Timeus, in a manner truly conformable to the geometric method, after the definitions assumes these axioms. For having said what being and what that which ts gencrated are, he adds these other common conceptions ; that the thing which is gencrated, is entirely generated by a cause; but that the thing which is not generated by a cause, cannot have generation. From these axioms also it is evident that ro διαιρετον, does not signify the dividing method, but that the hypotheses are to be defined. For the assertion that every thing which is generat- ed, is necessarily generated by a certain cause, and that it is impossible for it to have generation without a cause, and also the following axiom, that what is generated according to an eternal paradigm is rendered beautiful, all these being axioms, are to be considered as belonging to the term διοριστέον, and not to be parts of division. Since however one of the present axioms is more clear, but the other is less known and clear, hence Timieus places the one as the middle term, but the other as the conclusion. For the axiom, every thing which is generated, is necessarily generated by a certain cause, is the conclusion. But the axiom, it is entirely impossible that it should have generation without a cause, is the iniddle, in order that the syllogism may be categoric, and may be in the first figure, as follows: It is impossible for that which is generated to be generated without a cause. But this is necessarily generated by a certain cause. Every thing therefore which is generated, is from necessity generated by a certain cause. For it is better to collect: what is said after this manner, as the divine Jamblichus also thinks we ought, than to make, as some other persons do, the syWogism to be hypothetical. But how is the middle more known than the conclusion? For it is evident that a thing must necessarily be, which it is impossible should not be, and that itis impossible a thing should not be, which necessarily is. Or ina certain respect each of these is the same. But frequently it is not known that a thing necessarily is, but that it is impossible for it not to be, is known. Thus for instance, the physician says [to his patient] it is necessary you should be nourished, and he will in a less degree persuade the sick man. But if he says, it is impossible to live without being nourished, this will now compel the paticnt [to take nutriment}. And again, death is necessary through a certain cause: for it is impossible not to die [i 6. to avoid death}, And, it is necessary to give money
Tim. Plat. Vou. I. 2£
218 : PROCLUS ON THE [BOOK 11.
that is owing to a tyrant: for itis impossible not to give it, And in a great variety of other instances, you may in asimilar manner see, that one of these is more ubscure, but the other more known, though both may appear to signify the saine thing.
How, therefore, in the words before us, is the one clearer than the other? For what if in some things this should be true, but in others not? May we not say, that here also it is easy to learn how that which is generated, when it is separated from its cause, is powerless and imbecile? For not being able tu preserve itself, neither is it connected by itself. But as it derives from its cause alone its preser- yation and connexion, if it is separated from its cause, itis evident that it becomes of itself powerless, and being dissipated, departs into non-entity, which also demonstrates that what is generated, catnot be venerated without a cause. lor if it is generated, it is generated by a certoin maker. Hence it is rightly said in the Philebus, that whatis generated ts made, but that which makes is the cause to /that which is made! (of its being made]. If, however, this be the case, itis either generated by itself, or by another. Butat’ ly itself, it passes into the same with perpetual being ; and thus that which is generated, and that which always is, will be the same, and a generated nature will rank among things that have an eternal subsistence. But if it is not generated by itself, it is entirely generated by another, For it is necessary that what is generated, should be generated by something, if it is that which is generated, and not [real] being. Por not connecting itself, nor making itself in energy, it will suffer this from something else. And being itself by itself imbecile, it will derive power from another, Farther still, though the same thing should both act and suffer, so far indeed as it is that which suflers, it suflers from another, and so faras itis ctlective it operates on another, That also which is generated, so far as itis generated: sutlers, Bat if it sutlers, it suffers from something else: for itis not naturally adapted to generate itself. For it would be before itis generated, and would bein energy prior to subsisting in capacity. For itis necessary that what operates should operate in energy on that which is in capacity. Plato, therefore, conjoining that which is generated to cause, which he does in the conclusion, very properly uses the term from necessity. Kor firmness and stability accompanied by persuasion accede to that which is venerated, from its cause: just as he says inthe Politicus, that arenovated tmmor-
ality is imparted to the world from its father. But separating that which is
Por τῷ yeyropery here, it is requisite to read ry ποιουμένῳ.
anok wd TIMEUS OF PLATO. 219
renerated from its cause, which he does in the middle, he uses the term impossible. For that which is generated, surveyed by itself, is inefhicacious and imperfect.
Moreover, in employing the word cause, he indicates the uniform power of {πθ΄ demiurgic principle; calling the demiurgic cause, not simply that which gives subsistence to another thing ; for Socrates says that the good is the cause of intelli- cibles, but it is not the demiurgic cause of them. For the demiurgic is attributed to veneration as Plato says in the Philebus, “ that the demiurgic refers to that which ts gencrated.” Hence, prior to the world, there are different causes of different things, but there are not demiurgic causes of generated natures. If therefore, there are many demiurgic causes, there is also one such cause [prior to the many]. For in short, if that which is generated is one, union must accede to it from its cause, and therefore itis much more necessary that its cause should be uniform and connective of multitude, in order that what is generated may become one conformably to the union pre-existing in its cause. And thus much con- cerning these particulars,
It is here, however, usual to enumerate all the causes, and the differences of causes according to Aristotle ; nor is this done immethodically. For it is requi- site to say that every cause is either essential or accidental, fand this proximately or remotely,] and that these subsist in a two-fold respect, either simple or complex. All these, likewise, have a two-fold subsistence ; as they are either in capacity, or in energy. For thus the multitude of them may be surveyed. For on account of the essential and accidental, there are two modes of the explication of causes. But on account of these being attributed in a two-fold respect, either proximately or remotely, there are four modes, And again, on account of all these subsisting ina two-fold respect, either as simple or complicated with each other, there are eight modes, Through these also being two-fold, either in energy, or in capacity, there are sixteen modes, But on account of causes being predicated in a four-fold respect according to Aristotle, but according to Plato, causes subsisting in a three- fold,’ and con-causes also, though in a different way, in a three-fold respect,—hence according to the former, there will be sixty-four modes of causes ; [but according to the latter there will be forty-eight modes of causes,] and the same number of con-causes. For thus the assumption will become perfectly methodical ; though that of Plato is usually omitted by the interpreters, who having enumerated causes
* These causes are, the producing, the paradigmatic, and the final ; and the con-causes are, maller, matcrial causes, and form.
220 PROCLUS ON ΤῊ [ποοκ 4t.
according to Aristotle, enquire how it is said that every thing which is generated, is generated by acertain cause. We, however, omitting all this superfluous discus- sion, say that Timeus is here speaking about the eflective cause. Hence he uses the words, by a certain cause. For the term by which, is adapted to that which is effective. But he adds a@ certain cause. For the intellect of the universe, soul and nature, are said to be producing causes, and prior to these, other causes have this dignity, yet as many things are generated, and there are many causes, thoueh not of each particular, the word certain is very properly added. | For each par- ticular is generated by a certain cause, and not by all causes. These things therefore are manifest.
This axiom, however, is entirely derided by the Epicureans, who make the whole world, and the most divine of visible natures to be the work of chance. Bat by the Aristotelians, for the name alone itis thought worthy of reverence, For they say indeed, that what is generated, is) entirely generated by a certain cause, but they undesignedly make the cause to be causeless, when they enumerate chance with causes. Por chance is this very thing, (he causeless. But Plato alone, following the Pythagoreans, rightly says that every thing which ts generated, ix generated by a cause, and places over generated natures, Fate and God. For though generated natures are many, and separated from cach other, and which also on this account are generated from many causes, producing in ἃ different manner, yet there is one cause collective and connective of the makers, in order that there may be nothing in vain, or adventitious in the universe. Jor it is not proper that beings should be governed badly. Let there, however, be one ruler, one cause ofall things, one providence, and one chain of beings ; let there be also together with the monad an appropriate multitude, many Kings, various causes, a multiform providence, and a different order; yet every where multitude has a co-arrangement about the monad, things various about that which is simple, things multiform about that which js uniform, and things different about that which is common, in order that a traly golden chain may have dominion over all things, and that all things may be constituted ina becoming manner, For if, as Aristotle says, all things are co-arranged with a view to form, itis necessary that there should be a cause of the co-ordination, and that nothing which is in vain should have a place in the universe, but that what appears to be in’ vain to a part, should be advantageous to che whole, These observations, however, have been
made elsewhere.
* These are the words of Anstotle, in the 12th book of his Metaphysics.