This in the Protreptics is the 24th Symbol; but instead of wear, it is there inscribe. But Iamblichus’ explanation of it is as follows: ‘This Symbol, conform- ably to the foregoing conception, employs the follow- ing exhortation: Philosophize, and before every thing consider the Gods as having an incorporeal subsistence. For this is the most principal root of the Pythagoric dogmas, from which nearly all of them are suspended, and by which they are strengthened even to the end. Do not therefore think that the Gods use such forms as are corporeal, or that they are received by a material subject, and by body as a material bond, like other animals. But the engravings in rings exhibit the bond which subsists through the ring, its corporeal nature and sensible form, and the view as it were of some partial animal, which becomes apparent through the engraving; from which especially we should separate the genus of the Gods, as being eternal and intelligible,
and always subsisting according to the same and in a
similar manner, as we have particularly, most fully,
and scientifically shown in our treatise concerning the
Gods,” }
P. 45. Nor ts 1t proper to sacrifice a white cock; for this also 1s a suppliant, and is sacred to the moon.
In the Protreptics, the 18th Symbol is partly the same with, and partly different from this. For it is, ‘““Nourish a cock; but sacrifice it not; for it is sacred to the sun and the moon.” And Iamblichus explains it as follows: This Symbol advises us to nourish and strengthen the body and not neglect it, dissolving and destroying the mighty tokens of the union, connexion, sympathy, and consent of the world. So that it ex- horts us to engage in the contemplation and philo- sophy of the universe. For though the truth con- cerning the universe is naturally occult, and sufficiently difficult of investigation, it must, however, at the same time, be inquired into and investigated by man, and especially through philosophy. For it is truly im-
ossible to be discovered through any other pursuit.
ut philosophy receiving certain sparks, and as it were
viatica, from nature, excites and expands them into
magnitude, rendering them more conspicuous through
the disciplines which it possesses. Hence, therefore,
we should philosophize.”
P. 45. It 1s proper to sacrifice, and to enter temples, unshod.
This in the Protreptics is the 3rd Symbol; but is
thus enunciated by lamblichus, “Sacrifice and adore
unshod.” On which Iamblichus observes: ‘This
Symbol signifies that we ought to worship the Gods,
1 This work is unfortunately lost.
and acquire a knowledge of them in an orderly and
modest manner, and in a way not surpassing our con-
dition on the earth. It also signifies that in worship-
ping them, and acquiring this knowledge, we should
be free from bonds, and properly liberated. But the
Symbol exhorts that sacrifice and adoration should be
performed not only in the body, but also in the energies
of the soul; so that these energies may neither be de-
tained by passions, nor by the imbecility of the body,
nor by generation, with which we are externally sur-
rounded. But every thing pertaining to us should be
properly liberated, and prepared for the participation
of the Gods.”
P.57. Enter not into a temple negligently, nor, in
short, adore carelessly, not even though you should
stand at the very doors themselves.
This in the Protreptics is the 2nd Symbol, and is
explained by Iamblichus as follows: “If the similar is
friendly and allied to the similar, it is evident that since
the Gods have a most principal essence among wholes,
we ought to make the worship of them a principal
object. But he who does this for the sake of any thing
else, gives a secondary rank to that which takes the
precedency of all things, and subverts the whole order
of religious worship and knowledge. Besides, it is not
proper to rank illustrious goods in the subordinate con-
dition of human utility, nor to place our concerns in
the order of an end, but things more excellent, whether
they be works or conceptions, in the condition of an
appendage.”
P. 58. These, therefore, he ordered not to eat the heart.
This is the 30th Symbol in the Protreptics, and is thus explained by Iamblichus: “‘This Symbol signifies
that it is not proper to divulse the union and consent
of the universe. And still further, it signifies this, Be
not envious, but philanthropic, and communicative:
and from this it exhorts us to philosophize. For
philosophy alone among the sciences and arts, is neither
pained with the goods of others, nor rejoices in the
evils of neighbours, these being allied and familiar by
nature, subject to the like passions, and exposed to one
common fortune. It likewise evinces that the future
is equally unlooked for by all men. Hence, it exhorts
us to sympathy and mutual love, and to be truly com-
municative, as it becomes rational animals.”
P. 58. Nor the brain.
This is the 31st Symbol in the Protreptics, and which
Iamblichus thus explains: “This Symbol also resembles
the former: for the brain is the ruling instrument of
intellectual prudence. The Symbol, therefore, ob-
scurely cipiites that we ought not to dilacerate nor
mangle things and dogmas, which have been the objects
of judicious deliberation. But these will be such as
have been the subject of intellectual consideration,
becoming thus equal to objects of a scientific nature.
For things of this kind are to be surveyed, not through
the instruments of the irrational form of the soul, such
as the heart and the liver; but through the pure rational
nature. Hence, to dilacerate these by opposition, is
inconsiderate folly; but the Symbol rather exhorts us
to venerate the fountain of intelligence, and the most
proximate organ of intellectual perception, through
which we shall possess contemplation, science, and
wisdom; and by which we shall truly philosophize,
and neither confound nor obscure the vestiges which
philosophy produces.”
P58: To abstain from mallows, €Sc.
The 38th Symbol in the Protreptics is: “Transplant mallows in your garden, but eat them not.” On which Iamblichus observes as follows: ‘This Symbol obscurely signifies that plants of this kind turn with the sun, and it thinks fit that this should be noticed by us. It also adds, transplant, that is to say, observe its nature, its tendency towards, and sympathy with, the sun; but rest not satisfied, nor dwell upon this, but transfer, and as it were transplant your conception to kindred plants and pot-herbs, and also to animals which are not kindred, to stones and rivers, and, in short, to natures of every kind. For you will find them to be prolific and multiform, and admirably abundant; and this to one who begins from the mallows, as from a root and principle, is significant of the union and consent of the world. Not only, therefore, do not destroy or obli- terate observations of this kind; but increase and multiply them as if they were transplanted.”
P. 59. Thus too he ordered them to abstain from the fish Melanurus.+
The 6th Symbol in the Protreptics is, “Abstain from
melanurus; for it belongs to the terrestrial Gods.”
And this, according to Iamblichus, admonishes us to
embrace the celestial journey, to conjoin ourselves to
the intellectual Gods, to become separated from a
material nature, and to be led as it were in a circular
progression to an immaterial and pure life. It further
exhorts us to adopt the most excellent worship of the
1 According to Aélian and Suidas also, melanurus is a fish; but as
the word signifies that which has a black termination, it is very appro- priately used as a symbol of a material nature.
Gods, and especially that which pertains to the primary! Gods.”
P. 59. And also not to receive the fish Erythynus.
This in the Protreptics is the 33rd Symbol, and which
Iamblichus thus explains: “This Symbol seems to be
merely referred to the etymology of the name. Receive
not an unblushing and impudent man; nor on the con-
trary one stupidly astonished, and who in every thing
blushes, and is humble in the extreme, through the
imbecility of his intellect and reasoning power. Hence
this also is understood, Be not yourself such a one.”
P. 59. He ltkewtse exhorted them to abstain from beans,
In the Protreptics this is the 37th Symbol; and Iam-
blichus has not developed for us the more mystical
signification of this symbol. For he only says that “ it
admonishes us to beware of every thing which is cor-
ruptive of our converse with the Gods and divine
prophecy.” But Aristotle appears to have assigned
the true mystical reason why the Pythagoreans abstained
from beans. For he says, (apud Laert.) ‘‘that Pythagoras
considered beans as a symbol of generation [i.e. of the
whole of a visible and corporeal nature,] which subsists
according to a right line, and is without inflection;
because a bean alone of almost all spermatic plants, is
perforated through the whole of it, and is not ob-
structed by any intervening joints.” Wence he adds,
“it resembles the gates of Hades.” For these are per-
petually open without any impediment to souls descend-
ing into generation. The exhortation, therefore, to
abstain from beans, is equivalent to admonishing us to
1 viz. Those Gods that are characterized by the intelligible, and intellect. See my translation of Proclus, On the Theology of Plato.
beware of a continued and perpetual descent into the
realms of generation. Hence the true meaning of the
following celebrated lines in Virgil:
facilis descensus Averno.
Noctes atque dies patet atri janua Ditis:
Sed revocare gradum, superasque evadere ad auras,
Hoc opus, hic labor est.
1.€.
The gates of Hell are open night and day,
Smooth the descent, and easy is the way;
But to return, and view the cheerful skies,
In this, the mighty task and labor lies.
DryDeENn.
P. 72. Such as infallible predictions of earthquakes, rapid expulsions of pestilence, Fc. Fe.
Since Pythagoras, as Iamblichus informs us, p. 7, was initiated in all the mysteries of Byblus and ‘Tyre, in the sacred operations of the Syrians, and in the mysteries of the Pheenicians, and also (p. 9) that he spent two and twenty years in the adyta of temples in Egypt, associated with the Magi in Babylon, and was instructed by them in their venerable knowledge ;—it is not at all wonderful that he was skilled in magic or theurgy, and was therefore able to perform things which surpass merely human power, and which appear to be perfectly incredible to the vulgar. For “magic,” (as we learn from Psellus in his MS. treatise on Demons) “formed the last part of the sacerdotal science.” He farther likewise informs us, “that magic investigates the nature, power, and quality of every thing sublunary; viz. of the elements and their parts, of animals, all-various plants, and their fruits, of stones, and herbs: and in short, it explores the essence and power of every thing. From hence, therefore, it produces its effects. And it
forms statues which procure health, makes all-various
figures, and things which become the instruments of
disease. It asserts too, that eagles and dragons con-
tribute to health; but that cats, dogs, and crows, are
symbols of vigilance, to which therefore they contribute.
But for the fashioning of certain parts, wax and clay
are used. Often, too, celestial fire is made to appear
through magic; and then statues laugh, and lamps are
spontaneously enkindled.” See the original in the
Notes to my Pausanias, p. 325. And that theurgy was
employed by the ancients in their mysteries, I have
fully proved in my treatise On the Eleusinian and
Bacchic Mysteries.+
Conformably to this, Plato also in the First Alcibiades says, that the magic of Zoroaster consisted in the wor- ship of the Gods, on which passage, I shall present the reader with what I have said, in the first volume of my Plato, p. 63, as it will enable him to see that the theurgy of the ancients is founded in a theory equally scientific and sublime.
“The following account of magic by Proclus, origin-
ally formed, as it appears to me, a part of the Com-
mentary written by him on the present passage. For
the MS. Commentary of Proclus, which is extant on
this dialogue, does not extend to more than a third
part of it; and this Dissertation on Magic, which is
only extant in Latin, was published by Ficinus the
translator, immediately after his: Excerpta from this
Commentary. So that it seems highly probable, that
the manuscript from which Ficinus translated his
Excerpta, was much more perfect, than that which has
been preserved to us, in consequence of containing this
account of the magic of the ancients.
“In the same manner as lovers gradually advance
from that beauty which is apparent in sensible forms,
to that which is divine; so the ancient priests, when
1 See the second edition of this work in Nos. 15 and 16 of the Pamphleteer.