# Iamblichus on the Mysteries of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Assyrians (Second Edition 1895)/Section9

SECTION IX.
Let us now, therefore, to the utmost of our power, endeavour to discuss the manifold doubt concerning the peculiar dæmon, and which also is subject to various objections. Since, however, to speak summarily, the consideration of the peculiar dæmon is twofold, the one being theurgic, but the other artificial; and the one drawing this dæmon down from supernal causes, but the other from the visible periods in generation; and the one making no use whatever of the calculation of nativities, but the other meddling with methods of this kind; and the one worshiping this dæmon in a way more universal and supernatural, but the other partibly conformable to nature; this being the case, you appear to me to have absurdly transferred a more perfect sacred operation to one that is human, and in this to have exercised your inquiries.
In the next place, here also you appear to me to have cut off only a certain small part of the discussion concerning the peculiar dæmon. For since it is usual with those who artificially operate about nature to invoke this dæmon in an orderly manner from the decans, from the dispensators of influxes, from the signs of the zodiac, the stars, the sun and moon, from the greater and lesser bear, from the whole elements, and from the world, this being the case, you do not act rightly in assuming one, and that the smallest part of all these, viz. the lord of the geniture, and making your inquiries about this alone. Here, likewise, again from one of the things proposed to be considered, you inquire "how the lord of the geniture gives the peculiar dæmon, and according to what kind of efflux, or life, or power, it descends to us from him." You also speak concerning the calculation of nativities, and ask "whether there is any reality in it or not;" and likewise concerning the invention of the lord of the geniture, "whether it is impossible to be found, or possible." In what respect, however, do these things pertain to the domination of the dæmon? For it is evident that our knowledge ​of the manner in which he subsists, contributes nothing to his essence and the cause of his existence. For in things which belong to the empire of nature, such as are generated in the universe have a proper stability of their own essence, though we should be ignorant how they are produced. In this way, therefore, we reply in common to your doubts. But directing our attention particularly to the subjects of your inquiry, we shall endeavour to give you solutions of them.
You say, then, "that he is happy who having learned the scheme of his nativity, and knowing his proper dæmon, is thus liberated from fate."
To me, however, you appear to assert these things in a way neither consonant to themselves nor to truth. For if our proper dæmon is distributed to us from the scheme of our nativity, and from thence we are able to discover him, how can we be liberated from fate, through a knowledge of the dæmon imparted to us by fate? But if, as you say, we are truly liberated from necessity through this dæmon, how is he allotted to us by fate? Thus, therefore, what is now said by you opposes what you before ​asserted; and is also discordant with truth. For the proper dæmon of every one does not entirely accede from the scheme of the peculiar nativity; but his origin is more ancient than this, which we shall hereafter discuss. To which may be added, that if the descending dæmon was to be alone surveyed from hence, he will not be happy who obtains the knowledge of his genesiurgic dæmon. And who would [willingly] receive this dæmon as his leader to a liberation from fate, if he was given to him for this purpose, that he might accomplish the distributions of fate? Farther still, this appears to me to be only a certain and the last part of the theory pertaining to this dæmon; and that the whole theory of his essence is omitted by a method of this kind. But these things, indeed, though they are falsely asserted, yet at the same time are not utterly foreign from the purpose. The doubts, however, adduced by you in the next place, concerning "the enumeration of the canons and the genethlialogical science," as they are inscrutable, are not attended with any ambiguity in the present discussion. For whether these arts are known or are incomprehensible, yet, at the same time, the efflux from the stars distributes to us the dæmon, whether we know it or not. But divine divination is able to teach us concern-​ing the stars, in a way which is most true, and [when we are in possession of this] we are not entirely in want of the enumeration of canons, or of the divining art.
If, however, it be necessary, dismissing these particulars, to speak what appears to me to be the truth, you do not rightly infer "that a knowledge of this mathematical science cannot be obtained, because there is much dissonance concerning it, or because Chæremon, or some other, has written against it." For if this reason were admitted, all things will be incomprehensible. For all sciences have ten thousand controvertists, and the doubts with which they are attended are innumerable. As, therefore, we are accustomed to say in opposition to the contentious, that contraries in things that are true are naturally discordant, and that it is not falsities alone that are hostile to each other; thus, also, we say respecting this mathematical science, that it is indeed true; but that those who wander from the scope of it, being ignorant of the truth, contradict it. This, however ​happens not in this science alone, but likewise in all the sciences, which are imparted by the Gods to men. For time always proceeding the divine mode of knowledge becomes evanescent, through being frequently mingled and contaminated with much of what is mortal. This divine mode is indeed [in astrology also], and a certain clear indication of truth, though it is but small, is at the same time preserved in it. For it places before our eyes manifest signs of the mensuration of the divine periods, when it predicts the eclipses of the sun and moon, and the concursions of the moon with the fixed stars, and when the experience of the sight is seen to accord with the prediction. Moreover, the observations of the celestial bodies through the whole of time, both by the Chaldeans and by us, testify that this science is true. Indications, also, more known than these might be adduced, if the present discussion was precedaneously about these particulars. But ​as they are superfluous, and do not pertain to the knowledge of the peculiar dæmon, I shall, as it is fit so to do, omit them, and pass on to things more appropriate than these.
You say then, in your epistle, "that the discovery of the lord or lords of the geniture, if there are more than one in a nativity, can scarcely be obtained, and by astrologers themselves is confessed to be unattainable; and yet they say that the peculiar dæmon is from thence to be known."
If, however, it be requisite to unfold to you the truth concerning the peculiar dæmon, we must say that he is not distributed to us from one part of the heavens, or from some one of the visible elements; but that from the whole world, the all various life contained in it, and the all various body through which the soul descends into generation, a certain peculiar portion is distributed to each of the parts in us, according to a peculiar prefecture. This dæmon, therefore, is established in the paradigm before the soul descends into generation; and when the soul has received him as its leader, the dæmon immediately presides over the soul, gives completion to its lives, and binds it to body when it descends. He likewise governs the common animal of the soul, directs its peculiar life, and imparts to us the principles of all our thoughts and reasonings. We also perform such things as he suggests to our intellect, and he continues to govern us till, through sacerdotal theurgy, we obtain a God for the inspective guardian and leader of the soul. For then the dæmon either yields or delivers his government to a more excellent nature, or is ​subjected to him, as contributing to his guardianship, or in some other way is ministrant to him as to his lord.
From these things, therefore, it is easy to answer your next question. For the peculiar dæmon does not rule over one of the parts in us, but, in short, over all the parts at once, and extends to every principle within us, in the same manner as he was distributed to us from the total orders in the universe. For that which it appears to you proper to add as an indication "that dæmons preside over the parts of our body, so that one is the guardian of health, another of the form of the body, and another of the corporeal habits, and that there is one dæmon who presides in common over all these;" this you should consider as an argument that there is one dæmon who is the guardian and governor of every thing that is in us. You must not, therefore, distribute one dæmon to the body, but another to the soul, and another to intellect: for it is absurd that the animal should be one, but the dæmon that presides over it multiform. For every where the natures that ​govern are more simple than the natures that are governed. And it will be still more absurd if the many dæmons that rule over the parts are not connascent, but separated from each other. But you also make contrariety among them. For you speak as if "some of them were good, but others bad." Evil dæmons, however, have no where a ruling allotment, nor are they oppositely divided to such as are good with equal authority and power.
Afterwards, abandoning these particulars, you pass on to the opinion of philosophy. But you subvert the whole hypothesis concerning the peculiar dæmon. For if [as you say] "this dæmon is a part of the soul," such, for instance, as the intellectual part, "and he is happy who is in possession of a wise intellect," there will no longer be any other more excellent or dæmoniacal order, presiding over, as transcending the human soul. But certain parts of the soul, or a certain divided power, will have dominion over many of the forms of life that are in us; and will rule over these, not connascently, but as naturally exempt, and as transcending the whole of our composition.
After this, therefore, you also mention another disquisition concerning the peculiar dæmon, which represents "some as worshiping two, but others three, dæmons of this kind." The whole of this, however, is erroneous. For it is a false mode of proceeding to divide the causes that preside over us, and not refer them to one; since this wanders from the union which has dominion over all things. The opinion, likewise, which distributes this dæmon into body, and the government of body, draws down his domination to a certain most minute part. So that what necessity is there for those who embrace this opinion to direct their attention to sacred operations, the first principle of them being futile? There is, therefore, of each of us one peculiar presiding dæmon; but it is not proper to think that this dæmon is common to all men; nor again, that he is common, but is peculiarly present with each individual. For division, according to species and difference of matter, do not receive the communion and sameness of things essentially incorporeal. "Why then [you say] is the peculiar dæmon invoked by a common mode by all men?" Because the invocation of him is effected through one ​God, who is the lord of dæmons; who from the first defined to every one his peculiar dæmon; and who, in sacred operations, unfolds to every one his proper dæmon, according to his own proper will. For always in the theurgic order secondary are invoked through primary natures. Among dæmons, therefore, one common leader of the cosmocrators about generation sends to each of us his peculiar dæmon. Hence, when the peculiar dæmon is present with each of us, he then unfolds the worship which is proper to be paid to him and his name, and likewise delivers the proper mode of invoking him.
And this order is adapted to dæmons; one part of it being allied to those that are invoked; another being derived from more ancient causes; and the third part effecting a common completion from both the others. Do not, therefore, assimilate divine invocations to such as are human, nor those that are ineffable to those that are effable; nor compare those that are prior to every boundary, and every indefinite mode, to those that are defined by men, or to indefinite actions. For our concerns have no​thing in common with theirs, whose whole genus and whole order transcend and govern the whole of our essence and nature. But here, especially, the greatest errors happen to men, when from human imbecility they infer any thing concerning the domination of dæmons, and from things which are small, of no worth, and distributed into parts, form a conjecture of great, excellent, and perfect natures. And thus much in answer to you concerning the peculiar dæmon, in addition to what has been before said.
* ↑ Viz. The science of calculating nativities.
* ↑ i. e. The joint risings and settings.
* ↑ i. e. Through a period of 300,000 years; and Procl. in Tim. lib. iv. p. 277, informs us that the Chaldeans had observations of the stars which embraced whole mundane periods. What Proclus likewise asserts of the Chaldeans is confirmed by Cicero in his first book on Divination, who says that they had records of the stars for the space of 370,000 years; and by Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. lib. xi. p. 118, who says that their observations comprehended the space of 473,000 years.
* ↑ "We say," says Hephestion, "that a star is the lord of the geniture, which has five conditions of the lord of the nativity in the horoscope; viz. if that star receives the luminaries in their proper boundaries, in their proper house, in their proper altitude, and in the proper triangle." He also adds, "and if besides it has contact, effluxion, and configuration." See likewise Porphyry in Ptolemæum, p. 191.
* ↑ According to the Egyptians every one received his proper dæmon at the hour of his birth; nor did they ascend any higher, in order to obtain a knowledge of it. For they alone considered the horoscope. See Porphyry apud Stobæum, p. 201, and Hermes in Revolut. cap. iv.