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
It remains therefore that in conformity to what is written in the
Phædrus, we should survey the subcelestial arch, and the peculiarity
of the Gods that are there. Before however we begin the doctrine
concerning it, I wish to premise thus much, that some of the most
celebrated of the interpreters prior to us, conceiving that this
subcelestial arch is a divine order arranged under the heaven, have
thought fit to rank it immediately after the first God, calling the
first God Heaven. But others have arranged both the heaven, and the
subcelestial arch in the breadth of intelligibles. For the Asinæan
philosopher indeed [Theodorus] being persuaded by Plotinus, calls
that which proximately proceeds from the ineffable, the subcelestial
arch, as in his treatise concerning names he philosophizes about
these things. But the great Iamblichus conceiving the mighty heaven
to be a certain order of the intelligible Gods, (and in one place he
considers it to be the same with the demiurgus,) asserts that the order
proximately established under the heaven, and as it were begirding
it, is the subcelestial arch. And these things he has written in his
Commentaries on the Phædrus. Let no one therefore think that we make
any innovation concerning the theology of this order, and that we
are the first who divide the subcelestial arch from the heaven; but
that we are principally persuaded by Plato, who distinguishes these
three orders, the supercelestial place, the celestial circulation,
and the subcelestial arch; and that after Plato, we are persuaded by
those who investigate his theory in a divinely-inspired manner, viz.
by Iamblichus and Theodorus. For why is it necessary to speak of our
leader [Syrianus,] who was truly a Bacchus, [i.e. one agitated with
divine fury,] and who in a remarkable manner was full of deity about
Plato, and caused as far as to us the admirable nature of the Platonic
theory, and the astonishment with which it is attended, to shine forth?