Page images
PDF
EPUB

Homer begins his genealogy of the Gods from Night. But it appears to me that Hesiod, when he asserts that Chaos was first generated, signifies by Chaos the incomprehensible and perfectly united nature of that which is intelligible; but that he produces Earth' the first from thence, as a certain principle of the whole procession of the Gods. Unless perhaps Chaos is the second of the two principles: but Earth,2 Tartarus and Love form the triple intelligible. So that Love is to be placed for the third monad of the intelligible order, considered according to its convertive nature; for it is thus denominated by Orpheus in his rhapsodies. But Earth for the first, as being first established in a certain firm and essential station. But Tartarus for the middle, as in a certain respect exciting and moving forms into distribution. But Acusilaus appears to me to establish Chaos for the first principle, as entirely unknown; and after this, two principles, Erebus as male, and Night as female; placing the latter for infinity, but the former for bound. But from the mixture of these, he says3 that Ether, Love, and Counsel are generated, forming three intelligible hypostases. And he places Ether as the summit; but Love in the middle, according to its naturally middle subsistence; but Metis or Counsel as the third, and the same as highly reverenced intellect. And, according to the history of Eudemus, from these he produces a great number of other Gods.

Thus far Damascius, with whose very interesting narration the doctrine of the Chaldeans concerning the intelligible order accords, as delivered by Johannes Picus in his Conclusions according to the Opinion of the Chaldean Theologists. "The intelligible coordination (says he) is not in the intellectual co-ordination, as Amasis the Egyptian asserts, but is above every intellectual

1 THy is printed instead of г.

2 As the whole of the Grecian theology is the progeny of the mystic traditions `of Orpheus, it is evident that the Gods which Hesiod celebrates by the epithets of Earth, Heaven, &c. cannot be the visible Heaven and Earth: for Plato in the Cratylus, following the Orphic doctrine concerning the Gods, as we have evinced in our notes on that dialogue, plainly shows, in explaining the name of Jupiter, that this divinity is the artificer of the sensible universe; and consequently Saturn, Heaven, Earth, &c. are much superior to the mundane deities. Indeed if this be not admitted, the Theogony of Hesiod must be perfectly absurd and inexplicable. For why does he call Jupiter, agreeably to Homer, (Taτηp avdgwv TE BEWY TE), 'father of gods and men?" Shall we say that he means literally that Jupiter is the father of all the Gods? But this is impossible; for he delivers the generation of Gods who are the parents of Jupiter. He can therefore only mean that Jupiter is the parent of all the mundane Gods: and his Theogony, when considered according to this exposition, will be found to be beautifully consistent and sublime; whereas, according to modern interpretations, the whole is a mere chaos, more wild than the delirious visions of Swedenborg, and more unconnected than any of the impious effusions of methodistical rant. "I only add, that TM is again erroneously printed in the Excerpta of Wolfius for ynv.

[ocr errors]

3 φημι in the original should doubtless be φησι. 4 Vid. Pici Opera, tom. i. p. 54.

hierarchy, imparticipably concealed in the abyss of the first unity, and under the obscurity of the first darkness.' Coordinatio intelligibilis non est in intellectuali coordinatione, ut dixit Amasis Egyptius, sed est super omnem intellectualem hierarchium, in abysso primæ unitatis, et sub caligine primarum tenebrarum imparticipaliter abscondita.

But from this triad it may be demonstrated, that all the processions of the Gods may be comprehended in six orders, viz. the intelligible order, the intelligible and at the same time intellectual, the intellectual, the supermundane, the liberated, and the mundane. For the intelligible, as we have already observed, must hold the first rank, and must consist of being, life, and intellect ; i. e. must abide, proceed, and return; at the same time that it is characterised, or subsists principally according to casually permanent being. But in the next place, that which is both intelligible and intellectual succeeds, which must likewise be triple, but must principally subsist according to life, or intelligence. And in the third place the intellectual order must succeed, which is triply convertive. But as in consequence of the existence of the sensible world, it is necessary that there should be some demiurgic cause of its existence, this cause can only be found in intellect, and in the last hypostasis of the intellectual triad. For all forms in this hypostasis subsist according to all-various and perfect divisions; and forms can only fabricate when they have a perfect intellectual separation from each other. But since fabrication is nothing more than procession, the Demiurgus will be to the posterior orders of Gods what the one is to the orders prior to the Demiurgus; and consequently he will be that secondarily which the first cause of all is primarily. Hence his first production will be an order of Gods analogous to the intelligible order, and which is denominated supermundane. After this he must produce an order of Gods similar to the intelligible and intellectual order, and which are denominated liberated Gods. And in the last place, a procession correspondent to the intellectual order, and which can be no other than the mundane Gods. For the Demiurgus is chiefly characterised according to diversity, -and is allotted the boundary of all universal hypostases.

All these orders are unfolded by Plato in the conclusions which the second hypothesis of his Parmenides contains; and this in a manner so perfectly agreeable to the Orphic and Chaldaic theology, that he who can read and understand the incomparable work of Proclus on Plato's theology will discover how ignorantly

i. e. θεοι νοητοι, νοητοί και νοεροι, νοεροι, υπερκοσμιοι, απολυτοι sive υπερουράνιοι, et

εγκοσμιοί.

the latter Platonists have been abused by the moderns, as fanatics and corrupters of the doctrine of Plato.

According to the theology of Orpheus therefore, all things originate from an immense principle, to which through the imbecility and poverty of human conception we give a name, though it is perfectly ineffable, and in the reverential language of the Egyptians, is a thrice unknown darkness,' in the contemplation of which all knowlege is refunded into ignorance. Hence, as Plato says, in the conclusion of his first hypothesis in the Parmenides, "it can neither be named, nor spoken of, nor conceived by opinion, nor be known or perceived by any being." The peculi arity also of this theology, and in which its transcendency consists is this, that it does not consider the highest God to be simply the principle of beings, but the principle of principles, i. e. of deiform processions from itself, all which are eternally rooted in the unfathomable depths of the immensely great source of their existence, and of which they may be called superessential ramifications, and superluminous blossoms.

When the ineffable transcendency of the first God, which was considered (as I have elsewhere observed) to be the grand principle in the Heathen theology, by its most ancient promulgators, Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Plato, was forgotten, this oblivion was doubtless the cause of dead men being deified by the Pagans. Had they properly disposed their attention to this transcendency, they would have perceived it to be so immense as to surpass eternity, infinity, self-subsistence, and even essence itself, and that these in reality belong to those venerable natures which are as it were first unfolded into light from the arcane recesses of the truly mystic unknown cause of all. For, as Simplicius 2 beautifully observes, "It is requisite that he who ascends to the principle of things should investigate whether it is possible there can be any thing better than the supposed principle; and if something more excellent is found, the same inquiry should again be made respecting that, till we arrive at the highest conceptions, than which we have no longer any more venerable. Nor should we stop in our ascent till we find this to be the case. For there is no occasion to fear that our progression will be through an unsubstantial void, by conceiving something about the first principles which is greater than and surpasses their nature. For it is not possible for our conceptions to take such a mighty leap as to equal, and much less to pass beyond the dignity of the first principles of

"Of the first principle (says Damascius, in Ms. Tpt agxwv) the Egyptians said nothing, but celebrated it as a darkness beyond all intellectual conception, a thrice unknown darkness,” πρωτην αρχήν ανυμνηκάσων, σκοτος υπέρ πασαν νοησιν, σκοτος άγνωστον, τοις τουτο επιφημίζοντες.

2 In Epictet.

things." He adds, "This therefore is one and the best extension [of the soul] to [the highest] God, and is as much as possible irreprehensible; viz., to know firmly, that by ascribing to him the most venerable excellencies we can conceive, and the most holy and primary names and things, we ascribe nothing to him which is suitable to his dignity. It is sufficient, however, to procure our pardon [for the attempt] that we can attribute to him nothing superior." If it is not possible, therefore, to form any ideas equal to the dignity of the immediate progeny of the ineffable, i. e. of the first principles of things, how much less can our conceptions reach the principle of these principles, who is concealed in the superluminous darkness of occultly initiating silence? Had the Heathens therefore considered as they ought this transcendency of the supreme God and his immediate offspring, they never would have presumed to equalise the human with the divine nature, and consequently would never have worshipped men as Gods. Their theology, however, is not to be accused as the cause of this impiety, but their forgetfulness of the sublimest of its dogmas, and the confusion with which this oblivion was necessarily attended.

MUSEUM IN GREECE, AND ABBÉ
FOURMONT.

To one who can divest himself of all political-interest, and contemplate the present struggle in Greece merely with the feelings of a classical antiquary, it may, perhaps, seem desirable that the Turks should still continue to extend their iron sceptre over that ill-fated country, since those barbarians, from a total apathy respecting works of art and ancient monuments, are easily induced by bribes to facilitate the researches of inquisitive strangers, and even the removal of statues, vases, inscriptions, and other precious remnants of former ages. But," says an accomplished traveller, (Sir William Gell, in an article on the Elean Inscription, Classical Journal, No. xlviii. p. 401.) “ the revolution has put an end to all hopes of future discovery; for if the Greeks triumph, no government of theirs would ever permit an excavation by the Franks." We may, indeed, reasonably suppose that the rulers of such a state as regenerated Greece

66

would not allow the tombs of their illustrious ancestors to be violated by every foreigner who could afford to hire workmen for the purposes of dilapidation-they would not allow their temples to be defaced, nor their sculptured ornaments to be exported. They might, however, be encouraged by the example, and assisted by ingenious persons of other nations, in instituting a grand National Museum; such a receptacle for antiquities as my fancy has delighted to form whenever favorable intelligence excited a hope that the Greeks might ultimately recover their independence. For the situation of this Museum, Athens, at first view, presents itself as the most suitable place; but many circumstances would, perhaps, recommend some other spot less exposed to maritime invasion, and more central; to which might be sent with the greatest convenience, every interesting object discovered in the different provinces.

However abject the Greeks may now appear, debased by a galling slavery of centuries under the Turkish yoke, I am fully persuaded that the meanest among them would, in a state of emancipation, feel conscious pride from having contributed towards such a collection: the shepherd, the ploughman, the little children, by a voluntary donation of those valuable relics which chance daily offers to them in the classic soil of Greece, would soon abundantly furnish the galleries and cabinets of our imaginary Museum; and this, in due time, would be further enriched by the result of excavations and researches, made, either at the expense of government, or of wealthy and patriotic individuals, among the ruins of numerous places celebrated in ancient history, but hitherto not explored, though it is almost certain that they contain subterraneous treasures which would prove inestimable to an antiquary.

Of such a Museum I have often fancied various departments assigned to the superintendence of well-informed and diligent officers, native Greeks, assisted by learned antiquaries and ingenious artists from different parts of Europe, Englishmen, Frenchmen, Germans, Italians, and others, who, through the medium of their respective ministers and consuls, might communicate to the whole literary world most accurate descriptions, delineations, models, impressions, or casts of every thing preserved in this great National Repository, of which my imagination has already formed the plan-appropriating, on one side of a stately edifice, proper galleries for the reception of statues and places for the scientific arrangement of sepulcral monuments, marble reliefs, historical and mythological; terra-cottas, bronzes, &c.—on the other side, spacious chambers containing inscribed

« PreviousContinue »