If, therefore, we assert these things truly, in each order a monad is allotted a transcendency with respect to multitude, analogous to the good. And as the unical cause of whole goods, and which is incom- prehensible by all things, is exempt from all things, constitutes all things about itself, generates them from itself, and hastily withdraws the unions of all things to its own ineffable superunion, thus also the uniform and generative principle of every co-ordinate multitude, connects, guards and perfects the whole series of itself, imparts good to it from itself, and fills it with order and harmony. It is likewise that to its own progeny, which the good is to all beings, and is the object of desire to all the natures that originate from itself. Thus, therefore, the union of the intelligible father subsists prior to the whole paternal order; the one wholeness of the Sy noches is prior to the connective order ; and the first effective cause of life, to the vivi6c order.
Hence also, of every demiurgic series, which is suspended from the triad of the sons of Saturn, the monad which proximately fabricates wholes, and is established above this triad, comprehends in itself all the demiurgic Gods, converts them to itself, and is of a boniform nature. The one fountain likewise of all the demiurgic numbers, subsists, as I may say, with respect to all this order analogous to the one, and to the one principle of all things. Timaeus therefore, indicating these things to us, asserts directly in the beginning of the generation of the world,
' For w&fo* if is evidently necessary to read ijrror.
Digitized by Google
390 ON THE THEOLOGY BOOK V.
that this monad which proximately fabricates wholes, is difficult to be known, and is indescribable, as having the same ratio as the ineffable and unknown cause of all beings. Whence likewise, I think, he calls the demiurgus the best of causes, and the father of this universe, as being allotted the highest order among the demiurgi, and convolving to himself, and producing from himself all the effective principles. That one how- ever, Parmenides demonstrates to be perfectly unknown and ineffable ; but Timaeus says that it is difficult to discover the maker and father of the world, and impossible to speak of him to all men ; which assertion falls short of the cause that flies from all knowledge, and all language, and appears to verge to the nature of things known and effable. For when he saj'S that it is impossible to speak of him to all men, he does not leave him entirely ineffable and unknown. And the assertion that it is difficult to discover him, is not the sign of a peculiarity perfectly unknown. For because the demiurgus has established a kingdom analogous to the good, but in secondary and manifold orders of it, he participates indeed of the signs of the good, but is allotted the participa- tion in conjunction with an appropriate peculiarity, and a communion with beings adapted to him. And as he is good, but not the good itself, so likewise he is difficult to be known by the natures posterior to him, but is not unknown. He is also celebrated in mystic language, but is not perfectly ineffable. You may see however, the order of things, and the remission in* them proceeding in a downward progression. For the good indeed, is exempt from all silence, and all language. But the genus of the intelligible Gods rejoices in silence, and is delighted with ineffable* symbols. Hence also, Socrates in the Pbaedrus, calls the vision of the intelligible monads the most holy of initiations, as being involved in silence, and perceived intellectually in an arcane manner. But the vision of intellectuals is indeed effable, yet is not effable and known to all men, but is known with difficulty. For through diminution with respect to the intelligible, it proceeds from silence and a transcendency which is to be apprehended by intelligence alone, into the order of things which are now effable.
• For a|^T».f, ic it necessary to read « sr)™t .
Digitized by Google
CHAP. XXIX.
If however, this be the case, all-perfect animal is much more ineffable and unknown than the demiurgic monad. For it is at once the monad of every paradigmatic order, and is intelligible, but not intellectual. How therefore, do we endeavour to denominate, and as it were unfold it, but thus magnificently celebrate the demiurgic cause ? And how do we class this cause in the same rank with things ineffable ? For this will not be acting conformably to Plato, who arranges animal itself beyond the demiurgus ; but this will be giving an hypostasis to it in a secondary order of Gods, where it will be ranked, and will be effable and known more than the demiurgic monad. To which may be added, that to denominate that all-perfect animal most beautiful, but the demiurgus the best of causes, gives indeed the same analogy to these causes with respect to each other, as there is of the good with respect to the beautiful* And as the good is prior to the beautiful, (for the first beauty, as Socrates says in the Philebus, is in the vestibules of the good) so likewise the best ' is prior to the most beautiful, and the demiurgus is prior to all-perfect animal. For the best indeed, remarkably participates of the good, but the most beautiful, of beauty.
In addition to these things therefore, it must also be asserted by us, that the most beautiful and the best, are simply indeed related to each other according to order, as the good is to the beautiful. For the series of the whole of goodness is expanded above all the progression and arrangement of the beautiful. Every where, therefore, the best is prior
CHAFFER XXIX.
■ For offrrc,, it is
Digitized by Google
to the most beautiful. And the one, indeed, with reference to an inferior order, will be the best, but the other with reference to a more excellent order, will be the most beautiful. I say for instance, that the most beautiful, as in intelligibles, will have this peculiarity ; but the best as in intellectuals. And if the most beautiful, in supermundane natures, is a thing of this kind, the best will be said to be best as with reference to the Gods in the world. Hence, if the best of causes is the leader of the demiurgic series, and according to it is allotted a transcendency of this kind, but the most beautiful of intelligible animals preestablishes the illustrious power of beauty in a higher order, by what contrivance can it on this account be shown that intelligible and all-perfect animal is subordinate to the intellectual cause ? And that the demiurgus is converted to that which is posterior to himself? Or how can it be said that animal itself is visible to him, and all-perfect animal, and that which is comprehensive of all intelligibles, if it is made to be comprehended by another? For thus the demiurgus will be more comprehensive than animal itself, if the former indeed being characterized according to the best, is expanded above the paradigm, but the latter being denominated as most beautiful is secondary to the demiurgic cause.
Moreover, as that all-perfect and intelligible animal is particularly considered by Timaeus according to a formal nature, and not according to the union which is in it, and an hypostasis which is above all forms,' he very properly grants that animal itself may be known and manifested by words, but considers the demiurgus as in a certain respect ineffable, and superior to knowledge. For both indeed, I mean the demiurgus and animal itself, participate of union, and prior to a formal essence, are con- tained in the one. And if you assume the unities which are in them, you must admit the unity of the paradigm to be intelligible, but the demiurgic unity to be intellectual, and that an intelligible hyparxis is nearer to the first one, which is unknown and incomprehensible by all things, than an intellectual hyparxis. But if you are willing to survey the forms of the
' Instead of too warn*, it it doubtless necessary to read ra xarra. For the demiurgus also has an hypostasis which is above the forms of the universe.
Chap. Xxix. of Plato. 393
paradigm by themselves, according to which it is said to be the paradigm of every thing in the world, and the goodness and union of the demiurgus, the former will appear to you to be known and effable ; but the demiur- gic cause will be seen to participate of the unknown and ineffable pecu- liarity of the Gods. For again, Timajus was in a remarkable degree in want of the demiurgus and father, as the producing cause of wholes, and the generator of the world- But to generate, to produce and provide are the peculiarities of Gods, so far as they are Gods. Hence also Ti- maeus denominates the peculiarity of the demiurgus according to which he is a God, the cause of the generation of the universe, and the most proper principle of the arrangement of wholes. But he denominates the pecu- liarity of the paradigm to be that which comprehends the first forms, according to which the world also is invested with forms. For it is the image of the paradigm, but the effect of the demiurgus. It belongs, therefore, to the paradigm to be the first of forms, but to the demiurgus to be the best of causes, according to his goodness, and the hyparxis of essence. For, as we have said, to generate, to give subsistence to, and to provide for other things, especially pertain to the Gods, and not to the natures which are primarily suspended ' from them ; but the latter are allotted through the former an abundance prolific of secondary natures. It appears to me that Socrates in the Republic indicating these things, does not say that the sun is the cause of generation, till be had declared him to be the progeny of the superessential principle of all things ; just as Timoeus does not begin the fabrication of the universe, till lie had cele- brated the goodness of the demiurgus of wholes. For each [i. e. the demiurgus and the sun] is a producing cause according to tht good, the former indeed of the universe, but the latter of a generated nature; but not according to the intellect which is in them, or life, or any other form of essence. For these through the participation of the good constitute the natures posterior to themselves. And thus through these things we have answered the before-mentioned doubts.
• For i^munn, it is necessary to read ttyryunif .
Prcc. Vol. I. 3D
Digitized by Google
On the Theology Book V
Of the problems pertaining to total fabrication, it now remains for me to relate what my opinion is respecting the Crater, and the genera that are mingled in it. For these also Timae us co-arranges with the demiurgic monad, in the generation of the soul. The demiurgus, therefore, mingles- the elements of the hypostasis of souls ; but the middle genera of being are mingled. The much-celebrated Crater, however, receives this mix- ture, and generates souls in conjunction with the demiurgus. Hence, in the first place, the genera of being must be admitted to be twofold. And it must be granted indeed, that some of them give completion to total hypostases, but others, to such as are partial ; and that the hyparxes of first effective and united causes, are established in the intelligible Gods- For there essence subsists primarily in the summit of intelligibles, and motion and permanency are in the middle centre. For intelligible eter- nity abides in one, and at once both abides and is the occult cause of all life. Hence, Plotinus also calls eternity life which is one and total : and. again, in another part of his works he calls it intelligible life. But the third from him, Theodorus, denominates it permanency. And both these opinions harmonize with each other ; because permanency also is ia eternity, (for according to Timaeus, eternity abides in one) and motion. For eternity is intelligible life, and that which participates of it is intelli- gible animal. Moreover, sameness and difference, are in the extremity of intelligibles. For whence does multitude originate, but from differ- ence? And whence is the communion of parts with wholes, and the hyparxisof things which are divided in each other derived but from same- ness? For that one participates of being, uud being of the one. All the parts likewise of the one being pervade through each other in an uncon- fused manner ; for at one and the same time sameness and difference are there occultly. And the whole intelligible breadth is allotted its hypo*
Digitized by Google
CHAP. XXX.