Chapter VIII-b

Or we say that the good which subsists in us may be considered as a habit, in consequence of subsisting in a subject; the next to this ranks as essence, and a part of essence, I mean the good which ranks among forms; and the good which is beyond essence, is neither a habit, nor a part. With respect to the good , also, which subsists according to essence, it must be observed, that since forms are twofold, some alone distinguishing the essences of the things fashioned by form, but others their perfections , the genus of essence, same and different, and the form of animal, horse, and man, and every thing of this kind, give distinction to essence and subjects; but the form of the good , the beautiful, and the just, and in like manner the form of virtue, of health, strength, and every thing of a similar nature, are perfective of the beings to which they belong: and of some, essence is the leader, but of others the good . For, as Plato says, every thing except the one , must necessarily participate of essence; and whatever preserves, gives perfection to, or defends any being, must be good. Hence, since these two are leaders, the one of forms which give subsistence to things, and the other of such as are the sources of their perfection; it is necessary that one of these should be subordinate to the other; I mean that the good which is allotted a coordination among forms that are the sources of perfection, should be subordinate to essence , which ranks among causes, whence subsistence originates, if the good is being, and a certain being. For it is either the same with, or different from, essence, which the Elean guest or stranger in the Sophista of Plato shows to be the genus of being. And if the good is the same with 339 essence, an absurdity must ensue: for being and well-being are not the same. But if the good is something different from essence, it must necessarily participate of essence, in consequence of essence being the genus of all forms. But if genera are more ancient than forms, the good which ranks among forms, and is posterior to their genus, will not be the superessential good which reigns over intelligibles; but this must be asserted of that good, under which this and every form is arranged, which possesses being, and which is the leader of the other genera of being. P. 15 . But the other medium, which is suspended from the Gods, though it is far inferior to them, is that of dæmons. In addition to what is said in this work by Iamblichus concerning dæmons, the following information about them from Olympiodorus, in his MS. Scholia on the Phædo of Plato, is well worthy the attention of the philosophical reader: “Since there are in the universe things which subsist differently at different times, and since there are also natures which are conjoined with the superessential unities, it is necessary that there should be a certain middle genus, which is neither immediately suspended from deity, nor subsists differently at different times, according to better and worse, but which is always perfect, and does not depart from its proper virtue; and is immutable indeed, but is not conjoined with the superessential [which is the characteristic of deity]. The whole of this genus is dæmoniacal. There are, also, different genera of dæmons: for they are placed under the mundane Gods. The highest of these subsists according to the one of the Gods, and is called an unific and divine genus of dæmons. The next subsists according to the intellect which is suspended from deity, and is called intellectual. The third subsists according to soul, and is called rational. The fourth, according to nature, and is denominated physical.