Page [9]. Hermes the God who presides over language. The Egyptians celebrated two Hermes, the former of which is here signified by Iamblichus. This deity is the source of invention, and hence he is said to be the son of Maia; because search, which is implied by Maia, leads invention into light. He bestows too mathesis on souls, by unfolding the will of his father Jupiter; and this he accomplishes as the angel or messenger of Jupiter. Proclus in MS. Comment. in Alcibiad. observes, “that this deity is the inspective guardian of gymnastic exercises; and hence hermæ, or carved statues of Mercury, were placed in the Palæstræ; of music, and hence he is honoured as the lyrist λυραιος among the celestial constellations; and of disciplines, because the invention of geometry, reasoning, and discourse is referred to this God. He presides, therefore, over every species of erudition, leading us to an intelligible essence from this mortal abode, governing the different herds of souls, and dispersing the sleep and oblivion with which they are oppressed. He is likewise the supplier of recollection, the end of which is a genuine intellectual apprehension of divine natures.”
P. [10]. The ancient pillars of Hermes. These pillars, according to Amm. Marcellinus, lib. xxii. were concealed prior to the deluge in certain caverns, which were called συριγγες, syringes, not far from the Egyptian Thebes. The second Hermes interpreted these pillars, and his interpretation formed many volumes, as Iamblichus informs us in Section viii. of this work. These pillars are mentioned by Laertius in his Life of Democritus; by Dio Chrysostom in Orat. 49; by Achilles Tatius on Aratus; and by others of the ancients.
P. [15]. There is, therefore, the good itself which is beyond essence, and there is that good which subsists according to essence. There are three orders of good; viz. that which is imparticipable and superessential; that which is imparticipable and essential; and that which is essential and participable. Of these, the last is such as our nature contains; the good which ranks among forms is essential; and that which is beyond essence is superessential. Or we say that the good which subsists in us may be considered as a habit, in consequence of subsisting in a subject; the next to this ranks as essence, and a part of essence, I mean the good which ranks among forms; and the good which is beyond essence, is neither a habit, nor a part. With respect to the good, also, which subsists according to essence, it must be observed, that since forms are twofold, some alone distinguishing the essences of the things fashioned by form, but others their perfections, the genus of essence, same and different, and the form of animal, horse, and man, and every thing of this kind, give distinction to essence and subjects; but the form of the good, the beautiful, and the just, and in like manner the form of virtue, of health, strength, and every thing of a similar nature, are perfective of the beings to which they belong: and of some, essence is the leader, but of others the good. For, as Plato says, every thing except the one, must necessarily participate of essence; and whatever preserves, gives perfection to, or defends any being, must be good. Hence, since these two are leaders, the one of forms which give subsistence to things, and the other of such as are the sources of their perfection; it is necessary that one of these should be subordinate to the other; I mean that the good which is allotted a coordination among forms that are the sources of perfection, should be subordinate to essence, which ranks among causes, whence subsistence originates, if the good is being, and a certain being. For it is either the same with, or different from, essence, which the Elean guest or stranger in the Sophista of Plato shows to be the genus of being. And if the good is the same with essence, an absurdity must ensue: for being and well-being are not the same. But if the good is something different from essence, it must necessarily participate of essence, in consequence of essence being the genus of all forms. But if genera are more ancient than forms, the good which ranks among forms, and is posterior to their genus, will not be the superessential good which reigns over intelligibles; but this must be asserted of that good, under which this and every form is arranged, which possesses being, and which is the leader of the other genera of being.
P. [15]. But the other medium, which is suspended from the Gods, though it is far inferior to them, is that of dæmons. In addition to what is said in this work by Iamblichus concerning dæmons, the following information about them from Olympiodorus, in his MS. Scholia on the Phædo of Plato, is well worthy the attention of the philosophical reader:
“Since there are in the universe things which subsist differently at different times, and since there are also natures which are conjoined with the superessential unities, it is necessary that there should be a certain middle genus, which is neither immediately suspended from deity, nor subsists differently at different times, according to better and worse, but which is always perfect, and does not depart from its proper virtue; and is immutable indeed, but is not conjoined with the superessential [which is the characteristic of deity]. The whole of this genus is dæmoniacal. There are, also, different genera of dæmons: for they are placed under the mundane Gods. The highest of these subsists according to the one of the Gods, and is called an unific and divine genus of dæmons. The next subsists according to the intellect which is suspended from deity, and is called intellectual. The third subsists according to soul, and is called rational. The fourth, according to nature, and is denominated physical. The fifth according to body, which is called corporeal-formed. And the sixth according to matter, and this is denominated material.” Olympiodorus adds, “or after another manner it may be said, that some of these are celestial, others etherial, others aerial, others aquatic, others terrestrial, and others subterranean. With respect to this division also, it is evident that it is derived from the parts of the universe. But irrational dæmons originate from the aerial governors, whence, also, the Chaldean Oracle says,
Ηεριων ελατηρα κυνων χθονιων τε και υγρων.
i. e. being the charioteer of the aerial, terrestrial, and aquatic dogs.” Our guardian dæmons, however, belong to that order of dæmons which is arranged under the Gods that preside over the ascent and descent of souls. For a more copious account of dæmons see the notes on the First Alcibiades in vol. i. of my translation of Plato.
P. [22]. One and the best solution will be obtained by surveying the mode of divine allotment.
The manner in which divine allotments subsist is admirably unfolded by Proclus in Tim. p. [43], as follows: “Since, according to a division of the universe into two parts, we have distributed allotments into the celestial and sublunary, there can be no doubt what the former are, and whether they possess an invariable sameness of subsistence. But the sublunary allotments are deservedly a subject of admiration, whether they are said to be perpetual or not. For since all things in generation are continually changing and flowing, how can the allotments of the providential rulers of them be said to be perpetual? For things in generation are not perpetual. But if their allotments are not perpetual, how is it possible to suppose that divine government can subsist differently at different times? For an allotment is neither a certain separate energy of the Gods, so that sublunary natures changing, we might say that it is exempt, and remains immutable, nor is it that which is governed alone, so that no absurdity would follow from admitting that an allotment is in a flowing condition, and is conversant with all-various mutations; but it is a providential inspection, and unrestrained government of divinity over sublunary concerns. Such being the doubts with which this subject is attended, the following appears to be a solution of the difficulty.
“We must say, then, that it is not proper to consider all the natures that are in generation, and generation itself, as alone consisting of things mutable and flowing, but that there is also something immutable in these, and which is naturally adapted to remain perpetually the same. For the interval which receives and comprehends in itself all the parts of the world, and which has an arrangement through all bodies, is immoveable, lest, being moved, it should require another place, and thus should proceed from one receptacle to another, ad infinitum. The etherial vehicles, also, of divine souls, with which they are circularly invested, and which imitate the lives in the heavens, have a perpetual essence, and are eternally suspended from these divine souls themselves, being full of prolific powers, and performing a circular motion, according to a certain secondary revolution of the celestial orbs. And, in the third place, the wholeness (ολοτης) of the elements has a permanent subsistence, though the parts are all-variously corrupted. For it is necessary that every form in the universe should be never failing, in order that the universe may be perfect, and that, being generated from an immoveable cause, it may be immoveable in its essence. But every wholeness is a form, or rather it is that which it is said to be through the participation of one all perfect form.