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

* For ravTorrjrn here, 1 read neporijra: for the summit of intelligible*, which consists of bound, infi¬ nity, and that ich'uh u mixed, is the first triple and at llie same time unites! Iivpost-isis.

* For overwr here, it is requisite to read overnr.

* The words within the brackets are supplied from tbe version of Thorn te us; so that after tunas n the anginal, the words tat aXXwv rwriK^wr, must be added.

p. 140

PROCLUS ON THE

[book 111.

nic middle] proceeding from the second of these Gods, who imparts adifferent bond to different things, a greater bond to such as are greater, but a less to such as aro It ».* And another [i. e. the arithmetical middle] being derived from the third of these Gods, who imparts by illumination from himself, communion to natures of a third rank ; through whom things that are less in bulk, are more united, but such jij-p irreater, are united m a loss degree. 1 his however, is the distinguishing property of the arithmetical middle. So far also, as the soul has an idea and configuration of such a kind, and employs a rectilinear progression, and circular comer-ion, for the reason we have- Ijcfure-meiitioned, we must refer it to the triad of intellectual figure. For the right, and the circular line, fir.-t subsist in that triad. Ib nee in the idea of the soul, lines were assumed, and circles in conjunc¬ tion with, and m parate from each other. Again, so far as the soul receives monadic and In hdomadic powers, we must refer it to the iutelle* tual hebdomad, lint as !lie medium 1 between intelligible- and sensible-, and as assimilating si-nsibles to intelligibles, we must refer it to the ruling [supermundane] s« ri*->. For this series assimilates secondary natures to unieal summits. And as energizing according to twofold energies, some of which pro\ideiitially attend to sensible-, hut others adhere to intelligibles, we must refer it to the liberated Gods, who tcuieb and do not ton* li the universe. These observations tin relbre, wInch we have briefly made, will afford assistance to those who wish to perils*- the writings of our preceptor, iu which the truly arcane conceptions of Plato concerning these things, artunfolded.

I am astonished however at those IMuUmists, who think that tin* soul should he divided according to parts into the celestial souls, viz. into the one and the seven of these. F or where is it possible in incorporeal natures, that there should he a division of this kind, vvhit h abolishes the w hole ? For such a distribution into parts as this, is the peculiarity of partible masses. Ami I also wonder at those, who think that these souls are entirely supi*rcelestial, since Plato in what immediately follows, shows that in all In* has said, he s|leaks concerning one soul, and this mundane. Hence, I think it is better to assume this as a principle, that it is here necessary,

Ami I also wonder at those, who think that these souls are entirely supi*rcelestial, since Plato in what immediately follows, shows that in all In* has said, he s|leaks concerning one soul, and this mundane. Hence, I think it is better to assume this as a principle, that it is here necessary,

* For in flie harmonic middle, the greater terms hare a greater ratio to each oilier lliau the less. Thus in 2. 3. b. the ratio of b to 3 is greater than that of 3 to 2.

* Of tins union ttie arithmetical ninhlle is an linage; foi m tins, there is a greater ratio in the less, an «t a less ratio iu the greater terms. Thus in 5. 0. 7- 8. the ratio of 0 to 5, is greater than that of 8 to 7-

1 For fstouy here, read fjtoqy.

* The English reader will find these arcane conceptions of Plato concerning all these orders of Gods, Luutifollv unfolded ill mv li.iinlatiuii of Proclus on the Fheologv of Plato.

HOOK III.]

TIM XL'S OF PLATO.

p. 141

I In' whole should remain in the divisions, and that the discussion is concerning mundane animations ; nnd having assumed this, to say that the one soul of the world is indivisible, and at the same time is divided according to these powers; first into the duad, secondly into the triad and tetrad, and thirdly into the hebdomad, l'or the division of it is made according to these numbers. And such is our opinion on (his subjei I.

And such is our opinion on (his subjei I.

Thendorus the philosopher however, of Asiue, lieing full of the doctrines of IVumenius, speculates the generation of the soul in a more novel manner, from h tters, and characters, and numbers. 1 Hut the divine lamblichus blames every theory of this kind, m his treatise in confutation of the followers of Amelins, and also of Nuinennis, whether he includes IVumenius among those who adopted this method, or whether he anv where met with writings of the disciples of Amelins, containing similar opinions; for I cannot say. The divine lamblichus therefore says in the first place that it is not proper to make the soul every numlrer, or the geometrical number, on account of the multitude of letters, l'or the words body ('me*'*) and non-being itself («.■»; ov) consist of an equal number of letters. Non-being therefore, will also lie every number. You may also find many other things, consisting of an equal number of letters, which are of a vile nature, and most con¬ trary to each other; all which it is not right to confound and mingle together. In the second place, he observes, that it is not safe to argue from characters, l’or these subsist by position, and the ancient was ditli rent from the present mode of forming them. Thus for instance the h tter Z, which lie makes the subject of discussion, had not the opposite linos entirely parallel, nor the middle line oblique, but at right angles, as is evident from the ancient letters. In the third place, he adils, that to analyze into the primary ratios of numbers, and to dwell on these, transfers the theory from some numliers to others, l’or the licptad is not the same which is in units, and tens, and hundreds. This however, existing in the name of the soul, why is it requisite to introduce the disquisition of primary ratios? Tor thu^ he may transfer all things to all numliers, by dividing, or compounding, or multiplying. In short, he accuses the whole of ihis theory as artificial, and con¬ taining nothing sane. I am also not ignorant of the arguments of Aristotle against the psyehogony of Plato, and the solutions of those arguments, by certain Platonists; but I have not deemed it requisite to mention them any farther here, as I have elsewhere made thorn the subject of discussion, l or the soul is not a

* Proelus goes nu epitome of this theory, hut as it would l>c very ihtiicult to render it intelligible to the English reader, and as in ihe opinion of lamblichus, the whole of it is artificial, and contains nothing sane, 1 have omitted lo trauvlalc it.

p. 142

PROCLUS ON THE

[book hi.