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

[sdi]

Again a happy Wednesday to all! Let us honor clever Mercury by speaking of one of His favored subjects, since this week's chapter of Sallustius concerns astrology. (One of my favored subjects, too!)

IX. On Providence, Fate, and Fortune.

This is enough to show the Providence of the Gods. For whence comes the ordering of the world, if there is no ordering power? And whence comes the fact that all things are for a purpose: e. g. irrational soul that there may be sensation, and rational that the earth may be set in order?

But one can deduce the same result from the evidences of Providence in nature:* e. g. the eyes have been made transparent with a view to seeing; the nostrils are above the mouth to distinguish bad-smelling foods; the front teeth are sharp to cut food, the back teeth broad to grind it. And we find every part of every object arranged on a similar principle. It is impossible that there should be so much providence in the last details, and none in the first principles. Then the arts of prophecy and of healing, which are part of the Cosmos, come of the good providence of the Gods.

All this care for the world, we must believe, is taken by the Gods without any act of will or labour. As bodies which possess some power produce their effects by merely existing: e. g. the sun gives light and heat by merely existing; so, and far more so, the Providence of the Gods acts without effort to itself and for the good of the objects of its forethought. This solves the problems of the Epicureans, who argue that what is Divine neither has trouble itself nor gives trouble to others.

The incorporeal providence of the Gods, both for bodies and for souls, is of this sort; but that which is of bodies and in bodies is different from this, and is called Fate, Heimarmenê, because the chain of causes (Heirmos) is more visible in the case of bodies; and it is for dealing with this Fate that the science of "Mathematic" has been discovered.†

Therefore, to believe that human things, especially their material constitution, are ordered not only by celestial beings but by the Celestial Bodies, is a reasonable and true belief. Reason shows that health and sickness, good fortune and bad fortune, arise according to our deserts from that source. But to attribute men's acts of injustice and lust to Fate, is to make ourselves good and the Gods bad. Unless by chance a man meant by such a statement that in general all things are for the good of the world and for those who are in a natural state, but that bad education or weakness of nature changes the goods of Fate for the worse. Just as it happens that the Sun, which is good for all, may be injurious to persons with ophthalmia or fever. Else why do the Massagetae eat their fathers, the Hebrews practise circumcision, and the Persians preserve rules of rank?‡§ Why do astrologers, while calling Saturn and Mars "malignant,"¶ proceed to make them good, attributing to them philosophy and royalty, generalships and treasures? And if they are going to talk of triangles and squares, it is absurd that gods should change their natures according to their position in space, while human virtue remains the same everywhere. Also the fact that the stars predict high or low rank for the father of the person whose horoscope is taken, teaches that they do not always make things happen but sometimes only indicate things. For how could things which preceded the birth depend upon the birth?

Further, as there is Providence and Fate concerned with nations and cities, and also concerned with each individual, so there is also Fortune, which should next be treated. That power of the gods which orders for the good things which are not uniform, and which happen contrary to expectation, is commonly called Fortune,# and it is for this reason that the goddess is especially worshipped in public by cities; for every city consists of elements which are not uniform. Fortune has power beneath the moon,Δ since above the moon no single thing can happen by fortune.

If Fortune makes a wicked man prosperous and a good man poor, there is no need to wonder. For the wicked regard wealth as everything, the good as nothing. And the good fortune of the bad cannot take away their badness, while virtue alone will be enough for the good.

* Thomas Taylor notes, "See more on this interesting subject in my translation of Plotinus on Providence."

† Gilbert Murray notes, "i. e. Astrology, dealing with the 'Celestial Bodies.'" Taylor gives "the mathematical art." Arthur Darby Nock gives "the art of astrology."

‡ Murray notes, "Cf. Hdt. i. 134."

§ Nock expands upon this line in his commentary: "If Fate rules all, why do whole nations practice queer customs? <Their members cannot all have the same horoscopes.>"

¶ Nerd that I am, I note with some disappointment that not a single author uses the proper term of art, "malefic." Taylor uses "noxious;" Murray, "malignant;" and Nock "maleficent."

# Taylor notes, "Fortune may likewise be defined, that deific distribution which causes every thing to fill up the lot assigned to it, by the condition of its being; and as that divine power which congregates all sublunary causes, and enables them to confer on sublunary effects that particular good which their nature and merits eminently deserve."

Δ Nock gives "Fortune's power rests in the moon," but notes that "Fortune's power extends to the moon," is also a supportable interpretation.

Comments

[sdi]

[...] the Providence of the Gods acts without effort to itself and for the good of the objects of its forethought.

This mirrors my own experience: the Gods bestow gifts not as a present, with expectation of return, but simply because those gifts are their natural expression and in some sense cannot be helped. You take the "good" with the "bad" when you align yourself with a divine influence.

In fact, I think this is a helpful "sanity check" on whether you're really getting in touch with the being you think you are...

[boccaderlupo]

There's some good material related to this in Iamblichus, as well—in terms of the immediacy of the gods. I would credit this, as you note, to the fact that the physical aspects of the universe which we mortals must navigate are simply expressions of the gods themselves.

[sdi]

That reminds me, I wanted to call out—for those not following along outside of these discussion threads—that you pointed me to Ch. 11 of Lynn Thorndike's History of Magic and Experimental Science as a good summary of Iamblichus. (I'm still going through it, but have found quite a bit of helpful context in there so far!)

[boccaderlupo]

Thank you, and hopefully it comes in handy. There are more details in the original sources, of course, but Thorndike's book provides an interesting reference and overview of many items that can lead down various other paths.

[sdi]

Yes, at this point I think it's inevitable that I'll do a deep-dive into Iamblichus; still, he's a difficult read, and I'm thankful for a compromise solution for the moment—at least until I'm done with Sallustius!

[temporaryreality]

You've very nicely worded something I was kind of grasping at considering.

[barefootwisdom]

Following many of the late antique Platonists, I'm very fond of the image of a fountain here. The God's goodness and providence just naturally spills over, superabundantly, the way a fountain does.

[boccaderlupo]

A wonderful image. Suggestive, too, in my view, of the emanative process, of all things from the gods...

[barefootwisdom]

Yes, exactly so!

[sdi]

But to attribute men's acts of injustice and lust to Fate, is to make ourselves good and the Gods bad.

I think if there's any one thing I've gotten out of regular divination, its the difference between Fate and Free Will, which was previously really opaque to me. (I was a determinist beforehand: I think belief in Free Will takes some amount of faith—or hubris!—and I had neither.) In the case of geomancy, my take is that Fate determines what figures appear in each house (that is, what kind of energy or resonance appears in different facets of your life), but Free Will determines what you make of it: after all, figures aren't wholly good or bad, but are good for some things and bad for others.

An example of this is, Fate may be what determines Tristitia (a Saturnine figure of melancholy and drudgery) to appear in the fifth house (of pleasurable activities and their fruits: sex and children, handicrafts and their products, etc.). This is never going to be a fun combination, but it can be, at least, a highly productive one: Free Will is what determines whether you either sit around bored, or instead accomplish a tedious (and potentially rewarding!) project. (This is a natural "resonance" for me—I get it a lot, probably not too surprising for an insomniac—and is why I tend to keep a lot of such projects to hand.)

As far as I can tell, my experience is wholly concordant with what Sallustius is saying here.

[boccaderlupo]

I have some relatives who are Calvinists, and was exposed to that theology, so I'm not unfamiliar with that brand of determinism. I reckon the Fates (or maybe Nature, or Necessity (or maybe all these)) deals the hand, and we are the ones who make of it what we will.

It might be Sallustius where I first encountered the term "pronoia," which may be in the Nock translation, and not, if I recall right, a felicitous translation of the concept being advanced. But I recall some discussion somewhere about the difference of feeling between a wholly deterministic universe and one wherein the fruits of the Divine are regarded as Providential...

[barefootwisdom]

"Pronoia" is simply a transliteration of the Greek term προνοια, for which "providence" is the typical translation. So I would call it unfamiliar, but not infelicitous.

[boccaderlupo]

How much does "pronoia," in this sense, have in common with the clinical term? I think it was Nock or some commentator who characterized it thus (as infelicitous); "providence" seems adequate, to me, but I would almost like a theological definition of the term, as it were. It seems like a term that warrants greater emphasis and understanding...

In other words: Does "providence" adequately express the full meaning of "pronoia"?

[barefootwisdom]

I'm not sure what you mean by "clinical term" here. If what I've written below here doesn't speak to it, maybe you can help me understand what you're after?

To your final query, the English term "providence" has become a bit too narrow in modern usage, as it seems (in my experience) to suggest care and/or giving ("providing") needed goods, without necessarily the epistemic sense that is integral to both the Greek pronoia, and to the earlier Latin use of providentia. Both terms are formed in a parallel way: the same prefix pro-, and then just as the latter half of pronoia comes from nous, "intellect," so the latter half of providentia comes from videre meaning "to know." The English word formed on the exact pattern of these would be "forethought," which captures the epistemic side but misses the care and activity that's necessary connected with, and flows from, it.

As I understand the antique Platonists, it's the epistemic side ("Nous") that is central, and which inevitably, as it were, overflows into the Gods' activity of care for us and for the cosmos. So, reading both of the English words: "providence" in its narrow modern extent, together with "forethought", might get us somewhat close.

[boccaderlupo]

Ah, re: “clinical,” apparently “pronoia” has made its way into the field of psychology, where it is evidently roughly the opposite of paranoia, or is “the delusion that others think well of one.” I have to assume it migrated there from the original usage in philosophical settings, but whatever we are talking about, that modern sense doesn’t seem germane.

Thank you for the break down above…very useful. Interesting to note the presence of “nous” (itself a potent term) in there.

Happy new year to all, and a prayer for blessings from the gods…

[barefootwisdom]

Okay, thank you! I had no idea about that use in psychology, but I agree (based on your description) that it's quite unlike the philosophical use we have in the Platonists.

[barefootwisdom]

"Free will"--now there's a slippery, and tricky, concept!

The possibly-related distinction that is really important here is that between Providence and Fate. As a historical matter, the Stoics seem to have treated these as synonyms, and therefore trapped themselves in a fully deterministic cosmos. As Platonists, we can realize that Providence is above Fate, and so we become free when we step above Fate, while always remaining within the Gods' Providence.

There's a really nice discussion of some of these issues in the comment thread of this old blog post, by the way.

[sdi]

Hrm! I had taken Providence to relate to Fate in the same way as Cosmos relates to Universe... that is, it's just "what is," but with the sense of purpose or order or meaning or love behind it. So I would also see them as synonyms, but I would tend to "elevate" Fate rather than "lower" Providence, like it seems like you and Butler are saying the Stoics did?

I don't think this understanding is in conflict with Sallustius, who seems to be saying that Providence, in a material context, is called Fate for historical reasons?

[barefootwisdom]

I think that your last sentence here is key. When you write that "Sallustius ... seems to be saying that Providence, in a material context, is called Fate for historical reasons," I think that's a nice paraphrase of the 4th paragraph of this chapter. Incidentally, I'd read this remark (yours, and Sallustius') as having an implicit swipe at the Stoics. Providence is the wider, more all-encompassing concept, whereas Fate applies only to the sublinary/material realm. But because the Stoics denied the existence of anything incorporeal/immaterial, they were unable to take the more expansive view from which Providence is "bigger" than Fate. Since for the Stoics, "material reality" is the only reality, their concept of Providence, to become a mere snyonym with Fate.

[sdi]

Thank you, that helps clarify things! (As it happens, I don't know enough about the Stoics to be able to make a swipe at them :) )

[temporaryreality]

Whenever I read your thoughts on geomancy, I wish I were at a point where I could learn it as well. But I've got other things on my roster before I can get to that. Meanwhile, I'll just keep enjoying your geomancy-philosophizing. :)

[sdi]

Ha, thank you! I have to say, geomancy really clicked with me: it's a very lovely system.

[sdi]

Fortune has power beneath the moon, since above the moon no single thing can happen by fortune.

This went way over my head the first time I read Sallustius. Clearly all the study is paying off! In fact, I recently imputed the power of Fortune to the fair-haired Queen of Night, herself (albeit in an astrological context, rather than an Olympianic one), so it is little wonder to me that Fortune is only in effect below Her.

Thanks again to temporaryreality and boccaderlupo for encouraging me to do another pass over this material...

[temporaryreality]

Thanks, too, for revisiting it. I admit, most of this is still going over my head. :D