1 Introduction
Sometime in the 5th century, the Neoplatonist Proclus wrote a large compendium of Chaldaic texts and doctrines. It is almost certainly from this that the 11th-century Christian polymath Michael Psellus later put together a collection of excerpts from the Chaldaic Oracles with exegesis (Τοῦ Ψελλοῦ ἐξήγησις τῶν Χαλδαϊκῶν ῥητῶν), which was partly based on the exegesis of the ancient Neoplatonists, partly original. This is arguably the most important source of fragments from the Oracles and Neoplatonic exegesis on them, especially when taken together with the fragments of Proclus’ Chaldaic Philosophy, which is either the same or a parallel text to Psellus’ source here. (But note that the Oracles are not all there was; cf. The Chaldaic Outlines).
The present translation is, to my knowledge, the first into English since that of Thomas Stanley in 1662 (which is really quite good, for those who can comfortably read 17th-century English). I use the Greek text of D.J. O’Meara, Michaelis Pselli Philosophica minora, vol. 2. My commentary is subject to revision as I further explore the Chaldaica, and must be taken with a grain of salt. It is currently also full of unexplained Neoplatonic jargon, but this is difficult to avoid, and can only be addressed once my work has progressed significantly (gods willing). Links to related passages on other pages (such as Proclus’ Chaldaic Philosophy) will be filled in by and by.
2 Translation
(1 = fr. 158 des Places, line 2 of 2) Chaldaic Oracle:
“”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
ἔστι καὶ εἰδώλῳ μερὶς εἰς τόπον ἀμφιφάοντα.
Exegesis of the Oracle:
“”
Ἐξήγησις τοῦ ῥητοῦ.
εἴδωλα λέγεται παρὰ τοῖς φιλοσόφοις τὰ συμφυῆ μὲν τοῖς κρείττοσιν, ἐλάττονα δὲ ἐκείνων τυγχάνοντα· οἷον συμφυὴς ὁ νοῦς τῷ θεῷ καὶ τῷ νῷ ἡ λογικὴ ψυχὴ καὶ τῇ λογικῇ ψυχῇ ἡ ἄλογος καὶ τῇ ἀλόγῳ ψυχῇ ἡ φύσις καὶ τῇ φύσει τὸ σῶμα καὶ τῷ σώματι ἡ ὕλη. εἴδωλον οὖν τοῦ μὲν θεοῦ ὁ νοῦς, τοῦ δὲ νοῦ ἡ λογικὴ ψυχή, τῆς δὲ λογικῆς ψυχῆς ἡ ἄλογος, τῆς δὲ ἀλόγου ἡ φύσις, τῆς δὲ φύσεως τὸ σῶμα, τοῦ δὲ σώματος ἡ ὕλη. ἐνταῦθα δὲ τὸ Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον εἴδωλόν φησι τὴν ἄλογον ψυχὴν τῆς λογικῆς. συμφυὴς γὰρ αὐτῇ ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ χείρων ἐκείνης. καί φησιν ὅτι καὶ ‘εἰδώλῳ μερίς’ ἐστιν ‘εἰς τόπον ἀμφιφάοντα’· τοῦτ‘ ἔστιν· ἡ ἄλογος ψυχή, ἥτις ἐστὶν εἴδωλον τῆς λογικῆς ψυχῆς, καθαρθεῖσα δι‘ ἀρετῆς ἐν τῷ βίῳ, ἄνεισιν εἰς τὸν ὑπὲρ σελήνην τόπον μετὰ τὴν διάλυσιν τῆς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ζωῆς καὶ ἀποκληροῦται εἰς τόπον ἀμφιφαῆ, τοῦτ‘ ἔστιν ἀμφοτέρωθεν φαίνοντα καὶ ὁλολαμπῆ. ὁ μὲν γὰρ ὑπὸ σελήνην τόπος ἀμφικνεφής ἐστι, τοῦτ‘ ἔστιν ἀμφοτέρωθεν σκοτεινός, ὁ δὲ σεληνιακὸς ἑτεροφαὴς ἢ ἑτεροκνεφής, τοῦτ‘ ἔστι τῷ μὲν ἡμίσει μέρει λάμπων, τῷ δὲ ἡμίσει σκότους μεστός. καὶ γὰρ καὶ αὐτὴ ἡ σελήνη τοιαύτη ἐστί, τῷ ἡμίσει μέρει πεφωτισμένη καὶ τῷ ἡμίσει ἀφώτιστος. ὁ δὲ ὑπὲρ τὴν σελήνην τόπος ἀμφιφαής ἐστιν, ἤτοι διόλου πεφωτισμένος. λέγει οὖν τὸ λόγιον, ὅτι οὐ μόνον ἡ λογικὴ ψυχὴ ἀποκληροῦται εἰς τὸν ὑπὲρ σελήνην τόπον τὸν ἀμφιφαῆ, ἀλλὰ μερίς ἐστι καὶ τῷ εἰδώλῳ αὐτῆς, ἤτοι τῇ ἀλόγῳ ψυχῇ, εἰς τὸν ἀμφιφαῆ τόπον ἀποκληρωθῆναι, ὅταν διαυγὴς καὶ καθαρὰ ἐξέλθοι τοῦ σώματος. ὁ μὲν γὰρ Ἑλληνικὸς λόγος, ἀθάνατον τιθεὶς καὶ τὴν ἄλογον τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ψυχήν, μέχρι τῶν ὑπὸ σελήνην στοιχείων αὐτὴν ἀνάγει· τὸ δὲ Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον καθαῖρον αὐτὴν καὶ ὁμόφρονα ποιοῦν τῇ λογικῇ ψυχῇ, εἰς τὸν ἐπέκεινα τῆς σελήνης τόπον τὸν ἀμφιφαῆ ταύτην ἀποκαθιστᾷ.
Καὶ τὰ μὲν τῶν Χαλδαίων δόγματα τοιαῦτα. οἱ δὲ τῆς εὐσεβείας ὑφηγηταὶ καὶ τῶν Χριστιανικῶν δογμάτων ὑποφῆται καὶ κήρυκες οὐδαμοῦ τὴν ἄλογον ψυχὴν ἀνάγουσιν, ἀλλὰ θνητὴν διαρρήδην ὁρίζονται, ἄλογον δὲ ψυχὴν τίθενται τὸν θυμὸν καὶ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν τὴν ὀρεγομένην γενέσεως. οὕτω γοῦν ὁ Νυσσαεὺς Γρηγόριος ἐν τῷ περὶ ψυχῆς λόγῳ διέξεισιν.
(2 = fr. 158 des Places, line 1 of 2) Chaldaic Oracle:
“”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
μηδὲ τὸ τῆς ὕλης σκύβαλον κρημνῷ καταλείψῃς.
Exegesis:
“”
Ἐξήγησις.
ὕλης σκύβαλόν φησι τὸ λόγιον τὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου σῶμα τὸ ἐκ τεττάρων στοιχείων συγκείμενον καὶ ὥσπερ ἐν διδασκαλίας λόγῳ καὶ παραινέσεώς φησι πρὸς τὸν διδασκόμενον, ὅτι ‘μὴ μόνον τὴν ψυχήν σου πρὸς τὸν θεὸν μετεώρισον καὶ τῆς βιωτικῆς συγχύσεως ὑπερτέραν ποίησον, ἀλλ‘, εἰ δυνατόν, μηδὲ αὐτὸ τὸ σῶμα ὅπερ ἠμφίεσαι καὶ ὅπερ σκύβαλόν ἐστι τῆς ὕλης, τοῦτ‘ ἔστι πρᾶγμά τι ἀπερριμμένον καὶ καταπεφρονημένον καὶ ὕλης παίγνιον, εἰς τὸν περίγειον καταλείψῃς κόσμον’. κρημνὸν γὰρ τὸν ἐνταῦθα τόπον ὀνομάζει τὸ λόγιον. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἀπὸ μετεώρου τόπου τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἡ φύσις ἡμῶν ἐνταῦθα κατακρημνίζεται. παραινεῖ οὖν ἵνα καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ σῶμα, ὅπερ φησὶν ‘ὕλης σκύβαλον’, πυρὶ θείῳ ἐκδαπανήσωμεν ἢ ἀπολεπτύναντες εἰς αἰθέρα κουφίσωμεν ἢ μετεωρισθῶμεν ὑπὸ θεοῦ εἰς τόπον ἄυλον καὶ ἀσώματον, ἢ ἐνσώματον μὲν αἰθέριον δὲ ἢ οὐράνιον· οὗ δὴ τετύχηκεν ὅ τε Θεσβίτης Ἡλίας καὶ πρὸ τούτου Ἐνώχ, μετατεθέντες ἀπὸ τῆς ἐνταῦθα ζωῆς καὶ εἰς θειοτέραν λῆξιν ἀποκαταστάντες καὶ ‘μηδὲ τὸ τῆς ὕλης σκύβαλον’, ἤτοι τὸ ἑαυτῶν σῶμα, ‘κρημνῷ’ καταλείψαντες. κρημνὸς δέ ἐστιν, ὥσπερ εἰρήκαμεν, ὁ περίγειος τόπος.
Τὸ δὲ τοιοῦτον δόγμα εἰ καὶ θαυμάσιόν ἐστι καὶ ὑπερφυές, ἀλλ‘ οὐκ ἐπὶ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ βουλήματι ἢ δυνάμει ἡ δαπάνη κεῖται τοῦ σώματος καὶ ἡ πρὸς τὸν θειότερον τόπον μετάστασις· μόνης δὲ τῆς θείας ἤρτηται τὸ πρᾶγμα χάριτος τῆς τῷ ἀπορρήτῳ πυρὶ τὴν ὕλην ἐκδαπανώσης τοῦ σώματος καὶ τὴν ἐμβριθῆ καὶ γεώδη φύσιν ὀχήματι πυρίνῳ μετεωριζούσης εἰς οὐρανόν.
(3 = fr. 166 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
μὴ ἐξάξῃς, ἵνα μὴ ἐξίῃ ἔχουσά τι.
Exegesis:
“”
Ἐξήγησις.
τοῦτο τὸ λόγιον καὶ Πλωτῖνος ἐν τῷ Περὶ εὐλόγου ἐξαγωγῆς τίθησιν. ἔστι δ‘ ὁ λόγος παραίνεσις ὑπερφυής τε καὶ ὑπερήφανος. φησὶ γὰρ μηδέν τι τὸν ἄνθρωπον πραγματεύεσθαι περὶ τὴν ἐξαγωγὴν τῆς ψυχῆς, μηδὲ φροντίζειν πῶς ἂν ἐξέλθοι τοῦ σώματος, ἀλλὰ τῷ φυσικῷ λόγῳ τῆς διαλύσεως παραχωρεῖν. αὐτὸ γὰρ τὸ ἐμμέριμνον εἶναί τινα περὶ τῆς τοῦ σώματος λύσεως καὶ τῆς ἐντεῦθεν ἐξαγωγῆς τῆς ψυχῆς μετάγει τὸν νοῦν ἀπὸ τῶν κρειττόνων καὶ ἀπασχολεῖ περὶ τὴν τοιαύτην φροντίδα, ἔνθεν τοι οὐδὲ καθαίρεται τελεώτατα ἡ ψυχή. ἀσχολουμένοις οὖν ἡμῖν περὶ τὴν διάλυσιν, ἐὰν τηνικαῦτα ὁ θάνατος παραγένηται, οὐκ ἐλευθέρα παντάπασιν ἔξεισιν ἡ ψυχὴ ἀλλ‘ ἔχουσά τι τῆς ἐμπαθεστέρας ζωῆς. πάθος γὰρ ὁρίζεται ὁ Χαλδαῖος τὸ φροντίζειν περὶ τοῦ σώματος τὸν ἄνθρωπον. ‘δεῖ γάρ’ φησί ‘μηδενὸς ἑτέρου φροντίζειν ἢ τῶν κρειττόνων ἐλλάμψεων, μᾶλλον δὲ μηδὲ περὶ τούτων φροντίζειν, ἀλλ‘ ἀφεικότα ἑαυτὸν ταῖς ἀναγούσαις ἡμᾶς ἀγγελικαῖς ἢ θειοτέραις δυνάμεσι καὶ τὰ τοῦ σώματος μύσαντα αἰσθητήρια, εἰπεῖν δὲ καὶ τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς, ἀπολυπραγμονήτως καὶ ἀνεννοήτως ἕπεσθαι τῷ καλοῦντι θεῷ.’
Τινὲς δὲ ἁπλούστερον ἐξηγήσαντο τὸ παρὸν λόγιον· ‘μὴ ἐξάξῃς’ γάρ φησιν, ‘ἵνα μὴ ἐξίῃ ἔχουσά τι’· τοῦτ‘ ἔστι· μὴ προανέλῃς σαυτὸν τοῦ φυσικοῦ θανάτου, κἂν πάνυ πεφιλοσόφηκας· οὔπω γὰρ τῆς τελεωτάτης καθάρσεως ἔτυχες. ἔνθεν καὶ ἀφιπταμένη ἡ ψυχὴ τοῦ σώματος διὰ τῆς τοιαύτης ἐξαγωγῆς ἔχουσά τι τῆς θνητοειδοῦς ζωῆς ἔξεισιν. εἰ γὰρ καὶ ὡς ἐν φρουρᾷ τῷ σώματί ἐσμεν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, ὥς που δὴ καὶ Πλάτων εἴρηκεν ἐν ἀπορρήτοις λόγοις, τὴν ἄνω δόξαν μεμαθηκώς, ἀλλ‘ οὐ δεῖ ’ἑαυτὸν ἀποκτιννύναι τινὰ πρὶν ἂν ἀνάγκην θεὸς ἐπιπέμψῃ’. καὶ κρείττων ἡ ἐξήγησις αὕτη τῆς προτέρας καὶ τῷ Χριστιανικῷ λόγῳ συμβαίνουσα.
(4 = fr. 107 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
μὴ τὰ πελώρια μέτρα γύης ὑπὸ σὴν φρένα βάλλου·
οὐ γὰρ ἀληθείης φυτὸν ἐν χθονί <ἐστιν>.
μηδὲ μέτρει μέτρον ἠελίου κανόνας συναθροίσας·
ἀιδίῳ βουλῇ φέρεται πατρός, οὐχ ἕνεκεν σοῦ.
μήνης ῥοῖζον ἔασον· ἀεὶ τρέχει ἔργῳ ἀνάγκης.
ἀστέριον προπόρευμα σέθεν χάριν οὐκ ἐλοχεύθη.
αἴθριος ὀρνίθων ταρσὸς πλατὺς οὔποτ‘ ἀληθής,
θυσιῶν σπλάγχνων τε τομαί· τάδ‘ ἀθύρματα πάντα,
ἐμπορικῆς ἀπάτης στηρίγματα. φεῦγε σὺ ταῦτα,
μέλλων εὐσεβίης ἱερὸν παράδεισον ἀνοίγειν,
ἔνθ‘ ἀρετὴ σοφία τε καὶ εὐνομία συνάγονται.
Exegesis:
“”
Ἐξήγησις.
ἀπάγει τὸν μαθητευόμενον ὁ Χαλδαῖος πάσης Ἑλληνικῆς σοφίας καὶ μόνῳ προσκολλᾷ, ὡς οἴεται, τῷ θεῷ. ‘μὴ τὰ πελώρια’ γάρ φησι ‘μέτρα γύης ὑπὸ σὴν φρένα βάλλου· οὐ γὰρ ἀληθείης φυτὸν ἐν χθονί’· τοῦτ‘ ἔστι· μηδὲ τὰ μεγάλα μέτρα τῆς γῆς πολυπραγμόνει τῇ σῇ φρενί, ὥσπερ οἱ γεωγράφοι ποιοῦσι καταμετροῦντες τὴν γῆν· σπέρμα γὰρ ἀληθείας οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν γῇ. ‘μηδὲ μέτρει’ φησί ‘μέτρον ἠελίου κανόνας συναθροίσας· ἀιδίῳ βουλῇ φέρεται πατρός, οὐχ ἕνεκεν σοῦ’· τοῦτ‘ ἔστι· μὴ ἀσχολοῦ περὶ ἀστρονομίαν μηδὲ καταμέτρει τὸν τοῦ ἡλίου δρόμον κανόσιν ἀστρονομικοῖς· οὐ γὰρ ἕνεκεν τῆς σῆς ζωῆς τὸν δρόμον ποιεῖται, ἀλλ‘ ἀχρόνως κινεῖται κατὰ τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ βούλημα. ‘μήνης ῥοῖζον ἔασον· ἀεὶ τρέχει ἔργῳ ἀνάγκης’· τοῦτ‘ ἔστι· τὸ τῆς σελήνης εὔτροχον κίνημα μὴ πολυπραγμόνει· τρέχει γὰρ αὕτη οὐ διὰ σέ, ἀλλ‘ ὑπὸ κρείττονος ἀνάγκης ἀγομένη. ‘ἀστέριον προπόρευμα σέθεν χάριν οὐκ ἐλοχεύθη’· τοῦτ‘ ἔστιν· οἱ προηγούμενοι τῶν ἀπλανῶν ἀστέρων ἢ τῶν πλανωμένων οὐ χάριν σοῦ τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἔλαβον. ‘αἴθριος ὀρνίθων ταρσὸς πλατὺς οὔποτ‘ ἀληθής’· τοῦτ‘ ἔστιν· ἡ διὰ τῶν πετομένων ὀρνίθων ἐν τῷ ἀερὶ τέχνη, ἣν δὴ καὶ οἰωνιστικὴν ὀνομάζουσιν, οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθής, περιεργαζομένη πτήσεις αὐτῶν καὶ κλαγγὰς καὶ καθέδρας. ταρσὸν δὲ πλατὺν τὴν τῶν ποδῶν αὐτῶν λέγει βάσιν πλατεῖαν οὖσαν, διὰ τὴν τῶν δακτύλων ἔκτασιν διειργομένων τῷ μεταξὺ δέρματι. ‘θυσιῶν σπλάγχνων τε τομαί· τάδ‘ ἀθύρματα πάντα’· τοῦτ‘ ἔστιν· ἡ θυτικὴ καλουμένη ἐπιστήμη, ἡ διὰ τῶν θυσιῶν τῶν μελλόντων ζητοῦσα τὴν πρόγνωσιν καὶ ἡ διὰ τῆς τομῆς τῶν σπλάγχνων τῶν σφαζομένων ἱερείων, παίγνιά εἰσιν ἄντικρυς. ’ἐμπορικῆς ἀπάτης στηρίγματα’· τοῦτ‘ ἔστιν· ἀφορμαὶ κέρδους ἀπατηλαί. ’μὴ τοίνυν’ φησί ‘ταῦτα πολυπραγμόνει σὺ ὁ μαθητευόμενος ὑπ‘ ἐμοῦ, μέλλων εὐσεβίης ἱερὸν παράδεισον ἀνοίγειν’. ἱερὸς δὲ παράδεισος εὐσεβείας κατὰ Χαλδαίους οὐχ ὃν ἡ τοῦ Μωυσέως βίβλος φησίν, ἀλλ‘ ὁ λειμὼν τῶν ὑψηλοτέρων θεωριῶν, ἔνθα τὰ ποικίλα τῶν ἀρετῶν δένδρα καὶ τὸ ξύλον τὸ γνωστικὸν καλοῦ καὶ πονηροῦ, τοῦτ‘ ἔστιν ἡ διακριτικὴ φρόνησις ἡ διαιροῦσα τὸ κρεῖττον ἀπὸ τοῦ χείρονος, καὶ τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς, τοῦτ‘ ἔστι τὸ φυτὸν τῆς θειοτέρας ἐλλάμψεως τῆς καρποφορούσης τῇ ψυχῇ ζωὴν ἱερωτέραν καὶ κρείττονα. ἐν τούτῳ γοῦν τῷ παραδείσῳ καὶ αἱ τέτταρες γενικώταται τῶν ἀρετῶν ἀρχαὶ δίκην ποταμῶν ῥέουσιν· ἐν τούτῳ τῷ παραδείσῳ καὶ ἀρετὴ καὶ σοφία καὶ εὐνομία φέρονται. ἔστι δὲ ἀρετὴ μία μὲν ἡ γενική, πολλαὶ δὲ αἱ κατ‘ εἴδη διαιρούμεναι. σοφία δέ ἐστιν ἡ τούτων ἁπάντων περιεκτική, ἣν ὡς μονάδα ἄρρητον ὁ θεῖος προβάλλεται νοῦς.
Τῶν δὴ τοιούτων Χαλδαϊκῶν παραινέσεων τὰ μὲν πλείω καὶ ταῖς καθ‘ ἡμᾶς εἰσηγήσεσι κατάλληλά πώς εἰσι, τινὰ δὲ καὶ ἠθέτηται. τοῦ γὰρ καθ‘ ἡμᾶς δόγματος διαρρήδην φάσκοντος διὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὴν ὁρατὴν γεγενῆσθαι κτίσιν, ὁ Χαλδαῖος τὸν λόγον οὐ παραδέχεται, ἀλλ‘ ἀιδίως τίθεται κινεῖσθαι τὰ κατ‘ οὐρανὸν ἔργῳ ἀνάγκης καὶ οὐχ ἕνεκεν ἡμῶν.
(5 = fr. 110 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
δίζηαι ψυχῆς ὀχετόν, ὅθεν ἢ τίνι τάξει
σώματι θητεύσας ** ἐπὶ τάξιν
αὖθις ἀναστήσεις, ἱερῷ λόγῳ ἔργον ἑνώσας.
Exegesis:
“”
Ἐξήγησις.
τοῦτ‘ ἔστι· ζήτει τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς ψυχῆς, πόθεν παρήχθη καὶ ἐδούλευσε σώματι καὶ πῶς ἄν τις ταύτην ἄνευ κρίσεως, ἐγείρας διὰ τῶν τελεστικῶν ἔργων, ἐπαναγάγοι ὅθεν ἀφίκετο. ‘ἱερῷ λόγῳ ἔργον ἑνώσας’· τοῦτο δὲ τοιοῦτόν ἐστι. ἱερός ἐστιν ἐν ἡμῖν λόγος ἡ νοερωτέρα ζωή, μᾶλλον δὲ ἡ ὑψηλοτέρα δύναμις τῆς ψυχῆς, ἣν ἄνθος νοῦ ἐν ἑτέροις ὀνομάζει τὸ λόγιον. ἀλλ‘ οὗτος ὁ ἱερὸς λόγος ἀδυνατεῖ ἀφ‘ ἑαυτοῦ πρὸς τὴν ὑψηλοτέραν ἀναγωγὴν καὶ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ θείου παράληψιν. καὶ ὁ μὲν τῆς εὐσεβείας λόγος χειραγωγεῖ τοῦτον πρὸς θεὸν διὰ τῶν ἐκεῖθεν ἐλλάμψεων, ὁ δὲ Χαλδαῖος διὰ τῆς τελεστικῆς ἐπιστήμης. τελεστικὴ δὲ ἐπιστήμη ἐστὶν ἡ οἷον τελοῦσα τὴν ψυχὴν διὰ τῆς τῶν ἐνταῦθ‘ ὑλῶν δυνάμεως. τοῦτο γοῦν φησιν ‘ἱερῷ λόγῳ ἔργον ἑνώσας’, τοῦτ‘ ἔστι συνάψας τῷ ἱερῷ λόγῳ τῆς ψυχῆς ἤτοι τῇ κρείττονι δυνάμει τὸ τῆς τελετῆς ἔργον. καὶ ὁ μὲν καθ‘ ἡμᾶς θεολόγος Γρηγόριος λόγῳ καὶ θεωρίᾳ τὴν ψυχὴν ἀνάγει πρὸς τὰ θειότερα· λόγῳ τῷ καθ‘ ἡμᾶς τῷ νοερωτέρῳ καὶ κρείττονι, θεωρίᾳ τῇ ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς ἐλλάμψει. ὁ δέ γε Πλάτων λόγῳ καὶ νοήσει περιληπτὴν ἡμῖν τὴν ἀγέννητον οὐσίαν τίθεται· ὁ δὲ Χαλδαῖος οὐκ ἄλλως φησὶν ἡμᾶς ἀνάγεσθαι πρὸς θεόν, εἰ μὴ δυναμώσομεν τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ὄχημα διὰ τῶν ὑλικῶν τελετῶν· οἴεται γὰρ καθαίρεσθαι τὴν ψυχὴν λίθοις καὶ πόαις καὶ ἐπῳδαῖς, ὡς εὔτροχον εἶναι πρὸς τὴν ἀνάβασιν.
(6 = fr. 164 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
μηδὲ κάτω νεύσῃς· κρημνὸς κατὰ γῆς ὑπόκειται,
ἑπταπόρου σύρων κατὰ βαθμίδος,
ὑφ‘ ἣν ὁ τῆς ἀνάγκης θρόνος ἐστίν.
Exegesis:
“”
Ἐξήγησις.
τὴν μετὰ θεοῦ οὖσαν ψυχὴν τὸ λόγιον νουθετεῖ ἐκείνῳ μόνῳ προσέχειν τὸν νοῦν καὶ μὴ κάτω τὴν ῥοπὴν ποιεῖσθαι· πολὺς γὰρ ὁ ἀπὸ θεοῦ κατὰ γῆς κρημνός, ‘σύρων’ τὰς ψυχὰς διὰ τῆς ‘ἑπταπόρου βαθμίδος’. ἑπτάπορος δὲ βαθμὶς αἱ τῶν ἑπτὰ πλανητῶν σφαῖραί εἰσιν. νεύσασα γοῦν ἄνωθεν ἡ ψυχὴ φέρεται ἐπὶ γῆν διὰ τῶν ἑπτὰ τούτων σφαιρῶν. ἡ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ κύκλων ὡς διὰ βαθμίδος κάθοδος ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον ἄγει τῆς ἀνάγκης· οὗ δὴ γενομένη ἡ ψυχὴ τὸν περίγειον κόσμον ποθεῖν ἀναγκάζεται.
(7 = fr. 150 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“Never change the barbarous names!”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
ὀνόματα βάρβαρα μήποτ‘ ἀλλάξῃς.
Exegesis:
“That is, the names (current) among each people are handed down from the gods, and have an ineffable power in the rites. So, you shall not translate them into the Greek language, as for instance (the Hebrew words) Seraphim, Cherubim, Michael or Gabriel.¹ For when named thus, in accordance with the Hebrew language, they have an ineffable activity in the rites; but when changed into Greek words, they are powerless. For my part, I neither accept the Chaldaic rites, nor entirely support the doctrine; but I hid only the obscurity of the argument from you.”²
[Notes:
1: Did a Neoplatonist give these Hebrew words as examples? It is not unlikely, since they were fairly important in pagan Greek-language magic, too, as the Greek Magical Papyri show, and they could well have been used in Chaldaic rites, as suggested by the choice of the word teletai here. But perhaps the obscurity Psellus refers to means the examples.
2: I.e., he did not hide the doctrine despite disagreeing with, but he tried to explain it more clearly than his source.]
Ἐξήγησις.
τοῦτ‘ ἔστιν· εἰσὶν ὀνόματα παρ‘ ἑκάστοις ἔθνεσι θεοπαράδοτα, δύναμιν ἐν ταῖς τελεταῖς ἄρρητον ἔχοντα· μὴ οὖν μεταλλάξῃς αὐτὰ εἰς τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν διάλεκτον, οἷον τὸ Σεραφεὶμ καὶ τὸ Χερουβεὶμ καὶ τὸ Μιχαὴλ καὶ τὸ Γαβριήλ. οὕτω μὲν γὰρ λεγόμενα κατὰ τὴν Ἑβραϊκὴν διάλεκτον ἐνέργειαν ἐν ταῖς τελεταῖς ἔχει ἄρρητον· ἀμειφθέντα δὲ ἐν τοῖς Ἑλληνικοῖς ὀνόμασιν ἐξασθενεῖ. ἐγὼ δὲ οὔτε τὰς Χαλδαϊκὰς δέχομαι τελετὰς οὔτε τῷ δόγματι πάνυ προστίθεμαι. ἀνεκάλυψα δέ σοι μόνον τοῦ λόγου τὴν κρυφιότητα.
(8 = fr. 79 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“Every cosmos maintains firm intellective membranes.”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
πᾶς ἴσχει κόσμος νοεροὺς ἀνοχῆας ἀκαμπεῖς.
Exegesis:
“The Chaldaeans placed powers in the cosmos and called them Kosmagoi, as leading (agoúsai) the cosmos through providential movements. Now, the Oracle calls these ‘membranes’ (anokheîs), as ‘holding’ (anékhontes) the whole cosmos untiringly; with the word ‘firm’, their stable power is shown, through ‘holding’ (anokhikón), their protective (power). They define these powers as being the cause of permanence for the cosmos, and as being of an unswerving order.
“There are also other powers, called Implacables by them, which are harsh and indifferent towards things here, and they the souls not be soothed by charming affects.”
[Notes:
Although there are other sources on the Kosmagoi and the Implacables, their activity is rarely described so directly.]
Ἐξήγησις.
δυνάμεις οἱ Χαλδαῖοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τίθενται καὶ ὀνομάζουσιν αὐτὰς κοσμαγοὺς ὡς τὸν κόσμον ἀγούσας προνοητικαῖς κινήσεσιν. ταύτας οὖν νῦν ‘ἀνοχέας’ καλεῖ ὡς τὸν πάντα κόσμον ἀκαμάτως ἀνέχοντας, τῷ μὲν ἀκαμπεῖ τῆς σταθερᾶς αὐτῶν δηλουμένης δυνάμεως, τῷ δὲ ἀνοχικῷ τῆς φρουρητικῆς. ταύτας δὲ τὰς δυνάμεις διαμονῆς τῷ κόσμῳ αἰτίας καὶ ἀκλινοῦς ὁρίζονται τάξεως.
Εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ ἕτεραι δυνάμεις λεγόμεναι παρ‘ αὐτοῖς ἀμείλικτοι, οἷον ἔντονοι καὶ ἀνεπίστροφοι πρὸς τὰ τῇδε, καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς ποιοῦσαι τοῖς θελκτηρίοις μὴ μειλίσσεσθαι πάθεσιν.
(9 = fr. 206 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“Work round the Hecatic whirl-about (strophalon)!”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
ἐνέργει περὶ τὸν Ἑκατικὸν στρόφαλον.
Exegesis:
“”
Ἐξήγησις. ὁ Ἑκατικὸς στρόφαλος σφαῖρά ἐστι χρυσῆ, μέσον σάπφειρον περικλείουσα, διὰ ταυρείου στρεφομένη ἱμάντος, δι‘ ὅλης αὐτῆς ἔχουσα χαρακτῆρας· ἣν δὴ στρέφοντες ἐποιοῦντο τὰς ἐπικλήσεις. καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα καλεῖν εἰώθασιν ἴυγγας, εἴτε σφαιρικὸν ἔχοιεν εἴτε τρίγωνον εἴτε ἄλλο τι σχῆμα. ἃ δὴ δονοῦντες τοὺς ἀσήμους ἢ κτηνώδεις ἐξεφώνουν ἤχους, γελῶντες καὶ τὸν ἀέρα μαστίζοντες. διδάσκει οὖν τὴν τελετὴν ἐνεργεῖν τὴν κίνησιν τοῦ τοιούτου στροφάλου ὡς δύναμιν ἀπόρρητον ἔχουσαν. Ἑκατικὸς δὲ καλεῖται ὡς τῇ Ἑκάτῃ ἀνακείμενος· ἡ δὲ Ἑκάτη θεός ἐστι παρὰ Χαλδαίοις, ἐν δεξιᾷ μὲν αὐτῆς ἔχουσα τὴν πηγὴν τῶν ἀρετῶν, ἐν δὲ ἀριστερᾷ τῶν ψυχῶν. ἔστι δὲ τὸ πᾶν φλύαρον.
(10 = fr. 147 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“If you speak to me often, you will see all things a lion. / For neither can the vaulted mass of heaven then be seen, / nor do the stars shine; the light of the Moon (Mēnē) is hidden, / and the Earth does not stand still, but all things are beheld with thunderbolts.”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
πολλάκις ἢ λέξῃς μοι, ἀθρήσεις πάντα λέοντα. οὔτε γὰρ οὐράνιος κυρτὸς τότε φαίνεται ὄγκος, ἀστέρες οὐ λάμπουσι, τὸ μήνης φῶς κεκάλυπται, χθὼν οὐχ ἕστηκεν· βλέπεται δὲ <τὰ> πάντα κεραυνοῖς.
Exegesis:
“One of the twelve so-called zodiac signs in heaven is Leo (‘the lion’), which is said to be the domicile of the Sun. Its fount (pēgē), that is, the cause of the lion-shaped (leontoeidēs) composition of stars, the Chaldaean calls the lion-holding (leontoukhos). Now, if in the rites (teletai), you invoke (kalesēis) the fount of this sort by name, you will see nothing else in heaven than a leonine apparition (phasma leonteion). For neither can its ‘vaulted’, i.e., spherical ‘mass’ be seen by you, nor do the stars glow, but even the Moon (Selēnē) is hidden, and all things are shaken by earthquakes. Not that this lion-holding fount takes away the substance of heaven and of the stars, but the predominance (hēgemonikon) of its characteristic subsistence (idia hyparxis) obscures the sight of them.”
Ἐξήγησις.
ἓν τῶν ἐν οὐρανῷ δώδεκα ζῳδίων λεγομένων ἐστὶν ὁ λέων, οἶκος Ἡλίου λεγόμενος, οὗ τὴν πηγήν, ἤτοι τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς λεοντοειδοῦς ἐξ ἀστέρων συνθέσεως, λεοντοῦχον ὁ Χαλδαῖος καλεῖ. ἐν οὖν ταῖς τελεταῖς ἐὰν ἐξ ὀνόματος καλέσῃς τὴν τοιαύτην πηγήν, οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἴδοις ἐν οὐρανῷ ἢ φάσμα λεόντειον. οὔτε γὰρ ὁ κυρτὸς αὐτοῦ ὄγκος ἤτοι ὁ περιφερὴς φανεῖταί σοι, οὔτε ἀστέρες αὐγάσουσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ σελήνη κεκάλυπται καὶ σεισμοῖς τὰ πάντα δονεῖται. οὐκ ἀναιρεῖ δὲ τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῶν ἀστέρων ἡ τοιαύτη λεοντοῦχος πηγή, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τῆς ἰδίας ὑπάρξεως ἀποκρύπτει τὴν θεωρίαν αὐτῶν.
[Commentary: “If you speak to me often” probably means ”if you invoke my name repeatedly”, that name apparently being leontoukhos or ‘lion-holder’ (in an invocation, one would use the vocative, Leontoukhe!). The lion-holding fount was mentioned by Julian the Chaldaean in his Chaldaic Outlines, where it is described as a fount within Hekate; Psellus also mentions it elsewhere as a Chaldaic byname of Hekate. But according to the present exegesis – probably representing the view of Proclus, building on Iamblichus, and summarized by Psellus –, it is this fount that is speaking, and not Hekate, as modern scholars have assumed. Psellus and his source may very well be correct on this point, as they had no reason to suppress mention of Hekate here (which they do not do elsewhere), and had more information abut the lion-holding fount, and the context of this fragment, than we do. However, whether the connection of the lion-holding fount to the constellation Leo goes back to Julian the Chaldaean may well be doubted, but there is no certainty either way. .]
{Text critical note: Generations of scholars, from Lobeck in the early 19th century to Sarah Iles Johnston in the late 20th, have agreed that there is a “textual problem” in this fragment, and have preferred Lobeck’s emendation of the text, changing panta leonta (“all things a lion”) to pant’ akhlyonta (“all things growing misty/dark”). This is a mistake, but an illuminating one, so allow me to go into detail here.
When Lobeck made his emendation in 1829 (Aglaophamus, vol. 1, p. 104), he simply dismissed Psellus’ interpretation as “inept” without argument and rewrote the text to suit his own pedestrian tastes, not only changing the startling “you will see all things as a lion” into the mildly interesting “you will see all things grow dim”, but also the last few words, from the interesting “all things are beheld with thunderbolts” into the nonsensical “all things are flashing with thunderbolts”. The latter ‘improvement’ is manifestly wrong, since all things flashing with thunderbolts would be the opposite of all things growing dim. And if we do not accept this ‘improvement’, as neither does Johnston, then we should reject the other as well. After all, the same thing offended Lobeck in both cases: that sight was being described in highly unusual terms. And are we really to imagine that a copyist tripped over such humdrum phrases as Lobeck wishes us to adopt, and by accident stumbled into the poetic heights of the wording that is found in the manuscripts? This is a case where the principle that “the more difficult reading is stronger” (lectio difficilior potior) clearly holds.
Now on to Johnston, who writes that “Psellus himself had difficulty explaining the text, apparently, for his commentary is somewhat forced”; but why is it forced? Because “the Oracle’s first line does not make sense” (Hekate Soteira, p. 112). But again, we are projecting prosaic standards onto a piece of inspired poetry. Clearly, the reading as transmitted has made sense to at least one person, Michael Psellus, who has handed down a perfectly lucid piece of commentary to us.
There is another argument, some variation of which is trotted out against various pieces of interesting Chaldaic lore, namely “that nothing in the extant Oracle fragments or their other commentators indicates that the Chaldeans conceptualized the zodiac signs and their effect on men in the way Psellus describes” (ibid.). This is based on two bad presuppositions: firstly, that our extant fragments are representative, and each real piece of information must be found at least twice (which is absurd on its face); secondly, that if Psellus is wrong to bring up Leo, then his interpretation about what panta leonta means is also wrong. Without these presuppositions, the argument has no force. “You will see all things as a lion” can be read cogently as “you will see nothing but a leonine apparition”.
“Nor”, Johnston goes on to claim, “does the word λεοντοῦχος appear elsewhere in Chaldean lore. In fact, there is no mention of lions in any form in the extant fragments” (ibid., p. 113). I do not know whether to call this dishonest, but it is certainly untrue: Psellus uses the word leontoukhos at least two more times, always marking it as a Chaldaic word, just as he does here. So does Michael Italicus in a text which, although Johnston claims the opposite, is manifestly independent of Psellus, and is instead based on the same source Psellus was using. Thus, the only reason that the word does not appear in “the extant fragments” is because editors have hitherto chosen not to include it (and because it may well originate from the Chaldaic prose works, not the Oracles).
In addition to all that has been said so far, it also must be pointed out that Lobeck and Johnston are probably wrong in thinking that the exegesis preserved by Psellus is an original piece of commentary. We know that virtually all of his Chaldaic material was mediated by Proclus, and embedded in Proclian commentary, meaning that either (a) Proclus already read the Oracle as saying panta leonta, interpreted accordingly, and Psellus followed him, or (b) Proclus read something else (such as pant’ akhluonta) and interpreted accordingly, but a copyist accidentally changed the wording to panta leonta, yet Psellus did not realize this, threw out Proclus’ interpretation, and invented his own, or finally (c) Proclus, whatever he read, passed over the phrase in silence, leaving Psellus to invent his own interpretation. Since we can find Chaldaic and Proclian terminology in the exegesis, but nothing which clearly shows the hand of Psellus, solution (a) is the most likely, unless strong arguments can be advanced against it. In other words, even if panta leonta were not the original wording, it was in all likelihood accepted by the one person who might have known the Oracles better than anyone else, Proclus of Lycia himself.
But can we go back beyond Proclus? Johnston thinks so, and notes that “a passage” from Iamblichus “which is considered to paraphrase” our fragment, namely Response to Porphyry 2.4, “makes no mention of lions: ‘The magnitude of the epiphanies that accompany the gods is manifested in such a way that, as they descend, the whole sky, the sun and the moon are hidden, and the earth no longer is able to stand steady.’” According to her analysis, “[a]dmittedly, Iamblichus’ prose omits specific reference to the first line of the Oracles [sic]”, but “both passages describe the darkening of the sky, the disapperance of celestial features and earthquakes” (ibid., p. 112–113). But again, this is simply not true. Iamblichus does not say that the sky is darkened, he says that the sky is “hidden” by “the magnitude of the epiphanies” (to megethos tōn epiphaneiōn). This cannot be based on the text as emended by Lobeck, but relies on the same interpretation as found in Psellus, namely that “you see nothing else but a leonine apparition”, because that vision “obscures the sight” of everything else. Iamblichus has merely generalized from a specific example – if you speak to me, you will see nothing but a lion – to a universal rule. And universal observations about the visual manifestations of Greater Beings are precisely what he is discussing in chapter 2.4 of the Response to Porphyry. (In fact, I have seen people complain that Iamblichus is too generic and vague to be quite comprehensible here.)
In sum: the text of the Oracle fragment as given by Psellus is correct. His interpretation is based on Proclus, and consistent with Iamblichus. Our assumptions about what elements of it cohere with the “original” meaning of the Oracles are largely built on circular arguments.}
(11 = fr. 127 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“From all sides, with the unshaped soul, pull tight the reins of fire!”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
πάντοθεν ἀπλάστῳ ψυχῇ πυρὸς ἡνία τεῖνον.
Exegesis:
“”
Ἐξήγησις.
ἄπλαστον ψυχὴν ὀνομάζει τὸ λόγιον τὴν ἀμόρφωτον καὶ ἀδιατύπωτον ἢ τὴν ἁπλουστάτην καὶ καθαρωτάτην· ‘ἡνία’ δὲ τοῦ ’πυρὸς’ τῆς τοιαύτης ψυχῆς τῆς θεουργικῆς ἐστι ζωῆς ἡ εὔλυτος ἐνέργεια, ἀνατείνουσα τὸν νοῦν τὸν πύρινον εἰς αὐτὸ τὸ θεῖον φῶς. ‘πάντοθεν’ οὖν τῇ ‘ἀπλάστῳ ψυχῇ’ τὰ τοῦ ‘πυρὸς ἡνία τεῖνον’, τοῦτ‘ ἔστι, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς νοερᾶς δυνάμεως καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς διανοητικῆς καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς δοξαστικῆς, ἵνα καταλλήλως ἑκάστη δύναμις τὰς θείας εἰσδέξηται φωταγωγίας. οὐ γὰρ ἀεὶ νοερῶς ἐνεργεῖν δυνάμεθα, ἀλλ‘ ἡ φύσις ὀκλάζουσα καὶ κατὰ τὰς δευτέρας ζωὰς ἐνεργεῖ.
[Commentary: …]
(12 = fr. 106 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“O human, you artifice of bold Nature!”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
ὦ τολμηρᾶς φύσεως, ἄνθρωπε, τέχνασμα.
Exegesis:
“”
Ἐξήγησις.
‘τέχνασμα’ μὲν γὰρ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὡς παρὰ θεοῦ ἀπορρήτῳ τέχνῃ συντεθείς, τολμηρὰν δὲ φύσιν αὐτὸν ὀνομάζει τὸ λόγιον ὡς καὶ τὰ κρείττονα περιεργαζόμενον καὶ δρόμους μὲν ἀστέρων καταμετροῦντα, ὑπερφυῶν δὲ δυνάμεων τάξεις διακριβοῦντα καὶ τὰ ἐξωτάτω τῆς οὐρανίας ἁψῖδος διασκοποῦντα καὶ περὶ θεοῦ τι λέγειν διατεινόμενον. αἱ γὰρ ἐπιβολαὶ αὗται τῶν νοημάτων ‘τολμηρᾶς’ ἄντικρυς ‘φύσεως’. οὐ διασύρει δὲ ἐνταῦθα τὴν τόλμαν, ἀλλὰ τὴν ὁρμὴν τῆς φύσεως τέθηπεν.
[Commentary: …]
(13 = fr. 52 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“Within the left hip of Hekate is the fount of virtue, / abiding entirely within and not giving up the virginal.”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
λαιῆς ἐν λαγόσιν Ἑκάτης ἀρετῆς πέλε πηγή,
ἔνδον ὅλη μίμνουσα, τὸ παρθένον οὐ προϊεῖσα.
Exegesis:
“”
Ἐξήγησις.
τὴν Ἑκάτην οἱ Χαλδαῖοι θεὸν ὁρίζονται μεσαιτάτην ἔχουσαν τάξιν καὶ οἷον κέντρον τυγχάνουσαν τῶν ὅλων δυνάμεων. καὶ ἐν μὲν τοῖς δεξιοῖς αὐτῆς μέρεσι τιθέασι τὴν πηγὴν τῶν ψυχῶν, ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἀριστεροῖς τὴν πηγὴν τῶν ἀρετῶν. καί φασιν ὅτι ἡ μὲν πηγὴ τῶν ψυχῶν ἕτοιμός ἐστιν εἰς τὰς ἀπογεννήσεις, ἡ δὲ πηγὴ τῶν ἀρετῶν ἐν ὅροις μένει ἔνδον τῆς ἰδίας οὐσίας καὶ οἷον παρθένος ἐστὶ καὶ ἀμιγής, τὸ στάσιμον τοῦτο καὶ ἀκίνητον ἀπὸ τῶν ἀμειλίκτων λαβοῦσα δυνάμεων καὶ ζωστῆρι κοσμηθεῖσα παρθενικῷ.
[Commentary: …]
(14 = fr. 148 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“When you see a sacred fire without shape / shining in leaps across the depths (benthea) of the entire cosmos, / then hear the sound (or ‘voice’) of the fire!”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
ἡνίκα <δὲ> βλέψῃς μορφῆς ἄτερ εὐίερον πῦρ
λαμπόμενον σκιρτηδὸν ὅλου κατὰ βένθεα κόσμου,
κλῦθι πυρὸς φωνήν.
Exegesis:
“”
Ἐξήγησις.
περὶ τοῦ ὁρωμένου πολλοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων θείου φωτὸς τὸ λόγιον διέξεισιν, ὡς, εἰ μὲν ἐν σχήματι καὶ μορφῇ θεῷτό τις τὸ τοιοῦτον φῶς, μηκέτι τούτῳ προσέξει τὸν νοῦν μηδὲ τὴν ἐκεῖθεν πεμπομένην φωνὴν ἀληθεστάτην νομίσοι. εἰ δὲ ἴδοι τοῦτο ἀσχημάτιστον καὶ ἀμόρφωτον, ἀνεξαπάτητος ἔσται· καὶ ὅπερ ἂν ἐκεῖθεν ἐνωτισθείη, ἀληθές ἐστιν ἄντικρυς. εὐίερον δὲ τὸ τοιοῦτον πῦρ ὀνομάζεται ὡς ἐν καλῷ τοῖς ἱερατικοῖς ἀνδράσιν ὁρώμενον καὶ ‘σκιρτηδὸν’ προφαινόμενον, ἤτοι ἱλαρῶς καὶ χαριέντως, κατὰ τὰ βάθη τοῦ κόσμου.
(15 = fr. 101 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“Do not invoke (kalesēis) the autopic image (agalma) of Nature!”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
μὴ φύσεως καλέσῃς αὔτοπτον ἄγαλμα.
Exegesis:
“”
Ἐξήγησις.
αὐτοψία ἐστίν, ὅταν αὐτὸς ὁ τελούμενος τὰ θεῖα φῶτα ὁρᾷ. εἰ δὲ οὗτος μὲν οὐδὲν ὁρῴη, ὁ δὲ τὴν τελετὴν διατιθέμενος αὐτοπτεῖ τὸ φαινόμενον, ἐποπτεία τοῦτο πρὸς τὸν τελούμενον λέγεται. δεῖ δὲ τὸ καλούμενον ἄγαλμα ἐν ταῖς τελεταῖς νοητὸν εἶναι καὶ σώματος παντάπασι χωριστόν. τὸ δὲ τῆς φύσεως μόρφωμα οὐκ ἔστι παντάπασι νοητόν· ἡ γὰρ φύσις σωμάτων ἐστὶν ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον διοικητικὴ δύναμις· ‘μὴ’ οὖν ’καλέσῃς’, φησίν, ἐν ταῖς τελεταῖς ‘αὔτοπτον φύσεως ἄγαλμα’· ἐπενέγκοι γάρ σοι μεθ‘ ἑαυτοῦ φυσικῶν δαιμονίων μόνον πληθύν.
[Commentary: …]
(16 = fr. 88 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“Nature persuades one to believe that these daemons are holy, / and that the offshoots of evil matter are beneficial and good.”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
ἡ φύσις πείθει πιστεύειν εἶναι τοὺς δαίμονας ἁγνούς,
καὶ τὰ κακῆς ὕλης βλαστήματα χρηστὰ καὶ ἐσθλά.
Exegesis:
“”
Ἐξήγησις.
οὐχ ὅτι αὐτὴ πείθει τοῦτο, ἀλλ‘ ὅτι κληθείσης πρὸ τῆς παρουσίας αὐτῆς πολὺς ἐπιρρεῖ δαιμόνων χορός, καὶ πολυειδεῖς προφέρονται μορφαὶ δαιμονιώδεις, ἀπὸ πάντων μὲν τῶν στοιχείων ἀνεγειρόμεναι, ἀπὸ πάντων δὲ τῶν μερῶν τοῦ σεληναίου κόσμου συγκείμεναί τε καὶ μεριζόμεναι· καὶ ἱλαραὶ καὶ χαρίεσσαι πολλάκις φαινόμεναι φαντασίαν τινὸς ἀγαθότητος πρὸς τὸν τελούμενον ὑποκρίνονται.
[Commentary: …]
(17 = fr. 97 Majercik) Chaldaic Oracle:
“The soul of humans has seized a god within itself, / and containing nothing mortal, it is entirely drunk [2-3 syllables missing]; / therefore take pride in the harmony under which your mortal body exists (pele)!”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
ψυχὴ μερόπων θεὸν ἄγξει ἐς αὑτήν,
οὐδὲν θνητὸν ἔχουσα ὅλη μεμέθυσται·
ἁρμονίαν αὔχει γάρ, ὑφ‘ ᾗ πέλε σῶμα βρότειον.
Exegesis:
“”
Ἐξήγησις.
τὸ θεῖον, φησί, πῦρ ἡ ψυχὴ βιάζεται εἰς ἑαυτὴν (τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ ‘ἄγχει’) διὰ τῆς ἀθανασίας καὶ τῆς καθαρότητος. τότε γὰρ ‘ὅλη μεμέθυσται’, τοῦτ‘ ἔστι, πληροῦται κρείττονος ζωῆς καὶ ἐλλάμψεως καὶ οἷον ἐξίσταται ἑαυτῆς. εἶτα πρὸς αὐτὴν ὁ λόγος φησίν ‘ἁρμονίαν αὔχει’, τοῦτ‘ ἔστι, σεμνύνου τῇ ἀφανεῖ καὶ νοητῇ ἁρμονίᾳ ᾗ συνδέδεσαι ἀριθμητικοῖς λόγοις καὶ μουσικοῖς. ὑπὸ ταύτῃ γὰρ τῇ νοητῇ ἁρμονίᾳ καὶ τὸ βρότειον καὶ σύνθετον συνηρμόσθη σῶμα, ἐκεῖθεν ἐπιχορηγουμένην ἔχον τὴν σύστασιν.
[Commentary: …]
(18 = fr. 112 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“Let the immortal depth (bathos) of the soul be opened! All eyes / open up lifted on high!”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
οἰγνύσθω ψυχῆς βάθος ἄμβροτον· ὄμματα πάντα
ἄρδην ἐκπέτασον ἄνω.
Exegesis:
“”
Ἐξήγησις.
‘ψυχῆς βάθος’ αἱ τριπλαῖ αὐτῆς δυνάμεις εἰσίν, αἱ νοεραί, αἱ διανοητικαί, αἱ δοξαστικαί, ‘ὄμματα’ δὲ αἱ τριπλαῖ αὐτῶν γνωστικαὶ ἐνέργειαι. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὄμμα γνώσεως σύμβολον, ἡ δὲ ζωὴ ὀρέξεως. ἀνοιγέσθω οὖν, φησί, τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀθάνατον βάθος, καὶ τὰς γνωστικάς σοι δυνάμεις ‘ἄρδην ἐκπέτασον ἄνω,’ καὶ ὅλον σαυτόν, ἵνα τὸ ἡμεδαπὸν ἐρῶ, μετάθες ἐπὶ τὸν κύριον.
[Commentary: …]
(19 = fr. 104 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“Do not defile the spirit (pneuma), nor lower / the ground (epipedon)!”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
μὴ πνεῦμα μολύνῃς μηδὲ βαθύνῃς
τὸ ἐπίπεδον.
Exegesis:
“”
Ἐξήγησις.
δύο χιτῶνας ἐπενδύουσι τὴν ψυχὴν οἱ Χαλδαῖοι, καὶ τὸν μὲν πνευματικὸν ὀνομάζουσιν, ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ κόσμου ἐξυφανθέντα αὐτῇ, τὸν δὲ αὐγοειδῆ, λεπτὸν καὶ ἀβαθῆ, ὅπερ ἐπίπεδον ὀνομάζεται. μήτε οὖν, φησί, τὸν πνευματικὸν χιτῶνα τῆς ψυχῆς μολύνῃς ἀκαθαρσίᾳ παθῶν μήτε τὸν ἐπίπεδον αὐτῆς βαθύνῃς προσθήκαις τισὶν ὑλικαῖς· ἀλλὰ τήρησον ἀμφοτέρους ἐπὶ τῆς φύσεως, τὸν μὲν καθαρόν, τὸν δὲ ἀβαθῆ.
[Commentary: …]
(20 = fr. 165 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“Seek paradise!”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
ζήτησον παράδεισον.
Exegesis:
“The Chaldaic ‘paradise’ is the entire dancing-troupe (khoros) of divine powers around the Father, and the empyrean beauties of the demiurgic founts. And the opening of it through piety is the participation in goods, and the fiery broadsword [of the angel guarding Paradise, Genesis 3:24] is the power that is implacable to those who approach unworthily. And it has been closed off to these due to their unfitness, but it has been opened to the pious. The theurgic virtues are all lifted upwards to this.”
Ἐξήγησις.
παράδεισός ἐστι Χαλδαϊκὸς πᾶς ὁ περὶ τὸν πατέρα χορὸς τῶν θείων δυνάμεων καὶ τὰ ἐμπύρια κάλλη τῶν δημιουργικῶν πηγῶν· ἄνοιξις δὲ αὐτοῦ δι‘ εὐσεβείας ἡ μετουσία τῶν ἀγαθῶν, φλογίνη δὲ ῥομφαία ἡ ἀμείλικτος τοῖς ἀναξίως προσερχομένοις δύναμις. καὶ τούτοις μὲν κέκλεισται διὰ τὴν ἀνεπιτηδειότητα, τοῖς δὲ εὐσεβέσιν ἀνήπλωται. εἰς ὃν ἀνατείνονται πᾶσαι αἱ θεουργικαὶ ἀρεταί.
[Commentary: Psellus’ commentary seems to suggest that the Chaldaic Oracle alluded to the Biblical “fiery broadsword”, and this is not impossible, although it is perhaps more likely that Psellus is introducing this reference himself. Apart from this, the vocabulary and content is appropriately Chaldaic/Neoplatonic.]
(21 = fr. 157 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“Beasts of the Earth (thēres khthonos) will inhabit your vessel.”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
σὸν ἀγγεῖον θῆρες χθονὸς οἰκήσουσιν.
Exegesis:
“The ‘vessel’ is our composite mixture of life [=the body], the ‘beasts of the Earth’ are the daemons wallowing around the Earth (gē). Such beasts ‘will inhabit’ our life when it becomes filled with passions. For such genera have their being in the passions, and they possess a material seat and order. On this account, those who are impassioned are bound to such things, being attracted as like to like, and possessing a power that excites passions.”
Ἐξήγησις.
‘ἀγγεῖον’ μέν ἐστι τὸ σύνθετον ἡμῶν κρᾶμα τῆς ζωῆς, ’θῆρες’ δὲ ‘χθονὸς’ οἱ περὶ γῆν καλινδούμενοι δαίμονες. τὴν οὖν ζωὴν ἡμῶν πλήρη γενομένην παθῶν οἱ τοιοῦτοι θῆρες ‘οἰκήσουσιν’. καὶ γὰρ οὐσίωται ἐν τοῖς πάθεσι τὰ τοιαῦτα γένη καὶ τὴν ἕδραν ἔχει καὶ τὴν τάξιν ὑλικήν· διὸ καὶ οἱ ἐμπαθεῖς πρὸς ταῦτα συγκολλῶνται, τῷ ὁμοίῳ τὸ ὅμοιον ἐφελκόμενοι, κινητικὴν ἔχοντες δύναμιν τῶν παθῶν.
[Commentary: The interpretation is surely basically accurate; speculatively one might assign it to Porphyry, whose view of daemons seems closest.]
(22 = fr. 128 Majercik) Chaldaic Oracle:
“Stretching out the fiery intellect (pyrios nous) / toward the work of piety, you will also preserve your flowing body.”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
ἐκτείνας πύριον νοῦν
ἔργον ἐπ‘ εὐσεβίης ῥευστὸν καὶ σῶμα σαώσεις.
Exegesis:
“That is, if you stretch forth your intellect, illuminated for you from above, and the work of the divine fire becomes (turned) towards the works of piety—and the ‘works of piety’, for the Chaldaeans, are the pursuits of the rites (teletai)—, then not only will you make your soul unassailable by the passions, but also make your body most healthy. For this is also a frequent effect of divine illuminations (ellampseis), to consume the matter of the body and render its nature healthy, so that it is conquered neither by passions nor by diseases.”
Ἐξήγησις.
τοῦτ‘ ἔστιν· ἐὰν ἐκτείνῃς τὸν φωτισθέντα σοι νοῦν ἄνωθεν καὶ τοῦ θείου πυρὸς ἔργον γενόμενος εἰς τὰ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἔργα (ἔργα δὲ εὐσεβείας παρὰ Χαλδαίοις αἱ τῶν τελετῶν μέθοδοι), οὐ μόνον τὴν ψυχὴν ἀνάλωτον ποιήσεις τοῖς πάθεσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ σῶμά σου ὑγιεινότατον. ἔστι γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο πολλάκις ἔργον τῶν θείων ἐλλάμψεων, ἐκδαπανᾶν τὴν ὕλην τοῦ σώματος καὶ ὑγιᾶ τὴν φύσιν κατασκευάζειν, ὡς μήτε πάθεσιν μήτε νόσοις ἁλίσκεσθαι.
[Commentary: The teletai in question are neither consecration nor mystery rites, but the devotional observances called ‘theurgy’ in the Chaldaic corpus. According to Majercik, the ‘fiery intellect’ is the the equivalent of the ‘flower of intellect’. It could be that the ‘body’ here is really the vehicle of the soul rather than the visible body, but I at least find that interpretation too speculative.]
(23 = fr. 90 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“Mark, from the wombs / of the Earth (gaiē) leap forth terrestrial (khthonioi) dogs, who never a true / sign show to a mortal.”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
ἐκ δ‘ ἄρα κόλπων
γαίης θρῴσκουσι χθόνιοι κύνες οὔποτ‘ ἀληθὲς
σῆμα βροτῷ δεικνύντες.
Exegesis:
“The reference is to material (enhyloi) daemons; and he calls these ‘dogs’ because they are punitive of souls, and ‘terrestrial’ because they have fallen from heaven and wallow around the Earth (gē). Now these, he says, cannot foretell the future, because they are placed (tetagmenoi) far off from the divine life and are bereft of intellective contemplation. Hence, everything they say and show is false and unreal; for they know things by shape (morphōtikōs), but the ability of knowing the future unitarily employs intellections, which are without parts or shape.”
Ἐξήγησις.
περὶ δαιμόνων ἐνύλων ὁ λόγος· καὶ κύνας μὲν τούτους καλεῖ ὡς τιμωροὺς τῶν ψυχῶν, χθονίους δὲ ὡς ἐξ οὐρανοῦ πεπτωκότας καὶ καλινδουμένους περὶ τὴν γῆν. οὗτοι γοῦν, φησί, πόρρω τῆς θείας τεταγμένοι ζωῆς καὶ τῆς νοερᾶς θεωρίας ἀπολιμπανόμενοι, προσημαίνειν τὸ μέλλον οὐ δύνανται. ὅθεν πᾶν ὃ λέγουσι καὶ δεικνύουσι ψευδές ἐστι καὶ ἀνυπόστατον· μορφωτικῶς γὰρ τὰ ὄντα γινώσκουσιν· τὸ δὲ τῶν μελλόντων ἑνιαίως γνωστικὸν ἀμερίστοις χρῆται καὶ ἀμορφώτοις νοήσεσιν.
[Commentary: the exegesis is faithful and Neoplatonic, but probably cannot be assigned to a specific philosopher.]
(24 = fr. 7 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“For the Father has perfected all things and handed them to the second Intellect, / which you, all of humankind, call the first.”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
πάντα γὰρ ἐξετέλεσσε πατὴρ καὶ νῷ παρέδωκε
δευτέρῳ, ὃν πρῶτον κληΐζετε πᾶν γένος ἀνδρῶν.
Exegesis:
“The first of the triad, the Father, after having demiurgically created all of creation, handed it over to the Intellect; all of humankind, ignorant of the paternal eminence, calls this intellect the First God. But to our [Christian] doctrine, to the contrary, holds that the first intellect himself, the Son of the great Father, demiurgically created all of creation. For the Father, according to the Mosaic book, speaks the form of the plant of his creations to the Son, and the Son himself is the worker of the creation.”
Ἐξήγησις.
τὴν πᾶσαν κτίσιν δημιουργήσας ὁ τῆς τριαδὸς πρῶτος πατὴρ παρέδωκε ταύτην τῷ νῷ· ὅντινα νοῦν τὸ σύμπαν γένος τῶν ἀνδρῶν, ἀγνοοῦντες τὴν πατρικὴν ὑπεροχήν, θεὸν πρῶτον καλοῦσιν. πλὴν τὸ παρ‘ ἡμῖν δόγμα ἐναντίως ἔχει, ὡς αὐτὸς ὁ πρῶτος νοῦς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ μεγάλου πατρός, τὴν κτίσιν πᾶσαν ἐδημιούργησεν. ὁ μὲν γὰρ πατὴρ λέγει παρὰ τῇ Μωσαϊκῇ βίβλῳ πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν τὴν ἰδέαν τῆς παραγωγῆς τῶν κτισμάτων, ὁ δὲ υἱὸς αὐτουργὸς τοῦ ποιήματος γίνεται.
[Commentary: The second part of the exegesis, with its reference to the (first) book of Moses, is obviously from Psellus, but the first is problematic. It is plausible enough, but by any Neoplatonic exegesis, the Father should be above demiurgy. Is this Psellus’ own construal of the meaning, then?]
(25 = fr. 161 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“The vengeances are stranglers of humans.”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
ποιναὶ μερόπων ἄγκτειραι.
Exegesis:
“For the elevatory angels lead up the soul towards themselves, drawing them out of (the realm of) origination (and destruction), but the vengeances (poinai), or differently put, the punitive natures of daemons, and bewitchers of human souls, enchain them by material passions and strangle them, as it were; and they torture not only those (souls) filled with passions, but even those turned towards immaterial essence. For even these, since they have come into matter and (the realm of) origination, require such purification. For we see that many of those who behave in a holy and pure fashion fall into unexpected misfortunes.”
[Notes:
The exegesis is manifestly Neoplatonic, but probably faithful enough to the Oracles.]
Ἐξήγησις.
οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἀναγωγοὶ ἄγγελοι ἀνάγουσι τὰς ψυχὰς ἐφ‘ ἑαυτοὺς ἐκ τῆς γενέσεως ἐφελκόμενοι, αἱ δὲ ποιναί, ἤτοι αἱ τιμωρητικαὶ τῶν δαιμόνων φύσεις καὶ βάσκανοι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ψυχῶν, ἐνδεσμοῦσι ταύτας τοῖς ὑλικοῖς πάθεσι καὶ οἷον ἀπάγχουσι, καὶ οὐ μόνον τοὺς παθῶν πλήρεις αἰκίζονται, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς εἰς τὴν ἄυλον οὐσίαν ἐπεστραμμένους· καὶ γὰρ καὶ οὗτοι εἰς τὴν ὕλην καὶ τὴν γένεσιν ἐλθόντες δέονται τῆς τοιαύτης καθάρσεως. πολλοὺς γὰρ ὁρῶμεν καὶ τῶν ὁσίως καὶ καθαρῶς πολιτευομένων ἀπροσδοκήτοις συμφοραῖς περιπίπτοντας.
(26 = fr. 159 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“Because the purest souls are those of people / who have left the body through violence.”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
βίῃ ὅτι σῶμα λιπόντων
ἀνθρώπων ψυχαὶ καθαρώταται.
Exegesis:
“If one should read this saying charitably, it will not be at variance with our [Christian] doctrines. For those crowned as martyrs, having left behind the body through violent trials, have made their own souls perfectly pure. But this is not what the Chaldaean says, but he praises all violent death; because, he says, when the soul leaves the body with pain, it is made to loathe the life here, and hates to return to this (body), but cheerfully passes upwards. But those who leave their life by release of the vital breath in the midst of diseases, they are not very disgusted with the inclination and fall towards this (body).”
Ἐξήγησις.
εἴ τις εὐγνωμόνως ἀκούοι τοῦ ῥητοῦ, οὐκ ἐναντιώσεται τοῖς ἡμετέροις δόγμασιν. καὶ γὰρ καὶ οἱ στεφανῖται μάρτυρες, βιαίοις ἀγῶσι τὸ σῶμα καταλιπόντες, καθαρὰς τὰς ἑαυτῶν ψυχὰς τετελέκασιν. ἀλλ‘ οὐ τοῦτό φησιν ὁ Χαλδαῖος, ἀλλὰ πάντα βίαιον θάνατον ἐπαινεῖ· διότι, φησίν, ἡ ψυχή, ἐπιπόνως τὸ σῶμα λιποῦσα, βδελύττεται τὴν ἐνταῦθα ζωὴν καὶ μισεῖ τὴν πρὸς τοῦτο ἐπιστροφὴν καὶ χαίρουσα πρὸς τὰ ἄνω χωρεῖ. αἱ δὲ ἐν νόσοις κατ‘ ἔκλυσιν τοῦ ζωτικοῦ πνεύματος ἀπολιποῦσαι τὸν βίον οὐ μάλα τι δυσχεραίνουσι τὴν πρὸς τοῦτο νεῦσίν τε καὶ ῥοπήν.
[Commentary: Psellus is contrasting a charitable Christian reading with what he thinks is the intended meaning of the Chaldaean, which he in all likelihood takes from the Neoplatonists.]
(27 = fr. 108 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“The paternal Intellect has sown symbols into the souls.”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
σύμβολα πατρικὸς νόος ἔσπειρε ταῖς ψυχαῖς.
Exegesis:
“As the Mosaic book has the human being created in the image of god, so the Chaldaean says that the Creater and Father of the cosmos has sown certain symbols of his own character (idiotēs) into the souls. And not only the souls, but also all the orders positioned above them have grown from paternal seeds. And there are one kind of tokens (synthēmata) among the incorporeal subsistences (hyparxeis) themselves, being incorporeal and uniform, but another kind in the cosmoi. And tokens and symbols are the ineffable characteristics the gods, which are positioned above even the virtues.”
Ἐξήγησις.
ὥσπερ ἡ Μωσαϊκὴ βίβλος κατ‘ εἰκόνα θεοῦ πλάττει τὸν ἄνθρωπον, οὕτω δὴ καὶ ὁ Χαλδαῖος τὸν ποιητὴν καὶ πατέρα τοῦ κόσμου φησὶ σύμβολά τινα ἐγκατασπεῖραι ταῖς ψυχαῖς τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ἰδιότητος. καὶ γὰρ ἀπὸ τῶν πατρικῶν σπερμάτων οὐχ αἱ ψυχαὶ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ αἱ ὑπερκείμεναι πᾶσαι τάξεις ἐβλάστησαν. καὶ ἄλλα μὲν τὰ ἐν αὐταῖς ταῖς ἀσωμάτοις ὑπάρξεσι συνθήματα, ἀσωμάτως ὄντα καὶ ἑνοειδῶς, ἄλλα δὲ <τὰ> ἐν τοῖς κόσμοις. συνθήματα δὲ καὶ σύμβολά εἰσιν αἱ ἄρρητοι τοῦ θεοῦ ἰδιότητες αἱ καὶ τῶν ἀρετῶν ὑπερκείμεναι.
[Commentary: The non-Christian part of the exegesis is evidently Neoplatonic, and introduces some language from the Timaeus; but nothing suggests it is unfaithful to the sense of the Oracles. That the divine tokens are more exalted than the virtues explains the soteriological importance of rites. Porphyry would likely have disagreed with this. Majercik’s interpretation is that intelligibles are Platonic forms, and the symbols in question are primarily magical names; but this is in both cases too narrow.]
(28 = fr. 96 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“Because the soul, being a radiant fire by power of the Father, / persists immortal, is the lady of life, / and possesses the fulnesses (plērōmata) of many wombs.”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
ὅτι ψυχή, πῦρ οὖσα φαεινὸν δυνάμει πατρός,
ἀθάνατός τε μένει καὶ ζωῆς δεσπότις ἐστὶν
καὶ ἔχει πολλῶν πληρώματα κόλπων.
Exegesis:
“The soul, being an immaterial and incorporeal fire, separate from composite wholes and material darkness, is immortal. For there is no gloomy matter mixed in it, and it is not composite so that it could be dissolved into what it is composed of. It is the ‘lady of life’ because it shines life upon dead objects; and it ‘possesses the fulnesses of many wombs’, that is, it has powers receptive of all order. For it can come to dwell in the different zones of heaven according to these different powers.”
Ἐξήγησις.
ἡ ψυχή, ἄυλον οὖσα καὶ ἀσώματον πῦρ, τῶν συνθέτων ὅλων καὶ τοῦ ὑλικοῦ σκότους ἐξῃρημένον, ἀθάνατός ἐστιν. οὐ γὰρ ἐγκαταμέμικται ἐν αὐτῇ ὕλη σκοτώδης, οὐδὲ σύνθετός ἐστιν, ἵνα διαλυθῇ εἰς τὰ ἐξ ὧν συνετέθη. ἔστι δὲ καὶ ‘δεσπότις ζωῆς’, τοῖς νεκροῖς ζωὴν ἐπιλάμπουσα. ἔχει δὲ καὶ ‘πολλῶν πληρώματα κόλπων’, τοῦτ‘ ἔστιν, ἔχει δυνάμεις ὑποδεκτικὰς τῆς ὅλης διακοσμήσεως· δύναται γὰρ κατὰ τὰς διαφόρους ἀρετὰς εἰς τὰς διαφόρους ζώνας ἐγκατοικεῖν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.
[Commentary: Soul is feminine in Greek, hence it is called not simply the ruler, but more specifically the lady of life. The interpretation of the ‘wombs’ is consistent with Neoplatonic doctrine, but perhaps a little far-fetched here. The modern idea that this Oracle is about the World Soul is speculative, probably too speculative.]
(29 = fr. 14 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“The Father does not throw in fear (Phobos), but pours out persuasion (Peitho).”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
πατὴρ οὐ φόβον ἐνθρῴσκει, πειθὼ δ‘ ἐπιχέει.
Exegesis:
“That is, the divine is not frightful and vexing, but sweet and serene. Hence, it does not work fear into the subordinate natures, but draws all things by persuasion and grace (kharis). For if it were fearful and frightening, the whole order of beings would have been dissolved, as nothing could endure its power. And this doctrine is partially true according to us [Christians]. For the god is light and fire that consumes the wicked; and his threat and ‘fear’ are only the abatement of his goodness towards us by a (providential) design.”
Ἐξήγησις.
τοῦτ‘ ἔστιν· τὸ θεῖον οὐκ ἔστι φριμάσσον καὶ ἀγανακτητικόν, ἀλλὰ γλυκὺ καὶ γαληναῖον· ὅθεν οὐ φόβον ἐμποιεῖ ταῖς ὑποκειμέναις φύσεσιν, ἀλλὰ πειθοῖ καὶ χάριτι πάντα ἐφέλκεται. εἰ γὰρ ἦν φοβερὸν καὶ ἀπειλητικόν, διελύθη ἂν ἡ πᾶσα τάξις τῶν ὄντων, μηδενὸς ὑπομεῖναι δυναμένου τὴν ἐκείνου δύναμιν. τοῦτο δὲ τὸ δόγμα ἐκ μέρους ἀληθεύει παρ‘ ἡμῖν. ὁ γὰρ θεὸς καὶ φῶς ἐστι καὶ πῦρ καταναλίσκον τοὺς μοχθηρούς, ἀπειλὴ δὲ θεοῦ καὶ φόβος ἡ δι‘ οἰκονομίαν ἐπίσχεσις τῆς πρὸς ἡμᾶς αὐτοῦ ἀγαθότητος.
[Commentary: The ‘consumption’ here should be understood as a kind of purification, not destruction. Majercik calls this verse obscure, but Psellus’ explanation is adequate.]
(30 = fr. 3 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“The Father snatched himself away, / and has not enclosed his own fire even in his power.”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
ὁ πατὴρ ἑαυτὸν ἥρπασεν, οὐδ‘ ἐν ἑῇ δυνάμει νοερᾷ κλείσας ἴδιον πῦρ.
Exegesis:
“The meaning of the oracles is as follows, that the god above all, who has also been called the Father, makes himself ungraspable and incomprehensible, not only to the primary and secondary natures and to our souls, but even to his own power. And the power of the Father is the Son. For ‘the Father snatched himself away’, he says, from all nature. But this is not the orthodox [Christian] doctrine. For the Father is believed by us to be in the Son, just as the Son is in the Father. And the Son is the definition of the Father, and the divine marvellous logos.”
Ἐξήγησις.
ὁ μὲν νοῦς τοῦ λογίου τοιοῦτος, ὡς ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεός, ὃς δὴ καὶ πατὴρ ὠνόμασται, ἀκατάληπτον ἑαυτὸν ποιεῖ καὶ ἀπερίληπτον, οὐ μόνον ταῖς πρώταις καὶ δευτέραις φύσεσι καὶ ταῖς ἡμετέραις ψυχαῖς, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτῇ τῇ ἰδίᾳ δυνάμει. δύναμις δὲ τοῦ πατρὸς ὁ υἱός. ‘ἑαυτὸν’ γάρ φησιν ‘ἥρπασεν ὁ πατὴρ’ ἀπὸ πάσης φύσεως. οὐκ ἔστι δὲ τὸ δόγμα ὀρθόδοξον. ἐν τῷ υἱῷ γὰρ παρ‘ ἡμῖν ὁ πατὴρ δεδογμάτισται, ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ἐν τῷ πατρί. καὶ ὅρος τοῦ πατρὸς ὁ υἱὸς καὶ θεῖος λόγος ὑπερφυής.
[Commentary: The non-Christian meaning briefly laid out here is not Proclian (since for him the Father is of a lower position), but perhaps it is the interpretation of Porphyry, who uses ‘the god above all’ (ho epi pasin theos; in Psellus, epi pantōn) to refer to the One elsewhere. Yet Porphyry would hardly have said that the power is the Son, so this too may be Psellian.]
(31 = fr. 1 des Places, line 1) Chaldaic Oracle:
“There is a certain intelligible (noēton) which you must think (noein) with the flower of the intellect (noou anthos).”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
ἔστι τι νοητὸν ὃ χρή σε νοεῖν νόου ἄνθει.
Exegesis:
“The soul has a faculty corresponding to each thing that is thought (nooumenon): pereception for perceptibles, dicursive thought (dianoia) for what can be discursively thought, intellect for the intelligibles. Now, the Chaldaean says that, even if the god is intelligible, it is nevertheless not to be grasped with the intellect, but with the flower of the intellect; and the ‘flower of the intellect’ is the unitary power of the soul. Now, because the god is properly speaking one, do not attempt to grasp it through the intellect, but through the unitary power. For what the primarily One is like can only be grasped by the one in us, and not through discursive thought or intellect.”
Ἐξήγησις.
ἡ ψυχὴ ἑκάστῳ νοουμένῳ πράγματι κατάλληλον ἔχει καὶ δύναμιν, τοῖς μὲν αἰσθητοῖς αἴσθησιν, τοῖς δὲ διανοητοῖς διάνοιαν, τοῖς δὲ νοητοῖς νοῦν. φησὶν οὖν ὁ Χαλδαῖος ὅτι, εἰ καὶ νοητόν ἐστιν ὁ θεός, ἀλλ‘ οὐ τῷ νῷ ἐστι ληπτόν, ἀλλὰ τῷ ἄνθει τοῦ νοῦ. ἄνθος δὲ τοῦ νοῦ ἡ ἑνιαία τῆς ψυχῆς δύναμις. ἐπεὶ γοῦν ὁ θεὸς κυρίως ἐστὶν ἕν, μὴ πειρῶ καταλαβεῖν αὐτὸν διὰ τοῦ νοῦ, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς ἑνιαίας δυνάμεως. τὸ γὰρ πρώτως ἓν μόνῳ τῷ παρ‘ ἡμῖν ἑνὶ ληπτόν πώς ἐστι καὶ οὔτε διανοίᾳ οὔτε νῷ.
[Commentary:
This is almost certainly Proclian exegesis. Damascius quotes the same verse together with nine subsequent lines, the last of which is expounded in section 41 below.]
(32 = fr. 124 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“Those who drive the soul out and breathe it back in are easily loosened (or ‘free’).”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
ψυχῆς ἐξωστῆρες ἀνάπνοοι εὔλυτοί εἰσιν.
Exegesis: “So, if someone should say that ‘I wish to separate my soul from the body, but I cannot’, the oracle says that the powers/faculties (dynameis) that drive out the soul from the corporeal nature and, as it were, make it ‘breathe back in’, are ‘easy to loosen’ from the toil and oppression in the body; that is, these powers are free, and not prevented by any nature, and are very well empowered to loosen the soul from the corporeal chain.”
Ἐξήγησις.
ἵνα μή τις λέγῃ ὅτι ‘βούλομαι μὲν ἀπολῦσαι τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ σώματος, οὐ δύναμαι δέ’, φησὶ τὸ λόγιον ὅτι αἱ ἐξωθοῦσαι τὴν ψυχὴν δυνάμεις ἀπὸ τῆς σωματικῆς φύσεως καὶ οἷον ἀναπνεῖν αὐτὴν ποιοῦσαι ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐν τῷ σώματι μόχθου καὶ τῆς κακώσεως ‘εὔλυτοί εἰσι’· τοῦτ‘ ἔστι καὶ αὐταὶ ἐλεύθεραι αἱ δυνάμεις, μὴ ὑπό τινος εἰργόμεναι φύσεως, καὶ ἀπολῦσαι καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν τῆς σωματικῆς πέδης γενναίως μάλα δεδύνηνται.
[Commentary: Majercik translates “Those who, by inhaling, drive out the soul, are free.” This strikes me as far less plausible (because of doubtful internal coherence) than the meaning taken by Psellus, which is what I translate.]
(33 = fr. 115 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
χρή σε σπεύδειν πρὸς τὸ φῶς καὶ πρὸς πατρὸς αὐγάς,
ἔνθ‘ ἐπέμφθη σοι ψυχὴ πολὺν ἑσσαμένη νοῦν.
Exegesis:
“”
Ἐξήγησις.
ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ἀπὸ σπερμάτων ἡ ψυχὴ τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἔλαβεν οὐδὲ ἐν σωματικαῖς ὑφειστήκει κράσεσιν, ἀλλ‘ ἄνωθεν ἀπὸ θεοῦ τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἔσχε, πρὸς ἐκεῖνον καὶ ἐπεστράφθω καὶ πρὸς τὸ θεῖον φῶς ποιείτω τὴν ἄνοδον. ‘πολὺν’ γὰρ ‘ἑσσαμένη νοῦν’ ἐνταῦθα κατῆλθε· τοῦτ‘ ἔστιν· ἐνεδύσατο παρὰ τοῦ ποιητοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἀναμνήσεις τῶν θειοτέρων λήξεων, ὅτε τὴν ἐνταῦθα ἐλάμβανε κάθοδον. ἔνθεν τοι διὰ τῶν τοιούτων ἀναμνήσεων πάλιν ἐκεῖσε ἐπάνεισιν.
(34 = fr. 10 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
εἰσὶν πάντα ἑνὸς πυρὸς ἐκγεγαῶτα.
Exegesis:
“”
Ἐξήγησις.
ἡμέτερον καὶ ἀληθὲς τὸ δόγμα. πάντα γὰρ τὰ ὄντα, τά τε νοητὰ καὶ αἰσθητά, ἀπὸ μόνου θεοῦ τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἔλαβον καὶ πρὸς μόνον θεὸν ἐπέστραπται, τὰ μὲν ὄντα μόνως οὐσιωδῶς, τὰ δὲ ὄντα καὶ ζῶντα οὐσιωδῶς καὶ ζωτικῶς, τὰ δὲ ὄντα καὶ ζῶντα καὶ νοοῦντα οὐσιωδῶς καὶ ζωτικῶς καὶ νοερῶς. ἀφ‘ ἑνὸς οὖν πάντα γεγένηται καὶ πρὸς ἓν αὖθις ἡ τούτων ἀναγωγή. ἄπταιστον οὖν τὸ λόγιον καὶ πλῆρες τοῦ ἡμετέρου δόγματος.
[…]
(35 = fr. 212 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
ἃ δὴ νοῦς λέγει, τῷ νοεῖν δήπου λέγει.
Exegesis:
“”
Ἐξήγησις.
ὅταν, φησίν, ἀκούσῃς διηρθρωμένης φωνῆς ἄνωθεν βροντώσης ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, μὴ ὑπολάβῃς ὡς ὁ τὴν φωνὴν ταύτην ἀφιεὶς ἄγγελος ἢ θεὸς προφορικῷ λόγῳ συνήρθρωσεν· ἀλλ‘ ἐκεῖνος μὲν κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φύσιν ἀμερίστως μόνον ἐνόησε, σὺ δέ, ὡς ἠδύνω, ἤκουσας τοῦ νοήματος συλλαβικῶς καὶ προφορικῶς. ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς τῶν ἡμετέρων φωνῶν ἀφώνως ἀκούει, οὕτω καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τὰς τοῦ θεοῦ ἐννοίας φωνητικῶς δέχεται, ἕκαστος καθὼς ἔχει φύσεως ἐνεργῶν.
[…]
(36 = fr. 162 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“Ah, ah! The Earth (khthōn) howls at these, even down to their children.”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
ἆ ἆ τούσδε χθὼν κατωρύεται ἐς τέκνα μέχρις.
Exegesis:
“”
Ἐξήγησις.
περὶ τῶν ἀθέων ὁ λόγος φησὶν ὅτι μέχρι τῶν ἀπογόνων διατείνει τὴν κόλασιν αὐτοῖς ὁ θεός. τὰς γὰρ ὑποχθονίους κολάσεις ἐνδεικνύμενον τὸ λόγιον ‘χθὼν’ αὐτούς, φησί, ‘κατωρύεται’, τοῦτ‘ ἔστιν, ἐπιμυκᾶται αὐτοῖς ὁ ὑπὸ γῆν τόπος καὶ οἷον λεοντῶδες ἐπηχεῖ ὤρυγμα. διότι φησὶν ὁ Πρόκλος· ‘τῶν συγγενικῶν ψυχῶν ὁμοφυής ἐστιν ἡ σύνταξις, καὶ αἱ μήπω ἀπολυθεῖσαι τῶν τῆς φύσεως δεσμῶν ἐν τοῖς ὁμογενῶν κατέχονται πάθεσι. δεῖ οὖν καὶ ταύτας τὸ μέρος τυχεῖν τῆς ὅλης δίκης καὶ ἀναπλησθείσας διὰ τὴν φυσικὴν συγγένειαν τῶν μιασμάτων καθαρθῆναι πάλιν ἐξ αὐτῶν.’
[Commentary: …]
(37 = fr. 103 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“Do not increase your fate!”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
μὴ συναυξήσῃς τὴν εἱμαρμένην.
Exegesis:
“”
Ἐξήγησις.
εἱμαρμένην οἱ σοφώτεροι τῶν Ἑλλήνων τὴν φύσιν κατονομάζουσι, μᾶλλον δὲ τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐλλάμψεων ὧν ἡ τῶν ὄντων φύσις εἰσδέχεται. ἔστι δὲ πρόνοια μὲν ἡ ἄμεσος ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ εὐεργεσία, εἱμαρμένη δὲ ἡ διὰ τῆς τοῦ εἱρμοῦ τῶν ὄντων συμπλοκῆς τὰ ἡμέτερα κυβερνῶσα. καὶ ὑπὸ πρόνοιαν μὲν κείμεθα, ὅταν νοερῶς ἐνεργῶμεν, ὑπὸ δὲ εἱμαρμένην, ὅταν καὶ σωματικῶς. ‘μὴ’ οὖν, φησίν, ‘αὐξήσῃς τὴν εἱμαρμένην’ σαυτῷ, ἀλλ‘ ὑπὲρ ταύτην γενοῦ καὶ ὑπὸ μόνῳ θεῷ κυβερνήθητι.
[Commentary: …]
(38 = fr. 13 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
οὐ γὰρ ἀπαὶ πατρικῆς ἀρχῆς ἀτελές τι τροχάζει.
Exegesis:
“”
Ἐξήγησις.
πάντα, φησίν, ὁ πατὴρ παράγει τέλεια καὶ αὐτάρκη κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτῶν τάξιν. ἡ δὲ τῶν γεννωμένων πολλάκις ἀσθένεια καὶ ὕφεσις παρυφίστησι τὴν ἔνδειαν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ τὸ ἀτελές. ἀλλ‘ ὁ πατὴρ πάλιν ἀνακαλεῖται τὴν ἔνδειαν πρὸς τὸ τέλειον καὶ ἐπιστρέφει εἰς τὴν αὐτάρκειαν. τοιοῦτόν ἐστι καὶ τὸ παρὰ τοῦ ἀποστόλου Ἰακώβου τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἐκπεφωνημένον ἐν προοιμίοις τῆς ἐπιστολῆς αὐτοῦ· ‘πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον ἄνωθέν ἐστι καταβαῖνον ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν φώτων.’ οὐδὲν γὰρ ἀτελὲς παρὰ τοῦ τελείου πρόεισι, καὶ μάλιστα ὅταν τύχωμεν τὸ παρ‘ αὐτοῦ πρώτως χεόμενον αὐτίκα δέξασθαι.
(39 = fr. 109 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
ἀλλ‘ οὐκ εἰσδέχεται κείνης τὸ θέλειν πατρικὸς νοῦς,
μέχρις ἂν ἐξέλθῃ λήθης καὶ ῥῆμα λαλήσῃ,
μνήμην ἐνθεμένη πατρικοῦ συνθήματος ἁγνοῦ.
Exegesis:
“”
Ἐξήγησις.
οὐ παραδέχεται ὁ πατρικὸς νοῦς τῆς ψυχῆς τὰς τῶν θελημάτων ὁρμάς, μέχρις ἂν αὐτὴ ἐπιλάθηται μὲν τῆς λήθης ὧν πεπλούτηκε παρὰ τοῦ παναγάθου πατρός, ἔλθοι δὲ εἰς ἀνάμνησιν ὧν ἔσχεν ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἱερῶν συνθημάτων, καὶ φωνὴν ἀφήσει εὐγνώμονα, μνήμην ἑαυτῇ ἐνθεμένη τῶν τοῦ γεννήσαντος αὐτὴν πατρὸς συμβόλων. συνέστηκε γὰρ ἡ ψυχὴ ἀπὸ τῶν ἱερῶν λόγων καὶ τῶν θείων συμβόλων· ὧν οἱ μέν εἰσιν ἀπὸ τῶν νοερῶν εἰδῶν, τὰ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν θείων ἑνάδων. καὶ ἐσμὲν εἰκόνες μὲν τῶν νοερῶν οὐσιῶν, ἀγάλματα δὲ τῶν ἀγνώστων συνθημάτων. δεῖ δὲ καὶ τοῦτο εἰδέναι, ὡς πᾶσα ψυχὴ πάσης ψυχῆς κατ‘ εἶδος διέστηκε, καὶ ὡς ὅσαι ψυχαί, τοσαῦτα καὶ τὰ εἴδη τῶν ψυχῶν ἐστιν.
(40 = fr. 149 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
ἡνίκα δ‘ ἐρχόμενον δαίμονα πρόσγειον ἀθρήσῃς,
θῦε λίθον μνούζιριν ἐπαυδῶν.
Exegesis:
“”
Ἐξήγησις.
ψευδεῖς μὲν τὴν φύσιν οἱ πρόσγειοι δαίμονες ἅτε πόρρω τῆς θείας γνώσεως ὄντες καὶ τῆς ἀφεγγοῦς ὕλης ἀναπεπλησμένοι. εἰ δὲ βούλει παρ‘ αὐτοῖς ἀληθῆ τινα δέξασθαι λόγον, παρασκεύαζε θυτήριον καὶ ‘θῦε λίθον μνούζιριν’. ὁ δὲ λίθος οὗτος δύναμιν ἔχει προκλητικὴν ἑτέρου μείζονος δαίμονος, ὃς δὴ ἀφανῶς τῷ ὑλικῷ δαίμονι προσιὼν προφωνήσει τὴν τῶν ἐρωτωμένων ἀλήθειαν, ἣν ἐκεῖνος ἀποκρινεῖται τῷ ἐρωτῶντι. λέγει δὲ καὶ ὄνομα προκλητικὸν μετὰ τῆς τοῦ λίθου θυσίας. καὶ ὁ μὲν Χαλδαῖός τινας μὲν τῶν δαιμόνων ἀγαθούς, τινὰς δὲ κακοὺς τίθεται· ὁ δὲ ἡμέτερος εὐσεβὴς λόγος πάντας κακοὺς ὁρίζεται, ἐκ προαιρετικῶν ἀποπτωμάτων τὴν κακίαν ἀνταλλαξαμένους τῆς ἀγαθότητος.
(41 = fr. 1 des Places, line 10 of 10) Chaldaic Oracle:
“Study the intelligible! Because it subsists outside of intellect.”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
μάθε τὸ νοητόν, ἐπεὶ νόου ἔξω ὑπάρχει.
Exegesis:
“For even if all things are comprehended by intellect, still The God, the first intelligible, ‘subsists outside of intellect’. But you should not understand the ‘outside’ spatially, nor in terms of intellective otherness, but in terms of the intelligible preeminence and the character (idiotēs) of its subsistence (hyparxis) alone, being transcendent (epekeina) of all intellect; by this, its supra-essential character (to hyperousion) is shown. For that essence, the intellect, is the first intelligible, but the Intelligible-Itself (autonoēton) is outside of it; except that The God is transcendent of the intelligible and even of the Intelligible-Itself. And we shall not call that divine entity (theion) any kind of intelligible or any kind of Intelligible-Itself. For it is greater than any word or intellection (noēma), so that it is entirely unintelligible (anennoēton) and unspeakable (anekphraston), and rather honored in silence or revered with marvellous sounds. For it is even lofty beyond being revered, being spoken of or being conceptualized (ennoeisthaI).”
[Notes:
It almost appears that there are multiple viewpoints here, or that Psellus has perhaps muddled differing viewpoints together. Initially, The God (i.e., the One) is equated with the first intelligible, and then it seems with the Intelligible-Itself, which is beyond even the first intelligible. This could both reflect Porphyry’s exegesis. But then we are told, perhaps reflecting Iamblichus’ or Proclus’ critique of Porphyry, that The God transcends both the intelligible realm and the Intelligible-Itself from which that realm derives. The ‘marvellous sounds’ probably refer to non-linguistic utterances, as were used in Chaldaic teletai.
For Proclus’ exegesis of the first two and a half lines of this fragment, see Chaldaic Philosophy, fr. 11.]
Ἐξήγησις.
εἰ γὰρ καὶ πάντα τῷ νῷ περιείληπται, ἀλλ‘ ὁ θεός, τὸ πρῶτον νοητόν, ‘ἔξω’ τοῦ ‘νοῦ ὑπάρχει’· τὸ δὲ ‘ἔξω’ μὴ διαστηματικῶς νοήσῃς μηδὲ καθ‘ ἑτερότητα νοεράν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ μόνην τὴν νοητὴν ὑπερβολὴν καὶ τὴν ἰδιότητα τῆς ὑπάρξεως, νοῦ παντὸς ἐπέκεινα οὖσαν, δι‘ οὗ τὸ ὑπερούσιον δείκνυται. ἡ γὰρ οὐσία ἐκείνη ὁ νοῦς ἐστιν ὁ πρῶτος νοητός, οὗ ἐστιν ἔξω τὸ αὐτονόητον· πλὴν ὁ θεὸς καὶ τοῦ νοητοῦ καὶ τοῦ αὐτονοήτου ἐπέκεινα. καὶ μηδ‘ ὅτι νοητὸν ἐκεῖνο τὸ θεῖον φῶμεν μηδ‘ ὅτι αὐτονόητον. κρεῖττον γὰρ παντὸς καὶ ῥήματος καὶ νοήματος ὡς πάντῃ ἀνεννόητον καὶ ἀνέκφραστον, καὶ σιγῇ μᾶλλον τιμώμενον ἢ θαυμασίαις φωναῖς σεμνυνόμενον. ἔστι γὰρ καὶ τοῦ σεμνύνεσθαι ὑψηλότερον καὶ τοῦ ἐκφωνεῖσθαι καὶ τοῦ ἐννοεῖσθαι.
(42 = fr. 77 des Places) Chaldaic Oracle:
“The Jynxes (iynges) are thought (nooumenai) by the Father and also think (noeousi) in their own right, / moved by unutterable wills to think (noēsai).”
Χαλδαϊκὸν λόγιον.
αἳ ἴυγγες νοούμεναι πατρόθεν νοέουσι καὶ αὐταί,
βουλαῖς ἀφθέγκτοις κινούμεναι, ὥστε νοῆσαι.
Exegesis:
“The Jynxes are certain powers after the Paternal Abyss, and made up of three triads. The father thinks (noei) them in the sense that the Paternal Intellect has preestablished their cause uniformly within itself. The ‘wills’ of the Father, through their intelligible preeminence, are ‘unutterable’ (aphthenktoi); for the activities of beings are utterable, but their very subsistences (hyparxeis) are unutterable. And even if the intellective tokens (synthēmata) of transcendent beings (exēirēmena) are ‘thought’ (noētai) by secondary beings, they are thought as unutterable and as transcendent of the procession of intelligibles. For as the intellections (noēseis) of souls, even if they think (noōsi) the intellective orders, they think them as unchangeable, and in the same way, the activities of the intellective beings, which think the intellective tokens, think them as unutterable and subsisting in unknowable subsistences.”
[Notes:
This is in line with Proclus’ interpretation of the Jynxes elsewhere. Note that the Paternal Intellect is not the One, but the lowest member of the triad making up the Paternal Abyss, which is between the One and the Jynxes. Strictly speaking, this Intellect is closer to the uniformity of the One than intellect in the narrower late Neoplatonic sense. In any case, the point that is being made here is that thinking is not an entirely uniform thing. Souls, which are changeable, can ‘think’ or ‘intelligize’ in a manner of speaking, holding the (traces of the) intellective orders above within themselves as unchangeable although the psychic intellection of them is itself changeable. Likewise, the intellective beings are able to ‘think’ the intelligible beings through tokens, which are real traces of the unutterable subsistences above them, even though they cannot think them in the narrower sense, i.e., cannot grasp or comprehend them in an intellective manner, since they are beyond the intellective.]
Ἐξήγησις.
αἱ ἴυγγες δυνάμεις εἰσί τινες μετὰ τὸν πατρικὸν βυθὸν ἐκ τριῶν τριάδων συγκείμεναι· ἃς νοεῖ ὁ πατὴρ κατὰ τὸν πατρικὸν νοῦν τὸν τὴν αἰτίαν αὐτῶν ἑνοειδῶς ἐν ἑαυτῷ προστησάμενον. αἱ δὲ βουλαὶ τοῦ πατρὸς διὰ τὴν νοητὴν ὑπερβολὴν ἄφθεγκτοι. ἀφθεγκταὶ γάρ εἰσιν αἱ ἐνέργειαι τῶν ὄντων· αὐταὶ δὲ αἱ ὑπάρξεις ἄφθεγκτοι. τὰ δὲ τῶν ἐξῃρημένων συνθήματα νοερά, κἂν νοῆται ὑπὸ τῶν δευτέρων, ὡς ἄφθεγκτα νοεῖται καὶ ὡς ἐξῃρημένα τῶν νοητῶν προόδων. ὡς γὰρ αἱ τῶν ψυχῶν νοήσεις, κἂν νοῶσι τὰς νοερὰς τάξεις, ὡς ἀμεταβάτους νοοῦσιν, οὕτως αἱ τῶν νοερῶν ἐνέργειαι, τὰ νοερὰ συνθήματα νοοῦσαι, ὡς ἄφθεγκτα νοοῦσιν ἐν ὑπάρξεσιν ὑφεστηκότα ἀγνώστοις.
SARTRIX 