94. Hence Iamblichus (apud Stob. Eclog. Phys. p. 114), says, Ουχ η αυτη εστι πασων ψυχων κοινωνια προς τα σωματα. αλλ’ η μεν ολη ωσπερ Πλωτινῳ δοκει, προσιον εαυτῃ το σωμα εχει εν εαυτῃ, αλλ’ ουκ αυτη προσεισι τῳ σωματι, ουδε περιεχεται υπ’ αυτου. αι δε μερισται προσερχονται τοις σωμασι, και των σωματων γιγνονται. i. e. “There is not the same communion of all souls with bodies; but the soul which ranks as a whole (as it also appeared to Plotinus), approaching to itself, contains body in itself, but does not itself approach to body, nor is comprehended by it. Partible souls, however, accede to bodies, and give themselves up to them.”
Conformably to this Porphyry also, in his Αφορμαι προς τα νοητα, No. 30, says, “No whole and perfect essence is converted to its own progeny; but all perfect natures are led back to the causes by which they were generated, even as far as to the mundane body. For this body, being perfect, is elevated to the mundane soul which is intellectual, and through this is circularly moved. But the soul of this body is elevated to intellect, and intellect to that which is first. All things, therefore, extend themselves to this, beginning from that which is last, according to the peculiar ability of each. But the reduction to that which is first is either proximate or remote. Hence these are not only said to aspire after divinity, but also to enjoy him as far as they are able. But in partial natures, and which are able to verge to many things, a conversion to their progeny belongs. Hence in these guilt, in these disgraceful perfidy, is found. Matter, therefore, defiles these, because they decline to it, at the same time that they possess the power of converting themselves to a divine nature.”
95. Iamblichus here alludes to the excellent treatise of Porphyry, περι της των εμψυχων αποχης, On Abstinence from Animal Food, from which work the English reader will find several admirable extracts in one of the Introductory Dissertations prefixed to my translation of Proclus on Euclid.
96. A celestial body, as is beautifully shown by Proclus in Tim. lib. iii. contains the summits of all the elements, but is characterized by vivific unburning fire; so that, in short, it is vitalized extension.
97. The number sixty is no less manifest in the crocodile than in the sun. For according to Aristotle (in Hist. Anim. lib. v.) the crocodile brings forth sixty eggs of a white colour and sits on them for sixty days.
98. “Isis,” says Gale, “is the moon. And a dog attended Isis when she was diligently seeking her husband Osiris. But the moon perpetually seeks the sun, and therefore that sagacious animal, the dog, accords with Isis. In the solemnities, also, of Isis, dogs preceded the procession.” After this manner others besides Gale; who have not penetrated the depths of the philosophy and theology of Plato, would doubtless explain what is fabulously said of Isis. In reality, however, Isis is not the moon, but one of the divinities that revolve in the lunar sphere as an attendant on the moon, and who, in modern language, is one of the satellites of that planet. For, as I have shown from Proclus, in the Introduction to my translation of the Timæus of Plato, every planetary sphere is an ολοτης, or a part of the universe having a total subsistence, i. e. ranking as a whole, and is surrounded with a number of satellites analogous to the choir of the fixed stars. Of these satellites, likewise, the leaders of which are the planets, the first in order are Gods; after these, dæmons revolve in lucid orbicular bodies; and these are followed by partial souls, such as ours. See Proclus in Tim. p. 275 and p. 279· This theory, as I have elsewhere observed, is the grand key to the theology and mythology of the ancients, as it shows at one view why the same God is so often celebrated with the names of other Gods; which induced Macrobius to think that all the Gods were nothing more than different powers of the sun. The English reader will find an abundant confirmation of what is here said in the fourth book of my translation of the above mentioned admirable work of Proclus.
99. “The Egyptians,” says Horapollo, lib. i. “wishing to signify the moon, paint a cynocephalus, because this animal is variously affected by the course of the moon.”
100. In the original μυγαλη. “This word,” says Gale, “is written variously, viz. as μυγάλη, μυγαλὴ, and μυγαλῆ. It is also variously translated, for it is either rattus, or mus araneus.” Plutarch, in the fourth book of his Symposiacs, Quest. 5, says, “that the Egyptians were of opinion that darkness was prior to light, and that the latter was produced from mice in the fifth generation, at the time of the new moon. And further still, they assert that the liver of the weasel diminishes in the wane of the moon.”
101. With the Egyptians many animals were sacred; for the worship of which the following admirable apology is made by Plutarch in his treatise of Isis and Osiris:
“It now remains that we should speak of the utility of these animals to man, and of their symbolical meaning; some of them partaking of one of these only, but many of them of both. It is evident, therefore, that the Egyptians worshiped the ox, the sheep, and the ichneumon, on account of their use and benefit, as the Lemnians did larks, for discovering the eggs of caterpillars and breaking them; and the Thessalians storks, because, as their land produced abundance of serpents, the storks destroyed all of them as soon as they appeared. Hence, also, they enacted a law, that whoever killed a stork should be banished. But the Egyptians honoured the asp, the weasel, and the beetle, in consequence of observing in them certain dark resemblances of the power of the Gods, like that of the sun in drops of water. For at present, many believe and assert that the weasel engenders by the ear, and brings forth by the mouth, being thus an image of the generation of reason [or the productive principle of things]. But the genus of beetles has no female; and all the males emit their sperm into a sphericle piece of earth, which they roll about, thrusting it backwards with their hind feet, while they themselves move forward; just as the sun appears to revolve in a direction contrary to that of the heavens, in consequence of moving from west to east. They also assimilated the asp to a star, as being exempt from old age, and performing its motions, unassisted by organs, with agility and ease. Nor was the crocodile honoured by them without a probable cause; but is said to have been considered by them as a resemblance of divinity, as being the only animal that is without a tongue. For the divine reason is unindigent of voice, and proceeding through a silent path, and accompanied with[102] justice, conducts mortal affairs according to it. They also say it is the only animal living in water that has the sight of its eyes covered with a thin and transparent film, which descends from his forehead, so that he sees without being seen, which is likewise the case with the first God. But in whatever place the female crocodile may lay her eggs, this may with certainty be concluded to be the boundary of the increase of the Nile. For not being able to lay their eggs in the water, and fearing to lay them far from it, they have such an accurate presensation of futurity, that though they enjoy the benefit of the river in its access, during the time of their laying and hatching, yet they preserve their eggs dry and untouched by the water. They also lay sixty eggs, are the same number of days in hatching them, and those that are the longest lived among them live just so many years, which number is the first of the measures employed by those who are conversant with the heavenly bodies.
“Moreover, of those animals that were honoured for both reasons, we have before spoken of the dog. But the ibis, killing indeed all deadly reptiles, was the first that taught men the use of medical evacuation, in consequence of observing that she is after this manner washed and purified by herself. Those priests, also, that are most attentive to the laws of sacred rites, when they consecrate water for lustration, fetch it from that place where the ibis had been drinking; for she will neither drink nor come near unwholesome or infected water; but with the distance of her feet from each other and her bill she makes an equilateral triangle. Farther still, the variety and mixture of her black wings about the white represents the moon when she is gibbous.
“We ought not, however, to wonder if the Egyptians love such slender similitudes, since the Greeks also, both in their pictures and statues, employ many such like resemblances of the Gods. Thus in Crete there was a statue of Jupiter without ears. For it is fit that he who is the ruler and lord of all things should hear no one.[103] Phidias also placed a dragon by the statue of Minerva, and a snail by that of Venus at Elis, to show that virgins require a guard, and that keeping at home and silence become married women. But the trident of Neptune is a symbol of the third region of the world, which the sea possesses, having an arrangement after the heavens and the air. Hence, also, they thus denominated Amphitrite and the Tritons. The Pythagoreans, likewise, adorned numbers and figures with the appellations of the Gods. For they called the equilateral triangle, Minerva Coryphagenes, or begotten from the summit, and Tritogeneia because it is divided by three perpendiculars drawn from the three angles. But they called the one Apollo, being persuaded to this by the obvious meaning of the word Apollo [which signifies a privation of multitude] and by the simplicity of the monad[104]. The duad they denominated strife and audacity, and the triad justice. For since injuring and being injured are two extremes subsisting according to excess and defect, justice, through equality, has a situation in the middle. But what is called the tetractys, being the number 36, was, as is reported, their greatest oath, and was denominated the world. For this number is formed from the composition of the four first even and the four first odd numbers, collected into one sum.[105] If, therefore, the most approved of the philosophers did not think it proper to neglect or despise any occult signification of a divine nature when they perceived it even in things which are inanimate and incorporeal, it appears to me that they, in a still greater degree, venerated those peculiarities depending on manners which they saw in such natures as had sense, and were endued with soul, with passion, and ethical habits. We must embrace, therefore, not those who honour these things, but those who reverence divinity through these, as through most clear mirrors, and which are produced by nature, in a becoming manner, conceiving them to be the instruments or the art of the God by whom all things are perpetually adorned. But we ought to think that no inanimate being can be more excellent than one that is animated, nor an insensible than a sensitive being, not even though some one should collect together all the gold and emeralds in the universe. For the divinity is not ingenerated either in colours, or figures, or smoothness; but such things as neither ever did, nor are naturally adapted to participate of life, have an allotment more ignoble than that of dead bodies. But the nature which lives and sees, and has the principle of motion from itself, and a knowledge of things appropriate and foreign to its being, has certainly derived an efflux and portion of that wisdom which, as Heraclitus says, considers how both itself and the universe is governed. Hence the divinity is not worse represented in these animals than in the workmanships of copper and stone, which in a similar manner suffer corruption and decay, but are naturally deprived of all sense and consciousness. This then I consider as the best defence that can be given of the adoration of animals by the Egyptians.”
102. Instead of και δικης, I read και μετα δικης.
103. i. e. Should be perfectly impartial.
104. Instead of διπλοτατοις μοναδος as in the original, which is nonsense, it is necessary to read, as in the above translation, απλοτητι της μοναδος.
105. For 2 + 4 + 6 + 8 = 20; and 1 + 3 + 6 + 7 = 16; and 20 + 16 = 36.
106. The cock was sacred to Apollo, and therefore its heart was believed to be the instrument of divination in sacrifices. The chemic Olympiodorus says, “that the cock obscurely signifies the essence of the sun and moon.” See, in the additional notes, what is said by Proclus concerning the cock, in his treatise On Magic.
107. It is well observed by Ficinus, in lib. i. Eunead. ii. Plotin. “that the fire which is enkindled by us is more similar to the heavens than other terrestrial substances. Hence it participates of light, which is something incorporeal, is the most powerful of all things, is as it were vital, is perpetually moved, divides all things, without being itself divided, absorbs all things in itself, and avoids any foreign mixture: and lastly, when the fuel of it is consumed, it suddenly flies back again to the celestial fire, which is every where latent.”
108. For this vehicle is luciform, and consists of pure, immaterial, unburning, and vivific fire. See the fifth book of my translation of Proclus on the Timæus.
109. Proclus in Tim. lib. v. observes concerning the telestic art, or the art which operates through mystic ceremonies, “that, as the oracles teach, it obliterates through divine fire all the stains produced by generation.” Η τελεστικη δια του θειου πυρος αφανιζει τας εκ της γενεσεως απασας κηλιδας, ως τα λογια διδασκει. Hence another Chaldean oracle says, τῳ πυρι γαρ βροτος εμπελασας θεοθεν φαος εξει. i. e. “The mortal who approaches to fire will have a light from divinity.” Hercules, as we also learn from Proclus, was an example of this telestic purification. For he says, Ηρακλης δια τελεστικης καθῃραμενος, και των αχραντων καρπων μετασχων, τελειας ετυχε εις τους θεους αποκαταστασεως, in Plat. Polit. p. 382. i. e. “Hercules being purified through the telestic art, and participating of undefiled fruits, obtained a perfect restoration to the Gods.”
110. In the original, λεγω δε της θειας ψυχης τε και φυσεως, αλλ’ ουχι της περικοσμιου τε και γενεσιουργου. But it appears to me that we should here read, conformably to the above translation, λεγω δε της θειας, ψυχης τε και ψυσεως, αλλ’ ουχι μονου της περικοσμιου τε και γενεσιουργου.
111. These media consist of the order of Gods denominated αρχαι, or rulers, and of those called απολυτοι, or liberated; the former of which also are denominated supermundane, and the latter supercelestial, in consequence of existing immediately above the celestial Gods. See, concerning these media, the sixth book of my translation of Proclus on the Theology of Plato.
112. Proclus on the First Alcibiades observes, “that about every God there is an innumerable multitude of dæmons, who have the same appellations with their leaders. And that these are delighted when they are called by the names of Apollo or Jupiter, because they express in themselves the characteristic peculiarity of their leading Gods.” In the same admirable commentary, also, he says, “that in the most holy of the mysteries [i. e. in the Eleusinian mysteries], prior to the appearance of divinity, the incursions of certain terrestrial dæmons present themselves to the view, alluring the souls of the spectators from undefiled good to matter.”
113. It is beautifully observed by Simplicius on Epictetus, “that as if you take away letters from a sentence, or change them, the form of the sentence no longer remains, thus also in divine works or words, if any thing is deficient, or is changed, or is confused, divine illumination does not take place, but the indolence of him who does this dissolves the power of what is effected.” Ωσπερ γαρ εαν στοιχεια του λογου αφελῃς, ἢ υπαλλαξης, ουκ επιγινεται το του λογου ειδος, ουτω και των θειων εργων ἢ λογων ει ελλειπει τι, ἢ υπηλλακται, ἢ συγκεχυται, ουκ επιγινεται η του θειου ελλαμψις, αλλα και εξυδαροι την των γινομενων δυναμιν η του ποιουντος ραθυμια.
114. Conformably to this, Servius, in his Annotations on the words
in the sixth book of the Æneid observes, “more pontificum, per quos ritu veteri in omnibus sacris post speciales Deos, quos ad ipsum sacrum, quod fiebat necesse erat invocari, generaliter omnia numina invocabantur.” i. e. “This is spoken after the manner of the pontiffs, by whom, according to ancient rites, in all sacrifices, after the appropriate Gods whom it was necessary to invoke to the sacrifice, all the divinities were invoked in general.” And in his Annotations on the seventh of the Æneid he informs us, “that king Œneus offered a sacrifice of first fruits to all the divinities but Diana, who being enraged sent a boar [as a punishment for the neglect].” With respect to this anger, however, of Diana, it is necessary to observe with Proclus, “that the anger of the Gods does not refer any passion to them, but indicates our inaptitude to participate of them.” Ο γαρ των θεων χολος, ουκ εις εκεινας αναπεμπει τι παθος, αλλα την ημων δεικνυσι ανεπιτηδειοτητα της εκεινων μεθεξεως.
115. Plotinus was a man of this description, to whom, most probably, Iamblichus alludes in what he now says.
116. In the original θυμον τινος: but it is doubtless requisite to read with Gale, θεσμον τινος. This I have translated a certain divine legislation, because we are informed by Proclus, in Platon. Theol. lib. iv. p. 206, “that θεσμος is connected with deity, and pertains more to intelligibles; but that νομος, which unfolds intellectual distribution, is adapted to the intellectual fathers.” Ο γαρ θεσμος συμπλεκεται τῳ θεῳ, και προσηκει μαλλον τοις νοητοις ο δε νομος την νοεραν εμφαινων διανομην, οικειος εσι τοις νοεροις πατρασι.
117. “Perhaps,” says Proclus, in MS. Comment, in Parmenid. “it is necessary that, as in souls, natures, and bodies, fabrication does not begin from the imperfect; so likewise in matter, prior to that which is formless, and which has an evanescent being, there is that which is in a certain respect form, and which is beheld in one boundary and permanency.” This, therefore, will be the pure and divine matter of which Iamblichus is now speaking. Damascius also says, that matter is from the same order whence form is derived.
118. This particular respecting the apples of gold is added from the version of Scutellius, who appears to have translated this work from a more perfect manuscript than that which was used by Gale.
119. The conjecture of Gale, that for ἢ το εν Αβυδῳ in this place, we should read ἢ το εν αδυτῳ, is, I have no doubt, right. For the highest order of intelligibles is denominated by Orpheus the adytum, as we are informed by Proclus in Tim. By the arcanum in the adytum, therefore, is meant the deity who subsists at the extremity of the intelligible order (i. e. Phanes); and of whom it is said in the Chaldean Oracles, “that he remains in the paternal profundity, and in the adytum, near to the god-nourished silence.”
120. For εις το φαινομενον και ορφμενον σωμα, I read εις το φερομενον κ. τ. λ.
121. Here too for Αβυδῳ I read αδυτῳ.
122. Conformably to this, Martianus Capella also, in lib. ii. De Nuptiis Philol. &c. speaking of the sun, says, “Ibi quandam navim, totius naturæ cursus diversa cupiditate moderantem, cunctaque flammarum congestione plenissimam, et beatis circumactam mercibus conspicatur. Cui nautæ septem, germani tamen, suique similes præsidebant in prora. Præsidebat in prora felis forma depicta, leonis in arbore, crocodili in extimo.” For these animals, the cat, the lion, and the crocodile were peculiarly sacred to the sun. Martianus adds, “In eadem vero rate, fons quidem lucis æthereæ, arcanisque fluoribus manans, in totius mundi lumina fundebatur.” i. e. “In the same ship there was a fountain of etherial light flowing with arcane streams, which were poured into all the luminaries of the world.” Porphyry, likewise, in his treatise De Antro Nymph. says, “that the Egyptians placed the sun and all dæmons not connected with any thing solid or stable, but raised on a sailing vessel.”
123. In the original παν ζωδιον, which Gale erroneously translates animalia omnia.
124. Of this kind are the following names in Alexand. Trallian. lib. ii. Μευ, Θρευ, Μορ, Φορ, Τευξ, Ζα, Ζων, Θε, Λου, Χρι, Γε, Ζε, Ων, i.e. Meu, Threu, Mor, Phor, Teux, Za, Zōn, The, Lou, Chri, Ge, Ze, Ōn. By these names Alexander Trallianus says, the sun becomes fixed in the heavens. He adds, “Again behold the great name Ιαξ, (lege Ιαω), Αζυφ, Ζυων, Θρευξ, Βαϊν, Χωωκ, i. e. Iaō, Azuph, Zuōn, Threux, Baïn, Chōōk.” Among the Latins, also, Cato, Varro, and Marcellus de Medicamentis Empiricis, there are examples of these names; the power and efficacy of which, as Gale observes, are testified by history, though it is not easy to explain the reason of their operation.
125. Proclus, in commenting on the following words of Plato in the Timæus, (see vol. i. p. 228, of my translation of his Commentary), viz. “Let, therefore, this universe be denominated by us all heaven, or the world, or whatever other appellation it may be especially adapted to receive,” beautifully thus observes concerning the divine name of the world. “As of statues established by the telestic art, some things pertaining to them are manifest, but others are inwardly concealed, being symbolical of the presence of the Gods, and which are only known to the mystic artists themselves; after the same manner, the world being a statue of the intelligible, and perfected by the father, has indeed some things which are visible indications of its divinity; but others, which are the invisible impressions of the participation of being received by it from the father, who gave it perfection, in order that through these it may be eternally rooted in real being. Heaven, indeed, and the world are names significant of the powers in the universe; the latter, so far as it proceeds from the intelligible; but the former, so far as it is converted to it. It is, however, necessary to know that the divine name of its abiding power, and which is a symbol of the impression of the Demiurgus, according to which it does not proceed out of being, is ineffable and arcane, and known only to the Gods themselves. For there are names adapted to every order of things; those, indeed, that are adapted to divine natures being divine, to the objects of dianoia being dianoetic, and to the objects of opinion doxastic. This also Plato says in the Cratylus, where he embraces what is asserted by Homer on this subject, who admits that names of the same things are with the Gods different from those that subsist in the opinions of men,
And,
And in a similar manner in many other names. For as the knowledge of the Gods is different from that of partial souls, thus also the names of the one are different from those of the other; since divine names unfold the whole essence of the things named, but those of men only partially come into contact with them. Plato, therefore, knowing that this preexisted in the world, omits the divine and ineffable name itself, which is different from the apparent name, and with the greatest caution introduces it as a symbol of the divine impression which the world contains. For the words, “or whatever other appellation” and “it may receive” are a latent hymn of the mundane name, as ineffable, and as allotted a divine essence, in order that it may be coordinate to what is signified by it. Hence, also, divine mundane names are delivered by Theurgists; some of which are called by them ineffable, but others effable; and some being significant of the invisible powers in the world, but others of the visible elements from which it derives its completion. Through these causes, therefore, as hypotheses, the mundane form, the demiurgic cause and paradigm, and the apparent and unapparent name of the world are delivered. And the former name, indeed, is dyadic, but the latter monadic. For the words “whatever other” are significant of oneness. You may also consider the ineffable name of the universe as significant of its abiding in the father; but the name world, as indicative of its progression; and heaven of its conversion. But through the three, you have the final cause, on account of which it is full of good; abiding ineffably, proceeding perfectly, and converting itself to the good as the antecedent object of desire.”
126. See the additional notes at the end of vol. v. of my translation of Plato, where many of these names are beautifully unfolded from the MS. Scholia of Proclus on the Cratylus.
127. See the additional notes at the end of vol. v. of my translation of Plato, and also the notes to my translation of Aristotle de Interpretatione, in which the reader will find a treasury of recondite information concerning names, from Proclus and Ammonius.
128. Most historians give the palm of antiquity to the Egyptians. And Lucian, in lib. De Syria Dea, says, “that the Egyptians are said to be the first among men that had a conception of the Gods, and a knowledge of sacred concerns.——They were also the first that had a knowledge of sacred names.” Αιγυπτιοι πρωτοι ανθρωπων λεγονται θεων τε εννοιην λαβειν και ιρα εισασθαι——πρωτοι δε και ονοματα ιρα εγνωσαν. Conformably to this, also, an oracle of Apollo, quoted by Eusebius, says that the Egyptians were the first that disclosed by infinite actions the path that leads to the Gods. This oracle is as follows:
For Εβραιων in this oracle I read Χαλδαιων, because I have no doubt that either Aristobulus the Jew, well known for interpolating the writings of the Heathens, or the wicked Eusebius as he is called by the Emperor Julian, have fraudulently substituted the former word for the latter.
129. Prayers of this kind are such as those of which Proclus speaks in Tim. p. 65, when he says, “The cathartic prayer is that which is offered for the purpose of averting diseases originating from pestilence, and other contagious distempers, such as we have written in our temples.” Καθαρτικαι δε (ευχαἰ, επι αποτροπαις λοιμικων νοσημοτων, ἢ παντοιων μολυσμων’ οιας δε και εν τοις ιεροις εχομεν αναγεγραμμενας.
130. Porphyry, in lib. ii. De Abstinentia, mentions Seleucus the theologist, and Suidas says that Seleucus the Alexandrian wrote 100 books concerning the Gods.
131. These books (βιβλοι) were most probably nothing more than short discourses, such as the treatises now are which are circulated as written by Hermes, and which, as Iamblichus informs us, contain Hermaic doctrines.
132. A great priest, a scribe of the Adyta in Egypt, by birth a Sebanite, and an inhabitant of Heliopolis, as he relates of himself.
133. In the original, πρωτος και του πρωτου θεου και βασιλεως, which Gale translates, prior etiam primo Deo, et rege [sole]. But the addition of sole in his translation is obviously most unappropriate and false: for Iamblichus is evidently speaking of a deity much superior to the sun.
134. For Ημηφ here, Gale conjectures that we should read Κνηφ Kneph: for Plutarch says that the unbegotten Kneph was celebrated with an extraordinary degree of veneration by the Egyptian Thebans.
135. Hence the moon is said by Proclus to be αυτοπτον της φυσεως αγαλμα, the self-visible statue or image of nature.
136. Proclus in Tim. p. 117, cites what is here said as the doctrine of the Egyptians, and also cites for it the authority of Iamblichus. But his words are, και μην και η των Αιγυπτιων παραδοσις τα αυτα περι αυτης (της υλης) φησιν. ο γε τοι θειος Ιαμβλιχος ιστορησεν οτι και Ερμης εκ της ουσιοτητος την υλοτητα παραγεσθαι βουλεται., i. e. “Moreover the doctrine of the Egyptians asserts the same things concerning matter. For the divine Iamblichus relates that Hermes also produces matter from essentiality.”
137. This is most probably the Chæremon who is said by Porphyry, in lib. iv. De Abstinentia, “to be a lover of truth, an accurate writer, and very conversant with the Stoic philosophy.” Τοιαυτα μεν τα κατ’ Αιγυπτιους υπ’ ανδρος φιλαληθους τε και ακριβους, εντε τοις Στωϊκοις πραγματικωτατα φιλοσοφησαντος μεμαρτυρημενα.
138. This was the ninth king in the twenty-sixth dynasty of the Saitan kings.
139. This city is mentioned by Plato in the Timæus, who represents Critias as saying “that there is a certain region of Egypt, called Delta, about the summit of which the streams of the Nile are divided, and in which there is a province called Saitical.” He adds, “of this province the greatest city is Saïs, from which also King Amasis derived his origin. The city has a presiding divinity, whose name is, in the Egyptian tongue, Neith, but in the Greek Athena, or Minerva.” It is singular that Gale, who is not deficient in philology, though but a smatterer in philosophy, should have omitted to remark in his notes this passage of Plato.
140. Proclus, in MS. Comment, in Alcibiad. cites one of the Chaldean oracles, which says,
i. e. “There is a transmitting name which leaps into the infinite worlds.” And in his MS. Scholia in Cratyl. he quotes another of these oracles, viz.
i. e. “There is a venerable name with a sleepless revolution, leaping into the worlds through the rapid reproofs of the father.”
141. For εχεται in this place, I read περιεχεται.
142. Gale, in his translation of this part, has entirely mistaken the meaning of Iamblichus, which he frequently does in other places. For the words of Iamblichus are, οταν γαρ δη τα βελτιονα των εν ημιν ενεργῃ, και προς τα κρειττονα αναγεται αυτης η ψυχη; and the version of Gale is “quando enim pars nostri melior operari incipiat, et ad sui portionem meliorem recolligatur anima.” For τα κρειττονα is not the better part of the soul; but when the better parts of the soul energize, the soul is then intimately converted to itself, and through this conversion is elevated to superior natures.
143. Viz. The science of calculating nativities.
144. i. e. The joint risings and settings.
145. i. e. Through a period of 300,000 years; and Procl. in Tim. lib. iv. p. 277, informs us that the Chaldeans had observations of the stars which embraced whole mundane periods. What Proclus likewise asserts of the Chaldeans is confirmed by Cicero in his first book on Divination, who says that they had records of the stars for the space of 370,000 years; and by Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. lib. xi. p. 118, who says that their observations comprehended the space of 473,000 years.
146. “We say,” says Hephestion, “that a star is the lord of the geniture, which has five conditions of the lord of the nativity in the horoscope; viz. if that star receives the luminaries in their proper boundaries, in their proper house, in their proper altitude, and in the proper triangle.” He also adds, “and if besides it has contact, effluxion, and configuration.” See likewise Porphyry in Ptolemæum, p. 191.
147. According to the Egyptians every one received his proper dæmon at the hour of his birth; nor did they ascend any higher, in order to obtain a knowledge of it. For they alone considered the horoscope. See Porphyry apud Stobæum, p. 201, and Hermes in Revolut. cap. iv.
148. In the original ενταυθα δε ουν και η της αληθειας παρεστι θεα, και η της νοερας επιστημης. But instead of η της νοερας απιστημης, which appears to me to be defective, I read η κτησις της νοερας επιστημης.