[Discussion] On the Gods and the World, Ch. II

[sdi]

My gratitude to those who participated in last week's discussion of Sallustius' On the Gods and the World—I am learning much, and we've hardly begun! So let's pick the puzzle-box back up, shall we?

II. That God is unchanging, unbegotten, eternal, incorporeal, and not in space.

Let the disciple be thus. Let the teachings be of the following sort. The essences of the Gods never came into existence (for that which always is never comes into existence; and that exists for ever which possesses primary force and by nature suffers nothing): neither do they consist of bodies; for even in bodies the powers are incorporeal. Neither are they contained by space; for that is a property of bodies. Neither are they separate from the First Cause nor from one another,* just as thoughts are not separate from mind nor acts of knowledge from the soul.

* Thomas Taylor notes, "The reader must not suppose from this, that the gods are nothing more than so many attributes of the first cause; for if this were the case, the first god would be multitude, but the one must always be prior to the many. But the gods, though they are profoundly united with their ineffable cause, are at the same time self-perfect essences; for the first cause is prior to self-perfection. Hence as the first cause is superessential, all the gods, from their union through the summits or blossoms of their natures with this incomprehensible god, will be likewise superessential; in the same manner as trees from being rooted in the earth are all of them earthly in an eminent degree. And as in this instance the earth itself is essentially distinct from the trees which it contains, so the highest god is transcendently distinct from the multitude of gods which he ineffably comprehends."

Comments

[sdi]

In case anybody else is greedily devouring texts, these were referenced in the last thread:

• Griffin's Introduction to Olympiodorus' Commentary on Plato's First Alcibiades, in reference to virtue being a prerequisite to apprehending the Gods.
  
• Proclus' Elements of Theology, in reference to universal beliefs.
  
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Neoplatonism, in reference to the nature of the One and the Good.
  
• Apuleius' On the God of Socrates, in reference to the nature of the Gods.
  
• Iamblichus' On the Mysteries, in reference to the various denizens of the incorporeal worlds.

[sdi]

neither do they consist of bodies; for even in bodies the powers are incorporeal.

I thought the rest of this chapter was quite logical, but this step lost me. Why don't the gods consist of bodies? Is Sallustius' saying that gods only consist of powers?

Indeed, what are "the powers" referred to, here? Taylor uses nearly identical wording, and so sheds no light. I'm assuming things like thoughts and feelings, which may have bodily expression but are not, themselves, of the body?

[temporaryreality]

"The essences of the Gods never came into existence"

I find this particularly interesting in light of the Greek pantheon's "family tree" that shows successive generations of gods (and yes, I see that italicized word doing double duty). This ties in, in my reading of it, to the notion of"younger" gods being equated with "older" ones. I asked a question on Magic Monday once about the wording in the Orphic Hymn to Saturn and it was pointed out to me that Prometheus can also be understood as Saturn. So, this description of the gods as beings who never came into existence, when used as a lens to understand various gods' "birth stories," might open up a deeper reading of who earlier/later gods are relative to each other/themselves and the First Cause.

---

I appreciate having the two translations (I have Taylor's) because the version you've posted here made this section much more comprehensible to me than Taylor's: "just as thoughts are not separate from mind nor acts of knowledge from the soul."

[temporaryreality]

Ok, another set of questions: how are we to approach and understand Taylor's use of the terms "self-perfect essences" and "superessential" in the footnote. Perhaps the first is somewhat readily apparent at face value, but I'm not sure about the second - and I figure it's good to check, because perhaps I shouldn't take the terms at face value.