As an aside, something I think is interesting is regarding the section on the nature of dæmons.
Previously, when I had cited this, I used Harold Fowler's translation: "[The spiritual possesses the power of] interpreting and transporting human things to the gods and divine things to men; entreaties and sacrifices from below, and ordinances and requitals from above: being midway between, it makes each to supplement the other, so that the whole is combined in one. Through it are conveyed all divination and priestcraft concerning sacrifice and ritual and incantations, and all soothsaying and sorcery. God with man does not mingle: but the spiritual is the means of all society and converse of men with gods and of gods with men, whether waking or asleep. Whosoever has skill in these affairs is a spiritual man to have it in other matters, as in common arts and crafts, is for the mechanical. Many and multifarious are these spirits, and one of them is Love."
Jowett translates this section as follows: "[Love] interprets between gods and men, conveying and taking across to the gods the prayers and sacrifices of men, and to men the commands and replies of the gods; he is the mediator who spans the chasm which divides them, and therefore in him all is bound together, and through him the arts of the prophet and the priest, their sacrifices and mysteries and charms, and all prophecy and incantation, find their way. For God mingles not with man; but through Love all the intercourse and converse of God with man, whether awake or asleep, is carried on. The wisdom which understands this is spiritual; all other wisdom, such as that of arts and handicrafts, is mean and vulgar. Now these spirits or intermediate powers are many and diverse, and one of them is Love."
To highlight the difference: Fowler makes Diotima to say that dæmons generally are responsible for all interaction between the divine and mortal worlds, while Jowett mades Diotima to say that the dæmon of Love specifically is responsible for the same.
This is a tremendous difference, theologically speaking, and not being a Greek scholar I couldn't say which is more accurate to the original. What's fascinating, though, is that, speaking as a mystic, both are accurate to my experience and I struggle to say which is a better description.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2022-06-29 01:13 am (UTC)Previously, when I had cited this, I used Harold Fowler's translation: "[The spiritual possesses the power of] interpreting and transporting human things to the gods and divine things to men; entreaties and sacrifices from below, and ordinances and requitals from above: being midway between, it makes each to supplement the other, so that the whole is combined in one. Through it are conveyed all divination and priestcraft concerning sacrifice and ritual and incantations, and all soothsaying and sorcery. God with man does not mingle: but the spiritual is the means of all society and converse of men with gods and of gods with men, whether waking or asleep. Whosoever has skill in these affairs is a spiritual man to have it in other matters, as in common arts and crafts, is for the mechanical. Many and multifarious are these spirits, and one of them is Love."
Jowett translates this section as follows: "[Love] interprets between gods and men, conveying and taking across to the gods the prayers and sacrifices of men, and to men the commands and replies of the gods; he is the mediator who spans the chasm which divides them, and therefore in him all is bound together, and through him the arts of the prophet and the priest, their sacrifices and mysteries and charms, and all prophecy and incantation, find their way. For God mingles not with man; but through Love all the intercourse and converse of God with man, whether awake or asleep, is carried on. The wisdom which understands this is spiritual; all other wisdom, such as that of arts and handicrafts, is mean and vulgar. Now these spirits or intermediate powers are many and diverse, and one of them is Love."
To highlight the difference: Fowler makes Diotima to say that dæmons generally are responsible for all interaction between the divine and mortal worlds, while Jowett mades Diotima to say that the dæmon of Love specifically is responsible for the same.
This is a tremendous difference, theologically speaking, and not being a Greek scholar I couldn't say which is more accurate to the original. What's fascinating, though, is that, speaking as a mystic, both are accurate to my experience and I struggle to say which is a better description.