Father and maker therefore, differ from) each other, so far as the former is the cause of matter,: but the latter of the world and order, and in short, of the formal cause; and so far indeed as the former is the supplier of bem and union, but the latter of powers and a multiforn essence 5 anid so far ax the one stably contains all things in himself, but the other is the eause of progression and veneration ; and so far as the former signifies ineffable and divine providence, but the Tatter an abundant communication of productive principles. Porphyry however says, that father is he who generates the universe from himself, but maker he who receives the matter of it from another. Hence Aristo indeed, is said to be the father of Plato, but the builder of a house is the maker or fabricator of it, as not him- self generating the matter of which it consists. If however, this is true, there was no occasion to call the Demiurgus father, because, according to Timwus, he does not give subsistence to matter. Is not the demiurgus therefore, rather the maker as producing form? For we call all those makers who produce any thing from a non-existent state into existence, But so far as the Demiurgus produces that which he produces, in conjunction with life, he is father. Tor fathers are the causes of animals, and of certain living beings, and impart seed together with life. And thus much concerning this particular.
But “ this universe” signifies indeed, the corporeal masses, and the whole spheres [of which it consists] and the plenitudes of each. It also signifies the vital and intellectual powers, which ride as it were in the corporeal masses. It also comprehends all the mundane causes * and the whole divinity of the world, about which the number of the mundane Gods proceeds ; likewise, the one di- vinity, the divine soul, and the whole bulk of the world, together with the divine,
' For o\ns here, it is necessary to read vAys, because matter according to Plato proceeds from the father Phanes, or animal itself, and not from the Demiurgus.
* For avrovs, it is vecessary to read αἰτίας.
ποοκ 11.]} Tima:Us of Plato. 253
intellectual, psychical, and corporeal-formed number that is conjoined with the world, For every monad has a multitude co-ordinate to itself. All these there- fore must be assumed for the wuiverse ; since it signifies all these. Perhaps like- wise the addition of the pronoun ¢his, is significant of the universe being ina certain respect sensible and partial. For the intelligible universe is not ¢his, be- cause it is comprehensive of all intellectual forms. But the term this is adapted to the visible universe which is allotted a sensible and material nature. It is ditticult therefore, as Plato says, to discover the Demiurgus of this universe. For since with respect to discovery one kind proceeds scientifically from such things as are first,’ but another journeys on from things of a secondary nature, according to reminiscence ; the discovery from such things as are first may be said to be dificult, because the invention of the intermediate powers, pertains to the high- est theory. But the discovery from such things as are secondary, is nearly more ditficult than the former. For if we intend from these to survey the essence of the Demiurgus, and his other powers, it is necessary that we should have beheld all the nature of the things generated by him, all the visible parts of the world, and the nnapparent natural powers which it contains, according to which the sympathy and antipathy of the parts in the world subsist. Prior to these also, we must have surveyed the stable physical reasons, and natures themselves, both the more total and the more partial,* and again, the immaterial and material, the divine and diaemoniacal, and the natures of mortal animals. And farther still, the genera which are under life, the perpetual and the mortal, the undefiled and the material, such as are wholes, and sach as are parts, the rational and the irra- tional, and the prerogatives which are superior to ours, through which every thing between the Gods and the mortal nature are bound together. We must likewise have beheld the all-various souls, the diflerent numbers of Gods according to the diflerent parts of the universe, and the ineffable and effable impressions of the world through which it is conjoined with the father. For he who without having seen these is impelled to the survey of the Demiurgus, is more imperfect than is requisite to the intellectual perception of the father. But it is not lawful for any thing imperfect to be conjoined with that which is all-perfect.
Moreover, it is necessary,’ that the soul becoming an intellectual world, and being assimilated as much as possible to the whole intelligible world, should in-
* viz. From axioms and definitions. * Meptcwrepas is omitted in the original. Ὁ For δη here, it is requisite to read bec.
254 PROCLUS ON THE (Boon 11.
trofuce herself to the maker of the universe ; and from this introduction, should in a certain respect become familiar with him through a continued intellectual energy. For uninterrupted energy about any thing, calls forth and resuscitates our (dormant) ideas. But through this familiarity, becoming stationed at the door of the father, it is necessary that we should be united to him. For dis- covery is this, to meet with him, to be united to him, to associate alone with the alone, and to see him himself, the soul hastily withdrawing herself from every other energy to him. For being present with her father, she then considers scientific discussions to be but words,’ banquets together with him on the truth of real be- ing, and in pure splendor is purely initiated in entire and stable visions. Such therefore is the discovery of the father, not that which is doxastic ; for this is du- bious, and not very remote from the irrational life. Neither ts it scientific ; for this is syllogistic and composite, and does not come into contact with the intel- lectual essence of the intellectual Demiurgus. But it is that which subsists according to intellectual vision itself, acontact with the intelligible, and a union with the demiurgic intellect. For this may properly be denominated difficult, either as hard to obtain, presenting itself to souls after every evolution of life; or as the true labour of souls. For after the wandering about generation, after pu- rification, and the light of science, intellectual energy and the intellect which is in us shine forth, placing the sonl in the father as ina port, purely establishing her in demiurgic intellections, and conjoining hight with light, not such as that of science, but more beautiful, more intellectual, and partaking more of the nature of the onethan this. For this is the paternal port," and the discovery of the father, viz. an undefiled union with him.
* This is in consequence of a union with the Demiurgus beiug so much superior to scientific per- ception.
* Proclus here alludes to the fabulous wanderings of Ulysses in the Odyssey. Por Homer by these oecultly indicates the life of a man who passes ina regular manner from a sensible to ao intellectual life, and who being throughly purified by the excrcise of the cathartic virtues, is at length able to energize according to the intuitive perception of intellect, and thus after becoming re-united to Penelope or Philosophy, meets with and embraces his father. This appears also to have been the opinion af tbe Pythagorean Numenius, as we are informed by Porphyry in his treatise De Antro Nympharuin, “ΤῸ he thought that the persou of Ulysses in the Odyssey represented to us a man who passes in a regular maoner over the dark and stormy sea of generation; and thus at Jength arrives at that region (ἡ. ἐν the intellectual region) where temmpests and seas are unknown, and finds a nation
“Who ne'er knew salt, or heard the billows roar.’”
See more onthis subject in my Restoration of the Platonic Theology, p. 294.
Rook 11.} TIM.EUS OF PLATO. 255
But to say “ thatwhen found it ts impossible to speak of him to all men,”* perhaps indicates the custom of the Pythagoreans, who had arcane assertions about divine natures, and did not divulge them to all men. For as the Elean guest says, the eyes of the multitude are not strong enough to look to truth. Perhaps also this may be said which is much more venerable, that it is impossible for him who has discovered the maker and father of the universe to speak of him to certain persons such ashe has seen him. For the discovery was not made by the soul speaking, bat closing her eyes, and being converted,” to the divine light. Nor was it made by her being moved with her own proper motion, but through being silent with a silence which leads the way (to union}. For since the essence of other things is not naturally adapted tobe spoken of, either through a name, or through definition, orthrough science, butis seen through intellection alone, as Plato saysin his Epistles, inwhat other way can itbe possible to discover the essence of the Demiurgus, than by intellectual energy? And how when having thus found it, is it possible to tell whatis seen, and explain it to others, through nouns and verbs? For the evolu- tion which is conversant with composition, cannot exhibit a uniform and simple nature, What then, some one may say, do we not assert many things about the Demiurgus, and about the other Gods, and even of the one ilself? To this we reply, we speak indeed about them, but we do not speak of cach of them itself. And we are able indeed to speak scientifically of them, but not intellectually. For this, as we have before observed, is to discover them. But if the discovery is a silence of the soul, how can speech flowing through the mouth, be sufficient to lead that which is discovered into light. ᾿
After these things, therefore, let us, following the light of science, survey who the Demiurgus is, and to what order of beings he belongs. For different philosophers among the ancients were led to different opinions on this subject. For Numenius, indeed, celebrating three Gods, calls the first father, but the second maker, and the third that which is made, For the world according to him is the third God. So that with him the Demiurgus is two-fold, viz. the first and the second Goud, and that which is fabricated is the third God. For itis better to say this, than’ to say as he does speaking tragically, grandfather, ofispring, nephew. He how-
* For μηδε evpovra δυνατα δυνατον εἰναι λέγειν it is necessary to read, μηδε evporra εἰς axarras δυνατον, κι ἃ. ;
* For axcorpayperns, it is requisite to read extorpapiperns.
Ὁ It is necessary here to supply i.
256 PROCLUS ON THE (Boox 1,
ever, who asserts these things, in the first place does not nghtly con-numerate the good with these other causes. For it is not naturally adapted to be conjoined with certain things, nor has it an order secondary to another. But father with Plato {in the text] is arranged as the second to maker, Farther still, Numenius co-arranges that which is exempt, ' from all habitude, with the natures that are under and posterior to it. It is necessary, however, to refer these indeed to the first, but to take away from it all habitude. Neither therefore, is the paternal nature of the maker* adapted to the first. For these things’ are apparent in the orders of Gods posterior to it. In the third place; it is not right to divide father and maker, since Plato celebrates one and the same God by both these names. For one divine fabrication, and one maker and father, are every where delivered by Plato. And by following names, to divulse the one cause fof the world,] is just as if some one, because Plato calls the universe both heaven and the world, should say there are two fabrications, the one heaven, and the other the world; just as here, Numenius says there is a two-fold demiurgic God, the one father, but the other maker.