But if intellect is the Demiurgus of the world, whether does it make that which it makes, by a reasoning process, or by its very being? If indeed by consulting, an absurdity follows. For there will be a mutation about it, and the passions of a partial soul. It will not therefore consult. And if it should consult, it must entirely antecedently assume in itself the work about which it consults ; Just as every one does who consults before he energizes, But if it makes by its very being, it makes that which is similar to itself And if it does this, it will contain the paradigms of the things that are generated. And again, we must investizate, whether these paradigms subsist: primarily init, or not, and whence it derives this paradigmatic cause of wholes. Farther still, after what manner do we see artificers that are here produce? Ts it not by possessing the reasons cr productive principles of their effects? This, therefore, the damoniacal Aristotle will also grant. But if art imitates nature, it is necessary that natnre, much prior to art, should contain the reasons of the things which she generates. And if nature does this, we must inquire whence she is moved, and whence she is perfected? For she is irrational ; and thus ascending, we must say that the causes of all things are in intellect. In opposition to Aristotle, indeed, much has been said by many ; but our business, at present, is to explore what Plato says.
In the first place, therefore, let us investigate from what cause he introduces to cenerated natures the beautiful and the not beautiful, from the paradigm, and not from the producing cause. It might then have been said, that there are two-fold demiurgic causes, viz. the generated and the intelligible, the latter being effective of beautiful things, but the former of things that are not beautiful. But Plato does: not speak after this manner, but says that intelligible paradigms are the paradigms of beautifal eflects, hut generated paradigms, of such as are pot beau-
Tim. Plat. Vou. I. 2F
226 PROCLUS ON THE [poo 11.
tiful. It may however be said, that what is here asserted contributes to erudition, exhorting us not to reject beautiful actions. Por if he had said that what is gene- rated, is not effective of beauty, perhaps he might have rendered us more sluggish with respect to beautiful actions. But it will be better and more physical, it we say that it is possible for the same eflective cause to look to two-fold paradigms, and to make a certain thing beautiful, and acertain thing not beautiful, Por soul looking to intellect, generates truth and science, but looking to generation, she procreates imaginations, and passive appetites, But itis tipossible for the same paradigm to be the cause of beautiful and not beautifal effects. Very properly therefore is it asserted, that from this cause beauty and deformity accede to genes rated natures. As the paradigm however of this universe is beautiful, itis evident that it is intelheible, and always subsists invariably the same; to Which also the Demiurgus looking, adorns the universe, If, theretore, itas the supplier of beauty, it has the highest order among eternal beings, and belongs to the first intelligibles, Hence the cause eflective of beauty is there, through which all things are beautiful, intellect, soul, and the nature of body. Again, therefore, the Demiurgus, indeed, ts the cause of form, but the paradigni of beauty, and the “οὐ of union, And the last of these. supplies all things at once, but the paradigm is the suppher of beauty and form, and the demiurgic cause, so far as it is Intellectual, of torm: and essence. Moreover, the demiurgie cause looking to the intelligible ts multiform. For the whole Demiurgus fabricates in one way ἡ looking toil. He, therefore, is united to it according to supreme transcendency. But the demiurgic triad fabricates in another way. And of this triad indeed, the first (i. οὐ Jupiter) fibricates uniformly 3 the second fi. e. Neptune} generatively, and the last (i.e. Pluto} convertively.
And in one way in the ruling, in another in the liberated and in another, in the
mundane order. But after this triad, we must survey fabrication proceeding after |
a different manner to the many demiursie Gods, who from these receive and are allotted paternal powers. After these, also, it proceeds In one way to demiurgie angels, but in another to demiurzic damons, the attendants of this order. farther still, we must likewise survey the undefiled forms of life, which contribute to the demiurgic series, and the genera of partial souls, which follow. the demi- urgic choir, For the peculiarity and the mode of production, and of looking to the intelligible, extend diflerently to diflcrent natures, as far as to these, Itis also necessary to admire this in Plato, that he does not sity that what is generated on
' Por a\\q@ here, itis necessary to read adiwo.
Book 11.} ΤΊΜΕῸΝΟΕΡΙΑΤΟ. v7
account of! an eternal paradigm is Jwautiful, but that what is generated by the Demiurgus who looks to it. is most beautiful; since that which is confused and disordered is generated, for it is visible and sensible. But every thing of this kind is and was generated, as he says further on, receiving from the intelligible certain vestiges of forms prior to fabrication, and is not most beautiful, though it is ina certain respect beautiful, as with reference to the formless nature of matter. Hence that which is generated on account of an eternal paradigm, such for instance as that disorderly and confused nature, is not simply beautifal, but that which was generated by the Demiurgus looking to it. For from that confused nature the Demiurgus was absent; but the intelligible prior to the Demiurgus, uminated that disorderly essence. So far, however, as it was generated by the Demiurgus, it was also generated by the eternal paradigm, energizing on it through the Demiurgus as a medinm. And so far indeed as it was generated by the paradigm, it was invested with form, but so far as by the Demiurgus, it was arranged, For the Demiurgus is the cause of order ; but the paradigm is simply the cause of form to its participants.
Farther still, from the paradigm itself the difference of demiurgic powers may be assumed. For some of these powers, indecd, looking to the whole of intelli- gibles, produce according to the whole of them ; but others produce partially. And some, indeed, survey the whole of intelligibles through union 3. but others through intelligence. Some, again, do not produce according to the whole of the intelli- gible; but some are divided according to the four primary causes ; others proceed into a greater number; and others make the last forms the paradigms of their productions, Hence through these, there is one shepherd of men, but another of horses, as Plato says in the Politicus, and in a similar manner in’ other forms. As the demiurgie series therefore is various, and there are different paradizins of diferent things, some of which are more total, but others more partial, Timwus very properly does not say, that he who uses this intelligible paradigm, makes that which is generated to be beautiful, bnt he who uses a paradigm of this kind. In the intelligible paradigms therefore, the part is in a certain respect the whole, on account of the union of intelligibles; and the multitude is most similar to the monad, through the domination of sameness. Since also the whole Demiurgus looks indeed to the intelligible and all-perfect animal, but employs the paradigm which is in himself, possessing intellectually the intelligible ; which paradigm also
' For προαιωνίον in this place, we must read προς awwrior.
298 PROCLUS ON THE [poox 15,
is such as the intelligible through similitude to it, but is of a more partial nature ; hence Timwus adds the words a certain to a thing of this kind. Yor these intel- ligibles participate of the eternal paradigm, and are more partial than all-perfect animal.. Hence, too, he calls idea, τὸ, a certain thing, assimilating that which is vencrated to the paradigm. But fabrication imparts essences and powers to the things that are generated. Why, however, of eternal being does he say “ employing a paradigm of this kind,” but of that whichis generated, he no longer adds the ex- pression ‘ of this kind,” but instead of this, adduces the term venerated? Is it not because the intelligible has something similar to itself, as having the highest rank, but that which is generated being the last of things, has nothing else similar to itself? For that which is produced on account of it, is generated, and to this the dissimilar is appropriate ; but to the intelligible, the similar, the same, and every thing of this kind, is athed. And = thus much concerning these parti- eilars, But) the term αὐδάν must be conjoined: to aw subsistence according to mameness, In order that there may be that whieh looks to a nature always possess- Ing a sameness of subsistence, For thus the plulosopher Porphyry properly decides. Por Tinwus does not say that the Deniurgus in fabricating all things, always beholds, as Atticus thought, but that the intelligible always subsists after the same manner. Untess it should be said, that on this account he assumes the beholding always, lest by seeing at one time, but at another not, he should latently introduce into his production, that which is not beautiful. The Demi- urgus, therefore, looks to that whichis eternal, in order that he may produce that
which is similar to it, and beautiful.
“Let therefore this universe be denominated by us, all heaven, or the world, or whatever other appellation it may be especially adapted to receive.”
This is the last of the axioms, giving a name to the subject [of discussion) con- formably to geometricians, When they speak about the gnomon in parallelograms, for they say any one thing consisting of two complements ts to” be called a gno- mon, For since Plato intends to call the same thing both heaven and the world, in order that you may not think he disturbs the doctrine, by employing at different times different names, he previously determines something about the
' Vor ews yap hese, read eres yup.
ὅοοκ 11.) Tim-Zus of Plato. 299
names. For it must be observed that these names had great ambiguity with the ancients; some of them calling the sublunary region alone the world, but the region above it, heaven ; but others denominating heaven a part of the world. And some defined it to extend as far as to the moon; but others called the sum- mits of generation heaven :
The wide-spread heav'n in wther and the clouds Fell to the lot of Jove."
Hence Plato very properly determines concerning these names, prior to the whole theory, calling the universe heaven and the world, and saying all heaven, that you may not fancy he says, ὦ divine body alone is denominated by us the world, or by whatever other name it may rejoice to be called. And it seems, indeed, that he calls the universe Aeaven, conformably to the opinion of all men, but the world, according to his own opinion. Tor he says, let it be called by us heaven and the world. For the name of world is adapted to it as a certain fabrication ; though itis also possible to call it both heaven and the world : Acaven, indeed, as behold- ing the things above,* as surveying the intelligible, and as_ participating of an intellectual essence ς but dhe world, as being always tilled and adorned by truly existing beings. It may also be called /eaven, as being converted [to its prin- ple], but he world as proceeding from it. For it is generated by, and is convert- ed to real being. But as of statues established by the telestic art, some things pertaining to them are manifest,’ but others are inwardly concealed, being symbolical 4 of the presence of the Gods, and which are only known to the mystic artists themselves ; after the same manner, the world being a statue of the intelligi- ble, and perfected by the father, has indeed some things which are visible indi- cations of its divinity ; but others, which are the invisible impressions of the par- ticipation of being § received by it from the father who gave it perfection, in order that ° through these it may be eternally rooted in real being. Heaven, indced,
"Thad. xv. vs. 102.
* This is asserted in the Cratylus.
} For apavn here, it is necessary to read ἐμφανη.
* Instead of cuppoduns των θεων παρουσίας in this place, it is necessary to read, σνμβολικα της των θεων rapovacas. -
> Instead of της τὸν οντως μετοχῆς in this place, it is necessary to read rns τὸν ovros peroyns.
5 In the words wn μὴ δὲ ἀντων ἐρριϑωμενον ῃ διαιωνίω: ev τῷ οντι, it is obvious that μη ought to be