This is the main text of Thomas Taylor’s introduction to his
translation of On the Mysteries by
the Platonist philosopher Iamblichus. I’ve removed all the footnotes, modernised
Taylor’s orthography, and the paragraphing. So it is much easier to read than
it is in its original form.
I read On the
Mysteries in this translation before I learned to read Greek. Once read it
is impossible to unsee its argument, and the important information it gives us
about ancient thought. Iamblichus wrote centuries after Plato, but Taylor
suggests that he was drawing on a body of information which was known to both Plato
and Pythagoras, and I think that, broadly speaking, he is right. Plato makes a
lot more sense if you read Iamblichus first (Proclus too).
Taylor wrote at the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, and in London. There were interesting people around at the time who
he knew (Blake, Shelley, etc.), but classical scholarship was largely happening
in Germany. However German scholarship was engaged in a project diametrically
opposed to Taylor’s – they were attempting to take ancient Greek culture
entirely out of the run of other civilizations (Egypt, Babylonia, Israel) as
part of a Eurocentric political agenda, whereas Taylor argued that the was a
profound commonality shared by these cultures, based on an ancient theology
which underpinned ritual practice, divine worship, and the development of Greek
philosophy. The study of Egypt and the ancient Near East still suffers as a
consequence of that Eurocentric agenda. However, much interesting information
has come out of the ground since the early nineteenth century, and much of it
supports Taylor’s argument, which is given shape and context by Iambichus’ book.
What is most radical about both Taylor and Iamblichus, is
the suggestion that ancient polytheism is actually a product of a form of
monotheism, built on philosophical argument concerning the nature of reality,
the nature and function of the soul, the significance of divine worship and
religious ritual, and the pursuit of knowledge.
Thomas Yaeger, April 12, 2019
.
***
It appears to me that there are two descriptions of persons by
whom the present work must be considered to be of inestimable worth, the lovers
of antiquity
and the lovers of ancient philosophy and religion. To the former of these it must
be invaluable, because it is replete with information derived from the wise men
of the Chaldeans, the prophets of the Egyptians, the dogmas of the Assyrians,
and the ancient pillars of Hermes; and to the latter, because of the doctrines
contained in it, some of which originated from the Hermaic pillars, were known
by Pythagoras and Plato, and were the sources of their philosophy; and others are
profoundly theological, and unfold the mysteries of ancient religion with an
admirable conciseness of diction, and an inimitable vigour and elegance of
conception. To which also may be added, as the colophon of excellence, that it is
the most copious, the clearest, and the most satisfactory defence extant of
genuine ancient theology.
This theology, the sacred operations pertaining to which
called theurgy are here developed, has for the most part, since the destruction
of it, been surveyed only in its corruptions among barbarous nations, or during
the decline and fall of the Roman empire, with which, overwhelmed with pollution,
it gradually fell, and at length totally vanished from what is called the
polished part of the globe. This will be evident to the intelligent reader from
the following remarks, which are an epitome of what has been elsewhere more
largely discussed by me on this subject, and which also demonstrate the
religion of the Chaldeans, Egyptians, and Greeks to be no less scientific than
sublime.
In the first place, this theology celebrates the immense
principle of things as something superior even to being itself; as exempt from
the whole of things, of which it is nevertheless ineffably the source ; and does
not, therefore, think fit to enumerate it with any triad or order of beings. Indeed
it even apologizes for giving the appellation of the most simple of our conceptions
to that which is beyond all knowledge and all conception. It denominates this principle
however, the one and the good; by the former of these names indicating its transcendent
simplicity, and by the latter its subsistence as beings. For all the object of
desire to all things desire good. At the same time, however, it asserts that
these appellations are in reality nothing more than the parturitions of the
soul, which, standing as it were in the vestibules of the adytum of deity,
announce nothing pertaining to the ineffable, but only indicate her spontaneous
tendencies towards it, and belong rather to the immediate offspring of the
first God than to the first itself. Hence, as the result of this most venerable
conception of the supreme, when it ventures not only to denominate it, though
ineffable, but also to assert something of its relation to other things, it
considers this as preeminently its peculiarity, that it is the principle
of principles; it being necessary that the characteristic property of
principle, after the same manner as other things, should not begin from multitude,
but should be collected into one monad as a summit, and which is the principle
of all principles.
The scientific reasoning from which this dogma is deduced is
the following. As the principle of all things is the one, it is necessary
that the progression of beings should be continued, and that no vacuum should
intervene either in incorporeal or corporeal natures. It is also necessary that
every thing which has a natural progression should proceed through similitude. In
consequence of this, it is likewise necessary that every producing principle
should generate a number of the same order with itself, viz. nature, a natural
number; soul, one that is psychical (i. e. belonging to soul); and intellect an
intellectual number. For if whatever possesses a power of generating, generates
similars prior to dissimilars, every cause must deliver its own form and
characteristic peculiarity to its progeny ; and before it generates that which
gives subsistence to progressions, far distant and separate from its nature, it
must constitute things proximate to itself according to essence, and conjoined
with it through similitude.
It is, therefore, necessary from these premises, since there
is one unity, the principle of the universe, that this unity should produce
from itself, prior to every thing else, a multitude of natures characterized by
unity, and a number the most of all things allied to its cause; and these
natures are no other than the Gods. According to this theology, therefore, from the immense principle of principles, in
which all things causally subsist, absorbed in superessential light, and
involved in unfathomable depths, a beauteous progeny of principles proceed, all
largely partaking of the ineffable, all stamped with the occult characters of deity,
all possessing an overflowing fulness of good. From these dazzling summits,
these ineffable blossoms, these divine propagations, being, life, intellect,
soul, nature, and body depend; monads suspended from unities, deified natures proceeding
from deities. Each of these monads, too, is the leader of a series which extends
from itself to the last of things, and which, while it proceeds from, at the
same time abides in, and returns to, its leader. And all these principles, and
all their progeny, are finally centred and rooted by their summits in the first
great all-comprehending one.
Thus all beings proceed from, and are comprehended in, the
first being : all intellects emanate from one first intellect ; all souls from
one first soul; all natures blossom from one first nature; and all bodies
proceed from the vital and luminous body of the world. And, lastly, all these
great monads are comprehended in the first one, from which both they and all their
depending series are unfolded into light. Hence this first one is truly the
unity of unities, the monad of monads, the principle of principles, the God of Gods,
one and all things, and yet one prior to all.
No objections of any weight, no arguments but such as are
sophistical, can be urged against this most sublime theory, which is so
congenial to the unperverted conceptions of the human mind, that it can only be
treated with ridicule and contempt in degraded, barren, and barbarous ages. Ignorance
and impious fraud, however, have hitherto conspired to defame those inestimable
works ' in which this and many other grand and important dogmas can alone be
found; and the theology of the ancients has been attacked with all the insane fury
of ecclesiastical zeal, and all the imbecile flashes of mistaken wit, by men whose
conceptions on the subject, like those of a man between sleeping and waking, have
been turbid and wild, phantastic and confused, preposterous and vain.
Indeed, that after
the great incomprehensible cause of all, a divine multitude subsists,
cooperating with this cause in the production and government of the universe, has
always been, and is still, admitted by all nations and all religions, however
much they may differ in their opinions respecting the nature of the subordinate
deities, and the veneration which is to be paid to them by man; and however
barbarous the conceptions of some nations on this subject may be, when compared
with those of others. Hence, says the elegant MaximusTyrius, "You will see
one according law and assertion in all the earth, that there is one God, the
king and father of all things, and many Gods, sons of God, ruling together with
him. This the Greek says, and the Barbarian says, the inhabitant of the continent,
and he who dwells near the sea, the wise and the unwise. And if you proceed as far
as to the utmost shores of the ocean, there also there are Gods, rising very near
to some, and setting very near to others."
The deification, however, of dead men, and the worshiping
men as Gods, formed no part of this theology, when it is considered according
to its genuine purity. Numerous instances of the truth of this might be
adduced, but I shall mention for this purpose, as unexceptionable witnesses, the
writings of Plato, the Golden Pythagoric Verses, and the Treatise of Plutarch on
Isis and Osiris. All the works of Plato, indeed, evince the truth of this
position, but this is particularly manifest from his Laws. The Golden verses order that the immortal Gods be honoured
first, as they are disposed by law ; afterwards the illustrious Heroes, under
which appellation the author of the verses comprehends also angels and daemons,
properly so called; and in the Iast
place, the terrestrial daemons, i. e. such good men as
transcend in virtue the rest of mankind. But to honour the Gods as they are
disposed by law, is, as Hierocles observes, to reverence them as they are
arranged by their demiurgus and father ; and this is to honour them as beings not
only superior to man, but also to daemons and angels. Hence, to honour men, however
excellent they may be, as Gods, is not to honour the Gods according to the rank
in which they are placed by their Creator; for it is confounding the divine
with the human nature, and is thus acting directly contrary to the Pythagoric precept.
Plutarch too, in his above mentioned treatise, most forcibly and clearly shows
the impiety of worshiping men as Gods. " So great an apprehension
indeed," says Dr. Stillingfleet) " had the Heathens of the necessity
of appropriate acts of divine
worship that some of them have chosen to die, rather than to
give them to what they did not believe to be God.
We have a remarkable story to this purpose in Arrian and
Curtius concerning Callisthenes. Alexander arriving at that degree of vanity as
to desire to have divine worship given him, and the matter being started out of
design among the courtiers, either by Anaxarchus, as Arrian, or Cleo the
Sicilian, as Curtius says ; and the way of doing it proposed, viz. by incense
and prostration ; Callisthenes vehemently opposed it, as that which would
confound the difference of human and divine worship, which had been
preserved inviolable among them. The worship of the Gods had been kept up in
temples, with altars, and images, and sacrifices, and hymns, and prostrations,
and such like ; but it is by no
means fitting, says he, for us to confound these things,
either by lifting up men to the honours of the Gods, or depressing the Gods to the
honours of men. For if Alexander would not suffer any man to usurp his royal
dignity by the votes of men ; how much more justly may the Gods disdain for any
man to take their honours to himself. And it appears by Plutarch," that
the Greeks thought it a mean and base thing for any of them, when sent on any
embassy to the kings of Persia, to prostrate themselves before them, because
this was only allowed among them in divine adoration.
Therefore, says he,
when Pelopidas and Ismenias were sent to Artaxerxes, Pelopidas did nothing unworthy,
but Ismenias let fall his ring to the ground, and stooping for that, was
thought to make his adoration; which was altogether as good a shift as the
Jesuits advising the crucifix to be held in the mandarin's hands while they
made their adorations in the Heathen temples in China. Conon also refused to
make his adoration,as a disgrace to his city; and
Isocrates accuses the Persians for doing it, because herein they showed that
they despised the Gods rather than men, by prostituting their honours
to their princes. Herodotus
mentions Sperchies and Bulis, who could not with the greatest violence be
brought to give adoration to Xerxes, because it was against the law of their country to give
divine honour to men And Valerius Maximus
says, "the Athenians put Timagoras to death for doing it ; so strong
an apprehension had possessed them, that the manner of worship which they used to
their Gods, should be preserved sacred and inviolable." The philosopher
Sallust also, in his Treatise on the Gods
and the World, says, "It is not unreasonable to suppose that impiety
is a species of punishment, and that those who have had a knowledge of the
Gods, and yet despised them, will in another life be deprived of this knowledge.
And it is requisite to make the punishment of those who have honoured their
kings as Gods to consist, in being expelled from the Gods."
When the ineffable transcendency of the first God, which was
considered as the grand principle in the Heathen religion by the best
theologists of all nations, and particularly by its most illustrious
promulgators, Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Plato, was forgotten, this oblivion was
doubtless the principal cause of dead men being deified by the Pagans. Had they
properly directed their attention to this transcendency they would have
perceived it to be so immense as to surpass eternity, infinity, self-subsistence,
and even essence itself, and that these in reality belong to those venerable natures
which are, as it were, first unfolded into light from the unfathomable depths of that truly mystic unknown, about which all
knowledge is refunded into ignorance. For, as Simplicius justly observes, "It
is requisite that he who ascends to the principle of things should investigate
whether it is possible there can be any thing better than the supposed
principle ; and if something more excellent is found, the same inquiry should
again be made respecting that, till we arrive at the highest conceptions, than which we have no longer any more
venerable. Nor should we stop in our ascent till we find this to be the case. For
there is no occasion to fear that our progression will be through an
unsubstantial void, by conceiving something about the first principles which is
greater and more transcendent than their nature. For it is not possible for our
conceptions to take such a mighty leap as to equal, and much less to pass
beyond, the dignity of the first principles of things." He adds, " This,
therefore, is one and the best extension [of the soul] to [the highest] God,
and is, as much as possible, irreprehensible ; viz. to know firmly, that by ascribing to him the most
venerable excellences we can conceive, and the most holy and primary names and
things, we ascribe nothing to him which is suitable to his dignity. It is sufficient,
however, to procure our pardon [for the attempt], that we can attribute to him
nothing superior."
"If it is not possible, therefore, to form any ideas equal to
the dignity of the immediate progeny of the ineffable, i. e. of the first
principles of things, how much less can our conceptions reach that thrice
unknown darkness, in the reverential language of the Egyptians, which is even beyond these? Had the Heathens,
therefore, considered as they ought this transcendency of the supreme God, they
would never have presumed to equalize the human with the divine nature, and
consequently would never have worshiped men as Gods. Their theology, however, is
not to be accused as the cause of this impiety, but their forgetfulness of the sublimest
of its dogmas, and the confusion with which this oblivion was necessarily attended.
But to return to the present work. To some who are
conversant with the writings of Porphyry, who know how high he ranks among the best
of the Platonists, and that he was denominated by them, on account of his excellence,
the philosopher, it
may seem strange that he should have been so unskilled in theological
mysteries, and so ignorant of the characteristics of the beings superior to
man, as by his epistle to Anebo he may appear to have been. That he was not,
however. in reality thus unskilful and ignorant, is evident from his admirable Treatise on Abstinence from Animal Food,
and his Auxiliaries to Intelligibles. His apparent ignorance,therefore, must have been assumed for the purpose of
obtaining a more perfect and copious solution of the doubts proposed in his
Epistle, than he would otherwise have
received. But at the same time that this is admitted, it must also be observed,
that he was inferior to Iamblichus in theological science, who so greatly
excelled in knowledge of this kind, that he was not surpassed by any one, and was
equaled by few. Hence he was denominated by all succeeding Platonists the divine, in the same
manner as Plato, "to whom," as the acute Emperor Julian remarks, "
he was posterior in time only, but not in
genius.
The difficulties attending the translation of this work into
English are necessarily great, not only from its sublimity
and novelty, but also
from the defects of the original. I have, however, endeavoured to make the translation
as faithful and complete as possible; and have
occasionally availed
myself of the annotations of Gale, not being able to do so continually, because
for the most part, where philosophy is concerned,
he shows himself to be an inaccurate,
impertinent, and garrulous smatterer.
***
Postscript, April 21, 2019
I first became aware of Thomas Taylor as an important figure
in the history of philosophy (and the wider history of ideas) when I was about
twenty-four or twenty-five. At the time (around 1981) most of his work was
generally unavailable, barring the occasional reprint of books by specialist
presses (there were some of these partial reprints in the late nineteenth
century, and again in the 1920s). The only practical recourse was to obtain a
reader's ticket for the National Library of Scotland, since the legal deposit
legislation which had been in place since the eighteenth century meant they
should have copies on their shelves.
Sure enough, they were there in the catalogue, and in
numbers. I spent a lot of time in the main reading room over the next few months.
The catalogue at the time was on rolls of microfilm, so it was difficult to get
hard copy of the metadata about Taylor's books from there, without having to
write it down. Which is what I did (the catalogue was replaced with an
electronic version within a year or so). It felt like doing a form of
archaeology - digging up something for the most part long forgotten, and only
of specialist interest. However the reading room was warm and quiet, and I was
spared wind and rain while I dug my trenches.
Now everything is different, and spectacularly so. In the
early years of the new century a massive reprint of Taylor's work was
undertaken by the Prometheus Trust, which had been set up expressly to bring
his works back into print. I bought these editions as and when they became
available. In the end I had everything the Trust had reprinted, which included
the translations of Plato and Aristotle undertaken by Floyer Sydenham, the
translations of Aristotle and the Neoplatonist writers by Taylor, including
Iamblichus, Porphyry, Proclus, etc., and the dissertations he wrote on various aspects
of ancient philosophy, including on the ancient interest in mathematical
series.
The Trust has now expanded its scope, and has reprinted
English texts of other ancient philosophical writings (often with the Greek
text on the opposite page, which Taylor did not supply with his editions, most
probably on account of cost: some of his translations were printed in editions
of only 50 copies). I’ve been adding these to my collection also.
Many of Taylor’s books are now available in digital form
(several formats) from the Internet Archive, established by Brewster
Kahle. Taylor was read more in the United States, and many copies made the trip
across the Atlantic. Which is why they produced poets like Emerson, Thoreau and
Whitman. The Internet Archive has many digital copies of Taylor texts from
American University collections, and copies also of some which found their way
into libraries in India.
The editions from the Prometheus Trust cost money (though
they are not that expensive). The digital editions are available free of
charge. So Thomas Taylor’s work is now more readily available than it has ever
been. If you want to read his work, you can.
These are the relevant links:
Thomas Taylor’s works available from the
Internet Archive
can be found by following this
search string. There are more than 600 items, with many duplicate copies.
Thomas Yaeger, Easter Sunday, 2019.
[Since I posted this article, the URL of the complete Thomas Taylor catalogue has changed. The link was updated on January 24, 2020.]
