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

The Oracles iixe, «e, by asserting, that the Demiurgtis is refulgent widi inte llectual

* For )i r ~ u< -me here, it ts rn|in<ilr le< rr.lii p>r aero, ami lor Otu,iyiii Otai,’yia.

* C'/i 1 i. e. Ii^urtj iti I lie form ol tlir tiller

1 It ..in ssaiy here iu the worth roe £»toyotikiv a*’ itiriji j^a,>airr/fMi, to t x]>tui|;e ««■’

p. 126

PROCLUS ON THE

[BOOK III.

sections, manifest that power of him which is effective of difference. Hut he fills all things with love through the power which is eflective of sameness. Hence he very projs rly gives these names which are demiurgic signatures, to the circh*s of the soul of the universe from his own esssmee. This name therefore, "the circle of the same," is a di\ine name, as hearing the signature of the intelligihh cause of sameness, as is likewise, “ the circle of the different,' a> possess¬ ing the svinhol of the nature of dilli-rence. for with rcloieiice to the genera of Ixing, one of these circles is allied to sameness, hut the other to dilli-rence; hut with reference to the intellectual Hods, one ol them is suspended from the paternal, connectedly-containing, and immutahlc causes, hut the other from the prolific and vivific causes. And as wuh reference to intelligihles, the one in a greater degree participates of hound, hut the other of infinity. These signatures therefore from all the orders, cause one ot these* circles to obtain sin h a name, lint the other, a contrary name.

Some i lie however liinv say, what, then, is the one essence of the soul destroyed in tin-division of these twofold circles* We reply, hy no im ails, l or in divine natnn division is s ( » mid to union, and progression is the medium In-tween stable jiovver, and the |n-rfection subsisting in conversion or regression. Hut since the soul is a monad essentially and a duud, one and multitude, ahidmg, and at the same lime proceeding and returning, and is also united prior to division ; -hence tin-mixture of the soul subsists one whole, prior to the many parts, and being divided according to progression, is again united according to regression. The h s> therefore, is comprehend* d in the greater circle, l or as intellect comprehends the soul, illuminating it with its own light, thus also tin: circle of the same 1 imparts union and perfection to the inch of the dtfftrent, rendering it uudi filed m its providt ntial energies, united in its progressions, and in a certain re-jM-ct intellectual in its knowledge of sensihles. Ileucc likewise, in an admira¬ ble manner, one of the circles subsists, and is denominated according to the same, hut the other according to the different. Hut tin- essential as ht-nig common to Inith, is omitted, and is attributed to no one of the parts. lienee the soul accord¬ ing to this is mie, hut a* cording to the two circles is Informed, these being after a certain manner opposed to each other.

Hut tin- essential as ht-nig common to Inith, is omitted, and is attributed to no one of the parts. lienee the soul accord¬ ing to this is mie, hut a* cording to the two circles is Informed, these being after a certain manner opposed to each other.

“ ! It* liken ise convolved the circle of the same, laterally towards the right hand, bul the circle of the different , diametrically towards the left hand."

1 For a. oc b re, il is accessary to I ravruv.

BOOK 111.]

TIM/El’S OF I’l.ATO.

1*27

What is here said, as that which remains to bo discussed, is concerning the psychical powers, and the demiurgic separation of them from each other. For power is after essence; but energy has the third order, as we have before observed. This nl-o Plato hinwlf manifests to us, denominating the motion of these circles, the lation of the same and the lotion of the different, but not the essence of these. From these two circles also, he generates different powers, and afterwards unfolds to vis what kind of energies they possess. Such things as these likewise, he ns>< its in the Pha-driis, concerning the better and the worse of the two horses of the soul. What therefore does he lien* say concerning the powers of thi‘soul of the universe ? In the first place, as I have said, he divides the whole powers into two, I mean into the power of the same, and the po\v» r of the different; the former being analogous to bound, but the latter to infinity. Afterwards, he divides the power of the different, according to other peculiarities, and again collects them into less numbers, and through sameness unites the multitude. In the next place, he attributes things more excellent and divine to the In tl< r, but things less excellent to the subordinate powers. Thus, for instance, he attributes a convolution towards the right hand, to the lation of the circle of the sunn, but to the left hand, to the lation of the circle o \ the different. And to the former lie attributes the lateral, but to the latter the diametrical. For in the two co-ordinations of things, in the more excellent series there are [the same, the right hand, the equilateral and the rational ; but in the less excellent series]' the contraries to these, the dillcreut, the left hand, the longer in the other part, and the irrational. Such therefore, is the whole meaning of the words lie fore us.

Such therefore, is the whole meaning of the words lie fore us.

Ia t us however see what the truth is of the things; and in the first place, if you are willing, let us show how the right and the left hand subsist in the universe. For 1 know that the (hcmouiacal Aristotle calls indeed the eastern p trt of tiie world the right hand, but the western the left hand; since the first motion is Iroin the eastern, but the motion posterior to this, from the we>ti ru part-. In all animals, however, the principle of motion is on the right hand. And in this thing Aristotle accords with the dor trine of Pluto, and also in what he asserts conn ‘ruing the same and dif}\rent. He sa\s therefore that the inerratic spin re is the cause to all things of sameness of subsistence, but the plain tary spheres of a subsistence different at different times. This* however appears to me to be tin* illustrious peculiarity of the Platonic doctrine, that it dors not define these things according to our habitude, but delivers these proper-

1 1 lie word* within ttie brar kets are omitted in llic nrignt.il, but art* sii|>|diid from the version of " Thomaeus. Hence after tlic words r»-i fitv nj« rprirrorut nrrtv irnpat m the original, it is necessary fe» add, ro r avror, to rs toovXtvpor, to Xoyistie* in t r rip ^ofioroi, (. X.

I’HOCLUS ON THE

[BOOK III

1-20