* These reasons in a divine soul, subsist both gnostically and fabricatively, and inthe human soul also, taey thus subsist, when it revolves on high in conjunction with the Gods; but during tue union of the
soul with this outward body, they subsist in it gnostically onls.
ποοκ 11.} Timaeus of Plato. 209
of sensibles, through the reasons which it contains, but should be ignorant of the causes of them. For thus right opinion will differ from science in this, that it alone knows that a thing is, science being able to survey likewise the cause of it. But sense adheres to opinion, being also itself a medium between the instrument of sense and opinion. For the instrument of sense apprehends sensibles accom- panied with passion, TTence also it is corrupted through the excess of sensibles. But opinion possesses knowledge undefiled with passion, Sense however partici- pates in a certain respect of passion, but has also something gnostic, so far as it is established in the doxastic part, is laminated by it, and) partakes of the form of reason, since it isin itself irrational. In this, therefore, the series of gnostic powers is terminated, of which indecd intelligence is the leader, which is above reason, and is without transition. But reason has the second order which is the intelli- gence of our soul, transitively coming into contact with real beings. Opinion has the third order, being a knowledge of sensibles conformable to reason. And sense has the fourth order, being an irrational knowledge of sensibles. For dianoia, being a medium between intelligence and opinion, is gnostic of middle forms, which require a more obscure apprehension than that of intelligence, but a clearer pereeption than that of opinion; as Socrates said on the preceding day, when he defined the ditferent kinds of knowledge by the objects of knowledge.
It must be said, therefore, that opinion is according to reason, because it possesses gnostic reasons of the essences of things, but that it is otherwise irrational, as being ignorant of causes. For Socrates in the Banquet, speaking of it says, “since it is an irrational thing, how can it be science?” But it must be admitted that sense is entirely irrational. For in short, since each of the senses knows the passion produced about the animal by the object of sense, hence intelligence is an intransitive, but dianoia and reason a transitive knowledge ; opinion a know- ledge in conjunction with reason but without the assignation of cause; sense an irrational Knowledge of passions; and the instrument of sense passion enly. Thus, for instance, when an apple is presented to us, the sight indeed knows that it is red from the passion about the eye, the smell that it is fragrant from the pas- sion about the nostrils, the taste that it is sweet, and the touch that it is smooth. What then is it which says that the thing presented to us is an apple? For it is
not any one of the partial senses; since each of these knows one certain thing
only about the apple, and not the whole of it; nor does even the common sense
know this. For this alone distinguishes the differences of the passions; but it
does not know that the thing which possesses an essence of such a kind is the Tim. Piat, Vou. I. 2D
210 Proclus on the [Book 11-
whole thing. Hence, it is evident that there is a certain power superior to the senses, which knowing the whole prior to the things which are as it were parts, and surveying the form of it, is impartibly connective of these many powers. This power, therefore, Plato calls opinion, and on this account, he denominates that which is sensible doxastic. ‘
Farther still, since the senses frequently announce various passions, and not such as things of this kind are in themselves, what is it in us which judges and says, that the sight is deceived when it asserts that the sun is but a foot in diameter, and that the taste which pronounces honey to be bitter, is the taste of those that are diseased?) For it is entirely evident that in these, and all such-lke particulars, the senses announce indeed their own passions, and are not perfectly deceived. For they say what the passion is ubout the instruments of sense, and itis athing of such a kind as they assert it to be; but that which says what the cause is of the passion, and forms a judgment of it, is something different from sense, Hence, there is acertain power of the soul superior to sense, which no longer knows sensibles through an instrument but through itself, and corrects the wrossness of sensible information, And this) power indeed which is reason as with reference to sense, is irrational as with reference to the knowledge of trily existing beings. But sense is simply irrational, On this account, Plato in’ the Republic calling this power opinion, shows that it is a medium between hnowledge and ignorance: for it is indeed a rational knowledge, but it is mingled with irrationality, knowing sensibles in’ conjunction with sense, But sense is alone irrational, as ‘Timwus also denominates it; i the first place, because it is also inherent in irrational animals, and is characteristic of every irrational life; for by these things, what is said in the Theatetus distinguishes it from science. In the second place, because in contradistinction to all the parts of the irrational soul, it is disobedient to reason. For the irascible and epithy- metic parts, are obedient to reason and its mandates, and receive from it erudi- tion. But sense though it should hear reason ten thousand times asserting that the sun is greater than the earth, yet would) still see it to be a foot in diameter, and would not otherwise announce itto us. In the third place, because neither does it [accurately] know that which it knows. For it is not naturally adapted to see the essence of it. For it does not know what a white thing is, butit knows through passion that it is white. It likewise is not separated from the instrument of sense,’ and is therefore on this account irrational. For thus in the Georgias,
* Instead of διακέκριται δε ro acaOnrnpior in this place, it is necessary to read ov &caxexpiraa δὲ τὸν αισθητηριον.
Rook 11. Tim.Eus of Plato. 211
irrational knowledge is defined to be not scientific, but conjectural. [n the fourth place, sense is alone irrational, because it is the boundary ofthe whole series of knowledge, possesses an essence most remote from reason and intellect, pertains to externals, and eflects its apprehension of things through body. For all these particulars demonstrate its irrationality.
Every thing generated therefore is apprehended by opinion in conjunction with sense; the latter announcing passions, but the former producing from itself the rea- sons of them, and knowing the essences of sensibles. And as reason when in con- tact with intelligence sees theintelligible, thus also opinion co-arranged with sense, knows that which is generated. For since the soul is of a middle essence it gives completion to a subsistence between intellect and irrationality. For by its sum- mit it is present with intellect, but by its ultimate partit verges to sense. Hence also Tiinwus in the former conjunction, arranges intelligence prior to. reason, as being more excellent; but in the second he places opinion before sense. For there indeed, reason is posterior to intelligence, as being a less intellect; but) here opinion is prior to sense, as being rational sense. Opinion however, and reason circumscribe the whole breadth of the rational essence. But intellect is our king, and sense our messenger, says the great Plotinus. Reason indeed, togetuer with intellect, sees the intelligible; bat by itselfit: surveys reasons or forms that have a middle subsistence, And opinion in conjunction with sense, sees that which is generated ; but by itself it contemplates all the forms it contains, con- cerning which we have elsewhere spoken, have shown how these forms subsist, how the place of them is the doxastic part of the soul, and that the intelligible ix apprehended by reason, but by opinion, the intelligible is seen as a doxastic object. For the object of its knowledge is external to, and not withinit, as the intelligible is within reason. Hence the object is not comprehended by it, but is called epinable aud not sensible; because opinion knows indeed the essences of things, but sense does not. [lence too, it receives the appellation of a clearer knowledge, which knows wha¢ a thing is, but not alone ¢hat it is, which latter we say is the employment of sense; and in’ consequence of this Timieus very pro-- perly calls that which is generated the object of opinion. For this is Pythagoric ; since Parmenides also considered the discussion of sensibles, ἡ as a discussion according to opinion; sensibles being in their own nature perceptible by this
' Instead of exec και o ev Llappercder, την περι των αἰσθητων xpayparcwy in this place, it is necessary to read eres caco Παρμενίδης, την πέρι των αἰσθητων πραγματειαν.
412 PROCLUS ON TITE [βοοκ 11.
power of the saul. Hence it is not proper to call that which is generated sensi- hie alone, because sense is not gnostic of any essence, nor the object of opinion, without the addition of sense.
Ifere however, Aristotle particularly blames the second assertion of Timzus. For where is it [universally] true that what is perceived by opinion in conjunction with sense is generated and corrupted?) — For heaven is uabegotten and indes- tructible, though itis perceived by opinion in conjunction with sense. And Timiwus inthe course of this dialogue, inquires whether the whole heaven was venerated. At present, therefore, it must be said by us, that generation and cor- ruption subsist according to analogy in the heavens, not only according to the motions and mutations of figures, but also because a celestial body is not pre- duced by itself, but alone subsists from another cause. [ence it is generated as having the cause of its subsistence suspended from another thing (different from itself. Since, however, it not only subsists from, but is connected by another, not being able to connect itself, and is corrupted according to its own proper reason, on this account it assumes generation co-ordinately with corruption. — Por truly existing and) eternal beings generate themselves, and are connected by themselves, whence also they are said to be in their own nature unbegotten and indestructible. Tf, however, truly existing being is unbegotten, and therefore sub- sists from itself, that which does not subsist from itself will not) be truly unbe- eotten. And if that which is truly indestructible is naturally adapted to connect itself, that which is not naturally adapted to connect itself will not be truly indestructible. Heaven, however, but I mean by heaven the corporeal-formed nature of it alone, is neither adapted to produce nor to connect itself, ΕῸΓ every thing of this kind which produces and connects itself, is impartible, Hence it is neither truly unbegotten ' nor truly indestructible, but so far as pertains to its corporeal nature, It is generated and made. Farther still, as Aristotle himself says, and clearly and generously demonstrates, no finite body possesses an infi- nite power. But the eclestial body is finite, and therefore does not possess an infinite power. The indestructible, however, so far as indestructible, possesses an infinite power. Hence body, so far as body, is not indestructible. So that from the reasoning of Aristotle 11 is demonstrated to be a thing of this kind. But after what manner the heaven is unbegotten and perpetual, will be manifest to us
* Instead of ove apa οντων γενητὸς ἐστιν in this place, it is obviously necessary to read ove apa orrws
ayernros ἐστιν.
Book 11. Tim-Eus of Plato. 213
shortly after. Now, however, this alone is evident from what has been sald, that every thing corporeal, is of itself, or in its own nature generated and corrupted, but never truly is, as Plato also says in the Politicus. For he there observes “ that to subsist always invariably the same, alone pertains tothe most divine of all things. But the nature of body ts not of this order. That, however, which we de- nominate heaven or the world, possesses indeed many and blessed prerogatives from its generator ; but, as it partakes of body, it is impossible that it should be entirely free from mutation.” We have shown, therefore, how the heaven falls under the above-mentioned distinctions,