conception of Plato is on this subject. For that the Demiurgus is mot the first’
who gave subsistence to matter, is evident from what Plato says further on, viz. that these three things preceded the generation of the world, being, place, and genera- tion; and that eeneration is an ofispring, but place a mother. He appears there-
fore through these things to divide matter oppositely as it were to the Demiurgus, ἡ
according to the maternal and paternal peculiarity, but to produce generation from the Demiurgus and matter. Does he not therefore give subsistence to mat- ter from another order, which has an arrangement prior to the Demiurgus? Iu the Philebus therefore, he clearly writes, “11 say that God" exhibited the bound, and also the infinity of beings, from which bodies andall beings derive their composition.” Hence, if bodies are from bound and infinity, what is the bound in them, and what the infinity? It is evident indeed, that we Say matter is infinity, but form
bound. If therefore, as we have said, God gives subsistence to all infinity, he \\ likewise gives subsistence to matter, which is the last infinity. And this indeed, /)
is the first and ineffable cause of matter. But since every where sensibles are ana- logous to intelligible causes, and Plato constitutes the former from the latter ; as for instance, the equal which is here, from the equal itself, the similar, from simi- litude itself, and after the same manner all sublunary animals and plants,—it is evident, that he hkewise produces the infinity which is here, from the first infinity, Just as he produces the bound which is here from the bound which is there. It has however, been demonstrated by us elsewhere, that he establishes the first infinity which is prior to things that are mingled in thesummitof intelligibles, and from thence
extends its illumination as far as tothe last of things ; so that according to him, mat- \ ter proceeds from the one and being, or if you are willing, from the one being also, [or ) | being characterized by theone|so far as it is being in power. Hence likewise, it is in 1}
a certain respect good and infinite, and the most obscure and formless being. On / this account also these are prior to forms, and the evolution of them into light. Orpheus likewise delivers the very same things. For as Plato produces two- fold causes from the one, viz. bound and infinity, thus too the theologist gives subsistence to ether and chaos from time ; ether being the cause of bound every where, but chaos of infinity. And from these two principles he generates both the divine and the visible orders of things; from the more excellent principle indeed, producing every thing stable, effective of sameness, and the source of measure and connexion ; but from the less excellent, every thing motive, effective
‘viz. The highest God, or the one.
324 PROCLUS ON THE [BooK 11.
of difference, never failing progression, the nature which is defined, and connected by other things, and the last infinity by which matter also is comprehended. Hence also matter is dissimilarly assimilated to the firstinfinity.’ And it is indeed a separation (ywpiopa), as being the receptacle (ywza) and place of forms ; but there is neither bound, nor a bottom, nor a seat about it, as being infinite, unstable, and inde- finite. But again, the last infinity may be denominated a perpetual darkness, as being cllotted a formless nature. ence conformably to this assertion, Orpheus produces matter from the first hypostasis of intelligibles, Jur there perpetual darkness* and the infinite subsist. And these indeed, subsist there in a way more excellent than the successive orders of being. In matter however, the umluminated, and the infi- nite are inherent, through indigence, and not according to a transcendency, but a deficiency of power. Moreover, the tradition of the Egyptians asserts the same things concerning it. For the divine Tamblichus relates that according to Hermes materiality (υλοότη τα) is produced from essentiality? (ex τὴς οὐσιοτητος). It is pro- hable therefore, that Plato derived from Hermes an opinion of this kind concerning matter. And matter indeed primarily subsists from these principles [bound and infinity]. But Plato also produces it according to second and third principles, viz. intelligible and intellectual, super-celestial and mundane causes. And why do 1 say this of the Gods themselves? For the nature of the universe likewise, produces matter so far as she is [ἃ Goddess]* and according to the hyparxis of herself. For according to this she participates of the first cause. The Demiurgus therefore, according to the unity which he contains, according to which likewise ~ he is a God, is’ also the cause of the last matter; but according to his demi- urgic being, he is not the cause of matter, but of bodies so far as they are bodies,
* For xpos eavrny here, it is necessary to read pos avrny, [1, €. πρὸς avrny απειριαν.}
* The first hypostasis of intelligibles is being itself, which is mingled from bound and infinity. Per petual darkness therefore, may be said to reside here, because this hypostasis through proximity to the ineffable cause of all becomes Carkened. “ον being very pear, as Damarcius admirably observes, to the immense principle, if it be lawful so to speak, it ἀν εν as it were in the adytum of that truly mystic silence.” This darkness, however, is not any deficiency, but a transcendency of all that is luminous. Yor as there is one kind of ignorance which is below knowledge as being the defect of it, and another which is above knowledge, being that in which our ascent to the ineffable terminates ; thus also, there are two kinds of darkness, the one being below, and the other above light.
3 See lamblic. De Mysterns, p. 159.
* The word θέον is omitted in the original, but ought evidently to be inserted, because Proclus in the Introduction to this work observes that Nature is a Goddess through being deified.
" For crc bere, it is requisite to read ἐστι,
Book 11.} Tim.Zus of Plato. 225
and of corporeal qualities. Lfence generation is the offspring of being. According to the life which he contains, he is the cause of the animation which pervades through all things; but according to his intellect, he is the cause of the intellectual supply imparted to the universe. And all such things indeed, as he produces according to his secondary powers, he produces in conjunction with those that are primary. For every thing which participates of intellect, participates also of life, of being, and of union, That also which lives is, and is one; and being is connected through its own proper unity. The converse, however, is not. true. For such things as he produces according to the one,’ so many he does not produce according to being. Nor does he give subsistence to as many things according to the fountain of life, as he does according tobeing. Noras many things according to a royal intellect, as he does according to life; but he gives the greatest extent to his providence from his more elevated powers. These things, however, we have elsewhere more fully discussed.*
Let us therefore return to the words of Plato, and survey the meaning of each. The word thus then, suspends the whole orderly distribution of things from the goodness of the Demiurgus, viz. from his divinity. But the words, “ every ¢hing that was visible,” in the first place, leave’ nothing solitary; and in the next place, they show that this visible nature is corporeal. For it would not be visible if it was incorporeal and without quality. So that they neither signify matter, nor the \ second subject (i. e. body void of quality]. But the visible nature is that which, τ εν Ἵ
Oe δ,
ton
now participates of forms, and possesses certain vestiges, and representations, | being moved in a confused and disorderly manner. For the idolie and indistinct /), : presence of forms produces different motions in it, as Timeus says farther on. |/ , These, however, all the orders of Gods prior to the Demiurgus illuminate; but the paradigm transcendently illuminates them by his very being, and prior to fabri- cation. For superior energize prior to secondary causes, and the Demiurgus makes in conjunction with the paradigm, but the paradigm, prior to the Demi- urgus, and permeates to those things to which the energy of demiurgic providence
does not extend. Iftherefore, you wish to disjoin primordial causes, and the things which proceed from them,* you will find that the good which is the cause of 0, all things, is also the cause of matter. On this account it is likewise the cause of |
er
" Instead of cura ro ny here, it is uecessary to read cara ro εν.
* For εξησταται here, it is necessary to read εξετασται.
> Instead of ἀφιστησιν in this place, it is requisite to read ἀφίησιν. 4 For ra aw avrov bere, read ra ax’ avrwy.
“20 PROCLUS ON THE [βοοκ "1.
its being invested with forms; for every form is a measure ; and of its participation of order. For order is the reason of things that are arranged, ‘Lhe paradigm, /however, is not the cause of matter, but ofthe production of form, and of the order vin forms. But the Demiurgus is the cause of order, Hence also Plato says, that ‘the Demiurgus received matter now advancing to the participation of forms. — Since all causes therefore, subsist always and at once, but of their effects, some "proceeding as far as to things that are last [1. e. to bodies], but others as far as to things which are beyond both, through the extension of superior causes ;—this being the case, the paradigm indeed, receives matter from ¢he good, and invests it with form; for forms, so far as they are forms, are the progeny of the paradigm ; but the Demiurgus receiving forms from the paradigm adorns them with numbers, and inserts in themorder. After this manner therefore, you must conceive, if you disjoincauses. Ifalso you say, that the Demiurgus 15 the one cause of all things, [ he produces indeed in one way according to his goodness [or the good which he | derives from the ineffable], but in another way according to his own paradigmatic, “andas we may say, artificial peculiarity. Ashe produces likewise collectively, atonce, and eternally,diflerent things proceed from a different peculiarity contained in him, | For according to the good, he produces matter, form and order; but according to the ‘paradigm in him, form; and according to his artificial peculiarity, order. Hence this thing which is invested with form prior to order, has these representations of forms from the paradigm which is in its own nature intelligible | From this order hke- wise, the Oracles produce abundantly-various matter. For they say, “ From thence entirely leaps forth the generation of abundantly-various matter.” For the first matter does not possess a great variety ; nor ts there a generation of this, but of that matter which has vestiges the forerunners of forms ; from which it is evident that the paradigm and the Demiurgus differ from each other, since matter indeed partici- pates of the former prior to the fabrication of the world, when according to the hypothesis, the Demiurgus was absent; but it especially receives something from the latter when it is arranged and adorned, and then the Demiurgus is present with it. The word therefore recetving, may be said to indicate the para- digmatic cause which is exempt from the demiurgic providence, from which the Demiurgus receives the subject of things, now variegated with certain vestiges of forms. It may also be said, that a different work participates of a diflerent power, ) though we may survey all powers in the Demiurgus. For he will be the same divinity who receives and who delivers, essentializing, or adorning things by different powers.