows.
[380] The Pseudo-Dionysius, the Areopagite, in his treatise On the
Divine Names has evidently taken what follows from this passage of
Proclus: ουκ αρα ουδε εν αγγελοις εστι το κακον, αλλα κολαζειν τους
αμαρτανοντας εισι κακοι. τουτῳ γουν τῳ λογῳ και οι σωφρονισται των
πλημμελουντων κακοι. και των ιερεων οι τον βεβηλον των θειων μυστηριων
απειργοντες. καιτοι ουδε το κολαζεσθαι κακον, αλλα το αξιον γενεσθαι
κολασεως. i.e. “Neither, therefore, is there evil in angels, unless
it should be said they are evil because they punish offenders. For
the same reason, however, the castigators of those that act wrong,
are evil. And in a similar manner those priests are evil who prohibit
the profane from divine mysteries. Though indeed it is not evil to
be punished, but to deserve to be punished.” The reader who peruses
the above-mentioned treatise of this Dionysius will find that he has
extracted largely from the present work of Proclus.
[381] In his 2d. Epistle.
[382] διεξοδικως is omitted in the original.
[383] προοδον is omitted in the original.
[384] Viz. self-subsistent superessential natures; for to these the
αυτο, or _itself_ primarily belongs. The next to these are
intellects. Those in the third rank, are souls. Those in the fourth,
the natures that are divided about bodies. And those in the fifth and
last rank are bodies.
[385] Viz. _the one_, and matter.
[386] μη is wanting in the original.
[387] _The good itself_ is prior to being. Nothing or non-being is not
that which is most distant from _the good_; for it is that in which
the procession of being ends, but that which is most distant from _the
good_ is _evil itself_. Hence, _evil itself_ is posterior to non-entity.
[388] For πολυαρατον, it is necessary to read πολυορατον.
[389] For περι here, it is requisite to read παρα.
[390] μοχθηρας is omitted in the original.
[391] For the proper parts of a self-motive whole, are also self-motive.
[392] For απ’ αιτιας here, it is necessary to read απεναντιως.
[393] For το μεν δυναμενον in this place, it is necessary to read, το
μη δυναμενον.
[394] For συμμετριᾳ here, it is necessary to read ασυμμετριᾳ.
[395] viz. angels, dæmons and heroes.
[396] Proclus here alludes to one of the Chaldæan oracles.
[397] The first effable subsists in the god Phanes, or the extremity of
the intelligible order.
[398] See this explained in the notes on my translation of the
Parmenides of Plato.
[399] The _Iynx, Synoches, and Teletarchæ_ of the Chaldæans,
compose that divine order, which is called by Proclus _intelligible
and at the same time intellectual_, and is unfolded by him in the
fourth book.
[400] This is one of the Chaldæan oracles.
[401] See the Timæus.
[402] It must however be carefully observed that multitude when it
subsists causally, subsists without that distinction and separation
which it possesses when unfolded; and that in _the one_ it has no
distinction whatever. For _the one_ is all things prior to all.
[403] See the 7th Epistle of Plato.
[404] As that which is below all knowledge is an ignorance worse
than knowledge, so the silence in which our ascent to the ineffable
terminates is preceded by an ignorance superior to all knowledge. Let
it however, be carefully remembered, that such an ignorance is only to
be obtained after the most scientific and intellectual energies.
[405] Vid. Excerpta ex Damascio, a Wolfio, p. 232.
[406] Let the reader be careful to remember that _the one_ of the
gods is their superessential characteristic.
[407] Vid. Excerpta, p. 228.
[408] Αλλ’ αυται μεν ουκ εισι κατα αληθειαν, ουτε μιαν, ουτε τρεις,
ουτε μια αμα και τρεις.
[409] Vid. Wolfii Anecdot. Græc. tom. iii. p. 252.
[410] ως νουν is omitted in the original.
[411] μηποτε is erroneously printed instead of ποτε.
[412] το τριτον is I conceive erroneously omitted in the original.
[413] Την is printed instead of Γην.
[414] As the whole of the Grecian theology is the progeny of the
mystic traditions of Orpheus, it is evident that the Gods which Hesiod
celebrates by the epithets of _Earth_, _Heaven_, &c. cannot be the
visible _Heaven_ and _Earth_: for Plato in the Cratylus, following the
Orphic doctrine concerning the Gods, as we have evinced in our notes
on that dialogue, plainly shews, in explaining the name of Jupiter,
that this divinity is the artificer of the sensible universe; and
consequently _Saturn_, _Heaven_, _Earth_, &c. are much superior to
the mundane deities. Indeed if this be not admitted, the Theogony of
Hesiod must be perfectly absurd and inexplicable. For why does he call
Jupiter, agreeably to Homer (πατηρ ανδρων τε θεων τε), “_father of Gods
and men_?” Shall we say that he means literally that Jupiter is the
father of all the Gods? But this is impossible; for he delivers the
generation of Gods who are the parents of Jupiter. He can therefore
only mean that Jupiter is the parent of all the mundane Gods: and his
Theogony, when considered according to this exposition, will be found
to be beautifully consistent, accurate and sublime. I only add, that
την is again erroneously printed in the Excerpta of Wolfius for γην.
[415] χθονον is printed for χρονον.
[416] That is, from _bound_ and _infinite_.
[417] χουσώρος should be read instead of χουσώρου.
[418] Vid. Pici Opera, tom. i. p. 54.
[419] _i.e._ θεοι νοητοι, νοητοι και νοεροι, νοεροι, υπερκοσμιοι,
απολυτοι sive υπερουρανιοι, et εγκοσμιοι.
[420] For ολης here, it is necessary to read υλης, because matter
according to Plato proceeds from the father Phanes, or animal itself,
and not from the demiurgus.
[421] For αυτους, it is necessary to read αιτιας.
[422] viz. From axioms and definitions.
[423] μερικωτερας is omitted in the original.
[424] For δη here, it is requisite to read δει.
[425] Proclus here alludes to the fabulous wanderings of Ulysses in the
Odyssey. For Homer by these occultly indicates the life of a man who
passes in a regular manner from a sensible to an intellectual life, and
who being thoroughly purified by the exercise of the cathartic virtues,
is at length able to energize according to the intuitive perception of
intellect, and thus after becoming reunited to Penelope or Philosophy,
meets with and embraces his father. This appears also to have been the
opinion of the Pythagorean Numenius, as we are informed by Porphyry in
his treatise De Antro Nympharum. “For he thought that the person of
Ulysses in the Odyssey represented to us a man who passes in a regular
manner over the dark and stormy sea of generation; and thus at length
arrives at that region (i.e. the intellectual region) where tempests
and seas are unknown, and finds a nation
Who ne’er knew salt, or heard the billows roar.”
See more on this subject in my Restoration of the Platonic Theology, p.
294.
[426] For μηδε ευροντα δυνατα δυνατον ειναι λεγειν, it is necessary to
read, μηδε ευροντα εις απαντας δυνατον, κ. λ.
[427] For απεστραμμενης, it is requisite to read επιστραμμεγης.
[428] Plato in the Politicus thus calls the realms of generation, i.e.
the whole of a visible nature.
[429] That is, intelligible intellect, the extremity of the
intelligible order.
[430] That is, the divinities who compose the middle of that order
of Gods, which is denominated intelligible and at the same time
intellectual.
[431] As what is here said from Orpheus concerning Jupiter is very
remarkable, and is no where else to be found, I give the original
for the sake of the learned reader: διο και Ορφευς δημιουργουντα μεν
αυτον την ουρανιαν πασαν γενεαν παραδιδωσι, και ηλιον ποιουντα και
σεληνην, και τους αλλους αστρῳους θεους· δημιουργουντα δε τα υποσεληνην
στοιχεια, και διακρινοντα τοις ειδεσιν ατακτως εχοντα προτερον· σειρας
δ’ εφισταντα θεων περι ολον τον κοσμον εις αυτον ανηρτημενας, και
διαθεσμοθετουντα πασι τοις εγκοσμιοις θεοις κατ’ αξιαν διανομας της εν
τῳ παντι προνοιας.
[432] Iliad. XX. v. 4.
[433] See the 14th line.
[434] Ibid v. 32.
[435] Iliad. IV. v. 58.
[436] Iliad. XV. v. 187.
[437] For the Saturnian triad belongs to that order of Gods which
is called supermundane, and which immediately subsists after the
intellectual order; so that the Jupiter who ranks at the summit of this
triad is different from and inferior to the demiurgus.
[438] That is, he is not an intellect consubsistent with soul.
[439] And the duad considered as a divine form or idea is the source of
fecundity.
[440] i.e. The twelve Gods who first subsist in the _liberated_ or
supercelestial order and who are divided into four triads, and the
twelve mundane Gods, Jupiter, Neptune, Vulcan; Vesta, Minerva, Mars;
Ceres, Juno, Diana; and Mercury, Venus, Apollo. The first of these
triads is _fabricative_; the second _defensive_; the third _vivific_;
and the fourth _anagogic_ or _elevating_, as is shown by Proclus in the
6th book of his Theology.
[441] This royal series consists of Phanes, Night, Heaven, Saturn,
Jupiter, Bacchus. “Ancient theologists, says Syrianus (in his
commentary on the 14th book of Aristotle’s Metaphysics) assert that
Night and Heaven reigned, and prior to these the mighty father of Night
and Heaven, who distributed the world to Gods and mortals, and who
first possessed royal authority, the illustrious Ericapæus.
τοιον ελων διενειμε θεοις, θνητοισι δε κοσμον
ου πρωτος βασιλευε περικλυτος ηρικεπαιος.
Night succeeded Ericapæus, in the hands of whom she has a sceptre:
σκεπτρον εχουσ’ εν χερσιν ηρικεπαιου·
To Night, Heaven succeeded, who first reigned over the Gods after
mother Night.
ος πρωτος βασιλευε θεων μετα μητερα νυκτα.
Chaos transcends the habitude of sovereign dominion: and, with respect
to Jupiter, the oracles given to him by Night, manifestly call him not
the first, but the fifth immortal king of the Gods.
αθανατον βασιλεα θεων πεμπτον γενεσθαι.
According to these theologists therefore, that principle which is most
eminently the first, is _the one_ or _the good_, after which
according to Pythagoras, are those two principles Æther and Chaos,
which are superior to the possession of sovereign dominion. In the
next place succeed the first and occult genera of the Gods, in which
first shines forth the father and king of all wholes, and whom on this
account they call _Phanes_.“
[442] Of these intellects the first is Phanes, the second Heaven, the
third Earth, and the fourth the Subcelestial Arch which is celebrated
in the Phædrus, viz. νους νοητος ο Φανης, εκφαντορικος νους ο Ουρανος,
συνεκτικος νους η γη, τελεσιουργος δε νους η υπ’ουρανιος αψις.
[443] That is of the whole intellectual order, which consists of
Saturn, Rhea, Jupiter, the three Curetes, and the separating monad
Ocean.
[444] ως δ’ Ορφευς ενθεῳ στοματι λεγει, και καταπινει τον προγονον
αυτου τον φανητα, και εγκολπιζιται πασας αυτου τας δυναμεις ο ζευς, και
γινεται παντα νοερως, οσαπερ ην εκεινος νοητως.
[445] διο και τρεφεσθαι φησιν αυτον ο θεολογος υπο της νυκτος. “εκ
παντων δε κρονον νυξ ετρεφεν ηδ’ ατιταλλεν.”
[446] That is Phanes, intelligible intellect, or in the language of
Plato αυτοζωον _animal_ itself.
[447] Homer however appears to have ascended as far as to the goddess
Night, or the summit of the intelligible and at the same time
intellectual order.
[448] That is to say _the first cause and bound_, which is called
by Orpheus _æther_.
[449] See this explained in the notes of my translation of the
Parmenides of Plato.
[450] That is to say, it is false to assert of intellectual and divine
natures, that they are in a perpetual flux; for they are eternally
stable themselves, and are the sources of stability to other things.
[451] Gesner misled by Patricius, has inserted these lines among the
Orphic fragments, in his edition of the works of Orpheus.
[452] Proclus here means that there is the same analogy between Saturn,
Rhea, and Jupiter, as in the intelligible triad, between father, power,
and intellect.
[453] Οτι ωνομασται η Τηθυς παρα το διαττομενον και ηθουμενον, οιον
Διατηθυ, και αφαιρεσει των πρωτων δυσσυλλαβων Τηθυς.
[454] Iliad XV. v. 187.
[455] Iliad, XV. v. 189.
[456] See the Theogony of Hesiod, v. 176, &c.
[457] Proclus here alludes to the following Orphic verses cited by him
in his Commentary on the Timæus, lib. 5. p. 296.
ενθ’ ουν τ’ ωκεανος μεν, ενι μεγαροισιν εμιμνεν
ορμαινων ποτερωσε νοον τpαποι, ηε πατερα
ον γνωσῃ τε βιης, και ατασθαλα λωβησαιτο
συν κρονῳ, ηδ’ αλλοις αδελφοις οι πεπιθοντο
μητρι φιλῃ, η τους γε λιπων, μενει ενδον εκηλος·
πολλα δε πορφυρων, μενει ημερος εν μεγαροισι
σκυζομενος τῃ μητρι, κασιγνητοισι δε μαλλον.
i.e. “But Ocean remained within the ample house, considering how he
should act, whether he should deprive his father of his strength, and
basely injure him, together with Saturn and the rest of his brethren,
who were obedient to their dear mother; or whether leaving these, he
should stay quietly at home. After much deliberation, he remained
quietly at home, being angry with his mother, but more so with his
brothers.”
[458] That is, of the first triad of the supermundane, which subsists
immediately after the intellectual order.
[459] Hom. Iliad.
[460] This cause is Saturn, who according to the fable cut off the
genital parts of Heaven. See the Theogony of Hesiod.
[461] This Orphic fragment is not to be found in Gesner’s collection of
the Orphic remains.
[462] See p. 521. Vol. V. of my Translation of Plato.
[463] Because Night subsists at the summit of _the intelligible and
at the same time intellectual_ order, and is wholly absorbed in the
intelligible.
[464] That is, according to one of the Chaldean Oracles.
[465] These verses likewise, are not in Gesner’s collection.
[466] Iliad XIV. v. 328.
[467] Proclus says this conformably to the theology of the Chaldeans.
For according to that theology, the first monad of the vivific triad is
_Hecate_, the second _Soul_, and the third _Virtue_.
[468] That is, of a supermundane nature: for the _ruling_, are the
_supermundane_, Gods.
[469] That is, the Corybantes.
[470]
Η δ’ αρα εκατη παιδος μελη αυθι λυπουσα
Λητους ευπλοκαμοιο κορη προσεβησατ’ ολυμπον.
[471] These admirable Scholia on the Cratylus end here; being
unfortunately, like most both of the published and unpublished writings
of Proclus, incompleat. These very scholia too appear to be nothing
more than extracts from a copious commentary of Proclus which is lost.
Transcriber’s Notes:
1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been
corrected silently.
2. Where appropriate, the original spelling has been retained.
3. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have
been retained as in the original.
4. Italics are shown as _xxx_.