Chapter LI (10)

As the first cause then is _the one_, and this is the same with _the good_, the universality of things must form a whole, the best and the most profoundly united in all its parts which can possibly be conceived: for _the first good_ must be the cause of the greatest good, that is, the whole of things; and as goodness is union, the best production must be that which is most united. But as there is a difference in things, and some are more excellent than others, and this in proportion to their proximity to the first cause, a profound union can no otherwise take place than by the extremity of a superior order coalescing through intimate alliance with the summit of the proximately inferior. Hence the first of bodies, though they are essentially corporeal, yet κατα σχεσιν, through _habitude_ or _alliance_, are most vital, or lives. The highest of souls are after this manner intellects, and the first of beings are gods. For as _being_ is the highest of things after _the first cause_, its first subsistence must be according to a superessential characteristic.

Now that which is superessential, considered as participated by the highest or _true being_, constitutes that which is called _intelligible_. So that every true being depending on the gods is a _divine intelligible_. It is _divine_ indeed, as that which is deified; but it is _intelligible_, as the object of desire to intellect, as perfective and connective of its nature, and as the plenitude of _being_ itself. But in the first being life and intellect subsist according to _cause_: for every thing subsists either according to _cause_, or according to _hyparxis_, or according to _participation_. That is, every thing may be considered either as subsisting occultly in its cause, or openly in its own order (or according to what it is,) or as participated by something else. The first of these is analogous to light when viewed subsisting in its fountain the sun; the second to the light immediately proceeding from the sun; and the third to the splendour communicated to other natures by this light.

The first procession therefore from the first cause, will be the intelligible triad, consisting of _being_, _life_, and _intellect_, which are the three highest things after the first god, and of which _being_ is prior to _life_, and _life_ to _intellect_. For whatever partakes of life partakes also of being: but the contrary is not true, and therefore being is above life; since it is the characteristic of higher natures to extend their communications beyond such as are subordinate. But _life_ is prior to _intellect_, because all intellectual natures are vital, but all vital natures are not intellectual. But in this intelligible triad, on account of its superessential characteristic, all things may be considered as subsisting according to cause: and consequently number here has not a proper subsistence, but is involved in unproceeding union, and absorbed in superessential light. Hence, when it is called a triad, we must not suppose that any _essential distinction_ takes place, but must consider this appellation as expressive of its ineffable perfection. For as it is the nearest of all things to _the one_, its union must be transcendently profound and ineffably occult.

All the gods indeed considered according to their unities are all in all, and are at the same time united with the first god like rays to light, or lines to a centre. And hence they are all established in the first cause (as Proclus beautifully observes) like the roots of trees in the earth; so that they are all as much as possible superessential, just as trees are eminently of an earthly nature, without at the same time being earth itself: for the nature of the earth as being a whole, or subsisting according to the eternal, is different from the partial natures which it produces. The intelligible triad, therefore, from its being wholly of a superessential idiom, must possess an inconceivable profundity of union, both with itself and its cause, so as to subsist wholly according to _the united_, το ηνωμενον; and hence it appears to the eye of pure intellect, as one simple indivisible splendour beaming from an unknown and inaccessible fire.

He then who is able, by opening the greatest eye of the soul, to see that perfectly which subsists without distinction, will behold the simplicity of the intelligible triad subsisting in a manner so transcendent as to be apprehended only by a superintellectual energy, and a deific union of the perceiver with this most arcane object of perception. But since in our present state it is impossible to behold an object so astonishingly lucid with a perfect and steady vision, we must be content, as Damascius well observes,[405] with a far distant, scarcely attainable, and most obscure glimpse; or with difficulty apprehending a trace of this light, like a sudden coruscation bursting on our sight. Such then is the pre-eminence of the intelligible order, to which on account of the infirmity of our mental eye, we assign a triple division, beholding in our phantasy as in a mirror a luminous triad, beaming from a uniform light; just, says Damascius, as the uniform colour of the sun appears in a cloud which possesses three catoptric intervals, through the various coloured nature of the rainbow.

But when we view this order in a distributed way, or as possessing distinction in order to accommodate its all-perfect mode of subsistence to our imperfect conceptions, it is necessary to give the triad itself a triple division. For we have said that it consists of _being_, _life_, and _intellect_. But in _being_ we may view life and intellect, according to cause; in _life_ being according to participation, and intellect according to cause; and in _intellect_ both being and life according to participation; while at the same time in reality the whole is profoundly one, and contains all things occultly, or according to cause. But when viewed in this divided manner, each triad is said in the Chaldaic theology to consist of _father_, _power_, and _intellect_; _father_ being the same with _hyparxis_, _unity_, _summit_, or _that which is superessential_; _power_ being a certain pouring forth, or infinity of _the one_[406] (or the summit); and on this account, says Damascius, it is present with _father_, as a diffused with an abiding one, and as pouring itself forth into a true chaos: but _intellect_, that is _paternal intellect_, subsisting according to a conversion to the paternal one; a conversion transcending all other conversions, as being neither gnostic, nor vital, nor essential, but an indistinct surpassing energy, which is union rather than conversion.

Such then is the intelligible triad, considered according to an all-perfect distribution, in accommodation to the imbecility of our mental eye. But if we are desirous, after having bid adieu to corporeal vision, and the fascinating but delusive forms of the phantasy, which, Calypso-like, detain us in exile from our fathers’ land: after having through a long and laborious dialectic wandering gained our paternal port, and purified ourselves from the baneful rout of the passions, those domestic foes of the soul; if after all this we are desirous of gaining a glimpse of the surpassing simplicity and ineffable union of this occult and astonishing light, we must crowd all our conceptions together into the most profound indivisibility, and, opening the greatest eye of the soul, entreat this all-comprehending deity to approach: for then, preceded by unadorned Beauty, silently walking on the extremities of her shining feet, he will suddenly from his awful sanctuary rise to our view.

But after such a vision, what can language announce concerning this transcendent object? That it is perfectly indistinct and void of number. “And,” as Damascius[407] beautifully observes, “since this is the case, we should consider whether it is proper to call _this_ which belongs to it _simplicity_, απλοτης; _something else, multiplicity_ πολλοτης; and _something besides this, universality_ παντοτης. For that which is intelligible is _one_, _many_, _all_, that we may triply explain a nature which is one. But how can one nature be _one_ and _many_? Because _many_ is the infinite power of _the one_. But how can it be _one_ and _all_? Because _all_ is the every way extended energy of _the one_. Nor yet is it to be called an energy, as if it was an extension of power to that which is external; nor power, as an extension of hyparxis abiding within; but again, it is necessary to call them three instead of one: for one appellation, as we have often testified, is by no means sufficient for an explanation of this order. And are all things then here indistinct? But how can this be easy to understand? For we have said that there are three principles consequent to each other; viz. _father_, _power_, and _paternal intellect_. _But these in reality are neither one, nor three, nor one and at the same time three._[408] But it is necessary that we should explain these by names and conceptions of this kind, through our penury in what is adapted to their nature, or rather through our desire of expressing something proper on the occasion. For as we denominate this triad _one_, and _many_, and _all_, and _father_, _power_, and _paternal intellect_, and again _bound_, _infinite_, and _mixed_--so likewise we call it a _monad_, and _the indefinite duad_, and _a triad_, and a paternal nature composed from both these. And as in consequence of purifying our conceptions we reject the former appellations, as incapable of harmonizing with the things themselves, we should likewise reject the latter on the same account.”

But in order to convince the reader that this doctrine of the intelligible triad is not a fiction devised by the latter Platonists, I shall present him with the following translation from Damascius (περι αρχων) _Concerning Principles_,[409] in which the agreement of all the ancient theologists concerning this triad is most admirably evinced.

“The theology contained in the Orphic rhapsodies concerning the intelligible Gods is as follows _Time_ is symbolically placed for the one principle of the universe; but _æther_ and _chaos_, for the two posterior to this one: and _being_, simply considered, is represented under the symbol of an egg. And this is the first triad of the intelligible Gods. But for the perfection of the second triad, they establish either a conceiving and a conceived egg as a God, or a white garment, or a cloud: because from these Phanes leaps forth into light. For indeed they philosophize variously concerning the middle triad. But Phanes here represents intellect. But conceiving him over and above this, as father and power, contributes nothing to Orpheus. But they call the third triad Metis as _intellect_,[410] Ericapæus as _power_, and Phanes as _father_. But sometimes[411] the middle triad is considered according to the three-shaped God, while conceived in the egg: for the middle always represents each of the extremes; as in this instance, where the egg and the three-shaped God subsist together. And here you may perceive that the egg is that which is united; but that the three-shaped and really multiform God is the separating and discriminating cause of that which is intelligible. Likewise the middle triad subsists according to the egg, as yet united; but the third[412] according to the God who separates and distributes the whole intelligible order. And this is the common and familiar Orphic theology. But that delivered by Hieronymus and Hellanicus is as follows. According to them _water_ and _matter_ were the first productions, from which earth was secretly drawn forth: so that water and earth are established as the two first principles; the latter of these having a _dispersed_ subsistence; but the former conglutinating and connecting the latter. But they are silent concerning the principle prior to these two, as being ineffable: for as there are no illuminations about him, his arcane and ineffable nature is from hence sufficiently evinced. But the third principle posterior to these two, _water_ and _earth_, and which is generated from them, is _a dragon_, naturally endued with the heads of a bull and a lion, but in the middle having the countenance of the God himself. They add likewise that he has wings on his shoulders, and that he is called _undecaying Time_, and _Hercules_; that _Necessity_ resides with him, which is the same as _Nature_, and incorporeal _Adrastia_, which is extended throughout the universe, whose limits she binds in amicable conjunction. But as it appears to me, they denominate this third principle as established according to essence; and assert, besides this, that it subsists as male and female, for the purpose of exhibiting the generative causes of all things.

“But I likewise find in the Orphic rhapsodies, that neglecting the two first principles, together with the one principle who is delivered in silence, the third principle, posterior to the two, is established by the theology as the original; because this first of all possesses something effable and commensurate to human discourse. For in the former hypothesis, the highly reverenced and undecaying _Time_, the father of æther and chaos, was the principle: but in this _Time_ is neglected, and the principle becomes _a dragon_. It likewise calls triple æther, moist; and Chaos, infinite; and Erebus, cloudy and dark; delivering this second triad analogous to the first: this being potential, as that was paternal. Hence the third procession of this triad is dark Erebus: its paternal and summit æther, not according to a simple but intellectual subsistence: but its middle infinite chaos, considered as a progeny or procession, and among these parturient, because from these the third intelligible triad proceeds. What then is the third intelligible triad? I answer, the egg; the duad of the natures of male and female which it contains, and the multitude of all-various seeds, residing in the middle of this triad: And the third among these is an incorporeal God, bearing golden wings on his shoulders; but in his inward parts naturally possessing the heads of bulls, upon which heads a mighty dragon appears, invested with the all-various forms of wild-beasts. This last then must be considered as the _intellect_ of the triad; but the middle progeny, which are _many_ as well as _two_, correspond to _power_, and the egg itself is _the paternal principle_ of the third triad: but the third God of this third triad, this theology celebrates as _Protogonus_, and calls him _Jupiter_, the disposer of all things and of the whole world; and on this account denominates him _Pan_. And such is the information which this theology affords us, concerning the genealogy of the intelligible principles of things.

But in the writings of the Peripatetic Eudemus, containing the Theology of Orpheus, the whole intelligible order is passed over in silence, as being every way ineffable and unknown, and incapable of verbal enunciation. Eudemus therefore commences his genealogy from _Night_, from which also Homer begins: though Eudemus is far from making the Homeric genealogy consistent and connected, for he asserts that Homer begins from Ocean and Tethys. It is however apparent, that _Night_ is according to Homer the greatest divinity, since she is reverenced even by Jupiter himself. For the poet says of Jupiter--“that he feared lest he should act in a manner displeasing to swift _Night_.” So that Homer begins his genealogy of the Gods from _Night_. But it appears to me that Hesiod, when he asserts that Chaos was first generated, signifies by Chaos the incomprehensible and perfectly united nature of that which is intelligible: but that he produces earth[413] the first from thence, as a certain principle of the whole procession of the Gods. Unless perhaps Chaos is the second of the two principles: but Earth,[414] Tartarus, and Love, form the triple intelligible. So that _Love_ is to be placed for the third monad of the intelligible order, considered according to its convertive nature; for it is thus denominated by Orpheus in his rhapsodies. But _Earth_ for the first, as being first established in a certain firm and essential station. But _Tartarus_ for the middle, as in a certain respect exciting and moving forms into distribution. But Acusilaus appears to me to establish _Chaos_ for the first principle, as entirely unknown; and after this, two principles, _Erebus_ as male, and _Night_ as female; placing the latter for _infinity_, but the former for _bound_. But from the mixture of these, he says that _Æther_, _Love_, and _Counsel_ are generated, forming three intelligible hypostases. And he places _Æther_ as the summit; but _Love_ in the middle, according to its naturally middle subsistence; but _Metis_ or _Counsel_ as the third, and the same as highly-reverenced intellect. And, according to the history of Eudemus, from these he produces a great number of other Gods. But Epimenides establishes _Air_ and _Night_ as the two first principles; manifestly reverencing in silence the one principle prior to these two. But from air and night _Tartarus_ is generated, forming as it appears to me the third principle, as a certain mixed temperature from the two. And this mixture is called by some an intelligible medium, because it extends itself to both the summit and the end. But from the mixture of the extremes with each other, an egg is generated, which is truly an intelligible animal: and from this again another progeny proceeds. But according to Pherecydes Syrius, the three first principles are a _Perpetually-abiding Vital Nature_, _Time_,[415] and _an Earthly Nature_: one of these subsisting, as I conceive, prior to the other two. But he asserts that _Time_ generates from the progeny of itself, _Fire_, _Spirit_, and _Water_: which signify, as it appears to me, the triple nature of that which is intelligible. But from these, distributed into five profound recesses, a numerous progeny of Gods is constituted, which he calls _five-times animated_ (πεντεμψυχος): and which is perhaps the same as if he had said πεντεκοσμος, or a _five-fold world_. But we may probably discourse on this subject at some other opportunity. And thus much may suffice at present concerning the hypotheses derived from the Grecian fables, which are both many and various.

But with respect to the theology of the Barbarians, the Babylonians seem to pass over in silence the one principle of the universe. But they establish two principles, Tauthe and Apasoon. And they consider Apasoon as the husband of Tauthe, whom they denominate the mother of the Gods; from whom an only-begotten son _Mooumis_ was produced: which, as it appears to me, is no other than the intelligible world deduced from two principles.[416] But from these another procession is derived, _Dache_ and _Dachus_. And likewise a third from these, _Kissare_ and _Assoorus_. And from these again three deities are produced, _Anus_, _Illinus_, and _Aus_. But from _Aus_ and _Dache_ a son called Belus is produced, who they say is the demiurgus of the world. But with respect to the Magi, and all the Arion race, as we are informed by Eudemus, some of them call all the intelligible and united world _Place_, and some of them _Time_: from which _a good divinity_ and _an evil dæmon_ are distributed; _Light_ and _Darkness_ subsisting prior to these, according to the assertions of others. However, both the one and the other, after an undistributed nature, consider that nature as having a subsistence which distributes the two-fold co-ordination of better natures: one of which co-ordinations _Orosmades_ presides over, and the other _Arimanius_. But the Sidonians, according to the same historian, place before all things, _Time_, _Desire_, and _cloudy Darkness_. And they assert that from the mingling of _Desire_ and _Darkness_ as two principles, _Air_ and _a gentle Wind_ were produced: _Air_ evincing the summit of the intelligible triad; but _the gentle Wind_ raised and proceeding from this, the vital prototype of the intelligible. And again that from both these the bird _Otus_, similar to a night raven, was produced; representing, as it appears to me, intelligible intellect. But as we find (without the assistance of Eudemus) the Phœnician mythology, according to Mochus, places _Æther_ and _Air_ as the two first principles, from which the intelligible god _Oulomus_ was produced; who, as it appears to me, is the summit of the intelligible order. But from this god (yet proceeding together with him) they assert that _Chousorus_ was produced, being the first unfolding procession. And after this _an egg_ succeeds; which I think must be called intelligible intellect. But the unfolding _Chousorus_ is intelligible power, because this is the first nature which distributes an undistributed subsistence: unless perhaps after the two principles _Æther_ and _Air_, the summit is _One Wind_: but the middle _Two Winds_, the _south-west_ and the _south_; for in a certain respect they place these prior to _Oulomus_. But _Oulomus_ himself is intelligible intellect: and unfolding _Chousorus_[417] the first order after the intelligible series. But the _egg itself_ is heaven: from the bursting of which into two parts, the sections are said to have become heaven and earth. But with respect to the Egyptians, nothing accurately is related of them by Eudemus: we have, however, by means of some Egyptian philosophers resident among us, been instructed in the occult truth of their theological doctrine. According to these philosophers then, the Egyptians in certain discourses celebrate _an unknown Darkness_ as the one principle of the universe, and this _thrice pronounced as such_: but for the two principles after the first they place _Water_ and _Sand_, according to Heraiscus; but according to the more ancient writer Asclepiades, _Sand_ and _Water_; from which and after which the first _Kamephis_ is generated. But after this _a second_, and from this again _a third_; by all which, the whole intelligible distribution is accomplished. For thus Asclepiades determines. But the more modern Heraiscus says that the Egyptians, denominating the third Kamephis from his father and grandfather, assert that he is _the Sun_; which doubtless signifies in this case intelligible intellect. But a more accurate knowledge of these affairs must be received from the above-mentioned authors themselves. It must however be observed, that with the Egyptians there are many distributions of things according to union; because they unfold an intelligible nature into characteristics, or peculiarities of many gods, as may be learned from such as are desirous of consulting their writings on this subject.”

Thus far Damascius; from which curious and interesting relation the reader may not only perceive at one view the agreement of the ancient theologists with each other in celebrating the intelligible triad, and venerating in silence the ineffable principle of things, but may likewise see that the Christian trinity is essentially different from this triad, because according to Plato and the ancient theologists, the first cause is not a part of any triad, or order of things. Consonant too with the above relation is the doctrine of the Chaldeans concerning the intelligible order, as delivered by Johannes Picus, in his _Conclusions according to the opinion of the Chaldean Theologists_.[418] “The intelligible co-ordination (says he) is not in the intellectual co-ordination, as Amasis the Egyptian asserts, but is above every intellectual hierarchy, imparticipably concealed in the abyss of the first unity, and under the obscurity of the first darkness.” Co-ordinatio intelligibilis non est in intellectuali co-ordinatione, ut dixit Amasis Ægyptius, sed est super omnem intellectualem hierarchium, in abysso primæ unitatis, et sub caligine primarum tenebrarum imparticipaliter abscondita.

But from this triad it may be demonstrated, that all the processions of the Gods may be comprehended in six orders, viz. the _intelligible order_, the _intelligible and at the same time intellectual_, the _intellectual_, the _supermundane_, the _liberated_, and the _mundane_.[419] For the _intelligible_, as we have already observed, must hold the first rank, and must consist of _being_, _life_, and _intellect_; _i.e._ must _abide_, _proceed_, and _return_; at the same time that it is characterised, or subsists principally according to _permanent being_. But in the next place that which is both _intelligible_ and _intellectual_ succeeds, which must likewise be triple, but must principally subsist according to _life_, or _intelligence_. And in the third place the _intellectual_ order must succeed, which is _triply convertive_. But as in consequence of the existence of the sensible world, it is necessary that there should be some demiurgic cause of its existence, this cause can only be found in _intellect_, and in the last hypostasis of the _intellectual triad_. For all forms in this hypostasis subsist according to all-various and perfect divisions; and forms can only fabricate when they have a perfect intellectual separation from each other. But since _fabrication_ is nothing more than _procession_, the demiurgus will be to the posterior orders of Gods what _the one_ is to the orders prior to the _demiurgus_: and consequently he will be that secondarily which the first cause of all is primarily. Hence his first production will be an order of Gods analogous to the _intelligible_ order, and which is denominated _supermundane_. After this he must produce an order of Gods similar to the _intelligible_ and _intellectual_ order, and which are denominated _liberated_ Gods. And in the last place, a procession correspondent to the _intellectual_ order, and which can be no other than the mundane Gods. For the demiurgus is chiefly characterised according to diversity, and is allotted the boundary of all universal hypostases.

All these orders, as is shown by Proclus in this work, are unfolded by Plato in the conclusions of the second hypothesis of the Parmenides; and this in a manner perfectly conformable to the Chaldaic theology. In proof of this I refer the reader to my collection of Chaldean oracles, in the Old Monthly Magazine.

P. 348. _It is difficult to discover the fabricator and father of this universe, and when found, it is impossible to speak of him to all men._

The following admirable developement by Proclus of the difficulty of discovering the maker of the universe, is extracted from p. 91, &c. of his Commentaries on the Timæus of Plato.

“Father and fabricator differ from each other, so far as the former is the cause of matter,[420] but the latter of the world and order, and in short, of the formal cause; and so far indeed, as the former is the supplier of being and union, but the latter of powers and a multiform essence; and so far as the one stably contains all things in himself, but the other is the cause of progression and generation: and so far as the former signifies ineffable and divine providence, but the latter an abundant communication of productive principles. Porphyry however says, that father is he who generates the universe from himself, but fabricator he who receives the matter of it from another. Hence Aristo indeed, is said to be the _father_ of Plato, but the builder of a house is the _maker_ or fabricator of it, as not himself generating the matter of which it consists. If however, this is true, there was no occasion to call the demiurgus father, because according to Timæus, he does not give subsistence to matter. Is not the demiurgus therefore, rather the fabricator as producing form? For we call all those makers who produce any thing from a non-existent state into existence. But so far as the demiurgus produces that which he produces, in conjunction with life, he is father. For fathers are the causes of animals, and of certain living beings, and impart seed together with life. And thus much concerning this particular.

But ‘_this universe_’ signifies indeed, the corporeal masses, and the whole spheres [of which it consists] and the plenitudes of each. It also signifies the vital and intellectual powers, which ride as it were in the corporeal masses. It also comprehends all the mundane causes[421] and the whole divinity of the world, about which the number of the mundane Gods proceeds; likewise, the one divinity, the divine soul, and the whole bulk of the world, together with the divine, intellectual, psychical, and corporeal-formed number that is conjoined with the world. For every monad has a multitude co-ordinate to itself. All these therefore must be assumed for the _universe_; since it signifies all these. Perhaps likewise the addition of the pronoun _this_, is significant of the universe being in a certain respect sensible and partial. For the intelligible universe is not _this_, because it is comprehensive of _all intellectual forms_. But the term _this_ is adapted to the visible universe which is allotted a sensible and material nature. It is difficult therefore, as Plato says, to discover the demiurgus of this universe. For since with respect to discovery, one kind proceeds scientifically from such things as are first,[422] but another journeys on from things of a secondary nature, according to reminiscence; the discovery from such things as are first may be said to be difficult, because the invention of the intermediate powers, pertains to the highest theory. But the discovery from such things as are secondary, is nearly more difficult than the former. For if we intend from these to survey the essence of the demiurgus, and his other powers, it is necessary that we should have beheld all the nature of the things generated by him, all the visible parts of the world, and the unapparent natural powers which it contains, according to which the sympathy and antipathy of the parts in the world subsist. Prior to these also, we must have surveyed the stable physical reasons, and natures themselves, both the more total and the more partial,[423] and again, the immaterial and material, the divine and dæmoniacal, and the natures of mortal animals. And farther still, the genera which are under life, the perpetual and the mortal, the undefiled and the material, such as are wholes, and such as are parts, the rational and the irrational, and the prerogatives which are superior to ours, through which every thing between the Gods and the mortal nature are bound together. We must likewise have beheld the all-various souls, the different numbers of Gods according to the different parts of the universe, and the ineffable and effable impressions of the world through which it is conjoined with the father. For he who without having seen these is impelled to the survey of the demiurgus, is more imperfect than is requisite to the intellectual perception of the father. But it is not lawful for any thing imperfect to be conjoined with that which is all-perfect.

Moreover, it is necessary,[424] that the soul becoming an intellectual world, and being assimilated as much as possible to the whole intelligible world, should introduce herself to the maker of the universe; and from this introduction, should in a certain respect become familiar with him through a continued intellectual energy. For uninterrupted energy about any thing, calls forth and resuscitates our [dormant] ideas. But through this familiarity, becoming stationed at the door of the father, it is necessary, that we should be united to him. For discovery is this, to meet with him, to be united to him, to associate alone with the alone, and to see him himself, the soul hastily withdrawing herself from every other energy to him. For then she is present with her father, banquets together with him on the truth of real being, and in pure splendour is purely initiated in entire and stable visions. Such therefore is the discovery of the father, not that which is doxastic; for this is dubious, and not very remote from the irrational life. Neither is it scientific; for this is syllogistic and composite, and does not come into contact with the intellectual essence of the intellectual demiurgus. But it is that which subsists according to intellectual vision itself, a contact with the intelligible, and a union with the demiurgic intellect. For this may properly be denominated difficult, either as hard to obtain, presenting itself to souls after every evolution of life; or as the true labour of souls. For after the wandering about generation, after purification, and the light of science, intellectual energy and the intellect which is in us shine forth, placing the soul in the father as in a port, purely establishing her in demiurgic intellections, and conjoining light with light, not such as that of science, but more beautiful, more intellectual, and partaking more of the nature of _the one_ than this. For this is the paternal port,[425] and the discovery of the father, viz. an undefiled union with him.

But to _say that when found it is impossible to speak of him to all men_,[426] perhaps indicates the custom of the Pythagoreans, who had arcane assertions about divine natures, and did not divulge them to all men. For as the Elean guest says, the eyes of the multitude are not strong enough to look to truth. Perhaps also this may be said which is much more venerable, that it is impossible for him who has discovered the maker and father of the universe to speak of him to certain persons such as he has seen him. For the discovery was not made by the soul speaking, but closing her eyes, and being converted[427] to the divine light. Nor was it made by her being moved with her own proper motion, but through being silent with a silence which leads the way [to union]. For since the essence of other things is not naturally adapted to be spoken of, either through a name, or through definition, or through science, but is seen through intellection alone, as Plato says in his Epistles, in what other way can it be possible to discover the essence of the demiurgus, than by intellectual energy? And how when having thus found it, is it possible to tell what is seen, and explain it to others, through nouns and verbs? For the evolution which is conversant with composition, cannot exhibit a uniform and simple nature. What then, some one may say, do we not assert many things about the demiurgus, and about the other Gods, and even of _the one itself_? To this we reply, we speak indeed _about_ them, but we do not speak _of each of them itself_. And we are able indeed to speak _scientifically_ of them, but not _intellectually_. For this, as we have before observed, is to discover them. But if the discovery is a silence of the soul, how can speech flowing through the mouth, be sufficient to lead that which is discovered into light?”

The following extracts from the _Manuscript Scholia of_ PROCLUS On the _Cratylus of Plato_, are added on account of their great importance; and that the reader may be furnished with all the information on the recondite theology of Greece, that it was in my power to obtain.

This manuscript is so rare that, if I am not mistaken, no copy of it is to be found in any of the colleges either of Oxford or Cambridge. My copy of it is a transcript of that which is now in the possession of Mr. HEBER of Oxford.

The reader, however, must be careful to remember that the design of Plato in the Cratylus was to unfold those peculiarities only of the Gods that are apparent in their names.

That Jupiter is not _said to be_, but _is_ the father of those who genuinely preserve the proper form of life, such as Hercules and the Dioscuri; but of those who are never at any time able to convert themselves to a divine nature, he never _is_, nor _is said to be_ the father. Such therefore as having been partakers of a certain energy above human nature, have again fallen into _the sea of dissimilitude_,[428] and for honour among men have embraced error towards the Gods,--of these Jupiter is _said to be_ the father.

That the paternal cause originates supernally from the intelligible and occult gods; for there the first fathers of wholes subsist; but it proceeds through all the intellectual Gods into the demiurgic order. For Timæus celebrates this order as at the same time _fabricative_ and _paternal_; since he calls Jupiter the _demiurgus_ and _father_. The fathers however who are superior to the one fabrication are called Gods of Gods, but the demiurgus is the father of Gods and men. Farther still, Jupiter is said to be _peculiarly_ the father of some, as of Hercules, who immutably preserve a Jovian and ruling life during their converse with the realms of generation. Jupiter therefore, is triply father, of Gods, partial souls, and of souls that embrace an intellectual and Jovian life. The intellectual order of the Gods therefore, is supernally bounded by the king[429] of the total divine genera, and who has a paternal transcendency with respect to all the intellectual Gods. This king according to Orpheus is called by the blessed immortals that dwell on lofty Olympus Phanes Protogonus. But this order proceeds through the three Nights, and the celestial orders, into the Titanic or Saturnian series, where it first separates itself from the fathers and changes the kingdom of the _Synoches_,[430] for a distributive government of wholes, and unfolds every demiurgic genus of the Gods, from all the above-mentioned ruling and royal causes, but proximately from Saturn the leader of the Titannic orders. Prior however to other fabricators (δημιουργοι) it unfolds Jupiter, who is allotted the unical strength of the whole demiurgic series, and who produces and gives subsistence to all unapparent and apparent natures. And he is indeed intellectual according to the order in which he ranks, but he produces the species and the genera of beings into the order of sensibles. He is likewise filled with the Gods above himself, but imparts from himself a progression into being to all mundane natures. Hence Orpheus represents him fabricating every celestial race, making the sun and moon and the other starry Gods, together with the sublunary elements, and diversifying the latter with forms which before had a disordered subsistence. He likewise represents him presiding over the Gods who are distributed about the whole world, and who are suspended from him; and in the character of a legislator assigning distributions of providence in the universe according to desert to all the mundane Gods.[431] Homer too, following Orpheus, celebrates him as the common father of Gods and men, as leader and king, and as the supreme of rulers. He also says that all the multitude of mundane Gods is collected about him, abides in and is perfected by him. For all the mundane Gods are converted to Jupiter through Themis,

Ζευς δε θεμιστα κελευσε θεους, αγορην δε καλεσσαι
----ηδ’ αρα παντη
φοιτησασα κελευσε Διος προς δωμα νεεσθαι.

i.e. “But Jupiter orders Themis to call the Gods to council; and she directing her course every where commands them to go to the house of Jupiter.”[432] All of them therefore are excited according to the one will of Jupiter, and become διος ενδον,[433] _within Jupiter_, as the poet says. Jupiter too again separates them within himself, according to two co-ordinations, and excites them to providential energies about secondary natures; he at the same time as Timæus says, abiding after his accustomed manner;

ως εφατο κρονιδης πολεμον δ’ αλιαστον εγειρεν.[434]

i.e. “Thus spoke Saturnian Jupiter, and excited inevitable war.” Jupiter however is separate and exempt from all mundane natures; whence also the most total and leading of the other Gods, though they appear to have in a certain respect equal authority with Jupiter, through a progression from the same causes, yet call him father. For both Neptune and Juno celebrate him by this appellation. And though Juno speaks to him as one who is of the same order,

και γαρ εγω θεος ειμι· γενος δε μοι ενθεν οθεν σοι,
και με πρεσβυτατην τεκετο κρονος αγκυλομητις,[435]

i.e. “For I also am a divinity, and Saturn, of inflected counsel, endowed me with the greatest dignity, when he begot me:”

And though Neptune says

τρεις γαρ τ’εκ κρονου ειμεν αδελφεοι, ους τεκε Ρειη,
Ζευς και εγω, τριτατος δ’Αΐδης ενεροισιν ανασσων,[436]

i.e. “For we are three brothers from Saturn, whom Rhea bore, Jupiter and I, and the third is Pluto, who governs the infernal realms:”

Yet Jupiter is called father by both these divinities; and this because he comprehends in himself the one and impartible cause of all fabrication; is prior to the Saturnian triad;[437] connectedly contains the three fathers; and comprehends on all sides the vivification of Juno. Hence, at the same time that this goddess gives animation to the universe, he also together with other Gods gives subsistence to souls. Very properly therefore do we say that the demiurgus in the Timæus is the mighty Jupiter. For he it is who produces mundane intellects and souls, who adorns all bodies with figures and numbers, and inserts in them one union, and an indissoluble friendship and bond. For Night also in Orpheus advises Jupiter to employ things of this kind in the fabrication of the universe.

αυταρ επην δεσμον κρατερον περι πασι τανυσσης.

i.e. But when your power around the whole has spread
A strong coercive bond.--

The proximate bond indeed of mundane natures, is that which subsists through analogy; but the more perfect bond is derived from intellect and soul. Hence Timæus calls the communion of the elements through analogy, and the indissoluble union from life, a bond. For he says animals were generated bound with animated bonds. But a more venerable bond than these subsists from the demiurgic will. “For my will, says Jupiter in the Timæus, is a greater and more principal bond, &c.”

Firmly adhering therefore to this conception respecting the mighty Jupiter, viz. that he is the demiurgus and father of the universe, that he is an all-perfect imparticipable[438] intellect, and that he fills all things both with other goods, and with life, let us survey how from names Socrates unfolds the mystic truth concerning this divinity. Timæus then says that it is difficult to know the essence of the demiurgus, and Socrates now says that it is not easy to understand his name, which manifests his power and energy.

That our soul knows partibly the impartible nature of the energy of the Gods, and that which is characterised by unity in this energy, in a multiplied manner: and this especially takes place about the demiurgus who expands intellectual forms, and calls forth intelligible causes, and evolves them to the fabrication of the universe. For Parmenides characterises him by sameness and difference. According to Homer two tubs are placed near him; and the most mystic tradition, and the oracles of the Gods say that the duad is seated with him. For thus they speak: “He possesses both; containing intelligibles in intellect, but introducing sense to the worlds.” These oracles likewise call him _twice beyond_, and _twice there_ (δις επεκεινα και δις εκει). And in short they celebrate him through the duad. For the demiurgus comprehends in himself unitedly every thing _prolific_,[439] and which gives subsistence to mundane natures. Very properly therefore is his name two-fold, of which δια manifests _the cause through which_, and this is paternal goodness; but ζηνα signifies _vivification_, the first causes of which in the universe the demiurgus unically comprehends. The former too, is a symbol of the Saturnian and paternal series; but the latter of the vivific and maternal Rhea. So far likewise as Jupiter receives the whole of Saturn, he gives subsistence to a triple essence, the impartible, the partible, and that which subsists between these; but according to the Rhea which he contains in himself, he scatters as from a fountain, intellectual, psychical, and corporeal life. But by his demiurgic powers and energies, he gives a formal subsistence to these and separates them from forms of a prior order, and from each other. He is also the ruler and king of all things: and is exempt from the three demiurgi. For they, as Socrates says in the Gorgias, divide the kingdom of their father; but Jupiter the demiurgus at once, without division reigns over the three, and unically governs them.

He is therefore the cause of the paternal triad, and of all fabrication; but he connectedly contains the three demiurgi. And he is _a king_ indeed, as being co-ordinated with the fathers; but _a ruler_, as being proximately established above the demiurgic triad, and comprehending the uniform cause of it. Plato therefore by considering his name in two ways evinces that images receive partibly the unical causes of paradigms, and that this is adapted to him who establishes the intellectual duad in himself. For he gives subsistence to twofold orders, the celestial, and the supercelestial; whence also the theologist Orpheus says, that his sceptre consists of four and twenty measures; as ruling over a twofold twelve.[440]

That the soul of the world gives life to alter-motive natures; for to these it becomes the fountain and principle of motion, as Plato says in the Phædrus and Laws. But the demiurgus simply imparts to all things life divine, intellectual, psychical, and that which is divisible about bodies. No one however should think that the Gods in their generations of secondary natures are diminished; or that they sustain a division of their proper essence in giving subsistence to things subordinate; or that they expose their progeny to the view, externally to themselves, in the same manner as the causes of mortal offspring. Nor in short, must we suppose that they generate with motion or mutation, but that abiding in themselves, they produce by their very essence posterior natures, comprehend on all sides their progeny, and supernally perfect the productions and energies of their offspring. Nor again when it is said that Gods are the sons of more total Gods, must it be supposed that they are disjoined from more ancient causes, and are cut off from a union with them; or that they receive the peculiarity of their hyparxis through motion, and an indefiniteness converting itself to bound. For there is nothing irrational and without measure, in the natures superior to us. But we must conceive that their progressions are effected through similitude; and that there is one communion of essence, and an indivisible continuity of powers and energies, between the sons of Gods and their fathers; all those Gods that rank in the second order, being established in such as are more ancient; and the more ancient imparting much of perfection, vigour, and efficacious production to the subordinate. And after this manner we must understand that Jupiter is said to be the son of Saturn. For Jupiter being the demiurgic intellect proceeds from another intellect, superior and more uniform, which increases indeed its proper intellections, but converts the multitude of them to union; and multiplies its intellectual powers, but elevates their all-various evolutions to impartible sameness. Jupiter therefore proximately establishing a communion with this divinity, and being filled from him with total intellectual good, is very properly said to be the son of Saturn, both in hymns and in invocations, as unfolding into light that which is occult, expanding that which is contracted, and dividing that which is impartible in the Saturnian monad; and as emitting a second more partial kingdom, instead of that which is more total, a demiurgic instead of a paternal dominion, and an empire which proceeds every where instead of that which stably abides in itself.

Why does Socrates apprehend the name of king Saturn to be υβριστικον _insolent_, and looking to what does he assert this? We reply that according to the poets _satiety_ (κορος) is the cause of _insolence_; for they thus denominate immoderation and repletion; and they say that _Satiety_ brought forth _Insolence_. (υβριν φασιν τικτει κορος). He therefore who looks without attention to the name of Saturn, will consider it as signifying _insolence_. For to him who suddenly hears it, it manifests satiety and repletion. Why therefore, since a name of this kind is expressive of insolence, do we not pass it over in silence, as not being auspicious and adapted to the Gods? May we not say that the royal series[441] of the Gods, beginning from Phanes and ending in Bacchus, and producing the same sceptre supernally as far as to the last kingdom, Saturn being allotted the fourth royal order; appears according to the fabulous pretext, differently from the other kings, to have received the sceptre insolently from Heaven, and to have given it to Jupiter? For Night receives the sceptre from Phanes; Heaven derives from Night, the dominion over wholes; and Bacchus who is the last king of the Gods receives the kingdom from Jupiter. For the father (Jupiter) establishes him in the royal throne, puts into his hand the sceptre, and makes him the king of all the mundane Gods. “Hear me ye Gods, I place over you a king.”

κλυτε θεοι τον δ’υμμιν βασιλεα τιθημι,

says Jupiter to the junior Gods. But Saturn alone perfectly deprives Heaven of the kingdom, and concedes dominion to Jupiter, cutting and being cut off as the fable says. Plato therefore seeing this succession, which in Saturn is called by theologists _insolent_ (υβριστικη) thought it worth while to mention the appearance of insolence in the name; that from this he might evince the name is adapted to the God, and that it bears an image of the insolence which is ascribed to him in fables. At the same time he teaches us to refer mythical devices to the truth concerning the Gods, and the apparent absurdity which they contain, to scientific conceptions.

That _the great_ when ascribed to the Gods, must not be considered as belonging to interval, but as subsisting intellectually, and according to the power of cause, but not according to partible transcendency. But why does Plato now call Saturn διανοια the dianoetic part of the soul? May we not say, that it is because he looks to the multitude of intellectual conceptions in him, the orders of intelligibles, and the evolution of forms which he contains; since also in the Timæus, he represents the demiurgic intellect as reasoning, and making the world, dianoetically energising: and this in consequence of looking to his partible and divided intellections, according to which he fabricates not only wholes but parts. When Saturn, however, is called intellect, Jupiter has the order of the dianoetic part: and when again, Saturn is called the dianoetic part, we must say that he is so called according to analogy with reference to a certain other intellect of a higher order. Whether therefore you are willing to speak of intelligible and occult intellect, or of that which unfolds into light (εκφαντορικος νους) or of that which connectedly contains (συνεκτικος νους) or of that which imparts perfection,[442] (τελεσιουργος νους) Saturn will be as the dianoetic part to all these. For he produces united intellection into multitude, and fills himself wholly with excited intelligibles. Whence also, he is said to be the leader of the Titannic race, and the source of all-various separation and diversifying power. And perhaps Plato here primarily delivers twofold interpretations of the name of the Titans, which Jamblichus and Amelius afterwards adopted. For the one interprets this name from the Titans extending their powers to all things; but the other from _something insectile_ (παρα το τι ατομον) because the division and separation of wholes into parts receives its beginning from the Titans. Socrates therefore now indicates both these interpretations, by asserting of the king of the Titans that he is a _certain great dianoetic power_. For the term _great_ is as symbol of power pervading to all things; but the term _a certain_, of power proceeding to the most partial natures.