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

[sdi]

Good morning and a happy Wednesday! Sallustius has another brief appendix for us this week, continuing last week's theme on the purpose of worship, so let's pick the puzzle-box back up, shall we?

XVI. Concerning sacrifices and other worships, that we benefit man by them, but not the gods.

I think it well to add some remarks about sacrifices. In the first place, since we have received everything from the gods, and it is right to pay the giver some tithe of his gifts, we pay such a tithe of possessions in votive offerings, of bodies in gifts of <hair and> adornment, and of life in sacrifices. Then secondly, prayers without sacrifices are only words, with sacrifices they are live words; the word gives meaning to the life, while the life animates the word. Thirdly, the happiness of every object is its own perfection; and perfection for each is communion with its own cause. For this reason we pray for communion with the Gods. Since, therefore, the first life is the life of the gods, but human life is also life of a kind, and human life wishes for communion with divine life, a mean term is needed. For things very far apart cannot have communion without a mean term, and the mean term must be like the things joined; therefore the mean term between life and life must be life. That is why men sacrifice animals; only the rich do so now, but in old days everybody did, and that not indiscriminately, but giving the suitable offerings to each god together with a great deal of other worship. Enough of this subject.

Comments

[boccaderlupo]

Thanks again for this series. This one seems to be of a piece with the previous week's comments, and hearkens back to the idea of the unchangeable nature of the gods. As I understand it, thus rituals do not move the gods, per se, but rather may bring us in communion with a portion of their divine light.

The sentence "human life wishes for communion with divine life" also, IMHO, connotes that longing of all things for "The Good," of which the gods are the prime representatives of.

[sdi]

As I understand it, thus rituals do not move the gods, per se, but rather may bring us in communion with a portion of their divine light.

Right, Sallustius says that the Gods are active rather than interactive, and I follow Sallustius argument about the purpose of worship and prayer being to get us on Their wavelength. Still, I wonder if some amount of all this is to befriend Their dæmons? John Opsopaus has a succinct summary that apparently matches my thinking:

As a consequence of Their intermediate nature, Daimones serve as Mediators between the Gods and us, and They convey divine Providence (Pronoia) into the sublunary realm. In particular, They interpret the Gods' wishes for us and are the agents of divination, oracles, and rituals. They are ministering spirits who care for people, and are often called Savior (Sôtêr). (Recall that daimôn is from the Indo-European da-, to provide.) Many rituals are directed to Daimones (who have feelings and can be swayed), and They are thereby convinced to mediate with the Gods on our behalf.

According to Pythagorean doctrine, the Gods reside in the Noetic Realm, the world of Platonic Ideas, so They cannot relate to us as individuals, but only as representatives of the Idea of humankind. The Daimones, however, being intermediate, participate in both the Ideal and material worlds, and so they interact with us as individuals. They know our personal and family histories, our personalities, and often our thoughts.

[boccaderlupo]

Interesting...my sense was that the gods reside (using colloquial language, here) even at a level above the forms themselves, but worth considering. Thank you for the link and thoughts.

My sense is that daemons are functionaries: they perform a given function or set of functions, and those functions, as with all things, are traceable back to the gods themselves and their manifestations. The Renaissance mages went to great lengths to distinguish between daemonic magic and natural magic, although I suspect that was at least partly because of fears of heresy and the consequences thereof.

[sdi]

You know, it's really interesting how much of all of this—Sallustius, Julian, the Renaissance, Thomas Taylor, modern occultism, etc.—is tied up with with combating and subverting Christianity. It makes it very hard, even on top of the vast distance of years and culture, to discern what the original theology was.

[boccaderlupo]

FTR, I don't know that the mages of the Renaissance were all (with perhaps the exception of Bruno) looking to subvert Christianity, per se...there were just undercurrents flowing around that I think many folks would deem non-Christian, even today. That said, yours is an interesting observation, and I agree...hard to tell what the "original" was. All of these movements I guess would participate in "The Platonic Underground," per Dillon, though that may be more of through line than anything else.

Alternately, who says that the incipient form of a concept is any more "true" that latter stages? I reckon it's true if it jibes with things active in the cosmos...

All good fodder for contemplation, though...

[sdi]

That's an absolutely fair point, and it harkens back to Sallustius' notion that there is no positive evil. Just because we lack the perspective to understand the depth of a matter, doesn't mean it happened to no purpose...

[barefootwisdom]

Interesting...my sense was that the gods reside (using colloquial language, here) even at a level above the forms themselves

At least for the later pagan Platonists (Iamblichus, Proclus, and company), I believe that your sense is absolutely correct!