The Commentaries on the Timaeus of Plato — trans. Thomas Taylor

See the 5th and 6th Books of my Translation of Proclus on the Theology of Plato, for an account of the deities called fountains and principles.

Tim. Plat, Vou. I. 3B

p. 478

paradigm is more united than the Demiurgus. For the Demiurgus himself is a monad, through his similitude and analogy to the paradigm. This however is evident. For among the kings, he is analogous to it ; and both the Demiurgus and the paradigm are analogous to the intelligible monad.' Hence, since the monadic nature is from thence derived to the Demiurgus himself, what ought we to think concerning the universe? Js it not, that it primarily possesses its onlyness from the paradigm? The paradigm, therefore, is a more principal thing, for the purpose of demonstrating the onlyness of the world. And again, you may see, that these are three monads, viz. animal itself, the demiurgic cause, and the universe. But the first, is an intelligible monad, the second, an intellectual monad, and the third, a sensible monad.

“ For that which comprehends all such animals as are intelligible, can never be the second, [or co-arranged] with* any other thing.”

The necessity of these demonstrations is admirable, showing that all-perfect animal is one and monadic,' similar to those methods through which in the Sophista, he demonstrates that the multitude of beings is to be referred to one truly existing being. For if there are two principles of beings, either each of them is primarily being, or only one of them. But if only one ofthem, the other will proceed from this. And if each, itis necessary there should be another being, from which both of these are beings. For cach of these is a certain being, and not simply being. After the same manner likewise, he now shows, that all- perfect animal is one. So that according to all the orders of things, that which is said to exist primarily, will be only-begotten. For being itself is primarily being, Just as anima! itself is here demonstrated to be primarily animal, or only-begotten. For how is it possible this should not be only-begotten? For if there is another animal co-arranged with it, either each has all things, or one of them has all things, but the other not, or neither of them has all things. For besides these, there are no other consequences. If, therefore, it should be said that neither of them is all things, each of them is imperfect. We however are speaking of that which is all-perfect, and we investigate whence it possesses all things. For it must not be ice. To the summit of the intelligible order, or being itself. > In the text of Proclus μεθ᾽ erepoy erroneously instead of μεθ᾽ ἐτέρον.

> Τὰ the original ἐν ov καὶ pevoy. But for μενον Tread μοναδικον.

p. 379

For it must not be

ice. To the summit of the intelligible order, or being itself. > In the text of Proclus μεθ᾽ erepoy erroneously instead of μεθ᾽ ἐτέρον.

> Τὰ the original ἐν ov καὶ pevoy. But for μενον Tread μοναδικον.

p. 379

said, that the sensible universe has indeed all things according to its own order, and that the soul possesses all reasons, as is evident from the things to which it applies itself, and from assigning to every thing its appropriate reason; but that there is not a certain intelligible, which is truly comprehensive of all intelligibles, Just as soul contains all things dianoetically, and the universe sensibly. For whence is allness derived to these, except from intelligibles? If, therefore, the intelligible is all- perfect, that will be the paradigm of the universe which is primarily all. But if one of them is all things, and the other not, these will neither be co-arranged with each other, nor con-numerated 3 but that which has not all things will be inferior to the other, and that which is all-perfect’ will have a more comprehensive power. Hence the one will be a part, but the other a whole; and both will not be all-pertect animals, but one of them will be more perfect than the other. For that which has a diminished perfection is not all-perfect. But if each of them is all things, whence did they obtain all things? — For it is necessary that they should reccive this allness from something. For as participating of one form, they subsist from one cause, And thus the natures which similarly participate of all things, possess this allness from one cause. There will therefore be a cause prior to them ; since it is necessary that where there are two things there should be an antecedent cause, which conducts them together. This cause, therefore, which is prior to them, is either all things indivisibly, or divisibly. But if indivisibly, another cause will be requisite as amedium. For the medium between that which is perfectly indreisible, and the duad which possesses all things divisibly, is the monad whieh has all things indivistbly;' this indeed being itself united by an indivisible cause, but uniting the allness which is in the duad. Hence that which primarily comprehends all things ts the monad which is prior to the duad. But in that which subsists indivisihly, the sced and cause are contained of an allness which is characterized by unity. Deservedly, therefore, is all-perfect animal said to be monadic, and incapable of being the second with another thing, not only as the words appear to say, because it is not conjoined with another, but because if it were arranged with another, it would be secondarily, and no longer primarily all things. For after all-perfect animal, there are causes which are co-arranged with other kindred natures, but which have not primarily all things. hat, however, which primarily possesses all things is monadic. But if it is comprehensive of all things, there will

For after all-perfect animal, there are causes which are co-arranged with other kindred natures, but which have not primarily all things. hat, however, which primarily possesses all things is monadic. But if it is comprehensive of all things, there will

* The original is, τοῦ yap αδιαιρετως παντὰ ovros, και rns δυαδος τῆς παντὰ ἐχούσης, μεσον ἐστιν ἡ μονας n Tarra ἐχϑυσα διηρημενως. But it appears to me to be neocssary to read, agreeably to the above translation, τοῦ yap αδιαιρετως παντῇ ovros, καὶ τὴς ἑναδος τὴν παντα ἐχούσης διηρημενως, μέσον φστιν ἢ μονας ἢ ταντὰ ἔχουσα αδιαιρετωι.

p. 380

not be an intelligible animal besides it. For if there were, this would no longer be all-perfect, but a part. And that will be the whole of which this will he alone a part. For it is necessary that multitude should stop at the monad.

Why, however, does Plato say, the second with another thing? For it would have been sufficient to have said, with another by itself, or the second, by itself. But he conjoins both, for the purpose of indicating that the nature which 1s co-arranged with another, and is not monadic, cannot as we have before observed, be the first. Perhaps likewise, it signifies the contrary, and that what is said pertains to thingsand not to words. For the form which is incorruptible natures entirely subsists with another. For the human form is in this individual, and in that, the participants being many, and on this account each is with another. That form, however, which is perpetual, yet not a whole, though it may be monadic, and on this account not with another, yet it is more imperfect than a certain whole. But that which is neither in many things, nora part with another thing, 1s not secondary, as being one and a whole, and not a part. Very properly, therefore, does the theologist produce Phanes, the only divinity bearing the seed of the lustrious Gods,’ from the God who 15 occultly all things ; and from Phanes gives subsistence to all the second orders of the Gods. For Heaven indeed proceeds together with Earth. But she,

Again th’ extended heav’n and earth? brought forth.

Aud Saturn proceeds together with Rhea. For according to a third progeny, Earth produced [as the theologist says,] “seven pure beautifal virgins with rolling eyes, and seven sons that were kings, with fine long hair.” But the Demiurgus, who is the great Jupiter, is conjoined with Juno. Hence also, she is said to be of equal rank with him, and proceeds from the same fathers. Phanes, however, proceeds by himself alone, and is celebrated as female and father. 116 also produces the (three) Nights, and is present with the middle Night. For he

Pluck’d the shorn flower of Night.’

According to this theologist therefore, all-perfect animal is not the second with another, but fills the orders of Night, and also fills the celestial orders with the

> For θεὸν κλυτὸν here, it is necessary to read θεων κλυτων.