Leaving that topic behind, then, as you say, you wish it to be made clear to you what the Egyptians

consider to be the First cause, whether it is an intellect, or beyond intellect, alone or associated with
another or others, and whether it is incorporeal or corporeal, and if it is the same as the creator god or
prior to him; and if everything derives from one being or from many; and if they recognise matter, or
alternatively a certain number of primary bodies, and if so, how many; and whether matter is
uncreated or created. I will tell you First the reason why, in the writings of the sacred scribes of old,
there circulate many and various opinions on these questions, and why among those of the sages who
are still living there is no uniformity of doctrine on the major issues. What I have to say, then, is the
following: since there are many types of being, and these exhibit great variety, tradition has handed
down a great many First principles of them, covering a considerable range of levels, varying according
to the reports of the different ancient priests. The whole gamut, however, has been covered by Hermes
in the twenty thousand books, according to the account of Seleucus, or in the thirty-six thousand, five
hundred and twenty-five, as Manetho reports. As for the First principles of particular substances,
various of the ancients, in dispute with each other, have given many different interpretations. But it is
necessary to uncover the truth about all these things, and to unfold them to you as far as is possible.
First of all, hear what I have to say about your First subject of enquiry.

2. Prior to the true beings and to the universal principles there is the one god, prior cause even of the
First god and king, remaining unmoved in the singularity of his own unity. For no object of
intellection is linked to him, nor anything else. He is established as a paradigm for the self-fathering,
self-generating and only-fathered God who is true Good; for it is something greater, and primary, and
fount of all things, and basic root of all the First objects of intellection, which are the forms. From this
One there has autonomously shone forth the self-sufficient god, for which reason he is termed father
of himself and principle of himself; for he is First principle and god of gods, a monad springing
from the One, pre-essential and First principle of essence. For from him springs essentiality and
essence, for which reason he is termed father of essence; he himself is pre-essential being, the First
principle of the intelligible realm, for which reason he is termed principle of intellection. These,
then, are the most senior principles of all, which Hermes ranks as prior to the aetherial and empyrean
gods, and to the celestial ones; he has handed down, at any rate, a hundred treatises giving an account
of the empyrean gods and a number equal to this about the aetherial ones, and a thousand about the
celestial ones.

3 Following another system of ordering, he gives the First rank to Kmeph, the leader of the celestial
gods, whom he declares to be an intellect thinking himself, and turning his thoughts towards himself;
but prior to him he places the indivisible One and what he calls the First product, which he also calls
Ikton. It is in him that there resides the primal intelligising element and the primal object of
intellection, which, it must be specified, is worshipped by means of silence alone. In addition to these,
other rulers have been set over the creation of the visible realm. For the demiurgic intellect, who is
master of truth and wisdom, when he comes to create and brings into the light the invisible power of
the hidden reason-principles, is called Amoun in the Egyptian tongue, when he infallibly and expertly
brings to perfection each thing in accordance with truth he is termed Ptah (the Greeks translate Ptah as
Hephaistos, concentrating only on his technical ability), when he is productive of goods he is called
Osiris, and he acquires other epithets in accordance with other powers and activities. There is also
among them another system of rule over all the elements in the realm of generation and the powers
resident in them, four masculine entities and four feminine, which they assign to the sun; and another
authority over the whole of nature subject to generation, which they grant to the moon. Then,
distinguishing the heaven into parts, dividing it into either two sections or four or twelve or thirty-six,
or the double of that, or in whatever other way, they assign to these sections authorities greater or lesser
in number, and again they place above them one deity who holds sway over them. And thus it is that
the doctrine of the Egyptians on First principles, starting from the highest level and proceeding to the
lowest, begins from unity, and proceeds to multiplicity, the many being in turn governed by a unity,
and at all levels the indeterminate nature being dominated by a certain definite measure and by the
supreme causal principle which unifies all things. As for matter, God derived it from substantiality,
when he had abstracted materiality from it; this matter, which is endowed with life, the Demiurge took
in hand and from it fashioned the simple and impassible (heavenly) spheres, while its lowest residue he
crafted into bodies which are subject to generation and corruption.

4 After the clarifications set out here, the particular problems which you say that you have encountered
in the (Hermetic) writings receive a straightforward solution. Those documents, after all, which
circulate under the name of Hermes contain Hermetic doctrines, even if they often employ the
terminology of the philosophers; for they were translated from the Egyptian tongue by men not
unversed in philosophy. Chaeremon and such other authorities as have dealt with the First causes of
the cosmos only expound the lowest level of principles; and those that discourse on the planets and the
zodiac, the decans and horoscopes and the so-called powerful ones and leaders, deal with the
particular allotments of the various principles. The information contained in the astrological almanacs
comprises only a very small part of the Hermaic system; and doctrine on the heliacal risings and settings
of the stars, or the waxings and wanings of the moon occupies the lowest place in the Egyptian account
of the causes of things. The Egyptians do not maintain that all things are within the realm of nature,
but they distinguish the life of the soul and that of the intellect from nature, not only at the level of the
universe but also in our case. Postulating intellect and reason as higher principles subsisting on their
own, they declare that all things generated were created by their means. They set up a creator god as
forefather of all generated things, and they recognise both a vital power prior to the heavens and one in
the heavens. Above the cosmos they postulate a pure intellect, a single indivisible one in the cosmos as a
whole, and another again, divided about the heavenly spheres. And this is not for them purely a matter
of theorising, but they recommend that we ascend through the practice of sacred theurgy to the regions
that are higher, more universal and superior to fate, towards the god who is the creator, without calling
in the aid of matter or bringing to bear anything other than the observation of the critical time for
action.

5 Hermes also has set out this path; and the prophet Bitys has given an interpretation of it to King
Ammon, having discovered it inscribed in hieroglyphic characters in a sanctuary in Sais in Egypt. He
has handed down the name of god, which extends throughout the whole cosmos; and there are many
other treatises on the same subject, so that you are not correct, it seems to me, in referring all the
doctrine of the Egyptians to causal principles within nature. For they in fact recognise many principles,
and relative to many sorts of essence, including supracosmic powers, which they worship by means of
hieratic ritual. Indeed, this seems to me to provide a general basis for the solution of all the questions
raised subsequent to this. But since we should leave none of them unexamined, let us address ourselves
to these problems in turn, and let us test them from every angle, so that we may discern if they are
based on any unsound opinion.

6 You claim, then, that the majority of the Egyptians make what is in our power depend upon the
movement of the stars. The true situation in this regard must be explained to you at some length, on
the basis of Hermetic concepts. For as these writings tell us, the human being has two souls: one derives
from the primary intelligible, partaking also of the power of the demiurge, while the other is
contributed to us from the circuit of the heavenly bodies, and into this there slips the soul that sees
god. This being the case, the soul which descends to us from the (celestial) realms accommodates itself
to the circuits of those realms, but that which is present to us in an intelligible mode from the
intelligible transcends the cycle of generation, and it is in virtue of it that we may attain to
emancipation from fate and ascent to the intelligible gods. That part of theurgy that is involved with
ascent to the ungenerated achieves its end through such a level of life as this.

7 It is not, then, after all, the case, as you suggest in your query, that all things are bound together by
the indissoluble bonds of necessity, which we call fate; for the soul contains its own principle of
conversion to the intelligible, and of detachment from the realm of generation, and also of union with
true being and the divine. Nor yet have we linked fate to the gods, whom indeed we worship by means
of temples and statues as liberators from fate. But while the gods free us from fate, the lowest level of
natures which descend from them and interweave themselves with the generative processes of the
cosmos and with body do bring about fate. It is reasonable, then, that we should bestow all worship
upon the gods, in order that, being the only ones who can dominate necessity by means of rational
persuasion, they may free us from the evils that lie in wait for us from fate. But it is not at all the case
that everything in the realm of nature is in the grip of fate: there is another principle of the soul
superior to all nature and generation, in virtue of which we can unite ourselves to the gods and
transcend the cosmic order, and partake in eternal life and in the activity of the supracelestial gods. It is
in virtue of this principle that we are actually able to liberate ourselves. For when the better elements
within us are active, and the soul is elevated towards the beings superior to it, then it separates itself
fully from those things that tie it to generation, and it detaches itself from the worse, and changes one
life for another, and gives itself to another order of things, completely abandoning its previous one.

8 Well then, is it possible to liberate oneself through the gods who revolve in the heavens, and at the
same time to think of them as rulers of destiny, and as binding down our lives with indissoluble
bonds? There is actually, perhaps, no insuperable problem about this, if (one recognises that) the gods
comprehend within themselves many essences and powers, and that there inhere in them in
consequence a vast quantity of distinctions and even oppositions. However, one may also say this, that
in each of the gods, even the visible ones, there are certain intelligible principles of essence, through
which it is possible for souls to gain release from the generative process deriving from the cosmic
spheres. If, then, one maintains the existence of two classes of gods, the cosmic and the supracosmic, it
is through the supracosmic that the liberation of souls will come about. These matters, however, are
given more detailed discussion in the treatises on the gods, specifying which stimulate ascent and in
virtue of which of their powers, how they dissolve fate, and through what hieratic modes of ascent,
what is the order of the cosmic nature, and how its most perfect intellectual activity manifests its
ascendancy; all of which makes plain that those verses of Homer which you quote, to the effect that
the gods may be turned (by prayer), are impious even to utter. For it is from long ages past that the
works of holy theurgy have been determined by immaculate and intellectual laws, and inferior levels of
reality are neutralized by a greater order and power, in accordance with which we are separated from
what is inferior and transfer ourselves to a better lot. And nothing in such a process is accomplished
contrary to the ordinance laid down from the beginning, so that the gods should change their plans in
virtue of some subsequently performed theurgic ceremony, but rather it is the case that from their First
descent the god sent down the souls for this purpose, that they should return again to him. There is
therefore no element of change of plan involved in such a process of ascent, nor is there any conflict
between the descents of souls and their ascents. For even as, at the universal level, the realm of
generation and this universe are dependent upon intellectual reality, so also in the dispensation of
souls, liberation from the processes of generation is in harmony with the care bestowed upon their
introduction into generation.