Proclus on the Athena of the Odyssey

[sdi]

(Paging boccaderlupo to the red courtesy phone, please...)

Lastly, after essential heroes, an order of souls follows, who proximately govern the affairs of men, and are daemoniacal according to habitude or alliance, but not essentially. These souls likewise are the perpetual attendants of the Gods, but they have not an essence wholly superior to man. Of this kind, as we are informed by Proclus in his MS. Scholia on the Cratylus, are the Nymphs that sympathize with waters, Pans with the feet of goats and the like. They also differ from those powers that are essentially of a daemoniacal characteristic in this, that they assume a variety of shapes (each of the others immutably preserving one form) are subject to various passions, and are the causes of every kind of deception to mankind. Proclus likewise observes, that the Minerva which so often appeared to Ulysses and Telemachus belonged to this order of souls. [Thomas Taylor, Theology of Plato VII xlv]

I have long assumed that the Athena of the Odyssey was simply a daemon. Proclus, in fact, considered Her to be a hero (e.g. the category of an ascended human—dæmon-like but not inherently dæmonic), evidently since She would often change form. I'm not sure I'd go so far—in my experience, dæmons, since they speak to the imagination and the imagination isn't fixed, shift form as regularly as doing so would perpetuate communication—but it's interesting to see how the tail end of the philosophical tradition considered it.

Comments

[causticus]

I would have to agree with your assumption that we're dealing with various classes of Spirits/Daimones in these stories. Plenty of others examples of this in Greek poetry and myth. I think the class of beings Proclus is referring to in the snippet above is what modern occultists call Nature Spirits. They are only superior to men in the sense they don't have dense physical bodies to deal with. Otherwise, they are subject to passions, emotions, limited knowledge, an imperfect moral nature, ect. Athena of the Odyssey seems like some sort of guardian spirit or perhaps a powerful family egregore which is animated by a guardian spirit; something more powerful and noble than a nature spirit, IMHO. Of course, the way She's depicted in the epic is that of a rather fictionalized and dramatized version of a personal or family guardian. Long and short, (and as we've discussed several times already) the ever-vague term Theoi includes a whole host of different types of beings; some rather close to the human level of existence, some very distant, and some in-between.

[sdi]

Yes, I agree on all counts.

[sdi]

Oh, here's an excerpt from a completely different book by Thomas Taylor which has an explanatory footnote (sheesh):

After essential heroes, an order of souls follows, who proximately govern the affairs of men, and are daemoniacal according to habitude or alliance, but not essentially. Of this kind are the Nymphs, that sympathise with waters, Pans, with the feet of goats, and the like: and they differ from those powers that are essentially of a daemoniacal characteristic, in this, that they assume a variety of shapes (each of the others immutably preserving one form), are subject to various passions, and are the causes of manifold deception to mankind. Proclus, in his Scholia on the Cratylus of Plato observes, "There are Pans with the feet of goats, and Minerval souls assuming a variety of shapes, and proximately governing mankind, such as was the Minerva that appeared to Ulysses and Telemachus."

Proclus also, in Plat. Polit. p. 359, remarks concerning [these kinds of] daemons as follows: "As Plato however adds, in what he says about truth, that not only divinity, but likewise a daemoniacal nature, is entirely without falsehood, it is necessary to assume from this addition, that what truly possesses the nature of a daemon, and not a daemon according to habitude, is perfectly free from falsehood. For a daemon according to habitude sustains all-various mutations, and deceives those with whom he is friendly. But every essential daemon, and who is at the same time rational, is perfectly veracious; and if he is irrational, he is unreceptive both of truth and falsehood. Hence, Plato does not say, that every daemoniacal and divine nature is veracious, but that every such nature is without falsehood. For all these are unreceptive of falsehood; but this is the case with the rational kind, as being naturally adapted to be alone veracious; and with the irrational, as not being conversant with either truth or falsehood. Hence, whatever deceitful kind of daemons is mentioned in history, either as secretly assuming the office of delivering oracles, or becoming obedient to invocations, or being casually present with certain persons,—every such kind pertains to those who are demons according to habitude, proximity and alliance. But if certain persons are deceived by those who are truly [or essentially] daemons, they are deceived through themselves, and not through them, as we before observed respecting the Gods."

That is, they are drawing the conclusion that since essential daemons are always true, they never change shape (even though we may be deceived by our own minds in perceiving them). Hence, since Homer clearly says that the Athena of the Odyssey is the one doing the shapeshifting, they conclude that she is daemon-like rather than essentially daemonic and hence of the same category as ascended men, nymphs, satyrs, and the like.

[causticus]

Apologies for the late response!

Thank you for this, I find it quite helpful. When speaking of "gods" casually in various discussion areas, lately I've been deferring to this Procelan type categorization method. On the notion of personal gods that can relate to humans (and vice versa) this is what I said in a discussion on someone reporting a very personal experience with Odin:

"Well, the deities we can form personal relationships with are those close enough to the human level for that to be possible. Meaning these beings are more like ascended heroes, saints, demigods, guardian spirits, and intelligent nature spirits, as opposed to super-high-level cosmic powers. I refer to the Neoplatonic celestial hierarchy (Christian theology draws from this too), which posits that there are many upon many levels of being and beings who inhabit each respective level. I believe there's a similar kind of cosmic vastness in Eastern cosmologies too. So "gods" in this context are simply beings that are more intelligent/wise, powerful, and longer-lived than humans, but not omnipotent or omniscient entities."

I think this is a very helpful way of looking at these matters.