to demonstrate that the world was generated with relation to an eternal paradigm, makes a subversion of the others, on account of the universe being most beautiful. For that which is most beautiful, is neither preternatural, nor is derived from a generated paradigmatic essence 3 since that which is derived from this is not most beautiful. But because, in short, the universe is beautiful, it is not preternatural. Such therefore, is the solution of the doubt.
It is worth while however concisely to survey the accuracy of the words. For the words “ again,” and “ must be considered,” indicate the order of the problem ; viz. that it is in continuity with the things which precede it, and that this imme- diately follows those speculations. But the words, “ respecting him,” collect all the investizations, and refer them to the one theory about the world. For what is said about the Demiurgus and the paradigm, is assumed for the sake of the theory of the universe, The words, “ according to which of the paradigms,” sepa- rate as extremes, and as different from each other, the intelligible, and that which is generated ; the former existing among the first, but the latter among the last of beings. But the word artificer exhibits the production of form by its cause, and demiurgic art proceeding into the world. For as the theologist says, the first manual artificers gave to Jupiter the demiurgic powers of all the mundane production. And,
Who thunder, and the lightning formed for Jove. Vulcan and Pallas the first artists, taught
Jove all the dadal arts, the world contains.
Plato therefore following what the theologist here asserts, continually uses the words τέχτὴνάμενος and erexryvara, Which signify fabricative energy, when speak- ing of the demiurgic production, But the words, “ according to that which sub sists with invartable sameness,” indicate the eternal paradigm of the universe, which is the first of eternal natures, and is established at the end of the first intelligibles. And again, “ that which was generated” signities, that which was moved in a con- fused and disorderly manner. For this is a composite, is much mingled, and alter-motive, or moved by another; all which are the clements of a generated nature. Tle does not therefore say that this disorderly nature is unbegotten and incorruptible, and that the world is generated and corruptible; but that the former of these was generated, as being alter-motive and co-mingled. For Plato clearly says, that prior to the generation of the universe there were these three
276 PROCLUS ON THE ᾿ [BOOK 1.
things, place, generation, and being. And it is evident that by generation he means the confused and disorderly nature. Generation therefore is this; and the world is unbegotten according to temporal generation. Hence these things are more concordant with Plato, and with our unperverted cpinions about the universe.
Indeed, if this world is beautiful, and the Demiurgus of it 1s good, it is evident that he looked to an eternal paradigin; but if he is not good,
which it is not lawful for any one to assert, he looked to that which was
generated.”
In the first place, it is requisite that we should understand the logical method of Plato, in order that we may see how demonstratively it proceeds. For from the hypotheses he had these twofold axioms, that what is generated according to an eternal paradigm is beautiful; but that what is generated according to a gene- rated paradigin ts not beautiful. The converse however to these are, that what is
beautiful was generated according to an eternal paradigm, but what is not beautiful
was not generated according to an eternal paradigm. Por τὸ the opposite of
that which precedes, the opposite of that which is consequent follows, then these reciprocate with cach other, and that which was proposed from the beginning is demonstrated, through a deduction to an impossibility. Por if that whieh is beautiful was generated according to a generated paradigin, but that which is so generated is not beautiful, through one of the axioms, then it will follow that what is not beautiful is beautiful, Why therefore, did not Plato immediately in the hypotheses assume these axioms, viz. that what is beautiful was generated according to an eternal paradigm, what is not beautiful was not so generated ; but those to which these are the converse, though he intended to use the former, and not the latter in his demonstration? In answer to this, it must be said, that the latter which commence from causes, are more adapted to hypotheses, but the former which are derived from things caused, are more allied τὸ things posterior to hypotheses. For when he says, “ That which was generated according toaneternal paradigm ts beautiful,” he begins froin causes, but ends in that which is caused. But when vice versa, le says, Zhat is beautiful which was generated according toan eternal paradigm,” he makes the beautiful to be precedancous, but the cause consequent. He employs therefore, the former of these, in order that
ROOK 41} TIMEUS OF PLATO. 277 he may assume things adapted to principles and causes in the hypotheses, but he employs the latter, which is the converse of the former, in the demonstrations, selecting that whieh is appropriate to: the things demonstrated. Hence laying down these four axioms, he very properly enquires concerning the universe, Whether itis beautiful, or is not beautiful. Brat if indeed the world is beautiful, it was generated according to an eternal paradigin; bat if it is not beautiful, according to a generated paradigm. That the world however is beautiful, is evident from sense, ΠῚ was therefore generated according to an eternal paradigm.
Since however beanty is imparted to the world from_ the paradigm, through the demiurgie cause as a medium, in the proposition which precedes, for the purpose of showing that the world is beautiful, he assumes that the Demiurgus is good. For every artificer, who is a good artist, has dominion over his proper matter, and superinduces the form which he wishes, on the subjects of his art. And this is accomplished in a much greater degree by the whole Demiurgus, who also gives subsistence to nature, the (universal) subject of things, as other assertions evince; and who produced i, thatit might co-operate‘ with him, in receiving the world and fabrication from him. Since however, he had added this in the second proposition, he passes over the opposite in silence. ΕῸΓ the defamation of the world is atrocious. since it is most beautiful, and a blessed God, but the defamation of the Demiurgus is still more so. Hence Plato employs Themis* as a guard to what he says, who collects the Gods themselves to the Demiurzus, and does not sufler them to be divulsed from the goodness of the father. And he does this, in order that through Themis, he may not ascribe any
thing disorderly or defamatory to the Demiurgus. The propositions therefore, being such, and receiving their beginning from the dividing art, let us see what
Plato afterwards adds.
“It is however, manifest to every one, that he looked to an eternal paradigm; for the world indeed is the most beautitul of generated natures, and the Demiurgus is the best of causes. But being thus gene- ‘rated, it is fabricated according to that which may be apprehended by reason and intelligence, and which subsists invariably the same.”
* Instead of aepyos here, it is requisite to read ovrepyos. ? For Plato uses the word Oeyss, or ἐσμ μέ, in this place.
278 PROCLUS ON THE [noo τι.
Through what is here said, in the first place, he antecedently assumes the con- clusion, as he is accustomed to do, deriving the principles of his demonstrations from intellect. Inthe next place, he introduces the recollection of the assump- tion, and afterwards adds the rest... For the words, “ lt is however manifest to every one, that he looked to an eternal paradigm,” are the conclusion. But the words, “ For the world indeed is the most beautiful of generated natures, and the Demiurgus is the best of causes,” are a narration of the assumption, as the causal conjunction μὲν indeed manifests. And the rest is the conclusion of all that is said. Such therefore is the logical arrangement of the words. But again, be- taking ourselves to the theory of the tings, let us in the first place see through what cause he transfers the word dcautiful to the word most beautiful, and good to the best. In the next place, let us survey how these things are true, and what kind of order they have with reference to each other.
That a beautiful fabrication therefore, was fabricated according to an eternal paradigm 15 evident, and was before asserted. For whence could it obtain the beautiful, except from the imitation of this paradigm? If however, this is most beautiful, the fabrication was not simply made according to an eternal paradigm, but if it be requisite to say so, it was assimilated to the most eternal of eternal natures. For every image which more clearly participates of form, is the Image of a purer paradigm, And as of the statues produced by the telestic art, some par- taking of the presence of a divine nature more obscurely, enjoy the second and third powers of the divinity, but others participating of it more clearly, partake also of the first and highest powers of the God ;—after the same manner likewise, the God who gives perfection to the world, has rendered it most beautiful, as an image of the first of eternal natures. For that which is most beautifal is derived to the world from thence, and is extended to a similitude towards it, through its own beauty. Again therefore, if the demiursic cause is good, he looked to that which is eternal, and not to that which is generated ; lest by looking to whatis less excctlent, which it is not lawful to assert, he should fall off from goodness. [f, however, this be the case, not only a good cause, but thre best among causes, looked to the most eternal of paradigms. For by how much the perceiver is more divine, hy so much the more elevated is the object: of perception. For the same thing will not be surveyed by the better and the less excellent nature, Plato therefore, indica- ting these things, and through these latently assisting the position that the para-
* Instead of ro Anyor here, it is necessary to read ro λοιπὸν.