The golden chain, p.39
The Golden Chain, page 39
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 ether and chaos, was the principle: but in this Time is neglected, and the principle becomes a dragon. It likewise calls triple ether, 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 ether, 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 Zeus, 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 Zeus himself. For the poet says of Zeus—“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 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, 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 Ether, Love, and Counsel are generated, forming three intelligible hypostases. And he places, Ether 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 thus 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, 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 (pantempsuchos) and which is perhaps the same as if he had said (pantekosmos) 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 Babylonians155 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.156 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 divin-ity and an evil daemon 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 Phoenician mythology, according to Mochus, places Ether 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 Ether 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 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.
GLOSSARY
Agalma—image, cult-statue, ornament, shrine, object of worship, something in which one takes delight; theon agalmata is the common phrase for “images of the gods” and “cult-statues” which may be “animated” by the theurgists; the word agalma contains no implication of likeness and is not a synonym of eikon; for Plato, the created cosmos is “a shrine brought into being for the everlasting gods” (ton aidion theon gegonos agalma, Tim. 37c); for the Emperor Julian, the visible Sun is “the living agalma, endowed with soul and intelligence and beneficent, of the noetic Father” (Ep. 51.434).
Aisthesis—sensation, perception, as an opposite of intellection (noe-sis), understanding, and pure thought; more loosely—any awareness; for Plato some aistheseis have names, such as sights, sounds, smells, cold and heat, distress, pleasures, fears, but nameless aisthe-seis are countless (Theaet. 156b); for Plotinus, perceptions in this world are dim intellections (noeseis), and intellections in the noetic world are vivid perceptions; Philo of Alexandria postulates an Idea of aisthesis, along with an Idea of nous, in the Intellect of God (Leg. Alleg. I.21–27).
Akh—the ancient Egyptian term for intelligence, spiritual light, illumination, irradiation; it may designate both a spiritual being (the winged soul, ba, divinized and raised above the Osiris state) and the entire spiritual dimension that corresponds to the Neoplatonic kos-mos noetos; through a celestial ascent the pharaoh (prototype of the philosopher-mystic of later times) becomes a “shining one” (akh), a star irradiating light throughout the cosmos, and is united with Ra (the divine Intellect) as his “son.”
Anagoge—ascent, elevation, bringing up; the approach to the divine realm by means of purifications (katharmoi), initiations (teletai), the Platonic dialectic and allegorical exegesis, contemplation (theoria), and the ineffable sacred rites employed in theurgy; it is prefigured by the sacred way which the initiates of mysteries (mustai) walk, the path to the mountain (oreibasia); typological analogies of the Neoplatonic ascent to the divine may be seen in the Pyramid Texts and the accounts of the mi‘raj of the Prophet Muhammad in the later Islamic tradition.
Anamnesis—recollection, remembrance; in the Orphico-Pythagorean context, it is understood as a remembrance of one’s true divine nature, revealed through sacred initiation; the idea of memory and the restoration of the soul’s true identity is crucial for the Egyptian tradition as reflected in the Book of the Dead and later employed by Pythagoreans and by Plato, who explains anamnesis as recollection of things known before birth and forgotten (Meno 85d); thus Platonic learning is equated with remembering (Phaed. 72e).
Anthropos—man; in Gnosticism, the macrocosmic anthropos is regarded as the Platonic “ideal animal,” autozoon, or a divine plero-ma, which contains archetypes of creation and manifestation.
Apatheia—impassivity or freedom from emotions, understood as a philosophical virtue; apatheia means not being affected in any way and is applied both to the sages and transcendent entities by the Neoplatonists.
Apeiron (apeiros, apeiria)—lacking of limit, unlimited, as an opposite of peras, a bound; the even as an opposite to the odd; this is a fundamental Pythagorean term designating one of the main principles of manifested being; the Pythagorean Unlimited is indefinite and in need of Limit; it is infinite in a negative sense, as being infinitely divisible; in Neoplatonism, peras and apeiron constitute the primal archetypal duality located at a position between the ineffable One and the noetic cosmos.
Aporrhetos—secret, prohibited, unspeakable; the common designation of mysteries and sacred rites of initiation; in Neoplatonism the term is applied in metaphysics and negative theology, frequently understood as a characteristic of the First Principle.
Apotheosis—divinization; in the esoteric sense it is accomplished by the philosophical purification and theurgical anagoge which reveals one’s primal and true identity with the divine principles; this is not a Homeric conception because Homer clearly separates the gods and men; however, following the ancient Egyptian spiritual patterns, the Orphic texts already promised apotheosis and immortality for the initiated soul who (like the Egyptian ba and the psuche in Plato’s Phaedrus) restores her wings and raises up back to the divine homeland.
Arche—beginning, starting point, authority, government, heart, principle; archai are understood as the first principles by Neoplatonists; the term archetupos, archetype, is used already by Plotinus in the sense of a divine paradigm or noetic model of the manifested entity.
Arete—excellence, goodness, virtue; Plotinus makes a distinction between the civic virtues (politikai aretai) and the purificatory virtues (kathartikai aretai); Porphyry adds two other grades—the theoretic virtues (theoretikai aretai) and the paradigmatic virtues (paradeigmatikai aretai): the former being that of the soul which beholds nous within itself, and the latter being the virtue proper to the divine Intellect (Nous), itself; Iamblichus discerns seven grades of virtue which in an ascending order illustrate the anagogic path to the divine: natural, ethical, civic, purificatory, theoretic, and paradigmatic virtues are crowned by the hieratic virtues (hieratikai aretai) that are proper to the One—they make the soul godlike (theoeides) and unite it with the First Principle through theurgy.
Arithmos—number; for the Pythagoreans, number is the first principle (Aristotle, Metaph. 986a15); Iamblichus sometimes identifies the gods with arithmoi, regarding the first numbers from the monad to the decad as deities and archetypal models of manifestation; the numerical organization of the cosmos requires that the organizing principles of bodies be treated as physical numbers and distinguishes them from mathematical numbers, which are the paradigms of physical numbers; the ideal, noetic, or eidetic (eidetikos) numbers transcend even mathematical numbers.
Arrhetos—ineffable, unspeakable; this term is close to aporrhetos and is used to designate rites and visions of the mysteries, and the transcendent nature of the One in Neoplatonism.
Askesis—in ancient philosophy this term designates not an “asceticism,” but spiritual exercises; thus philosophia is understood not as a theory of knowledge, but as a lived wisdom, a way of living according to intellect (nous); an askesis includes remembrance of God, the “watch of the heart,” or vigilance (nepsis), and prosoche, or attention to the beauty of the soul, the examination of our conscience and knowledge of ourselves.
Autozoon—essential living Being, or noetic Animal, which contains within it Ideas of all the living creatures and Archetypes of the four elements (Tim. 30b); it is a completely coherent archetypus mundus, the timeless, ungenerated, immaterial, and perfect matrix of the psychic and physical cosmos; for Plotinus, it is a well-rounded whole, composed of individual intellects, or noetic lights; “a globe of faces radiant with faces all living” (Enn. VI.7.15).
Ba—an ancient Egyptian term which means “manifestation” of certain divine qualities, arranged in a descending and ascending hierarchy; in an eschatological and soteriological context, it may be understood as “soul” moving up and down (i.e., descending from above [the world of spiritual lights] and ascending again) as an individual in an out-of-body state which is attained through initiation or death, when the physical body (khat,Gr. soma) is experienced as a corpse; ba is the vehicle of ascent, pictured as a human-headed bird which flies into the spheres of light and finally becomes aware of itself as an akh; the concept of ba influenced the Pythagorean and Platonic concept of soul (psuche), who tries to restore her wings through anamnesis, initiation into philosophy, and then ascends to the divine realm.
Bios—life, or a way of life, analogous to the Hindu darshana; one thus speaks of the Pythagorean way of life, or the Orphic way of life; to be a philosopher implies a rupture with daily life (bios) and a purification of one’s passions in order to experience the transcendence of the divine Intellect and the soul with respect to the mortal body.
Daimon—in the ancient Greek religion, daimon designates not a specific class of divine beings, but a peculiar mode of activity: it is an occult power that drives man forward or acts against him; since dai-mon is the veiled countenance of divine activity, every god can act as daimon; a special knowledge of daimones is claimed by Pythagoreans; for Plato, daimon is a spiritual being who watches over each individual, and is tantamount to his higher self, or an angel; whereas Plato is called “divine” by Neoplatonists, Aristotle is regarded as daimonios, meaning “an intermediary to god”—therefore Aristotle stands to Plato as an angel to a god; for Proclus, daimones are the intermediary beings located between the celestial objects and the terrestrial inhabitants.
