The six books of Proclus, the Platonic successor, on the theology of Plato (vol. 1 of 2) : $b translated from the Greek, to which a seventh book is added, in order to supply the deficiency of another book on this subject, which was written by Proclus, but since lost, also, a translation from the Greek of Proclus' Elements of theology, to which are added a translation of the treatise of Proclus, On providence and fate, a translation of extracts from his treatise, entitled, Ten doubts concerning — Plato — John Shaqi
The six books of Proclus, the Platonic successor, on the theology of Plato (vol. 1 of 2) : $b translated from the Greek, to which a seventh book is added, in order to supply the deficiency of another book on this subject, which was written by Proclus, but since lost, also, a translation from the Greek of Proclus' Elements of theology, to which are added a translation of the treatise of Proclus, On providence and fate, a translation of extracts from his treatise, entitled, Ten doubts concerning
Plato · en
“Conon[30] also _refused to make his adoration, as a disgrace to
his city_; and Isocrates[31] accuses the Persians for doing it,
_because herein they shewed, that they despised the Gods rather than
men, by prostituting their honours to their princes_. Herodotus
mentions Sperchius and Bulis, who could not with the greatest violence
be brought to give adoration to Xerxes, _because it was against
the law of their country to give divine honour to men_.[32] And
Valerius Maximus[33] says, _the Athenians put Timagoras to death for
doing it_; so strong an apprehension had possessed them, that the
manner of worship which they used to their Gods, should be preserved
sacred and inviolable.” The philosopher Sallust also in his treatise
On the Gods and the World says, “It is not unreasonable to suppose
that impiety is a species of punishment, and that those who have had a
knowledge of the Gods, and yet despised them, will in another life be
deprived of this knowledge. And it is requisite to make the punishment
of those who have honoured their kings as Gods to consist in being
expelled from the Gods.”[34]
When the ineffable transcendency of the first God, which was considered
as the grand principle in the Heathen theology, by its most ancient
promulgators Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Plato, was forgotten, this
oblivion was doubtless the principal cause of dead men being deified
by the Pagans. Had they properly directed 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 unfathomable depths of
that truly mystic unknown, about which all knowledge is refunded into
ignorance. For as Simplicius justly 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 enquiry 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 and
more transcendent than 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 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