PORPHYRY
LETTER to ANEBO

[Answered by Iamblichus:  Egyptian Mysteries (1-4;  10)]

ΠΟΡΦΥΡΙΟΥ Η ΠΡΟΣ ΑΝΕΒΩ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ

1. To begin, let us divide the problems now proposed according to the number and nature of their species, and let us examine in detail from which divine theologies the questions have arisen, and let us expound them. according to her doctrines which you have taken into account in your investigation.

[1] Ἐν ἀρχῇ δὴ διελώμεθα τὰ γένη πόσα τέ ἐστι καὶ ὁποῖα τῶν νυνὶ προκειμένων προβλημάτων, ἀπὸ τίνων τε εἴληπται θείων θεολογιῶν .. τὰ ἀπορήματα διέλθωμεν, καὶ κατὰ ποίας τινὰς ἐπιστήμας ἐπιζητεῖται τὴν πρόθεσιν αὐτῶν ποιησώμεθα.

Therefore, some [of your questions] confuse different subjects and therefore require a precise distinction; others concern the cause by which everything not only exists as it is, but is also intuited in this way; others, formulated by you according to the principle of contradiction, lend themselves to opposite interpretations; and finally there are some which require me to explain to you the entire mysterious doctrine.

τὰ μὲν οὖν ἐπιποθεῖ διάκρισίν τινα τῶν κακῶς συγκεχυμένων, τὰ δ' ἐστὶ περὶ τὴν αἰτίαν δι' ἣν ἕκαστά ἐστί τε οὑτωσὶ καὶ νοεῖται, τὰ δ' ἐπ' ἄμφω τὴν γνώμην ἕλκει κατ' ἐναντίωσίν τινα προβαλλόμενα· ἔνια δὲ τὴν ὅλην ἀπαιτεῖ παρ' ἡμῶν μυσταγωγίαν.

As such, [your questions] have been taken from many sides and from different doctrines: some, in fact, adduce support drawn from the teachings handed down by the Chaldean sages; others raise objections derived from the doctrines of the Egyptian prophets; some, then, closely following the speculation of the philosophers, ask questions in agreement with them. Furthermore, certain [questions of yours], drawn from other opinions, certainly not worthy of mention, raise inappropriate doubts, while others arise from the common prejudices of men. Therefore, not only do they present themselves individually in various ways, but they have also been connected with one another in many ways, so that for all these reasons they require a discussion that can properly organize them.

τοιαῦτα δὲ ὄντα πολλαχόθεν εἴληπται καὶ ἀπὸ διαφερουσῶν ἐπιστημῶν· τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἀφ' ὧν οἱ Χαλδαίων σοφοὶ παραδεδώκασι τὰς ἐπιστάσεις προσάγει, τὰ δ' ἀφ' ὧν Αἰγυπτίων οἱ προφῆται διδάσκουσι ποιεῖται τὰς ἀντιλήψεις, ἔνια δὲ καὶ τῆς τῶν φιλοσόφων θεωρίας ἐχόμενα τὰς ἐρωτήσεις ἑπομένως αὐτοῖς ποιεῖται. ἤδη δέ τινα καὶ ἀπ' ἄλλων οὐκ ἀξίων λόγου δοξασμάτων ἐφέλκεταί τινα ἀπρεπῆ διαμφισβήτησιν, τὰ δ' ἀπὸ τῶν κοινῶν ὑπολήψεων παρ' ἀνθρώποις ὥρμηται. αὐτά τε οὖν καθ' ἑαυτὰ ἕκαστα ποικίλως διάκειται καὶ πρὸς ἄλληλα πολυειδῶς συνήρμοσται, ὅθεν δὴ διὰ πάντα ταῦτα λόγου τινός ἐστιν ἐπιδεῆ τοῦ κατευθύνοντος αὐτὰ προσηκόντως.

1.I will begin my friendship for you from the gods, from the good demons and from the philosophical research related to them: there have been many hypotheses theses also advanced by Greek philosophers, but most of the time they derive the fundamental principles of [their] trustworthiness are beyond conjecture.

   "Ἄρξομαι δὲ τῆς πρὸς σὲ φιλίας ἀπὸ θεῶν καὶ δαιμόνων ἀγαθῶν" "τῶν τε τούτοις συγγενῶν φιλοσοφημάτων, περὶ ὧν εἴρηται μὲν πλεῖστα" "καὶ παρὰ τοῖς Ἑλλήνων φιλοσόφοις, εἴρηται δὲ ἐκ στοχασμοῦ τὸ πλέον" "τὰς ἀρχὰς ἔχοντα τῆς πίστεως."

First, then, you claim to admit that gods exist.

[1b]    Φῂς τοίνυν πρῶτον διδόναι εἶναι θεούς.

The same reasoning can also be applied to the higher types who accompany the gods, I mean the demons, the heroes and pure souls.

   Ὁ δὲ αὐτός ἐστί μοι λόγος πρὸς σὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν συνεπομένων θεοῖς κρειττόνων γενῶν, δαιμόνων, φημί, καὶ ἡρώων καὶ ψυχῶν ἀχράντων.

And as for your questions about the properties by which each of the higher species differs from the others, in asking by what properties, you have referred only to the properties of energies: therefore you ask about the difference between the higher species starting from the lowest elements, while you have left unexplored what is primary and most important: namely elements of differentiation.

[1c]    Ἃ δ' ἐπιζητεῖς ἰδιώματα τίνα ἐστὶν ἑκάστῳ τῶν κρειττόνων γενῶν, οἷς κεχώρισται ἀπ' ἀλλήλων, ὡς δὲ νῦν ἠρώτησας "τίσιν ἰδιώμασι" ‹τὰ τῶν› ἐνεργειῶν μόνον εἴρηκας, ἐπὶ τῶν τελευταίων ἄρα τὸ διάφορον ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐπιζητεῖς, τὰ δὲ πρώτιστα αὐτῶν καὶ τιμιώτατα, ὡσπερεὶ στοιχεῖα τῆς παραλλαγῆς, ἀφῆκας ἀδιερεύνητα.

Moreover, precisely here the notion of active or passive movements is introduced, which has no classification at all suitable for distinguishing the higher species. Even what you add or of accidents is equally foreign to them.

πρόσκειται δὲ δὴ αὐτόθι καὶ τὸ τῶν δραστικῶν ἢ παθητικῶν κινήσεων, ἥκιστα προσήκουσαν ἔχον διαίρεσιν εἰς διαφορὰν τῶν κρειττόνων γενῶν. ἔτι τοίνυν ἀλλοτρίως αὐτῶν κἀκεῖνο τὸ "ἢ τῶν παρεπομένων" προστίθεται.

2a. We certainly do not admit the distinction between them proposed by you, which states that the cause of the difference just requested is the assignment to different bodies, that is, the assignment of the gods to ethereal bodies, that of the daemons to aerial bodies, that of the <cosmic> souls to terrestrial bodies.

[2a]    Οὐ μέντοι τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ διάκρισιν ὑποτεινομένην αὐτῶν προσιέμεθα, ἥτις τὴν πρὸς τὰ διαφέροντα σώματα κατάταξιν, οἷον θεῶν μὲν πρὸς τὰ αἰθέρια, δαιμόνων δὲ πρὸς τὰ ἀέρια, ψυχῶν δὲ τῶν περι‹κοσμίων πρὸς τὰ περὶ› γῆν, αἰτίαν εἶναί φησι τῆς νυνὶ ζητουμένης διαστάσεως.

2b. Why, since the gods dwell only in heaven, are there invocations to the terrestrial and subterranean gods in theurgic ceremonies?

[2b]    Διὰ τί, ἐν οὐρανῷ κατοικούντων τῶν θεῶν μόνως, χθονίων καὶ ὑποχθονίων εἰσὶ παρὰ τοῖς θεουργικοῖς κλήσεις;

But how is it that some are called aquatic and aerial, and have been allotted one place, another another, and have chosen limited parts of bodies, although they have an infinite, indivisible, and unlimited power? And how will their mutual union be possible, since they are separated by fixed limits of parts and are distinguished by the diversity of places and of the bodies subjected to them?

   Ἀλλὰ πῶς ἐνύδριοί τινες λέγονται καὶ ἀέριοι, τόπους τε διειλήχασιν ἄλλοι ἄλλους, καὶ σωμάτων μοίρας διακληρώσαντο κατὰ περιγραφήν, καίτοι δύναμιν ἄπειρον ἔχοντες καὶ ἀμέριστον καὶ ἀπερίληπτον; πῶς τε αὐτῶν ἔσται ἡ ἕνωσις πρὸς ἀλλήλους, μερῶν μερισταῖς περιγραφαῖς διειργομένων, καὶ καθ' ἑτερότητα τῶν τόπων καὶ τῶν ὑποκειμένων σωμάτων διειλημμένων;

 And after this, proposing to yourself a second division, distinguish the essences of the higher species, taking as the element of differentiation passibility and impassibility.

[2c]    Μετὰ ταύτην δὲ αὖθις ὑποτείνας σαυτῷ διαίρεσιν ἑτέραν, τῇ τοῦ ἐμπαθοῦς καὶ ἀπαθοῦς διαφορᾷ χωρίζεις τῶν κρειττόνων τὰς οὐσίας.

But if some [of the gods] are impassible, others passible, in honor of whom they say that through these phalluses stand erect and shameful deeds are done, then the prayers to the gods, the invocations addressed to them, the propitiations of [their] anger will be in vain, and the expiatory rites, and even more [vain will be] the so-called necessities of the gods. For the impassive [is] inflexible, inviolable and not subject to any violence. 

   "Εἰ δὲ οἱ μὲν ἀπαθεῖς, οἱ δὲ ἐμπαθεῖς, οἷς διὰ τούτων φαλλούς φασιν" "ἑστάναι καὶ ποιεῖσθαι αἰσχρορρημοσύνας, μάταιαι αἱ θεῶν κλήσεις" "ἔσονται, προσκλήσεις αὐτῶν ἐπαγγελλόμεναι καὶ μήνιδος ἐξιλάσεις καὶ" "ἐκθύσεις, καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον αἱ λεγόμεναι ἀνάγκαι θεῶν. ἀκήλητον γὰρ" "καὶ ἀβίαστον καὶ ἀκατανάγκαστον τὸ ἀπαθές."

3 After this, you move on to another distinction, opposing the gods to the daemons: for you maintain that the gods are pure noes, advancing this opinion as a hypothesis or presenting it as held by some [philosophers], affirming on the other hand that the daemons are animated participants in the nous.

[3a]    Μετὰ δὲ ταύτην ἐπ' ἄλλην μεταβαίνεις ἀντιδιαίρεσιν θεῶν πρὸς δαίμονας· λέγεις γὰρ θεοὺς εἶναι νόας καθαρούς, ὡς ἐν ὑποθέσει προτείνων τὴν δόξαν ἢ ὥς τισιν ἀρέσκουσαν αὐτὴν ἀφηγούμενος, νοῦ δὲ μετόχους ψυχικοὺς ὄντας τοὺς δαίμονας ἀπολογιζόμενος.

The doubts which you raise concerning this [distinction between gods  and demons], since they concern sacred worship, let them be treated with due discussion. For after having said that pure intelligences [that is: the gods] are not subject to influence and mixture with sensible elements, you ask whether prayers should be addressed to them.

[3b]    Ἃ δὲ καὶ πρὸς ταύτην ἀπορεῖς, ἐπείπερ ἅπτεται τῆς ἱερατικῆς θεραπείας, λόγου τυγχανέτω τοῦ προσήκοντος. ἔτι γὰρ μᾶλλον ἀκλίτους καὶ ἀμιγεῖς αἰσθητοῖς εἰπὼν εἶναι τοὺς καθαροὺς νόας, ἀπορεῖς εἰ δεῖ πρὸς αὐτοὺς εὔχεσθαι.

 If then it seems incredible to you how the incorporeal [that is: the god who is incorporeal] can hear the voice [of the one who prays] and [you believe] that what is said by us in prayers will require the sense of hearing, you too easily forget the superiority of the first causes in knowing and containing in itself everything that is subject to them.

   Εἰ δέ σοι ἄπιστον εἶναι καταφαίνεται, πῶς φωνῆς ἀκούει τὸ ἀσώματον καὶ ὡς αἰσθήσεως προσδεήσεται καὶ [δι'] ὤτων τὰ λεγόμενα ἀφ' ἡμῶν ἐν ταῖς εὐχαῖς, ἑκὼν ἐπιλανθάνῃ τῆς τῶν πρώτων αἰτίων περιουσίας ἔν τε τῷ εἰδέναι καὶ τῷ περιέχειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς τὰ ὑφ' ἑαυτῶν πάντα.

 This distinction is followed in your letter by another, in which you attempt to distinguish the gods from the demons starting from the criterion of corporeality and incorporeality.

[3c]    Ἔχεται δὲ ταύτης ἐν τοῖς σοῖς γράμμασιν ἡ σώματι καὶ ἀσωματίᾳ θεοὺς δαιμόνων χωρίζουσα.

 How, in fact, you say, will the sun, the moon and the celestial bodies be gods, if only the gods are incorporeal?

   Πῶς γὰρ δὴ ἥλιός τε καὶ σελήνη κατὰ τὸν σὸν λόγον καὶ οἱ ἐν οὐρανῷ ἐμφανεῖς ἔσονται θεοί, εἰ ἀσώματοί εἰσι μόνως οἱ θεοί;

 In your next question you raise the doubt as to how some of these [divine celestial bodies] are beneficial while others work evil.

   Ἡ δ' ἑξῆς ἐπιζήτησις ἡ σὴ διαπορεῖ, πῶς αὐτῶν οἱ μέν εἰσιν ἀγαθοποιοί, οἱ δὲ κακοποιοί.

 Come now, let us answer your question too: what do you think  unites the celestial gods endowed with a body with the incorporeal gods.

[3d]    Ἴθι δὴ οὖν κἀκεῖνο ἀποκρινώμεθα, τί τὸ συνάπτον ἐστὶ πρὸς τοῖς ἀσωμάτοις θεοῖς τοὺς ἔχοντας σῶμα ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ.

 For your question is: What differentiates the (invisible) daemons from the visible and invisible [i.e., intelligible] gods, since the visible gods are united with the invisible ones?

[3e]    Ἀπορεῖς γὰρ δὴ τί τὸ διακρῖνόν ἐστι τοὺς δαίμονας ‹ἀφανεῖς μὲν› ἀπό τε τῶν ἐμφανῶν καὶ τῶν ἀφανῶν θεῶν [ἀφανεῖς μέν], συνημμένων δὲ τῶν ἐμφανῶν θεῶν τοῖς ἀφανέσιν.

 It is then necessary that it be made clear to you how the daemon differs from the hero and the [human] soul, in essence or in power or in energy (action) .

   Δεῖ δὲ δὴ καὶ τοῦτο προσαποδειχθῆναί σοι, δαίμων ἥρωος καὶ ψυχῆς τίνι κατ' οὐσίαν διαφέρει ἢ κατὰ δύναμιν ἢ ἐνέργειαν.

You ask what distinguishes the appearance of a god or an angel or an archangel or an archon or a soul.  

[4a]    Ἐπιζητεῖς γάρ, τί τὸ γνώρισμα θεοῦ παρουσίας ἢ ἀγγέλου ἢ ἀρχαγγέλου ἢ δαίμονος ἤ τινος ἄρχοντος ἢ ψυχῆς.

 You say in fact that boasting and appearing with false images made in a certain way is common to gods, demons and all higher species.

[4b]    Λέγεις μὲν γὰρ τὸ περιαυτολογεῖν καὶ τὸ ποιὸν φάντασμα φαντάζειν, κοινὸν εἶναι θεοῖς καὶ δαίμοσι καὶ τοῖς κρείττοσι γένεσι ἅπασι.

 Your subsequent questions, in which you have held ignorance and deception concerning divine things to be a source of impiety  and impurity, and in which you exhort us to the true explanation of them, are beyond doubt, but are equally accepted by all. For who would not admit that the science which investigates being is most suited to the divine principle, while ignorance, which is drawn to non-being, remains furthest from the divine cause of true ideas? But since this has not been sufficiently said, I will add what remains; and since your defense is made rather with philosophical and logical arguments and not based on the efficient art of theurgists, for this reason I believe that this should be discussed from a more theurgical point of view.

[5]    Τὰ δ' ἐφεξῆς ἐν οἷς τὴν περὶ τούτων ἄγνοιαν καὶ ἀπάτην ἀνοσιουργίαν καὶ ἀκαθαρσίαν νενόμικας, προτρέπεις τε ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ τὴν ἀληθῆ περὶ αὐτῶν παράδοσιν, ἔχει μὲν οὐδεμίαν ἀμφισβήτησιν, ἀλλ' ὁμολογεῖται παρὰ πᾶσιν ὡσαύτως. τίς γὰρ οὐκ ἂν συγχωρήσειεν ἐπιστήμην τυγχάνουσαν τοῦ ὄντος οἰκειοτάτην εἶναι τῆς θείας αἰτίας [θεοῖς], τὴν δὲ ἄγνοιαν τὴν ὑποφερομένην εἰς τὸ μὴ ὂν πορρωτάτω τῆς θείας αἰτίας τῶν ἀληθῶν εἰδῶν ἀποπίπτειν; ἀλλ' ἐπεὶ οὐχ ἱκανῶς εἴρηται προσθήσω τὸ ἐλλεῖπον· καὶ διότι φιλοσόφως μᾶλλον καὶ λογικῶς ἀλλ' οὐχὶ κατὰ τὴν ἔνεργον τῶν ἱερέων τέχνην τὸν ἀπολογισμὸν ποιεῖται, διὰ τοῦτο οἶμαι δεῖν θεουργικώτερον εἰπεῖν τι περὶ αὐτῶν.

The same is true also of that opinion of yours, according to which you have held that the knowledge of the gods is sacred and useful, and you call ignorance of venerable and lofty things darkness, and wisdom light, and you hold that the one [i.e., ignorance] fills men with all evils because of inexperience and temerity, while you consider the other [i.e., wisdom] the cause of all good. 

   Τῆς δὲ αὐτῆς ἔχεται τούτοις δυνάμεως κἀκεῖνα, ἐν οἷς ὅσιον καὶ ὠφέλιμον εἶναι νενόμικας τὴν περὶ θεῶν ἐπιστήμην, καὶ τὸ μὲν τῆς ἀγνοίας τῆς περὶ τῶν τιμίων καὶ καλῶν σκότος καλεῖς, φῶς δὲ τὸ τῆς γνώσεως, καὶ τὸ μὲν ἐμπλῆσαι τίθεσαι πάντων κακῶν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους δι' ἀμαθίαν καὶ τόλμαν, τὸ δ' αἴτιον ἡγῇ πάντων ἀγαθῶν.

 2. First, therefore, ask that what happens in foreknowledge of the future be explained to you. This, therefore, must be, in our opinion, the fundamental principle, starting from which all forms of it can also be scientifically investigated; let us now address this, following the questions you raised.

2.1a Πρῶτον τοίνυν ἀπαιτεῖς διαρθρωθῆναί σοι τί τὸ γιγνόμενόν ἐστιν ἐν τῇ τοῦ μέλλοντος προγνώσει. Ἀρχὴ μὲν οὖν ἡμῖν ἔστω ἡ τοιαύτη κοινῶς περὶ πάσης τῆς μαν τικῆς͵ ἀφ΄ ἧς ἔνεστι καὶ τὰ εἴδη πάντα αὐτῆς ἐπιστημονικῶς ἐξευρεῖν· ἤδη δὲ αὐτῶν ἀντιλαμβανώμεθα ἑπόμενοι τοῖς ὑπὸ σοῦ προτεινομένοις

 2a..Now, these, concerning divination during sleep, say that, while asleep, we have knowledge of the future through dreams, although we are not in an ecstasy accompanied by strong movement (for the body lies still), yet we never know it as we do when we are awake.

2.2a ἐρωτήμασι. περὶ δὴ τῆς καθ΄ ὕπνον μαντικῆς λέγει ταῦτα͵ ὅτι δὴ καθεύ δοντες δι΄ ὀνείρων τοῖς μέλλουσι πολλάκις ἐπιβάλλομεν οὐκ ἐν ἐκστάσει μὲν γιγνόμενοι πολυκινήτῳ (ἥσυχον γὰρ κεῖται τὸ σῶμα)͵ αὐτοῖς μέντοι δὲ ὡς ὕπαρ οὐκέτι παρακολουθοῦντες.

 b You also say that many know the future in a state of ecstasy or divine possession, remaining awake, so as to retain possession of their senses, but without being masters of themselves or at least not as before.

2.2b Φῂς δὲ δὴ ὡς ἐπιβάλλουσι καὶ δι΄ ἐνθουσιασμοῦ καὶ θεοφορίας πολλοὶ τῷ μέλλοντι͵ ἐγρηγορότες μὲν ὡς ἐνεργεῖν καὶ κατ΄ αἴσθησιν͵ αὑτοῖς δὲ πάλιν οὐ παρακολουθοῦντες ἢ οὔτι γε ὡς πρότερον [παρακο λουθοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς].

 c The statements you make after these are the following: some of the possessed are in this state of év&ovaLuaµós by listening to flutes or cymbals or timpani or a certain melody, such as those who are in Corybantic ecstasy, those inspired by Sabazius and those initiated into the Great Mother [Cybele].

2.2c Ἃ δὲ λέγεις ἐπὶ τούτοις ἐστὶ ταῦτα· ὡς τῶν ἐξισταμένων ἔνιοί τινες αὐλῶν ἀκούοντες ἢ κυμβάλων ἢ τυμπάνων ἢ τίνος μέλους ἐν θουσιῶσιν͵ ὡς οἵ τε κορυβαντιζόμενοι καὶ οἱ τῷ Σαβαζίῳ κάτοχοι καὶ οἱ μητρίζοντες.

d Another kind is the prophetic inspiration of oracles, well known, most evident, and manifold, about which your letter says: some predict the future after drinking a certain water, like the priest of Clarius at Colophon; others predict the future while sitting at the mouth of caves, like the priestesses who prophesy at Delphi; others predict the future by inhaling the vapors that emanate from certain waters, like the prophetesses of Branchides. You mentioned these three oracles explicitly by their proper names, not because they were the only ones of this kind (for you omitted many more), but because they excelled all the others, and at the same time you succeeded in explaining sufficiently with them what you wanted to be investigated, I mean, the mode of prediction sent by the gods to men. 

2.2d Ἕτερον δὲ τὸ τῶν κρηστηρίων διαβόητον καὶ ἐναργέστατόν ἐστι πολυμερὲς ἔνθεον μαντεῖον͵ περὶ οὗ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἀποφαίνει· οἱ δ΄ ὕδωρ πιόντες͵ καθάπερ ὁ ἐν Κολοφῶνι ἱερεὺς τοῦ Κλαρίου͵ οἱ δὲ στομίοις παρακαθήμενοι͵ ὡς αἱ ἐν Δελφοῖς θεσπίζουσαι͵ οἱ δ΄ ἐξ ὑδάτων ἀτμιζό μενοι͵ καθάπερ αἱ ἐν Βραγχίδαις προφήτιδες. τριῶν δὴ τούτων ἰδιωνύμων χρηστηρίων ἐμνημόνευσας͵ οὐχ ὅτι μόνα ἐνταῦθα (πολὺ γὰρ πλείονα ὑπῆρχε τὰ παραλειπόμενα)͵ ἀλλ΄ ἐπεὶ προεῖχε τῶν ἄλλων ταῦτα͵ καὶ ἅμα οὗ ἕνεκα ἐζητεῖτο ἱκανῶς ἀνεδίδασκες͵ περὶ τοῦ τρόπου͵ φημί͵ τῆς ἐκ θεῶν ἀνθρώποις ἐπιπεμπομένης μαντείας.

 And we see yet another kind of divination, not public [like that of oracles], but private, concerning which you say: some, standing with their feet on characters [pretend to foretell the future] in the same manner as those who receive within themselves the inspiration [of the gods] and are dominated by it.

2.2e Ἴδωμεν τοίνυν τὸ ἐντεῦθεν ἄλλο εἶδος ἰδιωτικὸν καὶ οὐ δημόσιον μαντείας͵ περὶ οὗ λέγεις ταῦτα· οἱ δὲ ἐπὶ χαρακτήρων στάντες͵ ὡς οἱ πληρούμενοι ἀπὸ εἰσκρίσεων.

some prophecy by attending to that part of themselves capable of the power of imagination,

others with the cooperation of darkness,

others by swallowing certain potions,

others by the use of incantations and [prayers] of encounter;

to some the visions appear in water

to others on the side [of a wall or cup]

to others in the open air,

to others in [the light of ] the sun or another celestial body

the entrails [of killed animals],

[the flight of ] birds,

and of the stars

2.4b Μήποτε οὖν ὃ τρίτον προσέθηκάς ἐστιν ἀληθέστερον͵ ὡς ἄρα μικτόν τι γίνεται ὑποστάσεως εἶδος ἐξ ἡμῶν τε τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ ἔξωθεν θείας ἐπιπνοίας.

You say that by means of these movements  the soul, <and especially that received from animate beings>, generates a power of imagining the future, or transforms the products of matter into daemons with the help of inherent powers [of these]. 

2.4c Λέγεις τοίνυν ὡς ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ μάλιστα ἡ ἀπὸ τῶν ζῴων εἰλημμένη γεννᾷ δύναμιν φανταστικὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος διὰ τοιούτων κινημάτων͵ ἢ τὰ προσαγόμενα ἀπὸ τῆς ὕλης ὑφίστησι διὰ τῶν ἐνουσῶν δυνάμεων δαίμονας [καὶ μάλιστα ἡ ἀπὸ τῶν ζῴων εἰλημμένη].

2.5a Αἱ δ΄ ἐπὶ τῇδε ἐπιστάσεις ἀνάγονται μὲν εὐθὺς ὡς διστάζουσαι περὶ τοῦ τρόπου τῆς μαντείας͵ προϊοῦσαι δὲ ἀνατρέπειν αὐτὴν παντελῶς ἐπι χειροῦσι. διελώμεθα οὖν καὶ ἡμεῖς τὸν λόγον πρὸς ἀμφότερα ταῦτα͵ ἀρξώ μεθα δὲ διαλύειν πρῶτον τὰ πρότερα· κατὰ γὰρ τοὺς ὕπνους μηδὲν πραγματευσάμενοι ἐνίοτε τῷ μέλλοντι ἐπιβάλλομεν͵ ᾧ καὶ πραγματευ σάμενοι οὐκ ἐπιβάλλομεν.

 In your subsequent statements, while attempting to explain the mode of divination, you completely nullify it. For if a passion of the soul is postulated as its cause , who, endowed with reason, would attribute a comprehensive [i.e., broad, complete] and stable foreknowledge [of the future] to something [which is in itself] unstable and vacillating? Let us examine further the arguments you adduce to prove this opinion. [First of all] the possibility of perception through sensations tends to the contrary of what you say: for it shows that then [by a passion] no imaginative representation is awakened in men. The exhalations of the offerings have an affinity [only] with the divinity, not with the soul of the contemplator, and the invocations [that is: theurgic formulas] do not produce inspirations of thought or bodily passions in the one who is to receive [the divinity in himself]: for they are altogether unintelligible and arcane, and are recited intelligibly only to the god [they] invoke; but the fact that not all, but [only] those [who are gifted] with simpler feeling and of young age [are more apt] [for inspiration] shows that they are more ready to receive the pneuma that comes from outside and that [from outside] dominates them. For these reasons, therefore, your opinion is not correct, that divine inspiration is a passion [of our soul, and divination , therefore, something human]: for it is clear from these signs that it flows from outside as an inspiration.

2.5b Ἐν δὲ τοῖς μετὰ ταῦτα πειρώμενος τὸν τρόπον διερμηνεύειν τῆς μαντικῆς͵ ἀναιρεῖς αὐτὴν παντάπασιν. εἰ γὰρ πάθος ψυχῆς αἴτιον αὐτῆς καθίσταται͵ τίς ἂν εὖ φρονῶν ἀστάτῳ πράγματι καὶ ἐμπλήκτῳ πρόγνωσιν τεταμένην καὶ σταθεράν; Σκεψώμεθα δὴ καὶ τὰ τεκμήριά σου τῆς τοιαύτης δόξης. τὸ μὲν δὴ καταλαμβάνεσθαι τὰς αἰσθήσεις πρὸς τὸ ἐναντίον τείνει ἢ οἷον σὺ λέγεις· γνώρισμα γάρ ἐστι τοῦ μηδὲν φάντασμα ἀνθρώπειον ἀνακινεῖσθαι. οἱ δὲ προσενεχθέντες ἀτμοὶ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἔχουσι τὴν συγγένειαν͵ οὐ πρὸς τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ ἐποπτεύοντος͵ αἵ τ΄ ἐπικλήσεις οὐκ ἐπιπνοίας τῆς διανοίας ἀνεγείρουσιν͵ ἢ σωματικὰ πάθη ἐν τῷ δεχομένῳ· ἄγνωστοι γάρ εἰσι παντελῶς καὶ ἀπόρρητοι͵ μόνῳ δὲ τῷ θεῷ γνωρίμως λέγονται ὃν ἐπι καλοῦνται· τὸ δ΄ εἶναι μὴ πάντας ἀλλὰ τοὺς ἁπλουστέρους καὶ νέους ἐπιτηδειοτέρους͵ δηλοῖ τοῦτο ὡς εἰς καταδοχὴν τῷ ἔξωθεν ἐπεισιόντι καὶ κατέχοντι πνεύματι οἱ τοιοῦτοί εἰσιν ἑτοιμότεροι. ἐκ δὴ τούτων οὐ καλῶς τοπάζῃ πάθος εἶναι τὸν ἐνθουσιασμόν· συμβαίνει γὰρ ἀπό τε τού των τῶν σημείων ἔξωθεν αὐτὸν ὡς ἐπίπνοιαν ἐπιρρεῖν.

 Moreover, never compare the ambiguous states [of the soul], such as [the intermediate states] between temperance and ecstasy, with the sacred visions of the gods, [which are] determined according to a single energy [that is: the divine energy, which always remains similar to itself], and do not compare even the very clear visions of the gods [which are had in theurgic ecstasies of the soul] with the false visions artificially created by magic: these, in fact, have neither the energy nor the [true] essence of apparitions, nor the truth, but produce vain phantoms, which have only the simple appearance.

 μὴ δ΄ αὖ τὰς ἀμφιβόλους καταστάσεις͵ οἷον μεταξὺ νήψεώς τε καὶ ἐκστάσεως͵ παραθῇς ποτὲ ταῖς ὡρισμέναις κατὰ μίαν ἐνέργειαν ἱερατικαῖς τῶν θεῶν ὄψεσιν͵ ἀλλὰ μηδὲ ταῖς ἀπὸ τῆς γοητείας τεχνικῶς κατασκευαζομέναις φαντασίαις παράβαλλε τὰς ἐ ναργεστάτας θεωρίας τῶν θεῶν· οὔτε γὰρ ἐνέργειαν οὔτε οὐσίαν τῶν ὁρωμένων οὔτε ἀλήθειαν αὗται ἔχουσιν͵ ἄχρι δὲ τοῦ δοκεῖν φαντάσματα ψιλὰ προτείνουσι.

 It is not at all necessary to say that [physical] nature, [human] art, and the sympathy of the parts [which are] in the whole [that is: in the universe] as [if they were] in a single living being, possess mutual premanifestations of certain facts, nor that bodies are so shaped that from one to the other there can be presignification of the future.

2.5d Οὐ δὴ τοῦτο λέγειν δεῖ͵ ὡς καὶ φύσις καὶ τέχνη καὶ ἡ συμπάθεια τῶν ὡς ἐν ἑνὶ ζῴῳ ἐν τῷ παντὶ μερῶν προδηλώσεις ἔχει τινῶν πρὸς ἄλληλα͵ οὐδ΄ ὅτι τὰ σώματα οὕτω κατεσκεύασται ὡς εἶναι προσημασίαν ἀπὸ τῶν ἑτέρων εἰς τὰ ἕτερα.

 This statement must therefore also be vigorously refuted, if it is said that the bellows derives from us [humans]. Moreover, you also adduce clear proofs of this [i.e.: of the falsity of this statement], since the fact that those who are invoked [i.e.: the divinities] hold [in their hands] stones and plants, the fact that they untie and then tie certain [specific] sacred knots, the fact that they open closed places and        change the intentions of those who receive [the divinity], so as to make them good from bad [which they could be], all this proves precisely that the inspiration comes from outside [and not from our human nature].

2.6a Διόπερ δὴ καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο ἰσχυρῶς μάχεσθαι δεῖ͵ ἐάν τις ἐξ ἡμῶν εἶναι λέγῃ τὴν μαντικήν. φέρεις δὲ καὶ σὺ τούτου δείγματα ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων ἐναργῆ· τὸ γὰρ λίθους καὶ βοτάνας φέρειν τοὺς καλουμένους͵ δεσμεῖν τε ἱερούς τινας δεσμοὺς καὶ λύειν τούτους͵ τά τε κεκλεισμένα ἀνοίγειν καὶ τὰς προαιρέσεις μεταβάλλειν τῶν ὑποδεχομένων͵ ὥστε ἐκ φαύλων σπουδαίας ἀπεργάζεσθαι͵ πάντα δὴ ταῦτα ἔξωθεν τὴν ἐπίπνοιαν γίγνεσθαι διασημαίνει.

 As for what you propose, which is not to be rejected at all, namely, [that which] concerns those who are able to produce images endowed with action, I would be surprised if any of the theurgists, who contemplate the true forms of the gods [in their direct, blessed visions], would accept this.

2.6b Ὃ δὲ προτείνεις ὡς οὐδαμῶς ἀπόβλητον τὸ ἀναγεννητικοὺς τῶν δραστικῶν εἰδώλων͵ θαυμάσαιμ΄ ἂν εἴ τις ἀποδέξαιτο τῶν τὰ ἀληθινὰ εἴδη τῶν θεῶν θεωρούντων θεουργῶν.

But these, [your letter] says, observe the courses of the celestial bodies and they say which celestial body rotates with another or with others will be false or true the prophecies, and [they say which of his] phenomena [will be] without importance or revealing [of the future] or effective. Without a doubt you too admit this, when you affirm that no god or    a demon can be brought down by them. 

2.6c Ἀλλὰ παρατηροῦσιν οὗτοι͵ φησί͵ τὴν τῶν οὐρανίων φοράν͵ καὶ λέγουσι τίνος τῶν κατ΄ οὐρανὸν μετὰ τίνος ἢ τίνων πολεύοντος ἔσται ψευδῆ τὰ μαντεῖα ἢ ἀληθῆ͵ καὶ τὰ δρώμενα ἀργὰ ἢ ἀπαγγελτικὰ ἢ ἀποτελεστικά. Ἀμέλει καὶ σὺ τοσοῦτο συγχωρεῖς͵ μηδένα θεὸν ἢ δαίμονα λέγων ὑπ΄ αὐτῶν καθέλκεσθαι.

This, therefore, is the only kind of divination that is truly pure, sacred, and divine; and it does not need, as you say, an arbiter, whether in my person or in that of any other man, to choose this one from among the many [different kinds of divination].

 Ἓν οὖν τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ἄχραντον καὶ ἱερατικὸν θεῖόν τε ὡς ἀληθῶς γένος τῆς μαντείας· καὶ τοῦτο οὐχ͵ ὡς σὺ λέγεις͵ διαιτητοῦ δεῖται ἢ ἐμοῦ ἢ ἄλλου τινός͵ ἵν΄ αὐτὸ ἐκ πολλῶν προκρίνω.

 Without reason, therefore, you bring forward the opinion of the atheists, who hold that all divination is performed by the evil demon [of their doctrine].

 Μάτην οὖν ἐπεισάγεις τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀθέων δόξαν͵ ὡς ἄρα τὴν πᾶσαν μαντεῖαν ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ δαίμονος ἡγοῦνται ἐπιτελεῖσθαι.

 8     It troubles me greatly how those who are invoked as superior beings receive orders as if they were inferior beings, and while they pretend that the one who worships them is just, they, when they receive orders from the invocators, do not shy away from doing unjust actions, and would not listen to the one who invokes them unless he were free from sexual pleasures, while they do not hesitate to push anyone into illicit sexual pleasures.

2.8a Πάνυ δέ με θράττει πῶς ὡς κρείττους παρακαλούμενοι ἐπιτάττον ται ὡς χείρους καὶ δίκαιον εἶναι ἀξιοῦντες τὸν θεράποντα͵ τὰ ἄδικα αὐτοὶ κελευσθέντες δρᾶν ὑπομένουσιν καὶ καθαρῷ μὲν μὴ ὄντι ἐξ ἀφροδισίων οὐκ ἂν καλοῦντι ὑπακούσαιεν͵ αὐτοὶ δὲ ἄγειν εἰς παράνομα ἀφροδίσια τοὺς τυχόντας οὐκ ὀκνοῦσιν.

And [the gods] command that the priests must keep away from animals, so that they are not contaminated by the vapours [exhaling] from corpses (while they are especially attracted by the vapours [exhaling] from sacrifices), and [they command] that the epopt must not touch a corpse, while, in most cases, the evocations of the gods are performed by means of killed animals. 

2.8b Καὶ ἀπὸ ἐμψύχων μὲν ἀποχῆς κελεύουσιν δεῖν εἶναι τοὺς ὑποφήτας͵ ἵνα μὴ τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν σωμάτων ἀτμοῖς χραίνωνται (αὐτοὶ δὲ ἀτμοῖς τοῖς ἀπὸ θυσιῶν μάλιστα δελεάζονται)͵ καὶ νεκροῦ μὲν ἀθιγῆ δεῖν εἶναι τὸν ἐπόπτην͵ διὰ νεκρῶν δὲ τὰ πολλὰ ζῴων αἱ θεαγωγίαι ἐκτελοῦνται.

He will reveal the secrets of Adibo and will stop the boat [of Helios] and will tear apart the limbs of Osiris to [deliver them to] Typhon. Does it not perhaps reveal an excess of stupidity in one who threatens things he does not know, nor is he able [to do], and [an excess] of pettiness in those who allow themselves to be frightened to such an extent by vain terror and pretenses, just [as if they were] naive children? Yet even the sacred scribe Chaeremon reports these facts, as well known among the Egyptians, and [the Egyptians] say that these and similar ways of acting have a great coercive power [over the deities].

 τὸ γὰρ λέγειν ὅτι τὸν οὐρανὸν προσαράξει καὶ τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς Ἴσιδος ἐκφανεῖ καὶ τὸ ἐν Ἀβύδῳ ἀπόρρητον δείξει καὶ τὴν βᾶριν στήσει καὶ τὰ μέλη τοῦ Ὀσίριδος διασκεδά σει τῷ Τυφῶνι͵ τίνα οὐχ ὑπερβολὴν ἐμπληξίας μὲν τῷ ἀπειλοῦντι ἃ μήτε οἶδεν μήτε δύναται͵ καταλείπει͵ ταπεινότητος δὲ τοῖς δεδοικόσιν οὕτως κενὸν φόβον καὶ πλάσματα͵ ὡς κομιδῆ παῖδες ἀνόητοι; καίτοι καὶ Χαιρήμων ὁ ἱερογραμματεὺς ἀναγράφει ταῦτα͵ ὡς καὶ παρ΄ Αἰγυπτίοις θρυλούμενα͵ καὶ ταῦτά φασιν εἶναι καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα βιαστικώτατα.

 And what foundation do the same prayers have, when they say that 9 [Helios] emerges from the mud, and sits on the lotus flower, and sails in a boat, and changes shape according to the hours, and takes on different aspects according to the signs of the zodiac? So in/acts [the Egyptians] say that [Helios] is seen by their own eyes, _; without realizing that they attribute to it an impression of their own imagination.

2.9a Αὐταὶ δὲ αἱ εὐχαὶ τίνα ἔχουσιν λόγον͵ τὸν ἐξ ἰλύος ἀναφανέντα λέγουσαι καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ λωτῷ καθήμενον καὶ ἐπὶ πλοίου ναυτιλλόμενον καὶ καθ΄ ὥραν τὰς μορφὰς ἀμείβοντα καὶ κατὰ ζῴδιον μετασχηματι ζόμενον; οὕτω γάρ φασιν αὐτοπτεῖσθαι͵ ἀγνοοῦντες ὅτι τὸ ἴδιον πάθος τῆς αὑτῶν φαντασίας ἐκείνῳ περιάπτουσιν.

 And if these prayers are addressed [to Helios] with a symbolic intention, being symbols of his powers, let them state the meaning of the symbols. For it is clear that, if it were a question of some change to which the sun was subject, as in eclipses, it would be seen in the same way by all who look at it.

2.9b Εἰ δὲ συμβολικῶς λέγεται ταῦτα͵ τῶν ἐκείνου δυνάμεων ὄντα σύμβολα͵ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν τῶν συμβόλων εἰπάτωσαν. δῆλον γὰρ ὡς εἰ τοῦ ἡλίου ἦν τὸ πάθος καθάπερ ἐν ταῖς ἐκλείψεσιν͵ πᾶσιν ἂν ὤφθη ταὐτὸν τοῖς εἰς αὐτὸν ἀτενίζουσιν.

And, further, what is the point of the meaningless names, and among the meaningless ones, the non-Greek ones instead of the proper names for each [deity in our language]? For if the [deity] who hears [the names] looks at what is [signified by them], the concept, remaining the same, [is] in itself sufficient to indicate [it], even if the name [is] expressed in any language. For, I believe, the [god] invoked was not Egyptian by descent; but even if [he were] Egyptian, he certainly would not use an Egyptian language, nor even a human [language]. 

2.10a Τί δὲ καὶ τὰ ἄσημα βούλεται ὀνόματα καὶ τῶν ἀσήμων τὰ βάρβαρα πρὸ τῶν ἑκάστῳ οἰκείων; εἰ γὰρ πρὸς τὸ σημαινόμενον ἀφορᾷ τὸ ἀ κοῦον͵ αὐτάρκης ἡ αὐτὴ μένουσα ἔννοια δηλῶσαι͵ κἂν ὁποιονοῦν ὑ πάρχῃ τοὔνομα. οὐ γάρ που καὶ ὁ καλούμενος Αἰγύπτιος ἦν τῷ γένει· εἰ δὲ καὶ Αἰγύπτιος͵ ἀλλ΄ οὔ τί γε Αἰγυπτίᾳ χρώμενος φωνῇ οὐδ΄ ἀνθ ρωπείᾳ ὅλως χρώμενος.

 Indeed, all these [names] were either artificial inventions of magicians and means to hide the passions that happen to us [men] through the attributes given to the divinity, or, without realizing it, we have opinions about the divinity contrary to its elective reality.

2.10b ῍Η γὰρ γοήτων ἦν ταῦτα πάντα τεχνάσματα καὶ προκαλύμματα διὰ τῶν ἐπιφημιζομένων τῷ θείῳ τῶν περὶ ἡμᾶς γινομένων παθῶν͵ ἢ λελήθαμεν ἐναντίας ἐννοίας ἔχοντες περὶ τοῦ θείου ἢ αὐτὸ τῷ ὄντι διάκειται.

 Leaving these matters, as you say, you wish it to be made clear to you what the Egyptians consider the first cause: whether the Nus or some essence above the Nus, and whether it alone or together with another essence or essences, and whether it is corporeal or incorporeal, and whether it is one with the Demiurge or already existed before the Demiurge, and furthermore whether the whole is derived from a single principle or from several principles, and finally whether they recognize matter or certain bodies as first principles, and whether they believe [matter] to be ungenerated or generated.

2.11 Τούτων δὲ ἀποστάς͵ ὡς φῄς͵ βούλει σοι δηλωθῆναι τί τὸ πρῶτον αἴτιον ἡγοῦνται εἶναι Αἰγύπτιοι͵ πότερον νοῦν ἢ ὑπὲρ νοῦν͵ καὶ μόνον ἢ μετ΄ ἄλλου ἢ ἄλλων͵ καὶ πότερον ἀσώματον ἢ σωματικόν͵ καὶ εἰ τῷ δημιουργῷ τὰ αὐτὰ ἢ πρὸ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ͵ καὶ εἰ ἐξ ἑνὸς τὰ πάντα ἢ ἐκ πολλῶν͵ καὶ εἰ ὕλην ἴσασιν ἢ σώματα ποιὰ πρῶτα͵ καὶ ἀγέννητον ὕλην ἢ γεννητήν.

 First of all I want to tell you the reason why in the writings of the ancient sacred scribes there are many and diverse opinions put forward concerning this matter, and [why] among the still living Theosophists, in the majority of cases, there is not a single doctrine handed down.

2.12a Ἐγὼ δή σοι πρῶτον ἐρῶ τὴν αἰτίαν͵ δι΄ ἣν ἔν τε γράμμασι τῶν ἀρχαίων ἱερογραμματέων πολλαὶ καὶ ποικίλαι δόξαι περὶ τούτων φέρονται͵ καὶ παρὰ τοῖς ἔτι ζῶσι τῶν σοφῶν τὰ μεγάλα οὐχ ἁπλῶς ὁ λόγος παραδίδοται.

 Indeed, Chaeremon and all the others admit nothing else prior to the visible worlds, asserting in their treatise on the First Cause that the gods of the Egyptians are nothing other than the so-called planets, the constellations that form the Zodiac, the stars that rise in proximity to them, the divisions of the decans, the horoscopes, and the so-called more powerful rulersof which the Salmeschianica records the names—, the cures for ailments, the risings and settings, and the predictions of the future.

2.12b Χαιρήμων μὲν γὰρ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι οὐδ΄ ἄλλο τι πρὸ τῶν ὁρωμένων κόσμων ἡγοῦνται͵ ἐν ἀρχῆς λόγῳ τιθέμενοι τοὺς Αἰγυπτίων͵ οὐδ΄ ἄλλους θεοὺς πλὴν τῶν πλανητῶν λεγομένων καὶ τῶν συμπληρούντων τὸν ζῳ διακὸν καὶ ὅσοι τούτοις παρανατέλλουσιν͵ τάς τε εἰς τοὺς δεκανοὺς τομὰς καὶ τοὺς ὡροσκόπους καὶ τοὺς λεγομένους κραταιοὺς ἡγεμόνας͵ ὧν καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα ἐν τοῖς Σαλμεσχινιακοῖς φέρεται καὶ θεραπεῖαι παθῶν καὶ ἀνατολαὶ καὶ δύσεις καὶ μελλόντων σημειώσεις.

 He saw, in fact, that those who affirmed that the sun was the creator of the universe applied not only the mysteries of Osiris and Isis, but also all the sacred myths either to the stars, to their rising, setting and rising, or to the increments and decendations of the moon, or to the course of the sun, or to the nocturnal or diurnal hemisphere, or to the river [Nile] and, in short, they referred everything to physical causes and nothing to incorporeal and animate essences.

2.12c Ἑώρα γὰρ τοὺς τὸν ἥλιον δημιουργὸν φαμένους καὶ τὰ περὶ τὸν ῎οσιριν καὶ τὴν Ἶσιν καὶ πάντας τοὺς ἱερατικοὺς μύθους ἢ εἰς τοὺς ἀστέρας καὶ τὰς τούτων φάνσεις καὶ κρύψεις καὶ ἐπιτολὰς ἑλιττομέ νους ἢ εἰς τὰς τῆς σελήνης αὐξήσεις καὶ μειώσεις ἢ εἰς τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου πορείαν ἢ τό γε νυκτερινὸν ἡμισφαίριον ἢ τὸ ἡμερινὸν ἢ τόν γε ποταμόν͵ καὶ ὅλως πάντα εἰς τὰ φυσικὰ καὶ οὐδὲν εἰς ἀσωμάτους καὶ ζώσας οὐσίας ἑρμηνεύοντας.

And the majority of them made even the determination of our free will depend upon the movement of the stars, binding everything—I know not how—to the indissoluble knots of necessity, which they call heimarmene, and attributing everything to those gods whom they venerate in sacred rites, in statues, and in other ways, as the sole deliverers from this heimarmene. Consequently, it is not even pious to utter that sentiment you cited from Homer—namely, that the gods are open to persuasion.

2.13a ῟ων οἱ πλείους καὶ τὸ ἐφ΄ ἡμῖν ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἀστέρων ἀνῆψαν κινήσεως͵ οὐκ οἶδ΄ ὅπως δεσμοῖς ἀλύτοις Ἀνάγκης͵ ἣν Εἱμαρμένην λέγουσιν͵ πάντα καταδήσαντες καὶ πάντα τούτοις ἀνάψαντες τοῖς θεοῖς͵ οὓς ὡς λυτῆρας τῆς Εἱμαρμένης μόνους ἔν τε ἱεροῖς καὶ ξοάνοις καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις θεραπεύουσιν.

Consequently, it is not even pious to utter that sentiment you cited from Homer—namely, that the gods are open to persuasion.

2.13b Ὥστε οὐδ΄ ὅπερ ἐκ τῶν Ὁμηρικῶν σὺ παρέθηκας͵ τὸ στρεπτοὺς εἶναι τοὺς θεούς͵ ὅσιόν ἐστι φθέγγεσθαι.

 Come now, then, let us try to deal in order, as far as we can , with the question of the personal daemon [that is, of the daemon assigned to each man as his tutelary genius], a tangled question subject to various contradictions. Since, to put it briefly, there are two doctrines concerning the personal daemon: one regards it as an object of theurgy, the other as an object of science; one invokes it from supernal causes, the other from the visible heavenly bodies of genesis; one makes no use of genethialogy at all, the other, however, uses even such methods; one venerates it with a more universal cult above nature, the other, however, in a particular way according to nature; it seems to me absurd that you should transfer a more perfect cult [i.e., theurgy] to [a] human [art], and that you should persist in asking questions while remaining within the scope of this [human [art].

2.14a Φέρε δὴ οὖν καὶ τὴν πολύτροπον ἀπορίαν τὴν περὶ τοῦ ἰδίου δαίμονος ποικίλαις τε ἀντιλήψεσι χρωμένην ἀπευθύνειν πειραθῶμεν τὸν δυνατὸν ἡμῖν τρόπον. ὡς μὲν οὖν ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν͵ διττῆς οὔσης περὶ τὸν ἴδιον δαίμονα πραγματείας͵ τῆς μὲν θεουργικῆς͵ τῆς δὲ τεχνικῆς͵ καὶ τῆς μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν ἄνω θεν αἰτιῶν αὐτὸν ἐπικαλουμένης͵ τῆς δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν τῇ γενέσει φανερῶν περιόδων͵ καὶ τῆς μὲν οὐδὲν προσχρωμένης γενεθλιαλογίᾳ͵ τῆς δὲ ἐφαπτο μένης καὶ τῶν τοιούτων μεθόδων͵ καὶ τῆς μὲν ὑπὲρ τὴν φύσιν καθολικώτε ρον͵ τῆς δὲ μεριστῶς κατὰ τὴν φύσιν αὐτὸν θεραπευούσης͵ ἀτόπως μοι σὺ δοκεῖς τὴν τελειοτέραν ἱερουργίαν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ὑπενεχθῆναι καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτης γυμνάσαι τὰς σαυτοῦ ἐρωτήσεις.

 Furthermore, in this matter too, it seems to me that you have separated a small part of the doctrine concerning the personal daemon. For, since naturalists are accustomed to invoke it, adhering to the prescribed order, from the decans, from the liturgies, from the signs of the zodiac, from the stars, from the sun, the moon, the pole stars, from all the elements and from the cosmos, you have not rightly chosen only a very small part, namely that of the planet lord of a particular house, and limited yourself to asking your questions about it.

2.14b Ἔπειτα καὶ ἐνταῦθά μοι φαίνῃ βραχύ τι μόριον τῆς περὶ αὐτὸν πραγ ματείας ἀποτεμέσθαι· εἰωθότων γὰρ τῶν περὶ τὴν φύσιν ἐργοτεχνιτῶν ἀπό τε τῶν δεκανῶν καὶ τῶν λειτουργῶν͵ ζῳδίων τε καὶ ἄστρων͵ ἡλίου τε καὶ σελήνης͵ καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἄρκτων͵ ἀφ΄ ὅλων τε τῶν στοιχείων καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ κό σμου καλεῖν αὐτὸν τεταγμένως͵ οὐκ ὀρθῶς σὺ κατανειμάμενος ἕν τι βραχύ τατον τὸ τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου μόριον͵ περὶ αὐτὸ τὰς ζητήσεις ἐποιήσω.

 And here again, starting from this one premise, and from the investigation of the way in which the planet lord of a certain house assigns the personal daemon, according to what strange case or emanation or power [the personal daemon] descends to us from it, I move on to speak of genetlialogy, whether it is plausible or not, and of the way of determining the planet lord of a certain house, whether it is impossible or possible.

2.14c Καὶ ἐνταῦθα πάλιν ἀφ΄ ἑνὸς τοῦ προκειμένου καὶ τοῦ διερευνήσα σθαι͵ πῶς μὲν ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης αὐτὸν δίδωσι͵ κατὰ τίνα δ΄ ἀτοπίαν ἢ ἀπόρροιαν ἢ ζωὴν ἢ δύναμιν εἰς ἡμᾶς ἀπ΄ αὐτοῦ καθήκει͵ περὶ γενεθ λιαλογίας ποιῇ τὸν λόγον͵ εἴτε ὑφέστηκεν εἴτε μή͵ καὶ περὶ εὑρέσεως τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου͵ εἴτε ἀδύνατός ἐστιν εἴτε δυνατή.

You say that he would undoubtedly be happy who, knowing the figure of his genesis [that is: the constellation that influenced his genesis], tried to avert the fate [that hangs over him] with sacrifices, knowing his demon. 

2.14d Φῂς γὰρ δὴ ὡς οὗτος ἦν ἄρα εὐδαίμων ὅστις μαθὼν τὸ σχῆμα τῆς αὑτοῦ γενέσεως τὰ εἱμαρμένα ἐκθύσαιτο γνοὺς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ δαίμονα.

Moreover, it seems to me that this is only a part, and the last one at that, of the discussion of the daemon, while the whole of what concerns its essence has been omitted according to this method. But these statements, even if they are not true, are nevertheless not foreign [to the problem of the personal daemon]. While the doubts you subsequently raised regarding the minute enumeration and the science of genetlialogy, as if they were incomprehensible, do not pose any difficulty with respect to the fundamental question. 

2.15a Ἔτι δ΄ ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ μέρος τι τῆς τοῦ δαίμονος θεωρίας καὶ τοῦτο ἔσχατον εἶναι τὸ τοιοῦτον͵ τὸ δ΄ ὅλον αὐτοῦ τῆς οὐσίας παραλείπεσθαι κατὰ τὴν τοιαύτην μέθοδον. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μέν͵ εἰ καὶ ψευδῶς εἴρηται͵ ὅμως οὐκ ἔχει γέ τινα ἀλλοτριότητα͵ τὰ δ΄ ἐφεξῆς περὶ τῆς τῶν κανόνων διαριθμήσεως καὶ περὶ τῆς ἐπιστήμης τῆς γενεθλιαλογικῆς ἀπορηθέντα͵ ὥς εἰσιν ἀκατάληπτοι͵ οὐδεμίαν ἔχουσι πρὸς τὸ προκείμενον ἀμφισβήτησιν.

But if, even leaving this aside, it is still necessary to discuss this subject , it does not seem to me right that you infer the impossibility of knowing the science of astrology from the fact that there has been great dissension about it, or because Chaeremon or someone else has written against it.

2.15b Εἰ δὲ δεῖ καὶ τούτων ἀπαλλαγέντας ἐκεῖνο εἰπεῖν͵ οὐ καλῶς μοι δοκεῖς τὸ ἀδύνατον εἰς γνῶσιν τῆς μαθηματικῆς ἐπιστήμης συλλογίζε σθαι͵ διότι πολλὴ διαφωνία περὶ αὐτὴν γέγονεν͵ ἢ ὅτι ὁ Χαιρήμων ἢ ἄλλος τις πρὸς αὐτὴν ἀντείρηκεν.

 In fact, according to what you write in your letter, you claim that even astrologers agree that it is impossible to determine the planet ruling a given house, or the planets, if there were more than one, and yet they say that it is precisely from this that it is possible to know the personal daemon.

2.15c Φῂς γὰρ δὴ κατὰ τὸ σὸν γράμμα τῆς ἐπιστολῆς͵ ὡς ἡ τοῦ οἰκοδε σπότου τῆς γενέσεως λῆψις͵ ἢ τῶν οἰκοδεσποτούντων εἰ πλείους εἶεν ἑνός͵ σχεδὸν καὶ παρ΄ αὐτοῖς ὁμολογεῖται εἶναι ἀκατάληπτος͵ ἀφ΄ οὗ δή φασιν ἐνεῖναι τὸν οἰκεῖον καταμαθεῖν δαίμονα.

 From this very point of view, I will be able to easily answer your next question. For the personal daemon does not rule only some of the parts [that are] in us, as if it were a special lot assigned to each of the things [that are] in us, but it [rules] all of them at once, and extends to our whole dominion, just as it has been assigned by all the orders of the universe. And, in fact, what you adduce to prove that the daemons, presiding over the body in its parts, are the guardians of health, beauty and the other habits of the body, and that there is one [daemon] overseer, who is above all [these daemons] in general,

2.16a Ἀπὸ δὴ τούτων ῥᾳδίως ἀποκρινοῦμαί σοι καὶ πρὸς τὸ ἐφεξῆς ἐρώ τημα· οὐ γάρ τινος τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν μέρους͵ ὡς μοῖρα ἰδία πρὸς ἕκαστον τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν ἀπομεριζομένη͵ πάντων δ΄ ἁπαξαπλῶς ἡγεῖται͵ διήκει τε ἐπὶ πᾶ σαν τὴν ἐφ΄ ἡμῖν ἀρχήν͵ ὥσπερ ἀφ΄ ὅλων τῶν ἐν τῷ παντὶ διατάξεων ἀπονενέμηται. καὶ γάρ͵ ὅπερ σὺ παρατίθεσαι τεκμήριον τὸ περὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρη τοῦ σώματος ἐφεστηκότων δαιμόνων ὑγείας καὶ τοῦ εἴδους καὶ τῆς ἕξεως τῆς ἐν αὐτοῖς ὄντων συνοχέων καὶ ἑνὸς τοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσι κοινῶς ἐπι βεβηκότος προστάτου͵ 

Finally, you also introduce an opposition between them [that is, the demons], as if some were good and others bad, the bad [demons] having no place at all in which to command, nor being distributed equally with the good [demons]. 

2.16b Ποιεῖς δὲ καὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐναντίωσιν τῶν μὲν ὡς ἀγαθῶν͵ τῶν δὲ ὡς φαύλων͵ οὐδαμοῦ τῶν κακῶν ἡγεμονικὴν ἐχόντων λῆξιν οὐδὲ ἰσαξίως ἀντιδιαιρουμένων τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς.

Then, turning away from these arguments, you lose yourself in philosophical speculation, and completely subvert the fundamental notion of the personal daemon. For if it is a part of the soul, like, for example, the intelligible, and he who has a rational mind is happy, there is no other class superior to that of daemons, supervising the class of men, as superior to it. 

2.17a Ἔπειτα τούτων ἀποστὰς ἐπὶ μὲν τὴν φιλόσοφον ἀπολισθαίνεις δόξαν͵ ἀνατρέπεις δὲ τὴν ὅλην περὶ τοῦ ἰδίου δαίμονος ὑπόθεσιν. εἰ γὰρ μέρος ἐστὶ τῆς ψυχῆς͵ οἷον τὸ νοερόν͵ καὶ οὗτός ἐστιν εὐδαίμων ὁ τὸν νοῦν ἔχων ἔμφρονα͵ οὐκέτι ἐστὶν ἑτέρα τάξις οὐδεμία κρείττων ἢ δαιμόνιος͵ ἐπιβεβηκυῖα τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ὡς ὑπερέχουσα.

Therefore, after this, you mention yet another theory about the personal daemon, according to which the cult would be directed according to some to two, according to others to three [demons]. For what reason, then, is [the personal demon] invoked by all [men individually different from each other] in the same way?

2.17b Μνημονεύεις τοίνυν μετὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἄλλης πραγματείας περὶ τὸν ἴδιον δαίμονα͵ τῆς μὲν ὡς πρὸς δύο τῆς δὲ ὡς πρὸς τρεῖς ποιουμένης τὴν θεραπείαν. διὰ τί οὖν κοινῇ κλήσει καλεῖται ὑπὸ πάντων;

It remains to speak, as a final point, of eudaimonia, about which you have asked various questions, first raising objections, then expressing doubts, and finally asking for explanations. Arranging, therefore, each of your questions in the way you have asked them,  

2.18a Λείπεται δὴ τελευταῖος ὁ περὶ εὐδαιμονίας λόγος͵ περὶ οὗ σὺ ποι κίλως ἐπεζήτησας͵ τὰ μὲν πρῶτα ἐπιστάσεις ὑποτείνων͵ ἔπειτα ἀπορῶν καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα διαπυνθανόμενος. θέντες οὖν ἕκαστα τῶν σῶν ᾗπερ αὐτὰ

 We will answer you appropriately. You asked whether there is not some other path to eudaimonia hidden from us; and what other reasonable possibility could there be of ascending to it without the gods?

2.18b προήγαγες͵ ἀποκρινούμεθά σοι πρὸς αὐτὰ συμμέτρως. ἐπέστησας γὰρ μήποτε ἄλλη τις λανθάνῃ οὖσα ἡ πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν ὁδός· καὶ τίς ἂν γένοιτο ἑτέρα ἀφισταμένη τῶν θεῶν εὔλογος πρὸς αὐτὴν ἄνοδος;

 Your doubt, therefore, that we should not pay attention to the opinions of men is unfounded: for how, indeed, could someone who has his mind set on the gods have time to look at the praises of men? But even in what follows, your question has no serious foundation, when you assert that the soul [of theurgists] imagines great things without any actual reality.

2.18c Μάτην οὖν διαπορεῖς ὡς οὐ δεῖ πρὸς δόξας ἀνθρωπίνας βλέπειν· τίς γὰρ σχολὴ τῷ πρὸς τοῖς θεοῖς τὴν διάνοιαν ἔχοντι κάτω βλέπειν εἰς ἀνθρώπων ἐπαίνους; ἀλλ΄ οὐδὲ τὸ ἐπὶ τούτῳ πρὸς ἔπος ἐπαπορεῖς͵ ὡς ἡ ψυχὴ ἐκ τοῦ τυχόντος ἀναπλάττει μεγάλα.

 After this, I also want to review all those other statements of yours in which, slandering divine foreknowledge, you compare it with certain other methods that deal with the prediction of the future. To me, in truth, not even if some aptitude for predicting the future is inherent by nature in any [of us theurgists], just as animals happen to predict the movements of the earth or the winds or storms. seems to be honorable: for such divination is innate by virtue of a [particular] acuteness of perception or by virtue of sympathy or some other movement of physical powers. and there is nothing venerable and supernatural about it.

Βούλομαι δὴ τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἐπιδραμεῖν͵ ὅσα διαβάλ λων τὴν θείαν πρόγνωσιν ἄλλας τινὰς μεθόδους αὐτῇ παραβάλλει͵ περὶ τὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος προμήνυσιν διατριβούσας. ἐμοὶ γάρ͵ οὔτε εἴ τις ἐκ φύσεως ἐπιτηδειότης τῳ εἰς σημασίαν τοῦ ἐσομένου παραγίνεται͵ ὥσπερ ἡ τοῖς ζῴοις τῶν σεισμῶν ἢ τῶν ἀνέμων ἢ τῶν χειμώνων συμπίπτει πρόγνωσις͵ τίμιος εἶναι δοκεῖ· κατ΄ αἰσθήσεως γὰρ ὀξύτητα ἢ κατὰ συμ πάθειαν ἢ κατ΄ ἄλλην τινὰ φυσικῶν δυνάμεων συγκίνησιν ἡ τοιαύτη ἔμφυτος συνέπεται μαντεία͵ οὐδὲν ἔχουσα σεμνὸν καὶ ὑπερφυές.

It would therefore be better, as you ask us, to show you the way to eudaimonia, and to indicate to you what its essence consists in. There is a great dispute among us in practice, since the good is conjectured from human arguments; and wisdom is cultivated in vain by those who strive to attain union with the higher essence if this part of the investigation is neglected.

2.19a Βέλτιον οὖν͵ ὅπερ ἀπαιτεῖς παρ΄ ἡμῶν͵ τὴν εἰς εὐδαιμονίαν ὁδὸν ἐπιδεῖξαί σοι͵ καὶ ἐν τίνι κεῖται ἡ αὐτῆς οὐσία. Παρὰ μὲν γὰρ ἡμῖν λογομαχία τίς ἐστι πολλή͵ ἅτε ἐξ ἀνθρωπί νων λογισμῶν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ εἰκαζομένου· οἷς δὲ μεμηχάνηται ἡ πρὸς τὸ κρεῖττον συνουσία͵ εἰ παρεῖται τὸ μέρος τοῦτο εἰς ἐξέτασιν͵

 [Wisdom is cultivated in vain by them] if they importune divine intelligence to find a runaway slave or buy a farm or perhaps arrange a marriage or bring a business to a successful conclusion _. If, however, it is not neglected, and those who deal [with the higher essence] say very true things about the rest, but nothing certain or worthy of injury about eudaimonia, then they were neither gods nor good demons, but only deception, as they say.

2 .19b μάτην  αὐτοῖς ἡ σοφία ἐξήσκηται [μάτην αὐτοῖς ἡ σοφία ἐξήσκηται] περὶ δραπέτου εὑρέσεως ἢ χωρίου ὠνῆς ἢ γάμου͵ εἰ τύχοι͵ ἢ ἐμπορίας τὸν θεῖον νοῦν ἐνοχλήσασιν. εἰ δ΄ οὐ παρεῖται μέν͵ οἱ δὲ συνόντες περὶ μὲν τῶν ἄλλων τἀληθέστατα λέγουσιν͵ περὶ δὲ εὐδαιμονίας οὐδὲν ἀσφαλὲς οὐδ΄ ἐχέγγυον͵ οὐκ ἦσαν ἄρα οὔτε θεοὶ οὔτε ἀγαθοὶ δαίμονες͵ ἀλλ΄ ἢ ἐκεῖνος ὁ λεγόμενος πλάνος.