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

But if they assert that imparliblcs are separate from difference, neither will they be able to give to tin m sameness. For the one ditiers from the same.'' And if they say that partible natures are separate from sameness, they subvert the essence of them.

Following therefore things themselves, we must admit that the genus of same¬ ness subsists with a demiurgic peculiarity, but that the species of it, is the imparti¬ ble and the partible, and the medium between both. And again that the genus ot difference is dcmiuigic, but the species of it, the impartible and the partible, and that which is intermediate. Admitting this likewise, we must assign media to tin: soul, and complicate them with the middle form of essence, mi order that we may constitute the existence of the soul. For thus I think we shall lie able to adapt the words of Plato to things. For he says, that as m essence, so likewise in the nature of same and tie nature of different, the Demmrgus mingled a third thing from both, and after the same maimer. And as there, that which was mingled from both was a species or form ot essence, so here, tin medium between same and diflcrciit, is a sjiecies or form. Foi it is possible to Ire a medium not as form, but as a whole composed of the extremes, as an animal which consists of soul ami body. In order, therefore, that you may not ignorantly conceive this to he the case, lie adds, “ and after the .same manner;" that here also, that which consists of both may be a form and not a whole.

“ And taking them as three beings, he mingled all of them into one idea."

* On i> tn*re omitted hi llie nrginal.

1 lor if uuiiditiMei I no diAmno', they will be I lit same with rack oilier, and will l>e tht one. For iu the one there is no difference. So that the one will not differ from the tame.

BOOK III.]

TIM/F.US OF PLATO.

p. 47

1 lor if uuiiditiMei I no diAmno', they will be I lit same with rack oilier, and will l>e tht one. For iu the one there is no difference. So that the one will not differ from the tame.

BOOK III.]

TIM/F.US OF PLATO.

p. 47

That the throe demiurgic genera, are the causes of hypostasis to second amt third forms, Plato I think sufficiently manifests in saying, “ and taking them as three things” For where do they subsist? Evidently in the Demiiirgus. For heeontuins that which he takes. Hut he receives them from superior causes. For since sameness having in a greater degree the form of bound, consists of bound and infinity, and also difference which has more the form of infinity consists of these just as essence similarly proceeds according to both, it is evident, that we must rather place in bound [than in infinity] the sameness and difference of the impartible, but those of the media similarly in both, and those of partible natures rather in the infinite than in bound ; just as the first difference has the infinite, in a small degree only declining from bound, and the fir^t sameness has bound in a small degree declining from the infinite.’ Hence Plato says that the Demiurgus received them as three, Ireing separated from each other. And since the forms that art* in him,’ hasten to the generation of other things, on this account also, he constitutes other things from these. If therefore we understand by hangs things prior to the generation of the media, we must say that these subsist in him according to cause. For these were in him prior to the tilings generated by him. Hut if by beings we understand the media, v\e must understand them as things constituted. For they are now lieiiigs, because they were produced bv him prior to the mixture, each apart from the other; and essence, sameness, and difference were now generated each by itself. May not hnwevi r the words lie in¬ terpreted more simply, vi/. the Pemiurgus “ taking than being three” for so many things he i fleeted from the three, the extremes Is'iug now now constituted by him, according to the preexistent causes w hich he contains ? And these genera indeed lie produced according to demiurgic lrcing ; but he added idea to all the three ac¬ cording to the union in himself, and the deity in him, which is the cause of the union of multitude. And you see, that each of the three was a form, and that which was produced from the mixture of tiie three, was one idea. Hence it is— necessary to say, that the soul is a form of forms; and, in short, to concene nothing in it as a composite and corporeal.

And you see, that each of the three was a form, and that which was produced from the mixture of tiie three, was one idea. Hence it is— necessary to say, that the soul is a form of forms; and, in short, to concene nothing in it as a composite and corporeal.

The triad, therefore, is adapted to the essence itself of the soul; since it was before shown that the soul is triadic. For we divided the whole of it into es¬ sence, power and energy ; essence, into hyparxis, harmony, and form; and liyparxis, into what is properly called essence, same, and different. Nor is it proper to wonder, if we make a part of essence to Ik* essence. For the one genus of being is called essence, and that also which is generated, as it were, from all the ele-

1 In the original there is an omission hero of rov axrtpov.

* For tv rat>T|i m this place, it is necessary to read tv <wry.

p. 48

PROCLUS ON Till-

[book 111.

merits of being, is denominated essence. If, however, we should again inquire, what it is that makes this one idea not to be any casual soul, but the mundane soul, but elsewhere a different soul; we reply, that it is the total nature of the genera that are assumed. For the mundane soul is a medium, not of casual extremes, hut of a total intellect, and total corporeal nature, according to which the world is an animal, tustas it is endued with intellect according to its impartible nature, and animated according to its middle nature. The predominance likewise of essence, cruses it to be the mundane soul; for this makes it to be divine ; just as t a* pievalence of sameness alone, produces a (heiuomacal soul, and ol diflerciice alone, a partial soul. A different habitude therefore to the extn mes, product s a diff. relic* in the media. Anti tin mixture of the media, defined according to the prevalence ol one thing, evidently « hanges the whole.

“ Co-aclapting by force the nature ot ditlcient which it was difficult to mingle, to the nature ot same.”