The six books of Proclus, the Platonic successor, on the theology of Plato (vol. 1 of 2) : $b translated from the Greek, to which a seventh book is added, in order to supply the deficiency of another book on this subject, which was written by Proclus, but since lost, also, a translation from the Greek of Proclus' Elements of theology, to which are added a translation of the treatise of Proclus, On providence and fate, a translation of extracts from his treatise, entitled, Ten doubts concerning — Plato — John Shaqi
The six books of Proclus, the Platonic successor, on the theology of Plato (vol. 1 of 2) : $b translated from the Greek, to which a seventh book is added, in order to supply the deficiency of another book on this subject, which was written by Proclus, but since lost, also, a translation from the Greek of Proclus' Elements of theology, to which are added a translation of the treatise of Proclus, On providence and fate, a translation of extracts from his treatise, entitled, Ten doubts concerning
Plato · en
Nor again is the simplicity of the Gods such as that of intellect.
For every intellect is impartible and uniform, but at the same time
it possesses multitude and progression; by which it is evident that
it has a habitude to secondary natures, to itself, and about itself.
It is also in itself, and is not only uniform, but also multiform,
and as it is said, is one many. It is therefore allotted an essence
subordinate to the first simplicity. But the Gods have their hyparxis
defined in one simplicity alone, being exempt indeed from all multitude
so far as they are gods, and transcending all division and interval,
or habitude to secondary natures, and all composition. And they indeed
are in inaccessible places, expanded above the whole of things, and
eternally ride on beings. But the illuminations proceeding from them to
secondary natures, being mingled in many places with their participants
which are composite and various, are filled with a peculiarity similar
to them. Let no one therefore wonder, if the Gods being essentialized
in one simplicity according to transcendency, various phantasms are
hurled forth before the presence of them; nor, if they being uniform
the appearances are multiform, as we have learnt in the most perfect
of the mysteries. For nature, and the demiurgic intellect extend
corporeal-formed images of things incorporeal, sensible images of
intelligible, and of things without interval, images endued with
interval. For Socrates also in the Phædrus indicating things of this
kind, and evincing that the mysteries into which souls without bodies
are initiated are most blessed, and truly perfect, says, that they
are initiated into entire, simple and immoveable visions, such souls
becoming situated there, and united with the Gods themselves, but not
meeting with the resemblances which are emitted from the Gods into
these sublunary realms. For these are more partial and composite, and
present themselves to the view attended with motion. But illuminated,
uniform, simple, and, as Socrates says, immoveable spectacles exhibit
themselves to the attendants of the Gods, and to souls that abandon
the abundant tumult of generation, and who ascend to divinity pure
and divested of the garments of mortality. And thus much is concluded
by us respecting the simplicity of the Gods. For it is necessary that
the nature which generates things multiform should be simple,[125] and
should precede what is generated, in the same manner as the uniform
precedes the multiplied. If, therefore, the Gods are the causes of
all composition, and produce from themselves the variety of beings,
it is certainly necessary that _the one_ of their nature which
is generative of the whole of things, should have its subsistence in
simplicity. For as incorporeal causes precede bodies, immoveable causes
things that are moved, and impartible causes all partible natures,
after the same manner uniform intellectual powers precede multiform