Iamblichus, De Mysteriis

Ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τὰς ἐπιφανείας αὐτῶν βαδιοῦμαι. τί δήποτε ἔχουσι τὸ διάφορον; ἐπιζητεῖς γάρ, τί τὸ γνώρισμα θεοῦ παρουσίας ἢ ἀγγέλου ἢ ἀρχαγγέλου ἢ δαίμονος ἤ τινος ἄρχοντος ἢ ψυχῆς. ἑνὶ μὲν οὖν λόγῳ ταῖς οὐσίαις αὐτῶν καὶ δυνάμεσι καὶ ἐνεργείαις τὰς ἐπιφανείας ἀφορίζομαι εἶναι ὁμολογουμένας· οἷοι γάρ ποτέ εἰσι, τοιοῦτοι καὶ τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις ἐπιφαίνονται, ἐνεργείας· τέ ἀναφαίνουσι, καὶ ἰδέας ἑαυτοῖς συμφώνους καὶ γνωρίσματα ἑαυτῶν τὰ οἰκεῖα ἐπιδεικνύουσιν.

But I shall proceed to their manifestations. What, then, is the difference between them? For you ask what the mark is of the presence of a god, or an angel, or an archangel, or a daimōn [spirit-being], or some archon, or a psychē [soul]. In a word, then, I define their manifestations as being in accord with their essences and powers and activities: for whatever they are, such they also appear to those who invoke them, and they display activities, and show forms in accord with themselves and their own proper marks.

Ὡς δὴ καθ’ ἕκαστον διορίσασθαι, μονοειδῆ μέν ἐστι φάσματα τὰ τῶν θεῶν, τὰ δὲ τῶν δαιμόνων ποικίλα, τὰ δὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων ἁπλούστερα μὲν ἢ κατὰ τοὺς δαίμονας, τῶν δὲ θείων ὑποδεέστερα, τὰ δὲ τῶν ἀρχαγγέλων μᾶλλόν τι τοῖς θείοις αἰτίοις συνεγγίζοντα, τὰ δὲ τῶν ἀρχόντων, εἰ μέν σοι δοκοῦσιν οὗτοι εἶναι οἱ κοσμοκράτορες οἱ τὰ ὑπὸ σελήνην στοιχεῖα διοικοῦντες, ἔσται ποικίλα μέν, ἐν τάξει δὲ διακεκοσμημένα, εἰ δὲ οἱ τῆς ὕλης προεστηκότες, ἔσται ποικιλότερα μέν, ἀτελέστερα δὲ τούτων μᾶλλον· τὰ δὴ τῶν ψυχῶν παντοδαπὰ φαίνεται. καὶ τὰ μὲν τῶν θεῶν χρηστὰ τῇ ὄψει ἐλλάμπει, τὰ δὲ τῶν ἀρχαγγέλων βλοσυρὰ ἅμα καὶ ἥμερα, πραότερα δὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων, τὰ δὲ τῶν δαιμόνων φοβερά· τὰ δὲ τῶν ἡρώων, καὶ εἰ παραλέλειπται ἐν τῇ ἐρωτήσει, τυγχανέτω τῆς ἀληθείας γε ἕνεκα ἀποκρίσεως, ὅτι δὴ τῶν δαιμόνων ἐστὶν ἡμερώτερα· τὰ δὲ τῶν ἀρχόντων καταπληπτικὰ μέν ἐστιν, εἰ περὶ τὸν κόσμον ἐνεξουσιάζουσι, βλαβερὰ δὲ τοῖς ὁρῶσι καὶ λυπηρά, εἴπερ εἰσὶν ἔνυλοι· τὰ δὲ τῶν ψυχῶν προσέοικε μέν τι τοῖς ἡρωικοῖς, πλὴν ἐστί γε αὐτῶν ὑποδεέστερα.

To distinguish them one by one: the apparitions of the gods are uniform, those of the daimones varied, those of the angels simpler than those of the daimones but inferior to the divine ones, those of the archangels come somewhat closer to the divine causes; those of the archons, if you take these to be the world-rulers who administer the elements beneath the moon, will be varied but arranged in order, but if [they are] those set over matter, they will be more varied, but more imperfect than these; those of the psychai appear in every sort of form. And those of the gods shine forth benignly to the sight, those of the archangels are at once awe-inspiring and gentle, those of the angels milder, those of the daimones frightening; those of the heroes, even though they were left out of your question, let them have an answer for truth's sake: they are gentler than those of the daimones; those of the archons are astounding, if they hold power over the cosmos, but harmful and distressing to those who see them, if they are material; those of the psychai somewhat resemble the heroic ones, except that they are inferior to them.

Πάλιν τοίνυν τὰ μὲν τῶν θεῶν ἐστὶ παντελῶς ἀμε τάβλητα κατά τε μέγεθος καὶ μορφὴν καὶ σχῆμα καὶ κατὰ πάντα τὰ περὶ αὐτοὺς ὄντα· τὰ δὲ τῶν ἀρχαγγέλων πλησιάζοντα τοῖς τῶν θεῶν ἀπολείπεται αὐτῶν τῆς ταὐτότητος· τὰ δὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων καὶ τούτων ἐστὶν ὑποδεέστερα, ἀμετάβλητα δέ· τὰ τῶν δαιμόνων ἰνδάλλεται ἄλλοτε ἐπ’ ἄλλης ὁρώμενα μορφῆς καὶ μεγάλα καὶ μικρά, τὰ αὐτὰ φαινόμενα. καὶ δὴ καὶ τὰ τῶν ἀρχόντων, ὅσα μέν ἐστιν ἡγεμονικά, ἀναλλοίωτα ὑπάρχει, τὰ δὲ ἔνυλα ἀλλοιοῦται πολυειδῶς· τὰ δὲ τῶν ἡρώων προσέοικε τοῖς τῶν δαιμόνων, τὰ δὲ τῶν ψυχῶν τῆς δαιμονίας μεταβολῆς οὐκ ὀλίγον μέρος ὑφιεῖσιν.

Again, then, those of the gods are entirely unchangeable in size and shape and figure and in everything about them; those of the archangels, while approaching those of the gods, fall short of their sameness; those of the angels are inferior even to these, but unchangeable; those of the daimones show themselves at different times seen in different shapes, both large and small, though the same ones are appearing. And indeed, of those of the archons, the leading ones remain unaltered, while the material ones change in many forms; those of the heroes resemble those of the daimones; and those of the psychai fall short in no small measure of the daimonic changeability.

Ἔτι τοίνυν τάξις καὶ ἠρεμία τοῖς θεοῖς προσήκει, τοῖς δὲ τῶν ἀρχαγγέλων δραστήριον τὸ τῆς τάξεως καὶ ἠρεμίας ὑπάρχει, τοῖς δὲ ἀγγέλοις οὐκ ἀπηλλαγμένον ἤδη κινήσεως τὸ διακεκοσμημένον καὶ ἡσυχαῖον πάρεστι, ταραχὴ δὲ καὶ ἀταξία τοῖς δαιμονίοις φάσμασι συνακολουθεῖ, τοῖς δὲ τῶν ἀρχόντων κατὰ δόξαν ἑκατέραν ὧν προείπομεν ὁμολογούμενα συνέπεται τὰ ὁράματα, θορυβώδη μὲν φερόμενα τὰ ἔνυλα, τὰ δ’ ἡγεμονικὰ μονίμως ἑστῶτα ἐν αὐτοῖς, τὰ δὲ τῶν ἡρώων ὑπειγμένα τῇ κινήσει καὶ μεταβολῆς οὐκ ἄμοιρα, τὰ δὲ τῶν ψυχῶν προσεοικότα μέντοι τοῖς ἡρωικοῖς, ἐλάττονα δὲ ὅμως ὄντα καὶ τούτων.

Further, then, order and stillness belong to the gods; in those of the archangels, order and stillness are active; to the angels belongs what is ordered and quiet, though not yet freed from motion; disturbance and disorder accompany the daimonic apparitions; with those of the archons, the visions follow in agreement with each of the two views we stated before, the material ones being borne along in tumult, the leading ones standing steadfast in themselves; those of the heroes are subject to motion and not without a share in change; those of the psychai resemble the heroic ones, yet are lesser even than these.

Πρὸς δὴ τούτοις τοῖς ἰδιώμασι τὰ μὲν θεῖα κάλλος οἷον ἀμήχανον ἀπαστράπτει, θαύματι μὲν κατέχον τοὺς ὁρῶντας, θεσπεσίαν δὲ εὐφροσύνην παρεχόμενον, ἀρρήτῳ δὲ τῇ συμμετρίᾳ ἀναφαινόμενον, ἐξῃρημένον δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων εἰδῶν τῆς εὐπρεπείας. τὰ δὲ τῶν ἀρχαγγέλων μακάρια θεάματα μέγιστον μὲν. ἔχει καὶ αὐτὰ τὸ κάλλος, οὐ μὴν ἔτι γε ὁμοίως ἄρρητον καὶ θαυμαστόν, ὥσπερ τὸ θεῖον· τὰ δὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων μεριστῶς ἤδη διαιρεῖ τὸ καλόν, ὅπερ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχαγγέλων παραδέχεται. τὰ δαιμόνια δὲ καὶ τὰ ἡρωικὰ αὐτοπτικὰ πνεύματα ἐν εἴδεσι μὲν ὡρισμένοις ἔχει τὸ κάλλος ἀμφότερα, οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν ἐν λόγοις τοῖς τὴν οὐσίαν ἀφορίζουσι διακοσμηθέν ἐστι δαιμόνιον, τὸ δ’ ἐπιδεικνύμενον τὴν ἀνδρίαν ἡρωικόν. τὰ δὲ τῶν ἀρχόντων διχῇ διῃρήσθω· τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἡγεμονικὸν κάλλος καὶ αὐτοφυὲς ἐπιδείκνυσι, τὰ δὲ εὐμορφίαν πεπλασμένην καὶ ἐπισκευαστὴν ἐμφαίνει. τὰ δὲ τῶν ψυχῶν ἐν λόγοις μὲν καὶ αὐτὰ διακεκόσμηται πεπερασμένοις, διῃρημένοις δὲ μᾶλλον τῶν ἐν τοῖς ἥρωσι καὶ περιειλημμένοις μεριστῶς καὶ κρατουμένοις ὑφ’ ἑνὸς εἴδους. εἰ δὲ δεῖ κατὰ πάντων κοινῶς ἀφορίσασθαι, φημὶ τῶν ὅλων ὥσπερ ἕκαστα διατέτακται καὶ ὡς ἔχει τῆς οἰκείας φύσεως, οὕτως καὶ τοῦ κάλλους αὐτὰ κατὰ τὴν ὑπάρχουσαν διακλήρωσιν μετειληχέναι.

In addition to these characteristics, the divine ones flash forth a beauty that is, as it were, beyond conceiving, holding the beholders in wonder, bestowing a marvellous joy, appearing with an ineffable symmetry, and set apart from all other forms of comeliness. The blessed sights of the archangels themselves too have the greatest beauty, yet no longer equally ineffable and wonderful, as the divine is; those of the angels now divide up, part by part, the beauty that they receive from the archangels. The daimonic and the heroic spirits that show themselves to sight both have their beauty in defined forms; nevertheless, the one that is ordered in the principles that define its essence is daimonic, while the one that displays courage is heroic. Let those of the archons be divided in two: some display a leading and natural beauty, others show a fabricated and contrived comeliness. Those of the psychai are themselves also ordered in principles, limited ones, but more divided than those in the heroes, encompassed in a partial way and dominated by a single form. If one must define this in common for all, I say that, as each of all things has been arranged, and as it stands in its own nature, so too they have received a share of beauty according to the allotment that is theirs.

Ὡσαύτως τοίνυν καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ φωτός. τὰ μὲν τῶν θεῶν ἀγάλματα φωτὸς πλέον ἀστράπτει· φωτὸς δ’ ὑπερφυοῦς ἐστὶ πλήρη τὰ τῶν ἀρχαγγέλων, φωτεινὰ δὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων. δαίμονες δὲ θολῶδες διαφαίνουσι τὸ πῦρ, ἥρωες δὲ σύμμικτον ἀπὸ πλειόνων, ἄρχοντες δὲ οἱ μὲν κοσμικοὶ καὶ καθαρώτεροι, οἱ δὲ τῆς ὕλης ἐξ ἀνομοίων καὶ ἐναντίων αὐτὸ συμμιγνύμενον ἐπιδεικνύουσιν· αἱ ψυχαὶ δὲ ἀπὸ πολλῶν τῶν ἐν τῇ γενέσει συγκράσεων ἀναπεπλησμένον αὐτὸ μεριστῶς ἔκδηλον ἀπεργάζονται.

Likewise, then, with respect to light. The images of the gods flash forth more abundant light; those of the archangels are full of supernatural light, those of the angels luminous. Daimones [spirit-beings] show their fire murky, heroes [show it] mixed from several [elements]; of the archons, the cosmic ones [show it] purer as well, while those of matter display it mixed from unlike and opposite [elements]; and the psychai [souls] make it visible in a partial way, filled with many of the blendings in the realm of becoming.

Κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ δὲ τοῖς εἰρημένοις τὸ μὲν τῶν θεῶν πῦρ ἄτομον ἄφθεγκτον ἐκλάμπει, καὶ πληροῖ τὰ ὅλα βάθη τοῦ κόσμου πυρίως, ἀλλ’ οὐ περικοσμίως. τὸ δὲ τῶν ἀρχαγγέλων ἀμέριστον μέν, ἔχον δὲ περὶ ἑαυτὸ ἢ πρὸ ἑαυτοῦ προπομπεῦον ἢ μεθ’ ἑαυτὸ συνεπόμενον πολὺ πλῆθος θεωρεῖται. τὸ δὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων διῃρημένον πῦρ πλὴν ἐν ταῖς γε τελειοτάταις ἰδέαις διαφαίνεται. τὸ δὲ τῶν δαιμόνων μερισμοῦ τέ ἐστι πλείονος καὶ ἐπὶ βραχύτερον περιγράφεται, καὶ λόγῳ ῥητὸν ὑπάρχει, καὶ τῆς ὄψεως τῶν τὰ κρείττονα ὁρώντων οὐχ ὑπάρχει ἄξιον. τὸ δὲ τῶν ἡρώων ἔχει μὲν τὰ αὐτὰ τρόπον γέ τινα, ἀπολείπεται δ’ ὅμως αὐτῶν τῆς ἄκρας ὁμοιώσεως. καὶ μὴν τό γε τῶν ἀρχόντων ὅσον μὲν ὑψηλότερον αὐτοῦ, διαφανέστερον θεωρεῖται, τὸ δὲ ἔνυλον σκοτωδέστερον· τὸ δ’ αὖ τῶν ψυχῶν πολυμερὲς μὲν καὶ πολυειδὲς ἐπιδείκνυται, σύμμικτον δὲ ἀπὸ πολλῶν τῶν περὶ τὸν κόσμον φύσεων. καὶ μὴν τό γε τῶν θεῶν πάντη σταθερόν ἐστιν ἰδεῖν· τὸ δὲ τῶν ἀρχαγγέλων μέτοχον ἠρεμίας, τὸ δ’ αὖ τῶν ἀγγέλων μονίμως κινούμενον· ἄστατόν γε μὴν τὸ τῶν δαιμόνων, καὶ τῶν ἡρώων ἐπὶ πλέον ὀξύρροπον· τοῖς δὲ ἄρχουσιν ἠρεμαῖον μὲν τοῖς πρώτοις, ταραχῶδες δὲ τοῖς ὑστάτοις σύνεστι· ψυχαῖς δὲ ἐν κινήσεσι πολλαῖς μεταβαλλόμενον.

In the same way as what has been said, the fire of the gods shines out indivisible and ineffable, and fills all the depths of the cosmos fierily, but not in the manner of [things] about the cosmos. That of the archangels is undivided, but it is seen having around itself, or going in procession before it, or following along after it, a great multitude. The fire of the angels shows itself divided, yet in forms of the utmost perfection. That of the daimones is of greater division, is confined within a smaller compass, is expressible in speech, and is not worthy of the sight of those who see the superior beings. That of the heroes has the same [traits] in a certain way, yet falls short of the utmost likeness to them. And of that of the archons, the more elevated part is seen as more translucent, the material part as darker; that of the psychai, again, shows itself many-parted and many-formed, mixed from many of the natures about the cosmos. Moreover, that of the gods is to be seen wholly steady; that of the archangels partakes of stillness, that of the angels moves in a constant way; but that of the daimones is unstable, and that of the heroes still more quick to shift; with the archons it is calm in the first, turbulent in the last; with the psychai it changes in many motions.

Ἔστω μὲν γὰρ ἡ ἄγνοια καὶ ἀπάτη πλημμέλεια καὶ ἀσέβεια, οὐ μὴν διὰ τοῦτο ψευδῆ ποιεῖται καὶ τὰ οἰκείως τοῖς θεοῖς προσφερόμενα καὶ τὰ θεῖα ἔργα, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἡ ἔννοια συνάπτει τοῖς θεοῖς τοὺς θεουργούς· ἐπεὶ τί ἐκώλυε τοὺς θεωρητικῶς φιλοσοφοῦντας ἔχειν τὴν θεουργικὴν ἕνωσιν πρὸς τοὺς θεούς; νῦν δὲ οὐκ ἔχει τό γε ἀληθὲς οὕτως. ἀλλ’ ἡ τῶν ἔργων τῶν ἀρρήτων καὶ ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν νόησιν θεοπρεπῶς ἐνεργουμένων τελεσιουργία ἡ τε τῶν νοουμένων τοῖς θεοῖς μόνοις συμβόλων ἀφθέγκτων δύ ναμις ἐντίθησι τὴν θεουργικὴν ἕνωσιν. διόπερ οὐδὲ τῷ νοεῖν αὐτὰ ἐνεργοῦμεν· ἔσται γὰρ οὕτω νοερὰ αὐτῶν ἡ ἐνέργεια καὶ ἀφ’ ἡμῶν ἐνδιδομένη· τὸ δ’ οὐδέτερόν ἐστιν ἀληθές. καὶ γὰρ μὴ νοούντων ἡμῶν αὐτὰ τὰ συνθήματα ἀφ’ ἑαυτῶν δρᾷ τὸ οἰκεῖον ἔργον, καὶ ἡ τῶν θεῶν, πρὸς οὓς ἀνήκει ταῦτα, ἄρρητος δύναμις αὐτὴ ἀφ’ ἑαυτῆς ἐπιγινώσκει τὰς οἰκείας εἰκόνας, ἀλλ’ οὐ τῷ διεγείρεσθαι ὑπὸ τῆς ἡμετέρας νοήσεως· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔχει φύσιν τὰ περιέχοντα ὑπὸ τῶν περιεχομένων οὐδὲ τὰ τέλεια ὑπὸ τῶν ἀτελῶν οὐδ’ ὑπὸ τῶν μερῶν τὰ ὅλα ἀνακινεῖσθαι. ὅθεν δὴ οὐδ’ ὑπὸ τῶν ἡμετέρων νοήσεων προηγουμένως τὰ θεῖα αἴτια προκαλεῖται εἰς ἐνέργειαν· ἀλλὰ ταύτας μὲν καὶ τὰς ὅλας τῆς ψυχῆς ἀρίστας διαθέσεις καὶ τὴν περὶ ἡμᾶς καθαρότητα ὡς συναίτια ἄττα προϋποκεῖσθαι χρή, τὰ δ’ ὡς κυρίως ἐγείροντα τὴν θείαν θέλησιν αὐτὰ τὰ θεῖά ἐστι συνθήματα· καὶ οὕτως τὰ τῶν θεῶν αὐτὰ ὑφ’ ἑαυτῶν ἀνακινεῖται, ὑπ’ οὐδενὸς τῶν ὑποδεεστέρων ἐνδεχόμενά τινα εἰς ἑαυτὰ ἀρχὴν τῆς οἰκείας ἐνεργείας.

For let ignorance and deception be error and impiety; still, it does not on that account make false the offerings brought to the gods in a fitting manner, or the divine works. For it is not thought that unites the theourgoi [practitioners of theourgia, ritual "god-work"] with the gods: otherwise what would prevent those who philosophise theoretically from having theurgic union with the gods? But as it is, the truth is not so. Rather, it is the accomplishment of works that are ineffable and performed, in a manner befitting the gods, beyond all intellection, and the power of unutterable symbols understood by the gods alone, that establishes theurgic union. That is why we do not perform them by thinking either: for then their activity would be intellectual, and imparted by us; but neither of these is true. For even when we are not thinking, the tokens themselves by themselves perform their proper work, and the ineffable power of the gods, to whom these belong, itself by itself recognises its own images, and not by being roused by our intellection; for it is not in the nature of things that what contains should be set in motion by what is contained, nor the perfect by the imperfect, nor wholes by parts. Hence the divine causes are not called into activity primarily by our intellections either; rather, these, together with the best dispositions of the psychē [soul] in their entirety and the purity that is in us, must be presupposed as certain auxiliary causes, while what properly awakens the divine will are the divine tokens themselves; and so the things of the gods are set in motion by themselves, receiving from nothing inferior any starting-point of their own activity.

Τεκμήριον δὲ μέγιστον· πολλοὶ γὰρ καὶ πυρὸς προσφερομένου οὐ καίονται, οὐχ ἁπτομένου τοῦ πυρὸς αὐτῶν διὰ τὴν θείαν ἐπίπνοιαν· πολλοὶ δὲ καιόμενοι οὐκ ἀντιλαμβάνονται, διότι οὐ τὴν τοῦ ζώου ζωὴν ζῶσι τηνικαῦτα. καὶ οἱ μὲν διαπείραντες ὀβελοὺς οὐκ ἐπαισθάνονται· οἱ δὲ πελέκεις προσαράσσοντες τοῖς νώτοις, οἱ δὲ καὶ ξιφιδίοις τὰς ὠλένας κατατέμνοντες οὐδαμῶς παρακολουθοῦσιν. αἵ τε ἐνέργειαι αὐτῶν οὐδαμῶς εἰσὶν ἀνθρώπιναι, τά τε γὰρ ἄβατα βατὰ γίνεται θεοφορουμένοις καὶ εἰς πῦρ φέρονται καὶ πῦρ διαπορεύονται καὶ ποταμοὺς διαπερῶσιν, ὥσπερ ἡ ἐν Κασταβάλλοις ἱέρεια. ἀπὸ δὲ τούτων δείκνυται, ὡς οὐ παρακολουθοῦσιν ἑαυτοῖς ἐνθουσιῶντες, καὶ ὅτι οὔτε τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην οὔτε τὴν τοῦ ζώου ζωὴν ζῶσι κατ’ αἴσθησιν ἢ ὁρμήν, ἄλλην δέ τινα θειοτέραν ζωὴν ἀνταλλάττονται, ἀφ’ ἧς ἐπιπνέονται καὶ ἀφ’ ἧς τελέως κατέχονται.

The greatest proof is this: many, even when fire is applied to them, are not burned, since because of the divine inspiration the fire does not touch them; and many, though burned, do not perceive it, because at that time they are not living the life of a living creature. Some drive spits through [themselves] and do not feel it; others strike their backs with axes, and others again slash their forearms with daggers, and are not at all aware of it. And their activities are in no way human: for to those borne by a god, impassable places become passable; they are carried into fire, they walk through fire, and they cross rivers, like the priestess at Castabala. From these things it is shown that when they are divinely possessed they are not aware of themselves, and that they live neither the human life nor the life of a living creature according to sensation or impulse, but take in exchange some other, more divine life, by which they are inspired and by which they are wholly possessed.

ὃ δὲ προτείνεις ὡς οὐδαμῶς ἀπόβλητον τὸ ἀναγεννητικοὺς εἶναι τῶν δραστικῶν εἰδώλων, θαυμάσαιμ’ ἂν εἴ τις ἀποδέξαιτο τῶν τὰ ἀληθινὰ εἴδη τῶν θεῶν θεωρούντων θεουργῶν. διὰ τί γὰρ ἄν τις εἴδωλα ἀντὶ τῶν ὄντως ὄντων ἀνταλλάξαιτο, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν πρωτίστων ἐπὶ τὰ ἔσχατα ἂν ἀπενεχθείη; ἢ οὐκ ἴσμεν ὡς πάντα ἀμυδρῶς ἐστὶ κατὰ τὴν τοιαύτην σκιαγραφίαν, καὶ οὔτε ἀληθῆ φαντάσματά ἐστι τοῦ ἀληθοῦς, καὶ τὰ ἀγαθὰ δοκοῦντα φαίνεται, ὄντα δὲ οὐδέποτε; καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὡσαύτως ἐν τῷ γίγνεσθαι ἐπεισ έρχεται φερόμενα, γνήσιον δὲ οὐδὲν οὐδὲ τέλειον οὐδὲ ἐναργὲς κέκτηνται. δηλοῖ δὲ καὶ ὁ τρόπος αὐτῶν τῆς ποιήσεως. οὐ γὰρ θεὸς αὐτῶν ἐστι ποιητὴς ἀλλ’ ἄνθρωπος· οὐ δ’ ἐκ τῶν ἑνοειδῶν καὶ νοητῶν οὐσιῶν παράγεται, ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ τῆς ὕλης τῆς λαμβανομένης. τί οὖν ἀγαθὸν γένοιτο ἂν ἐξ ὕλης βλαστάνον καὶ τῶν περὶ τὴν ὕλην καὶ ἐν τοῖς σώμασιν ὑλικῶν καὶ σωματοειδῶν δυνάμεων; ἢ ἀπ’ ἀνθρωπίνης τέχνης ὑφιστάμενον ἀσθενέστερον καὶ αὐτῶν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὑπάρχον, τῶν τὸ εἶναι αὐτῷ παρεχομένων; ποίᾳ δέ τινι καὶ τέχνῃ πλάττεται τουτὶ τὸ εἴδωλον; λέγεται μὲν γὰρ ὡς τῇ δημιουργικῇ· ἀλλ’ αὕτη γε τῶν ἀληθινῶν ἦν οὐσιῶν ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ εἰδώλων τινῶν ἐπιτελεστική· ὥστε καὶ ἡ εἰδωλοποιητικὴ τέχνη πολλοστή τίς ἐστιν ἀπὸ τῆς φυτουργοῦ τῶν ἀληθινῶν δημιουργίας· ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ ἀναλογίαν τινὰ πρὸς τὴν θείαν ποίησιν ἀποσώζει· οὐ γὰρ διὰ τῶν οὐρανίων φυσικῶν κινήσεων ἢ τῆς κατὰ μέρος ὕλης ἢ τῶν δυνάμεων τῶν οὕτως διῃρημένων ὁ θεὸς δημιουργεῖ πάντα· ταῖς δὲ ἐννοίαις καὶ βουλήσεσι καὶ τοῖς ἀύλοις εἴδεσι διὰ τῆς ἀιδίου τε καὶ ὑπερκοσμίου καὶ ἐγκοσμίου ψυχῆς δημιουργεῖ τοὺς κόσμους· ὁ δὲ δὴ τῶν εἰδώλων ποιητὴς λέγεται μὲν ὡς διὰ τῶν περιπολούντων ἀστέρων αὐτὰ ἀπεργάζεται.

As for what you put forward, that being makers of effective images is by no means to be rejected, I would be amazed if any of the theourgoi [practitioners of theourgia, ritual "god-work"] who contemplate the true forms of the gods would accept it. For why would anyone take images in exchange for what truly is, and be carried down from the very first things to the last? Or do we not know that in such shadow-painting everything is faint, and that these are not true appearances of the true, and that the goods appear as seeming, but never as being? And the other [features] likewise come in, borne along in becoming, but they possess nothing genuine, nothing perfect, nothing clear. The manner of their making shows it too. For their maker is not a god but a man; nor are they brought forth from uniform and intelligible essences, but from the matter that is taken [for them]. What good, then, could come from what sprouts out of matter and from the material and corporeal powers about matter and in bodies? Or from what is constituted by human art, being weaker even than the very humans who give it its being? And by what kind of art is this image fashioned? It is said: by the demiurgic [art]. But that [art] was productive of true essences, not of some images; so that the image-making art is many removes from the generative creation of true things. Nor does it preserve any analogy to divine making: for it is not through the natural motions of the heavens, or through partial matter, or through powers divided in this way, that God creates all things; but by thoughts and wills and immaterial forms, through the eternal and supercosmic and encosmic psychē [soul], he creates the worlds. The maker of images, though, is said to produce them through the stars that revolve.

Φέρε δὴ οὖν καὶ περὶ ἄλλου γένους ἀποριῶν ἀποκεκρυμμένην ἔχοντος τὴν αἰτίαν ποιησώμεθα λόγον· ὅπερ ἔχει μέν, ὡς καὶ σὺ αὐτὸς λέγεις βιαστικὰς ἀπειλάς, μερίζεται δὲ περὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἀπειλῶν πολυμερῶς· ἢ γὰρ τὸν οὐρανὸν προσαράξειν ἢ τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς Ἴσιδος ἐκφανεῖν, ἢ τὸ ἐν ἀβύσσῳ ἀπόρρητον δείξειν ἢ στήσειν τὴν βάριν, ἢ τὰ μέλη τοῦ Ὀσίριδος διασκεδάσειν τῷ Τυφῶνι ἢ ἄλλο τι τοιοῦτον ἀπειλεῖ ποιήσειν. τοῦτο δὴ πᾶν τὸ εἶδος τῶν λόγων οὐχ, ὡς σὺ νομίζεις, πρὸς ἥλιον ἢ σελήνην ἤ τινα τῶν κατ’ οὐρανὸν ἐπανατείνονται οἱ ἄνθρωποι (ἔτι γὰρ ἂν συνέβη δεινότερα ἄτοπα ὧν σὺ σχετλιάζεις), ἀλλ’ ὅπερ ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν ἔλεγον, ἐπί τι γένος δυνάμεων ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ μεριστῶν ἄκριτον ἀλόγιστον, ὃ δέχεται μέν ἀπ’ ἄλλου λόγον καὶ κατακούει, οἰκείᾳ δὲ συνέσει οὔτε χρῆται οὔτε τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ ψεῦδος ἢ δυνατὸν ἢ ἀδύνατον διακρίνει. τὸ δὲ τοιοῦτο ἀθρόως ἐπανατεινομένων τῶν ἀπειλῶν συγκινεῖται καὶ ἐκπλήττεται, ὡς ἂν οἶμαι πεφυκὸς αὐτό τε ἄγεσθαι ταῖς ἐμφάσεσι, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ψυχαγωγεῖν διὰ τῆς ἐμπλήκτου καὶ ἀσταθμήτου φαντασίας.

Come, then, let us give an account also of another kind of difficulty, one whose cause is hidden. It involves, as you yourself say, coercive threats, and is divided into many parts according to the multitude of the threats: for [the one who invokes] threatens either to dash the heaven to pieces, or to reveal the hidden things of Isis, or to show the secret thing in the abyss, or to stop the barque, or to scatter the limbs of Osiris to Typhon, or to do some other such thing. Now this whole kind of speech people do not brandish, as you suppose, against the sun or the moon or any of the beings in heaven (for then still more terrible absurdities would follow than those you complain of), but, as I was saying earlier, against a certain kind of partial powers in the cosmos, undiscerning and irrational, which receives reason from another and obeys it, but neither uses an understanding of its own nor distinguishes the true and the false, or the possible and the impossible. Such a kind, when threats are brandished at it all at once, is stirred up and struck with fear, being, I think, of a nature both to be led itself by appearances and to sway other things through its erratic and unstable imagination.

Ἀλλ’ ὁ ἀκούων, φής, πρὸς τὰ σημαινόμενα ἀφορᾷ, ὥστε αὐτάρκης ἡ αὐτὴ μένουσα ἔννοια, κἂν ὁποιονοῦν ὑπάρχῃ τοὔνομα. τὸ δ’ οὐ τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν οἷον σὺ προσεδόκησας· εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἦν κατὰ συνθήκην κείμενα τὰ ὀνόματα, οὐδὲν διέφερε τὰ ἕτερα ἀντὶ τῶν ἑτέρων μεταλαμβάνειν· εἰ δὲ τῇ φύσει συνήρτηται τῶν ὄντων, τὰ μᾶλλον αὐτῇ προσεοικότα καὶ τοῖς θεοῖς ἔσται δήπου προσφιλέστερα· ἐκ δὴ τοῦδε καταφαίνεται ὡς εὐλόγως καὶ ἡ τῶν ἱερῶν ἐθνῶν προκέκριται φωνὴ πρὸ τῶν ἄλλων ἀνθρώπων· οὐδὲ γὰρ πάντως τὴν αὐτὴν διασώζει διάνοιαν μεθερμηνευόμενα τὰ ὀνόματα, ἀλλ’ ἔστι τινὰ καθ’ ἕκαστον ἔθνος ἰδιώματα, ἀδύνατα εἰς ἄλλο ἔθνος διὰ φωνῆς σημαίνεσθαι· ἔπειτα κἂν εἰ οἷόν τε αὐτὰ μεθερμηνεύειν, ἀλλὰ τήν γε δύναμιν οὐκέτι φυλάττει τὴν αὐτήν· ἔχει δὲ καὶ τὰ βάρβαρα ὀνόματα πολλὴν μὲν ἔμφασιν πολλὴν δὲ συντομίαν, ἀμφιβολίας τε ἐλάττονος μετέσχηκε καὶ ποικιλίας καὶ τοῦ πλήθους τῶν λέξεων· διὰ πάντα δὴ οὖν ταῦτα συναρμόζει τοῖς κρείττοσιν.

But the hearer, you say, looks to what is signified, so that the conception, if it stays the same, is sufficient, whatever the name may be. But the matter is not such as you supposed. For if names were set by convention, it would make no difference to use some in place of others; but if they are bound to the nature of beings, those that resemble it more will surely also be dearer to the gods. From this, then, it is plain that the language of the sacred nations has with good reason been preferred to [that of] other people. For names, when translated, do not wholly preserve the same meaning: there are idioms peculiar to each nation that cannot be signified in speech to another nation; and then, even if it is possible to translate them, they no longer keep the same power. Barbarian names, moreover, have much expressiveness and much concision, and partake less of ambiguity and variety and of the multitude of words; for all these reasons, then, they are fitted to the superior beings.