The six books of Proclus, the Platonic successor, on the theology of Plato (vol. 2 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 p — Plato — John Shaqi
The six books of Proclus, the Platonic successor, on the theology of Plato (vol. 2 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 p
Plato · en
As the commentary of Proclus on the second hypothesis of the
Parmenides, in which the equal and the unequal are affirmed of _the
one_, is lost, and in which I have no doubt, the properties of the
mundane Gods were most fully unfolded, I shall present the reader with
the following extract from his commentary on the above passage in the
Parmenides of Plato. The peculiarity of the mundane Gods is the equal
and the unequal, the former of these indicating their fulness, and
their receiving neither any addition nor ablation; (for such is that
which is equal to itself, always preserving the same boundary;) but the
latter, the multitude of their powers, and the excess and defect which
they contain. For in these, divisions, variety of powers, differences
of progressions, analogies, and bonds through these, are, according to
ancient theologists, especially allotted a place. Hence, Timæus also
constitutes souls through analogy, the causes of which must necessarily
presubsist in the Gods that proximately preside over souls. And as all
analogies subsist from equality, Plato very properly indicates the
peculiarity of these divinities by the equal and the unequal. But he
now rightly frames the demonstrations of the negations of the equal
and the unequal from _sameness and the many_, and not from _the
similar and the dissimilar_, though immediately before he spoke of
these. For every mundane deity proceeds from the demiurgic monad, and
the first multitude which he denies of _the one_.
Of this then we must be entirely persuaded, that the things of which
demonstrations consist are the preceding causes of the particulars
about which Parmenides discourses; so that _the equal_ and _the
unequal_, so far as they proceed from _the one_, and subsist through
_sameness_ and _the many_, so far through these they are denied of
_the one_. Hence, Plato thus begins his discussion of them:--“But
since it (viz. _the one_) is such,” i.e. not as we have just now
demonstrated, but as was formerly shown, that it neither receives
_same_ nor _different_, and is _without multitude_,--being such, it is
neither equal nor unequal, neither to itself, nor to others. For again,
there are here twofold conclusions, in the same manner as concerning
the similar and the dissimilar, and the same and the different. But
that _the equal_ and _the unequal_ are suspended from the twofold
co-ordinations of divine natures is not immanifest. For _the equal_ is
arranged under _the similar_, and _the same, subsistence in another,
the round, and the whole_; but _the unequal_, under _the dissimilar_,
_the different_, _subsistence in itself_, _the straight_, and _the
possession of parts_. And again, of these the former are suspended from
_bound_, but the latter from infinity. Plato also appears to produce
the discourse through certain oppositions, as it were, that he may show
that _the one_ is above all opposition. For _the one_ cannot be the