Lastly we are in the end of the amazing illuminating book by Salustius named, “On The Gods and The Cosmos.” It is a work written in times where the old customs and way of thought was undertaken by a ‘new religion,’ or better states by a new order of thinks. It was a ‘new’ world based upon ‘a monad of power,’ which can be described by the authority of a Caesar-Emperor upon his subjects and his equivalent of a one God-King’s rule upon his folk. Salustius as also the spiritual father of Julian Mispogon, articulates clearly in his work the attempt of re-establishment of the old religious tradition into the hearts of the those who believed that divinity is based in the metaphysical concept of world. Salustius argues that religion-faith is our lives. Additionally the Gods/Goddesses are in our world we live in –they are internal, and not external. Hopefully you enjoyed the reading.

Yours,

Nikolaos Cleomenes

XVII. That the World is by nature Eternal.

We have shown above that the Gods will not destroy the world. It remains to show that its nature is indestructible.

Everything that is destroyed is either destroyed by itself or by something else. If the world is destroyed by itself, fire must needs burn of itself and water dry itself. If by something else, it must be either by a body or by something incorporeal. By something incorporeal is impossible; for incorporeal things preserve bodies - nature, for instance, and soul - and nothing is destroyed by a cause whose nature is to preserve it. If it is destroyed by some body, it must be either by those which exist or by others.

If by those which exist: then either those moving in a straight line must be destroyed by those that revolve, or vice versa. But those that revolve have no destructive nature; else, why do we never see anything destroyed from that cause? Nor yet can those which are moving straight touch the others; else, why have they never been able to do so yet?

But neither can those moving straight be destroyed by one another: for the destruction of one is the creation of another; and that is not to be destroyed but to change.

But if the world is to be destroyed by other bodies than these it is impossible to say where such bodies are or whence they are to arise.

Again, everything destroyed is destroyed either in form or matter. (Form is the shape of a thing, matter is the body.) Now if the form is destroyed and the matter remains, we see other things come into being. If matter is destroyed, how is it that the supply has not failed in all these years?

If when matter is destroyed other matter takes its place, the new matter must come either from something that is or from something that is not. If from that-which-is, as long as that-which-is always remains, matter always remains. But if that-which-is is destroyed, such a theory means that not the world only but everything in the universe is destroyed.

If again matter comes from that-which-is-not: in the first place, it is impossible for anything to come from that which is not; but suppose it to happen, and that matter did arise from that which is not; then, as long as there are things which are not, matter will exist. For I presume there can never be an end of things which are not.

If they say that matter formless: in the first place, why does this happen to the world as a whole when it does not happen to any part? Secondly, by this hypothesis they do not destroy the being of bodies but only their beauty.

Further, everything destroyed is either resolved into the elements from which it came, or else vanishes into not-being. If things are resolved into the elements from which they came, then there will be others: else how did they come into being at all? If that-which-is is to depart into not-being, what prevents that happening to god himself? (Which is absurd.) Or if god's power prevents that, it is not a mark of power to be able to save nothing but oneself. And it is equally impossible for that-which-is to come out of nothing and to depart into nothing.

Again, if the world is destroyed, it must needs either be destroyed according to nature or against nature. Against nature is impossible, for that which is against nature is not stronger than nature. If according to nature, there must be another nature which changes the nature of the world: which does not appear.

Again, anything that is naturally destructible we can ourselves destroy. But no one has ever destroyed or altered the round body of the world. And the elements, though they can be changed, cannot be destroyed. Again, everything destructible is changed by time and grows old. But the world through all these years has remained utterly unchanged.

Having said so much for the help of those who feel the need of very strong demonstration, I pray the world himself to be gracious to me.

XVIII. Why there are rejections of god, and that god is not injured.

Nor need the fact that rejections of god have taken place in certain parts of the earth and will often take place hereafter, disturb the mind of the wise: both because these things do not affect the Gods, just as we saw that worship did not benefit them; and because the soul, being of middle essence, cannot be always right; and because the whole world cannot enjoy the providence of the Gods equally, but some parts may partake of it eternally, some at certain times, some in the primal manner, some in the secondary. Just as the head enjoys all the senses, but the rest of the body only one.

For this reason, it seems, those who ordained festivals ordained also forbidden days, in which some temples lay idle, some were shut, some had their adornments removed, in expiation of the weakness of our nature.

It is not unlikely, too, that the rejection of god is a kind of punishment: we may well believe that those who knew the Gods and neglected them in one life may in another life be deprived of the knowledge of them altogether. Also those who have worshipped their own kings as gods have deserved as their punishment to lose all knowledge of god.

XIX. Why sinners are not punished at once.

There is no need to be surprised if neither these sins nor yet others bring immediate punishment upon sinners. For it is not only spirits who punish the evil, the soul brings itself to judgment: and also it is not right for those who endure for ever to attain everything in a short time: and also, there is need of human virtue. If punishment followed instantly upon sin, men would act justly from fear and have no virtue.

Souls are punished when they have gone forth from the body, some wandering among us, some going to hot or cold places of the earth, some harassed by spirits. Under all circumstances they suffer with the irrational part of their nature, with which they also sinned. For its sake there subsists that shadowy body which is seen about graves, especially the graves of evil livers.

XX. On Transmigration of Souls, and how Souls are said to migrate into brute beasts.

If the transmigration of a soul takes place into a rational being, it simply becomes the soul of that body.
But if the soul migrates into a brute beast, it follows the body outside, as a guardian spirit follows a man. For there could never be a rational soul in an irrational being.

The transmigration of souls can be proved from the congenital afflictions of persons. For why are some born blind, others paralytic, others with some sickness in the soul itself? Again, it is the natural duty of souls to do their work in the body; are we to suppose that when once they leave the body they spend all eternity in idleness? Again, if the souls did not again enter into bodies, they must either be infinite in number or god must constantly be making new ones. But there is nothing infinite in the world; for in a finite whole there cannot be an infinite part. Neither can others be made; for everything in which something new goes on being created, must be imperfect. And the world, being made by a perfect author, ought naturally to be perfect.

XXI. That the Good are happy, both living and dead.

A short Epilogue;

After a year of non-posting and using my Journal space Laconic Logos, I am back as a personal chronologer to continue the amazing work of Salustius’ ‘On The Gods And The Cosmos’ translated by Gilbert Murray in ‘Five Stages of Greek Religion.’

I will explain my reasons why a ‘give up’ my personal Journal for a year. In November 2003 our goodly Heraclia asked me if I would like to become one of the Scribers of Athens (now Hellas). I accepted the honour to serve my ‘electronic’ community. And thus for a year a serve and subsist the huge alterations in AWs and especially in the former Athens. I enjoyed the offered office and I wish the best for our new Scribers in the new Hellas!

XIII. How things eternal were said to been made.
Concerning the Gods and the world and human things this account will suffice for those who are not able to go through the whole course of philosophy but yet have not souls beyond help.
It remains to explain how these objects were never made and are never separated one from another, since we ourselves have said above that the secondary substances were 'made' by the first.
Everything made is made either by art or by a physical process or according to some power. Now in art or nature the maker must needs be prior to the made: but the maker, according to power, constitutes the made absolutely together with itself, since its power is inseparable from it; as the sun makes light, fire makes heat, snow makes cold.
Now if the Gods make the world by art, they do not make it be, they make it be such as it is. For all art makes the form of the object. What therefore makes it to be?
If by a physical process, how in that case can the maker help giving pat of him to the made? As the Gods are incorporeal, the world ought to be incorporeal too. If it were argued that the Gods were bodies, then where would the power of incorporeal things come from? And if we were to admit it, it would follow that when the world decays, its maker must be decaying too, if he is a maker by physical process.
If the Gods make the world neither by art nor by physical process, it only remains that they make it by power. Everything so made subsists together with that which possesses the power. Neither can things so made be destroyed, except the power of the maker be taken away: so that those who believe in the destruction of the world, either deny the existence of the Gods, or, while admitting it, deny God's power.
Therefore he who makes all things by his own power makes all things subsist together with himself. And since his power is the greatest power he needs be the maker not only of men and animals, but also of Gods, men, and spirits. And the further removed the first God is from our nature; the more powers there must be between him and us. For all things that are very far apart have many intermediate points between them.
XIV. In what sense, though the Gods never change, they were said to been made angry and appeased.
If any one thinks the doctrine of the consistence of the Gods is reasonable and true, and then wonders how it is that they rejoice in the good and reject the bad, are angry with sinners and become propitious when appeased, the answer is as follows: god does not rejoice - for that which rejoices also grieves; nor is he angered - for to be angered is a passion; nor is he appeased by gifts - if he were, he would be conquered by pleasure.
It is impious to suppose that the divine is affected for good or ill by human things. The Gods are always good and always do good and never harm, being always in the same state and like themselves. The truth simply is that, when we are good, we are joined to the Gods by our likeness to live according to virtue we cling to the Gods, and when we become evil we make the Gods our enemies - not because they are angered against us, but because our sins prevent the light of the Gods from shining upon us, and put us in communion with spirits of punishment. And if by prayers and sacrifices we find forgiveness of sins, we do not appease or change the Gods, but by what we do and by our turning toward the divine we heal our own badness and so enjoy again the goodness of the Gods. To say that god turns away from the evil is like saying that the sun hides himself from the blind.
XV. Why we give worship to the Gods when they need nothing.
This solves the question about sacrifices and other rites performed to the Gods. The divine itself is without needs, and the worship is paid for our own benefit. The providence of the Gods reaches everywhere and needs only some congruity for its reception. All congruity comes about by representation and likeness; for which reason the temples are made in representation of heaven, the altar of earth, the images of life (that is why they are made like living things), the prayers of the element of though, the mystic letters of the unspeakable celestial forces, the herbs and stones of matter, and the sacrificial animals of the irrational life in us.
From all these things the Gods gain nothing; what gain could there be to God? It is we who gain some communion with them.
XVI. Concerning sacrifices and other worships, that we benefit man by them, but not the Gods.
I think it well to add some remarks about sacrifices. In the first place, since we have received everything from the Gods, and it is right to pay the giver some tithe of his gifts, we pay such a tithe of possessions in votive offering, of bodies in gifts of (hair and) adornment, and of life in sacrifices. Then secondly, prayers without sacrifices are only words, with sacrifices they are live words; the word gives meaning to the life, while the life animates the word. Thirdly, the happiness of every object is its own perfection; and perfection for each is communion with its own cause. For this reason we pray for communion with the Gods. Since, therefore, the first life is the life of the Gods, but human life is also life of a kind, and human life wishes for communion with divine life, a mean term is needed. For things very far apart cannot have communion without a mean term, and the mean term must be like the things joined; therefore the mean term between life and life must be life. That is why men sacrifice animals; only the rich do so now, but in old days everybody did, and that not indiscriminately, but giving the suitable offerings to each god together with a great deal of other worship. Enough of this subject.

Let continue the post procedure concerning On The Gods And The Cosmos, translated by Gilbert Murray in Five Stages of Greek Religion. In the following Chapters (VIII & IX) themes are in regard of the divinely identity of the mind and soul, which will never will be lost, in addition with the providence of Gods the fate and fortune.

As must be Laconic Logos continues the post of the work “On The Gods and The Cosmos” by Salustius and translated by Gilbert Murray in Five Stages of Greek Religion. The chapter five introduce the first Causes, the orders of Gods the nature of world the intelligent, knowledge and soul the fate, destiny, morality and evil will be briefly discussed by Salustius. Further, will be post the chapter six regarding the divine world and we will end with the chapter seven concerning the cosmic ideology of the last pagan world!

I decided to post a series of referent post concerning the teaching work of Salustius! The first article is about his thoughts for the common men disciple and Common Conceptions, the god’s ageless, eternal, disembodied and un-spaced concept. In addition the ideas about myth and its genus.

The following text is from his work “On The Gods And The Cosmos” translated by Gilbert Murray in “Five Stages of Greek Religion”:

I. What the disciple should be; and concerning Common Conceptions
”Those who wish to hear about the Gods should have been well guided from childhood, and not habituated to foolish beliefs. They should also be in disposition good and sensible, that they may properly attend to the teaching.
They ought also to know the common conceptions. Common conceptions are those to which all men agree as soon as they are asked; for instance, that all god [here and elsewhere, godhood, divine nature is good, free from passion, free from change. For whatever suffers change does so for the worse or the better; if for the worse, it is made bad; if for the better, it must have been bad at first.”

II. That god is unchanging, unbegotten, eternal, incorporeal, and not in space.
”Let the disciple be thus. Let the teachings be of the following sort. The essences of the Gods never came into existence (for that which always is never comes into existence; and that exists for ever which possesses primary force and by nature suffers nothing): neither do they consist of bodies; for even in bodies the powers are incorporeal. Neither are they contained by space; for that is a property of bodies. Neither are they separate from the first cause nor from one another, just as thoughts are not separate from mind nor acts of knowledge from the soul.”

III. Concerning myths; that they are divine, and why.
We may well inquire, then, why the ancients forsook these doctrines and made use of myths. There is this first benefit from myths, that we have to search and do not have our minds idle.
That the myths are divine can be seen from those who have used them. Myths have been used by inspired poets, by the best of philosophers, by those who established the mysteries, and by the Gods themselves in oracles. But why the myths are divine it is the duty of philosophy to inquire. Since all existing things rejoice in that which is like them and reject that which is unlike, the stories about the Gods ought to be like the Gods, so that they may both be worthy of the divine essence and make the Gods well disposed to those who speak of them: which could only be done by means of myths.
Now the myths represent the Gods themselves and the goodness of the Gods - subject always to the distinction of the speakable and the unspeakable, the revealed and the unrevealed, that which is clear and that which is hidden: since, just as the Gods have made the goods of sense common to all, but those of intellect only to the wise, so the myths state the existence of Gods to all, but who and what they are only to those who can understand.
They also represent the activities of the Gods. For one may call the world a myth, in which bodies and things are visible, but souls and minds hidden. Besides, to wish to teach the whole truth about the Gods to all produces contempt in the foolish, because they cannot understand, and lack of zeal in the good, whereas to conceal the truth by myths prevents the contempt of the foolish, and compels the good to practice philosophy.
But why have they put in the myths stories of adultery, robbery, father-binding, and all the other absurdity? Is not that perhaps a thing worthy of admiration, done so that by means of the visible absurdity the soul may immediately feel that the words are veils and believe the truth to be a mystery?

IV. That the species of myth are five, with examples of each.
Of myths some are theological, some physical, some psychic, and again some material, and some mixed from these last two. The theological are those myths which use no bodily form but contemplate the very essence of the Gods: e.g., Kronos swallowing his children. Since god is intellectual, and all intellect returns into itself, this myth expresses in allegory the essence of god.
Myths may be regarded physically when they express the activities of the Gods in the world: e.g., people before now have regarded Kronos as time, and calling the divisions of time his sons say that the sons are swallowed by the father.
The psychic way is to regard the activities of the soul itself; the soul's acts of thought, though they pass on to other objects, nevertheless remain inside their begetters.
The material and last is that which the Egyptians have mostly used, owing to their ignorance, believing material objects actually to be Gods, and so calling them: e.g., they call the earth Isis, moisture Osiris, heat Typhon, or again, water Kronos, the fruits of the earth Adonis, and wine Dionysus.
To say that these objects are sacred to the Gods, like various herbs and stones and animals, is possible to sensible men, but to say that they are Gods is the notion of madmen - except, perhaps, in the sense in which both the orb of the sun and the ray which comes from the orb are colloquially called 'the sun'.
The mixed kind of myth may be seen in many instances: for example they say that in a banquet of the Gods Discord threw down a golden apple; the Goddesses contended for it, and were sent by Zeus to Paris to be judged. Paris saw Aphrodite to be beautiful and gave her the apple. Here the banquet signifies the hypercosmic powers of the Gods; that is why they are all together. The golden apple is the world, which being formed out of opposites, is naturally said to be 'thrown by Discord'. The different Gods bestow different gifts upon the world, and are thus said to 'contend for the apple'. And the soul which lives according to sense - for that is what Paris is - not seeing the other powers
in the world but only beauty, declares that the apple belongs to Aphrodite.
Theological myths suit philosophers, physical and psychic suit poets, mixed suit religious initiations, since every initiation aims at uniting us with the world and the Gods.
To take another myth, they say that the Mother of the Gods seeing Attis lying by the river Gallus fell in love with him, took him, crowned him with her cap of stars, and thereafter kept him with her. He fell in love with a nymph and left the Mother to live with her. For this the Mother of the Gods made Attis go mad and cut off his genital organs and leave them with the nymph, and then return and dwell with her.
Now the Mother of the Gods is the principle that generates life; that is why she is called Mother. Attis is the creator of all things which are born and die; that is why he is said to have been found by the river Gallus. For Gallus signifies the Galaxy, or Milky Way, the point at which body subject to passion begins. Now as the primary gods make perfect the secondary, the Mother loves Attis and gives him celestial powers. That is what the cap means. Attis loves a nymph: the nymphs preside over generation, since all that is generated is fluid. But since the process of generation must be stopped somewhere, and not allowed to generate something worse than the worst, the creator who makes these things casts away his generative powers into the creation and is joined to the Gods again. Now these things never happened, but always are. And mind sees all things at once, but reason (or speech) expresses some first and others after. Thus, as the myth is in accord with the cosmos, we for that reason keep a festival imitating the cosmos, for how could we attain higher order?
And at first we ourselves, having fallen from heaven and living with the nymph, are in despondency, and abstain from corn and all rich and unclean food, for both are hostile to the soul. Then comes the cutting of the tree and the fast, as though we also were cutting off the further process of generation. After that the feeding on milk, as though we were being born again; after which come rejoicings and garlands and, as it were, a return up to the Gods.
The season of the ritual is evidence to the truth of these explanations. The rites are performed about the Vernal equinox, when the fruits of the earth are ceasing to be produced, and day is becoming longer than night, which applies well to spirits rising higher. (At least, the other equinox is in mythology the time of the rape of Kore, which is the descent of the souls.)
May these explanations of the myths find favour in the eyes of the Gods themselves and the souls of those who wrote the myths.

1.Hellenic Paideia and ability to understand the abstract Hellenic meanings and ideas in their full depth.
2.Polytheistic perspective of Cosmos (self creation, non-linear time, multiplicity of the Divine e.t.c.)
3.Eleutheroprepeia and Parrhesia - to stand and act as a free person (the status of the free has to be proven in an everyday basis).
4.Tolerance and understanding for all the other ethnic cultures. Dialectical and reasonable word.
5.Eugeneia, Eunomia and Euseveia (harmonious personal and socio-political Ways, respect for the Divine).
6.Constant awareness and desire for the Excellent (aristevein).
7.Bravery and aphobia (absence of fear).
8.Kata physin zein  (living according to the Natural Laws, familiarity with the human body, high ecological conscience e.t.c.).
9.Prudence, disinterestedness and frugality.
10.Direct Democracy, Panarchy (full socio-political participation), emphasis to the Socio-political than the Private element of everyday life.
11.Personal and ethnical Self-Knowledge (the Know Yourself saying, for both the individual and the ethnos).
12.Polymereia and industriousness.

Initially I would like to post a short of biography of a man (daemon) who lived in times of glory and now is living to the eternity! I am pleased that the project “Journals” became a reality; we have finally a place to read and write, or even better, to present our personal ideas and diaries. For me is going to be place of free concentration about the matter of Socrates' and Platonic philosophy, history, Greek archaeology etc.

I, also, want to express my astonishment when I realize that Socrates is being understood as a divine being. That is only common to Hellenic ideology followers.
However, I would like to state my opinion about the figure called Socratis. The son of Sophroniscus and Phailaretys, borne in –469 (the chronologies are according the "era vulgaris" = Christian Era). He married the famous for her grouse manner, Xanthipy, who never understood her husband's great philosophical aspiration. Socrates proved his patriotism at the fields of, at list, three battles (Potidean, Amphipolis and Delos). Without fear and regardless the strength of his enemies, did not change his attitude. And because his principles became stronger to the youth opinion, Melitos, Lykonos and Aritos persecuted him as a man who introduced "empty demons" (kaina daimonia) to the city and, also, a man who corrupted the childhood of Athens. He was deceased in -399.
In addition, same difficulties exist for the philologists to compose that historical figure and his teachings. First, he never wrote. Second, Socrates' students used his name to introduce their personal ideology through the lips of their beloved teacher. Xenophon introduce his teacher as a very simple educator, who, always, was present to the market (agora) and gymnasium, discussing and presenting his "ep' aretin" (with virtue) life and the way to conquer the truth.
A very important, according my opinion, characteristic of Socrates' beliefs was the faith to the Gods and the center of his philosophy the human being. Far away from the subjective opinion of one person, exists the objective truth. For a human being, to become moral in his nature, must acquire the knowledge of  "oudeis ekon amartanei" (nobody with his will commit sin). So, the philosopher presented as the foundation of the knowledge the self-Knowledge "gnothi sauto" (known your self). And to begin the human being to gain knowledge must understand his ignorance "en oida oti ouden oida".
Socrates did not teach with a dogmatic way. That is way he was a true philosopher. He used the dialectical method. And so he started the discussion with the feeling that he was ignorant about the subject (Socratic irony), and through the question he and the others reached the final conclusion (Socratic obstetric).      
From the Socratic teaching a "child" was born, the divine Plato.
Nikolaos Cleomenes