1

PROCLUS’

Commentary on

THE PARMENIDES

of PLATO

Book 2

Juan F. Balboa Translation

http://noeticsociety.org/members/juan-balboa-maria-balboa-translations/

and

https://archive.org/details/proclus-commentary-parmenides-balboa

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 INT’L

2

PROCLUS ΠΡΟΚΛΟΥ THE COMMENTARY ON THE PARMENIDES OF PLATO ΤΩΝ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝ ΠΑΡΜΕΝΙ∆ΗΣ ΠΛΑΤΩΝΩΣ

THE SECOND BOOK

ΤΟ ∆ΕΥΤΕΡΟΝ ΒΙΒΛΙΟΝ

Socrates: 3 But explain to me about the following particulars : 128e δε ειπε µοι τοδε : Do you not consider that there is a certain Idea/Genus/Species of Likeness , ου νοµιζεις ειναι τι ειδος οµοιοτητος Subsisting in Itself by Itself , and another One , such as This , but opposite , 129 αυτο καθ’ αυτο , και τω αλλο τι τοιουτω εναντιον , which is in turn Unlike . ο εστιν αυ ανοµοιον : 722 We must first state again what the argument of Zeno was , and how it proceeded , ηµας χρη Πρωτον ειπειν παλιν τις ο λογος του Ζηνωνος ην , και οπως προεισι and what Truth it possesses ; and then state how and from where to start the difficulties that Socrates και τινα την αληθειαν εχει , ειτα πως και ποθεν ορµωµενος τας αποριας ο Σωκρατης raises against him . Certainly then , it must be taken into consideration again , that while Parmenides κεκινηκε προς αυτον . δη ουν αναληπτεον Παλιν οτι του Παρµενιδου was elevating All Beings to The Transcendent One Being Itself , and while withdrawing his ανελκοντος παντα τα οντα προς το εξηρηµενον το εν ον αυτο , και ανασπωντος εαυτου Discursive Mind from Plurality and Partibility , to The Monad of The Plentitude of All την διανοιαν απο του πεπληθυσµενου και µεµερισµενου προς την µοναδα του πληθους παντος Beings , the majority of the people were turned in the opposite direction to his , by giving the reins των οντων , οι πλειστοι τρεποµενοι την εναντιαν εκεινω και επισπωµενοι (εφεπω) to the defective horse (Phaedrus 247b) , and by preferring their own plurality to their Intellect and Unity , τω της κακης ιππω και προστησαµενοι εαυτων το πληθος του νου και της ενωσεως by not taking into consideration , on the one hand , the existence of The One Being as The Beginning , ουδ’ ενοµιζον µεν ειναι το εν ον την αρχην , and on the other hand , that the many and separate existences , simply exist , by receiving their entry 723 δε τα πολλα και διεσπαρµενα απλως υφεσταναι λαχοντα την παροδον into existence apart from The One Being ; and by thinking in this way , they were clearly swept-away εις το ειναι χωρις εκεινου : και οτι νοµιζοντες τουθ’ ουτω προδηλον διεσυρον beforehand , by the doctrine of Parmenides . For by thinking that he had posited , that being is only one , τον λογον Παρµενιδου : γαρ οιοµενοι εκεινον υποτιθεσθαι το ον µονον εν , and that he had denied plurality , they took the opposite course , by positing plurality devoid of unity , ανηρηµενου πληθους , αυτοι τουναντιον υπετιθεντο το πληθους εστερηµενον του ενος , even though plurality , on the one hand , cannot exist without participating of Unity ; for every plurality καιτοι το πληθος µεν αδυνατον µη µετεχειν του ενος : γαρ παν πληθος is derived from Unity ; since there is a different unity for each plurality , thus on the other hand , all εστιν εξ ενος , δε εστιν αλλο εν αλλου πληθους ουν δ’ παντα

3

pluralities and bodily masses are held together by the participation/partnership/communion of The One . πληθη και παντες των σωµατων οι ογκοι κεκρατηνται τη µετουσια του ενος . Now then , if on the one hand , plurality needs The One , but on the other hand , The One has no need τοινυν Ει µεν το πληθος δειται του ενος , δε το εν απροσδεες of plurality , then it is better to say that Being is One , than to say that only many things exist , του πληθους , αµεινον λεγειν το ον εν η µονον πολλα (in and by) according to themselves , without Participating of Unity . Therefore , by Parmenides revealing αυτα καθ’ αυτα χωρις της µετουσιας του ενος . ουν ο Παρµενιδης αποφαινοµενος that Being is One , on the one hand , he also established the plurality of his critics , and not only το ον εν Και µεν και υφιστατο το πληθος αυτων και ου µονον perceptible plurality ; for he gave us this , in the section of his poem called The Way of Opinion , των αισθητων : γαρ παραδεδωκε ταυτα εν µεν τοις κατα δοξαν , in this section calling them sense-objects , as did one other Pythagorean , Timaeus ; but he also gave us ουτω προσαγορευων τα αισθητα , ως τις αλλος Πυθαγορειος ο Τιµαιος : αλλα και The Intelligible Plurality ; for in The Intelligible Realm , All The Beings Unified with One-Another , το των νοητων : γαρ εκει παντων ηνωµενων αλληλοις Are a Divine Number . And which Empedocles saw later , in as much as he was a Pythagorean himself , ο θειος αριθµος . και Ο Εµπεδοκλης εωρακως υστερον , ατε ων και Πυθαγορειος αυτος , when he called The Whole Intelligible Reality , a Sphere (Frags. 27. 16 , 28. 2) by Unifying Itself , απεκαλει παν το νοητον Σφαιρον ως ηνωµενον εαυτω , and Converging upon Itself , by Virtue of Divine Beauty that Beautifies and Unifies . For , all beings και συννευειν εις εαυτον δια του θεον καλλους τον καλλοποιον και ενοποιον : γαρ παντα by their love for one another and by their longing for one another are Unified to one another For Eternity , ερωντα αλληλων και εφιεµενα αλληλων ηνωται προς αλληλα αιωνιως , and Their Love is an Intelligible Love , and Their Communion and Mingling , is Ineffable (Frag. 17. 14) . και αυτων εστιν ο νοητος ερως , και η συνουσια και η συγκρασις αφραστος . But the majority of people are indeed “fugitives” from their Unity and Their Monad of Beings , then δε Οι πολλοι οντες γε φυγαδες απο της ενωσεως και της µοναδος των οντων , δε because of the partibility and division in their own life , they are carried down into plurality , to δια την µεριστην και διηρηµενην εν αυτοις ζωην , ουσαν κατασυροµενοι επι το πληθος , εις opinions of all sorts , to vague fancies , to perceptible sensations , to the appetites of matter , 724 δοξας πολυειδεις , εις αοριστους φαντασιας , εις αισθησεις εµπαθεις , εις ορεξεις ενυλους , by accepting pluralities by themselves , without their inherent Unities , and by not seeing how these ελαµβανον πολλα τα αυτα κεχωρισµενα της εαυτων ενοτητος , και ουχ εωρων οπη ταυτα manys are controlled , by The Monad Immanently-Arranged in each of them , nor how the indeterminate τα πολλα κρατειται δια των µοναδων κατατεταγµενων εν αυτοις , και οπως τα αοριστα are subject to definite measures , nor how the dispersed , subsist in a sympathetic and unified way δουλευει τοις ωρισµενοις µετροις , και οπη τα διεσπαρµενα υφεστηκε και συµπαθη και συνηµµενα through the participation of common qualities . But failing to see this , at the same time they missed The δια την µετουσιαν των κοινων : δε ουχ ορωντες ταυτα τε αµα ηµαρτανον της Truth , and thus ridiculed the Parmenidean doctrine and rudely tore it to pieces . Thus , it is those αληθειας , και εκωµωδουν τον Παρµενιδειον λογον και φορτικως διε(α)συρον . ουν αυτοις who become affected in this way that Zeno confronts , on the one hand , as a mindful-observer γιγνεται πασχουσιν Ταυτ’ ο Ζηνων επιστας µεν σωφρονιστης of the multitude , thus leading them , from the lack of Intellect to Intellect , but on the other hand , του πληθους , δε ηγεµων απο της ανοιας επι τον νουν , δε as an ally to the impartations of his teacher , in the first place , he also urges them , to rise above these επικουρος της παραδοσεως του διδασκαλου , την πρωτην και πειθει αναδραµειν τουτων

4

pluralities , to The Unities that are in these pluralities , in order to behold how this plurality , even though των πολλων επι τας εναδας εν τοις πολλοις , και θεωρηται πως τουτο το πληθος , καιτοι it has indeed set-out towards The Unlimited/infinity , it is nevertheless under the control of The Monad of γε απενεχθεν εις την απειριαν , οµως υπο κρατειται της µοναδος Beings , and is held together by a certain Unity that has come to be in it . Thus , he persuades by taking των οντων και συνεχεται υπο τινος εναδος γενοµενης εν αυτω : δε πειθει λαβων a hypothesis of their choice , such as positing the many without a share of The One ; for in this manner , υποθεσιν εκεινοις αρεσκουσαν , την τιθεµενην τα πολλα αµοιρα του ενος : γαρ ουτω their theory is easily refuted ; since , if they had indeed posited plurality with Unity , he could not at all εκεινων ο λογος ευεξελεγκτος , επει ειγε τιθοιντο τα πολλα µετα του ενος , αν ουπω have refuted them because of this . Therefore , assuming that plurality devoid of Unity , he constructs ελεγχοιντο δια ταυτα . ουν παραλαβων Ταυτ’τα πολλα εστερηµενα του ενος ποιειται his refutations in opposition to their own opinion . But Parmenides himself , also makes this clear in his τους ελεγχους την απαντων εκεινων κατα δοξαν . δε ο Παρµενιδης αυτος και ∆ηλοι εν ταις (9) hypotheses , in no other way than by assuming that the many must be separated from The One , υποθεσεσι , µη αλλως η λαβων τα πολλα δειξαι κεχωρισµενα του ενος is he then able to show that the same thing is like and unlike ; but on the one hand , this will be made 725 δυνηθεις το αυτο οµοιον και ανοµοιον : αλλα µεν τουτο εσται manifest , in that portion of the commentary . But now on the other hand , These many will be assumed , φανερον εν εκεινοις . ουν δ’ ταυτα πολλα Κεισθω just as we said , that are bereft of The One ; The One which approaches them , and is contained in them . οπερ ειρηται , απηρηµωµενα του ενος του επ’ αυτοις και εν αυτοις : And in turn we will assume not only sensible pluralities , nor only Intelligible Ones , but all beings , και παλιν µη µονον τα αισθητα , µηδε µονον τα νοητα , αλλα παντα without exception , that are called many , existing as such , anywhere in The Intelligible and sensible απλως οσα λεγεται πολλα , τα οντα τοιαυτα πασιν εν νοητοις και αισθητοις Kosmic Orders . For we must not listen in a partible way , which has happened to some ; for some say διακοσµοις . γαρ δει Ου ακουειν µερικως , ο πεπονθασι τινες οι µεν that the questions Zeno asked , applied only to The Intelligible Realm , while others say that they apply τους λογους τω Ζηνωνι ηρωτησθαι λεγοντες επι των νοητων , οι δε only to the sensible region . Nor in short , should we draw together , the common characters in all those επι των αισθητων : ουδ’ επ ολιγον συστελλειν τα κοινη πασι τοις that have been filled , however able to be so adapted . Especially since such is the work of a more perfect πεπληθυσµενοις οπωσουν δυναµενα εφαρµοζειν . γουν τοιουτον εστι το Τελειοτερας and more authoritative knowledge , to apply this same method to all beings of like-species in order to και κυριωτερας επιστηµης , εκτεινειν την αυτην µεθοδον εις το παντα τα οµοειδη και contemplate that analogy in all those beings . Thus , if it be a plurality of Intelligibles , or of sensibles , θεωρειν το αναλογον πανταχου . ουν Ειτε εστι πληθος νοητον , ειτε αισθητον , or of Intellectuals , or of objects of discursive reasoning , let them all be included for the present . Surely ειτε νοερον , ειτε διανοετον , τουτο παν ειληφθω προς το παρον . δη then , we must discover how it is that the many , everywhere , are also one , and do not exist , if bereft ουν ∆ει ευρειν οπως τα πολλα πανταχου εστι και εν , και ουχ εστιν ερηµα of The One above them . For if that is the case , the same thing will be both like and unlike . του ενος επ’ αυτοις : γαρ ει ειη , ταυτον εσται οµοιον και ανοµοιον . How then , and in what way are these pluralities , if they are devoid of Unity , in so far as they do not Πως δη και τινα τροπον εστι ταυτα τα πολλα , ει εστι ερηµα του ενος καθο ου partake of The One , unlike ? It is because those that have no share in Unity and thus of Sameness µετεχει του ενος , ανοµοια ; γαρ τα µη µετεχοντα ενος και τουτου

5

that they are unlike one another ; and again by this common character itself which they share with εστιν ανοµοια αλληλοις , και παλιν κατ’ τουτο κοινωνει αυτο one another , in as much as they do not participate of The One , since those that have something αλληλοις , καθο ου µετεχει του ενος : δε τα εχοντα τι in common and identical are like , so that the same things are both like and unlike . Accordingly then , κοινον και ταυτον εστιν οµοια , ωστε τα αυτα εστιν και οµοια και ανοµοια . αρα if the many have no share of Unity , by this very fact , I mean their lack of participation of The One , Ει πολλα εστιν αµετοχα ενος , καθ’ εν τουτο δη , λεγω την αµεθεξιαν του ενος , they will be both like and unlike ; on the one hand , like , as having this common character , εσται και οµοια και ανοµοια , µεν οµοια ως εχοντα αυτο κοινον , and on the other hand , unlike , as not having it . For on the one hand , they are unlike , because this itself δε ανοµοια ως µη εχοντα : γαρ µεν εστι ανοµοια διοτι has been so disposed as to not share of The One ; they are like because , to have nothing in common , πεπονθε µη µετεχειν του ενος : εστιν οµοια διοτι το εχειν µηδεν κοινον is common to them , so that the same things are both like and unlike ; for in short , to have nothing κοινον αυτοις , ωστε τα αυτα εστιν και οµοια και ανοµοια : γαρ ολως το εχειν µηδεν in common , is itself common to them , so that the thesis refutes itself . What else do we need to say ? κοινον , εστιν αυτο κοινον αυτοις , ωστε ο λογος ανηρηκε εαυτον . τι Και δει λεγειν ; For that which has been shown to be like and unlike , have in turn been shown by the same procedure , γαρ α δεδεικται οµοια και ανοµοια , παλιν δεικνυται κατα αυτο το to be neither like nor unlike ? For if they do not share of The One , they are quite simply not like ; for 726 ουτε οµοια ουτε ανοµοια : γαρ ει µη µετεχει του ενος , εστιν ολως ουκ οµοια : γαρ those that are like , are like by sharing in some one character ; since likeness is also Unity . And again , τα οµοια εστι οµοια µετεχοντα τινος ενος : γαρ οµοιοτης εστι και ενοτης : και παλιν if they do not partake of The One , this itself will be common to them ; but those who have something ει µη µετεχοι του ενος , τουτο εστιν κοινον αυτοις : δε ταυτα ων εστι τι in common , are not unlike in this respect , so that the many are neither like nor unlike . κοινον , εστιν ουκ ανοµοια κατ’ τουτο αυτο , ωστε τα πολλα εστιν ουτε οµοια ουτε ανοµοια : Accordingly then , this itself , such as the non-participation of The One , will make the many in us αρα το αυτο κατα το µη µετεχειν του ενος , παρεξεται τα πολλα ηµιν be both like and unlike , and neither like nor unlike . Accordingly then , plurality devoid of The One και οµοια και ανοµοια , και ουτε οµοια ουτε ανοµοια : αρα πληθος ερηµον του ενος is impossible , because surely , it involves so many absurdities for those who posit it in this way . ειναι αδυνατον , διοτι δη συµβεβηκεν τοσαυτα ατοπα τοις τιθεµενοις ουτω : [ In Logic , that reasoning is fallacious , misses the mark , is untrue , when both contradictory or contrary premises are affirmed or denied to be the case , at the same time . See “The Square of Opposition”. JFB] For on the one hand , it is a terrible event when contradictions coincide , but even more terrible when γαρ µεν δεινον το την αντιφασιν συντρεχειν : δε και δεινοτερον contraries/opposites coincide , but most terrible of all , when both contraries/opposites and contradictions το τα εναντια : δε δεινοτατον παντων και το τα εναντια και τας αντιφασεις follow from a premise . Concerning which then , when we showed on the one hand , that the same thing επεσθαι τω λογω . Οτε ουν εδεικνυµεν µεν το αυτο is both like and unlike , we were collecting contraries/opposites ; but when on the other hand , we showed οµοιον και ανοµοιον , συνηγοµεν(συναγω) τα εναντια : οτε δε that the same thing is both like and unlike and also , neither of them , we were collecting contradictories , το αυτο οµοιον και ανοµοιον και ουδετερον , τας αντιφασεις : since the like and the not-like , and the unlike and the not-unlike are contradictories . And if γαρ το οµοιον προς το ουχ οµοιον , και το ανοµοιον προς το ουκ ανοµοιον αντιφασεις : και ει

6

you wish to use the dialectical method to be transmitted later , we could say that likeness follows from βουλει και την διαλεκτικην µεθοδον κατα παραδοθησοµενην υστερον, λεγωµεν το οµοιον επεται stating that the many do not partake of The One , and then in turn , that it does not follow , when we say it τω ειναι πολλα αµετοχα του ενος , και παλιν ουχ επεται , οταν αυτο is not-like ; and then again , that it does not follow , when we show that the many are , at the same time , ουχ οµοιον : και δ’ αυ ουχ επεται , οταν δεικνυωµεν αυτο αµα like and not-like , and again , unlike and not-unlike . οµοιον και ουχ οµοιον και παλιν ανοµοιον τε και ουκ ανοµοιον . Thus on the one hand , such is the method that we shall practice later . But for now , on the other Αλλα µεν τοιαυτην την µεθοδον γυµνασοµεν εν τοις υστερον : νυν δε hand , we have learned the leading impulse of the writings of Zeno , by reminding ourselves of that which , καταµαθοντες την αγωγην του λογου Ζηνωνος , αναµνησοµεν τοσουτον ο was also said earlier by us about them , that by these insights/breakthroughs we can also show that it is και προτερον ηµας αυτους , οτι δια της ταυτης επιβολας δυνησοµεθα και δεικνυναι οτι impossible for The Archetypes to be many . For if we assume that The Archetypes Themselves are many , αµηχανον τας αρχας ειναι πολλας . γαρ ποτερον αι αρχαι Αυται πολλαι , will They partake in some Unity or not at all ? For on the one hand , if they do participate , what they µετεχουσιν τινος ενος η ουδενος ; γαρ µεν ει µετεχουσιν , το participate of will be prior to them , and The Archetypes will no longer be many , but Singular ; but if , µετεχοµενον εσται προ αυτων , και αι αρχαι ουκετι πολλαι , αλλα µια : ει on the other hand , they do not participate of The One , by this very fact ; in so far as they do not partake ; δε µη µετεχουσι του ενος , κατ’ τουτο αυτο δη , καθο ου µετεχουσιν it will also make them , like one another , by having undergone some common experience , and unlike , και εσονται οµοιαι αλληλαις , ως πεπονθυιαι τι κοινον παθος , και ανοµοιαι , inasmuch as they have no common character of which they participate . But this is impossible ; that the 727 καθοσον ου κοινου τινος µετειληχασι : δε τουτο αδυνατον το same things should be both like and unlike in the same respect . Thus , in the same way , we can establish τα αυτα υπαρχειν και οµοια και ανοµοια κατα το αυτο : δε ωσαυτως επαξοµεν also , that the same things are neither like nor unlike . But if they were participating in some Unity , και ως τα αυτα ουτε οµοια ουτε ανοµοια , δ’ Ει ησαν µετεχουσι τινος ενος , is it not the case then , that it would have been impossible to conclude that they are also unlike in respect ουκουν οτι αδυνατον συναγειν εισι και ανοµοιαι κατα to their participation of The One , but that they are only like ; and in this way we will refute the thesis that το µετεχειν του ενος , αλλ οτι µονον οµοιαι : και ουτως αναιρησοµεν το The Primal Archetypes are more than Singular . Thus on the one hand , this result is just like a Porism τας πρωτας αρχας ειναι πλειους µιας . ουν µεν Τουτο οιον πορισµα in geometry , that we are provided by this argument , as we said earlier . But on the other hand , in this κατα τους γεωµετρας λαβωµεν εκ του λογου , ως ειποµεν και που προτερον . δε ουτω way , and through this method of leading-up , Zeno revealed , as it has been said , that it is impossible to και δια τοιαυτης αγωγης του Ζηνωνος αποφαινοντος , ως ειρηται , οτι αδυνατον separate the many from The One ; for he also raised up Plurality from plurality , up to The Monads χωριζειν τα πολλα του ενος , και ανατεινοντος το πληθους απο του πληθους επι τας µοναδας of The Pluralities , through Which he intended , as we have also indicated this in our previous statements , των πολλων , δι’ ων εµελλεν , ως και απεδειξαµεν τουτο δια των εµπροσθεν , to examine what is The Nature of The Transcendent Unities of Wholes ; for The Immanent Monads κατοψεσθαι εισι οιαι τας εξηρηµενας εναδας των ολων : γαρ αι κατατεταγµεναι µοναδες are Images of The Uncoordinated Ones . Socrates , having thus set in motion the doctrine of Ideas , εισι εικονες των ακατατακτων . Ο Σωκρατες ανακινησας τον λογον περι των ιδεων ,

7

positing that the common characters subsist themselves by themselves , and having seen a different υποθεµενος τας κοινοτητας και αυτας καθ’ αυτας , και θεωρησας αλλο plurality in them , now requests that Zeno apply the same method of leading-up to The Ideas , and πληθος εν αυταις , και αξιοι τον Ζηνωνα µετενεγκειν την ταυτην αγωγην επι τα ειδη , και make it quite clear , in what way , among The Ideas , The Like is also Unlike , and The Unlike , Like . ποιησαι καταφανες οπως επι των ειδων το οµοιον εστι και ανοµοιον και το ανοµοιον οµοιον : But this request has led some persons to suppose that on the one hand , the argument of Zeno is inherently δε ταυτα αυτου ζητουντος τινες υπελαβον ως αρα µεν τον λογον ο Ζηνων συνεθηκε fallacious , and that on the other hand , Socrates is indeed utterly refuting the fallacy . For they say that παραλογιστικως , δε ο Σωκρατης γε διελεγχει τον παραλογισµον : γαρ φησιν οτι Zeno argues that , if beings are many , on the one hand , in as much as they are called many , without a τον ζηνωνα συλλογιζεσθαι , ει τα οντα πολλα , µεν καθο λεγεται πολλα , δηπουθεν doubt , they differ from one another , and according to such are unlike ; but on the other hand , inasmuch διαφερει αλληλων , και κατα τοσουτον εστι ανοµοια , δε καθο as they are beings , they are like ; for being is common to them , thus , it is appropriate to call those which οντα , οµοια : γαρ το ον εστιν κοινον αυτοις , δε εστι προσηκει λεγειν ταυτα οις have something in common , like ; at least , by saying that he collected together different criteria for τι κοινον οµοια : γουν φαµενον συναγειν και αλλο inferring respectively , likeness and unlikeness . Hence , Socrates is also rightly justified in saying , κατ’ αλλο το οµοιον και το ανοµοιον : διο τον Σωκρατη και καλως ενιστασθαι φαµενον , that there would be nothing remarkable in showing that , from different points of view , something ως αν ειη ουδεν θαυµαστον δεικνυναι κατ’ αλλο και αλλο τι may be both like and unlike , but only if , by taking Ideas Themselves , he had shown that Likeness Itself 728 και οµοιον και ανοµοιον , αλλ’ ει λαβων τα ειδη αυτα επεδειξεν το οµοιον αυτο is also Unlike , or that Unlikeness is Like . However , others defend , on the one hand , that this argument και ανοµοιον η το ανοµοιον οµοιον . δε Οι εφυλαξαν µεν ως τουτο ο λογος of Zeno , possesses perfect knowledge and is free of fallacy , by saying that Socrates , on the other hand του Ζηνωνος επιστηµονικος και εστιν απαραλογιστος φασιν τον Σωκρατη δε has taken the argument too narrowly . For the refutation of Zeno , is absolutely designed for both αντιλαµβανεσθαι του λογου µερικωτερον : φαρ τον ελεγχον εκεινου απλως ποιουµενου επι και Intelligibles and sensibles , and that accordingly , in neither in The Intelligible nor in the sensible order των νοητων και επι των αισθητων , ως αρα εν ουκ αµφοτεροις ουτε νοητον ουτε αισθητον is there a plurality devoid of Unity ; and while Socrates , on the one hand , welcomes the argument εστιν πληθος ερηµον ενος , αυτον µεν ασπαζεσθαι τον λογον concerning sensibles , on the other hand , he also requests that it be shown that among The Intelligibles επι των αισθητων , δε και αξιουν δειχθηναι επι των νοητων Themselves , the same is both like and unlike ; for Zeno had said that all plurality that does not partake αυτων το αυτο και οµοιον και ανοµοιον : γαρ ειρηται οτι παν πληθος µη µετεχον of The One , must necessarily undergo that (fallacious) experience mentioned . But recently , someone του ενος αναγκη πεπονθεναι τουτο το παθος το ειρηµενον . δε ηδη τις has said that both of them are quite right ; for Zeno reasons correctly , and Socrates εφατο και αµφοτερους κατορθουν , τε γαρ τον Ζηνωνα συλλελογισθαι καλως , και τον σωκρατη singularly perceives his intention , and in what way , Zeno was trying to bring around the multitude , συναισθοµενον της προαιρεσεως και οπως ο Ζηνων περιηγεν τους πολλους from indefinite pluralities to The Monads inherent/coordinate in them , and Socrates , on the one hand , απο και αοριστοντων πολλων επι τας µοναδας κατατεταγµενας αυτους , και εκεινο µεν approving it , says , αποδεξασθαι ειπειν ,

8

“I accept it , and I am led to believe that it has to be just as you say ”. αποδεχοµαι τε και ηγουµαι εχειν ουτως ως λεγεις , But on the other hand , he raises another ingenious and acute question to continue to investigate . δε αυτον αλλο ευφυως και οξεως τι λοιπον ζητειν : For if we rise up from The Many Immanent/Co-ordinate Ideas , to Other Monads ; Those Subsisting γαρ αναδραµοντα απο των πολλων και κατατεταγµενων ειδων επ’ αλλας µοναδας τας ουσας of Themselves and Transcendently , he is puzzled how The Unity of Ideas can also be seen in Them , καθ’ αυτας και εξηρηµενας , απορειν πως η ενωσις των ειδων και οφθησεται εν ταυταις and , What is , Its Source and Cause . Upon which question , it remains for Parmenides to be induced και εκ ποιας ποθεν και αιτιας : εφ’ ω λοιπον τον Παρµενιδην κινηθηναι to unfold The One Itself as The Cause of Unity , both in The Ideas and in everything , without exception , αναφαινοντα το εν αυτο το αιτιον της ενωσεως και εν τοις ειδεσι και πασιν απλως that has in any way been Allotted The Entrance into Being . For what part of the doctrine of Zeno τοις οπωσουν λαχουσι την παροδον εις το ειναι : γαρ τινος των του Ζηνωνος does Socrates then lay hold of ? For Socrates does not contend the major premise ; for he does not deny τον Σωκρατη επιλαµβανεσθαι ; γαρ ουτε του συνηµµενου : γαρ ουκ ου λεγει that if The Intelligibles are Many , The Same must be both Like and Unlike , nor does he disclaim the ως ει τα νοητα πολλα , ταυτον αναγκη οµοιον και ανοµοιον , ουτε µη το premise that The Same must be both Like and Unlike , as being false . For anyone contending with Zeno οτι ταυτον οµοιον και ανοµοιον ειναι ψευδος : γαρ µαχοµενον τον Ζηνωνι should contest either of these premises ; either fight for the major or for the minor premise . But Socrates εδει µαχεσθαι θατερω τουτων , η µαχοµενον τω συνηµµενω η τη προσληψει : δε τον Σωκρατη admits on the one hand , that everything here , is composed of contrary Ideas , but on the other hand , it is 729 λεγειν µεν οτι τα παντα τηδε των εναντιων ειδων , δε about The Ideas Themselves , that he wants to find , how and in what way they combine and separate , τα ειδη αυτα ζητει πως και πη συγκρινεται και διακρινεται , with one another . But this is not to fight with Zeno and his proofs that plurality , in and of itself , αλληλοις : δε ταυτα ου µαχεται Ζηνωνι και Ζηνωνος τοις ελεγχοις πολλα καθ’ αυτα without The One , does not exist ; but rather , it comes from one who accepts the arguments of Zeno χωρις του ενος µη ειναι , αλλα εστιν µεν αποδεχοµενου τους λογους του Ζηνωνος , and then initiates an inquiry into something other than what Zeno has demonstrated . For let it be so , δε ορµωντος ζητησιν επ’ αλλην των Ζηνωνι δεδειγµενων . γαρ Εστωσαν that all men participate in one certain Idea of Man which is in them , and horses in a certain Idea of Horse παντες ανθρωποι µετεχοντες ενος τινος ειδους του ανθρωπου εν αυτοις , και ιπποι του that is in them , and that all that are like , have in common The Idea of Likeness , and the unlike , εν αυτοις , και παντα τα οµοια εχετω κοινον το ειδος της οµοιοτητος , και τα ανοµοια have in common The Idea of Unlikeness , and let this be a Noble discovery , that the many , must have το της ανοµοιοτητος , και τουτο εστω καλως ευρηµενον οτι τα πολλα δει Fellowship/Community/Communion with one another , through The Monads Immanent/Co-ordinate κοινωνειν αλληλοις δια των µοναδων κατατεταγµενων in them . But let us arise from these , to The Transcendent Realities that are also The Causes of these εν αυτοις : αλλ αναδραµωµεν απο τουτων επι τας εξηρηµενας υποστασεις και αιτιας τουτων common characters , and contemplate in turn , if they participate , with one another , or not , and if των κοινων , και θεωρησωµεν παλιν ει ταυτας µετεχουσιν αλληλων η ου , και ποτερον they are unified by participation with one another , or if there is another Unifying Cause , prior to them . µεν ηνωνται τω µετεχειν αλληλων η τω ειναι αλλην ενοποιον αιτιαν προ τουτων . Now then , let us in turn follow this hypothesis as we approach the words of Socrates , by saying τοινυν ηµεις και εποµενοι Ταυτη τη υποθεσει επελθωµεν τοις ρηµασιν Σωκρατους , λεγοντες

9

that neither Socrates nor Zeno is in error , but that both of them are quite right ; Zeno in his demonstration µηδετερους αµαρτανειν , δε αµφοτερους κατορθουν , τον µεν αποδεικτικως but Socrates in his puzzlement ; and that the discussion has been transferred from The Immanent Monads τον δε απορητικως , και τον λογον µεταγεσθαι απο των κατατεταγµενων µοναδων to The Transcendent Ones , since it is among Them , that Socrates wishes to observe the ability/power επι τας εξηρηµενας , επι τουτων του Σωκρατους βουλοµενου θεασασθαι την δυναµιν of Zeno in demonstration . του Ζηνωνος αποδεικτικην . Thus , on the one hand , such is the aim/object/end of this reasoning . But on the other hand , ουν µεν τοιουτος εστι σκοπος των λογων : δε before touching on the difficulties concerning The Essential Being of The Ideal Genera , Socrates asks πριν αψασθαι των αποιων περι της ουσιας των ειδητικης , επανερωτα Zeno , if he assumes that Ideas exist , and if he is also like one of those , who just like himself , τον Ζηνωνα ποτερον τιθεται τα ειδη ειναι , και αυτος εστι και των ταυτην ωσπερ αυτος welcomes That Cause ; or is he not , and generally , what opinion he has about Them . For the theory ασπαζοµενων την αιτιαν η ου , και ολως τινα δοξαν εχει περι αυτων . γαρ η θεωρια of Ideas , also existed even among the Pythagoreans ; as Plato himself clearly shows in the Sophist (248a) περι των ειδων και Ην µεν παρα τοις Πυθαγορειοις , και αυτος και δηλοι εν Σοφιστη when he calls the wise men in Italy , “Friends of The Ideas”. προσαγορευων τους σοφους εν Ιταλια φιλους των ειδων : Stranger: 35 Surely then , let us go to those others , the friends of The Ideas ; then you 248a δη ιωµεν Προς τους ετερους , τους φιλους των ειδων : δ’ συ interpret for us , their doctrines also . αφερµηνευε ηµιν τουτων και . But the one who was indeed most eminent , and most specific/explicit in positing Ideas , is Socrates ; 730 αλλ’ ο γε µαλιστα πρεσβευσας και διαρρηδην υποθεµενος τα ειδη εστιν Σωκρατες , from his inquiry into definitions , discovering whatever are the objects of definition , and advanced απο της ζητησεως περι ορισµους ανευρων τινα ποτε εστιν τα οριστα και µεταβας from them as images , to their Ideal Causes . So then , he first asks Zeno if he himself απο τουτων ως εικονων επι τας ειδητικας αιτιας : δη ουν πρωτον ερωτα ο Ζηνων ει και αυτος also posits that The Ideas exist , and ranks as First , That Same Essential Being that Is Founded , In Itself και τιθεται τα ειδη ειναι και πρεσβευει ταυτην την ουσιαν ουσαν ιδρυµενην εν αυτη and of Itself , without needing any other base ; which he characterizes by the phrase in Itself by Itself , και την εαυτης , ουδεµιας δεοµενην και αλλης εδρας ; ην και εχαρακτηρισε τω αυτο καθ’αυτο , considering this aspect , Supremely Appropriate . Since It points-out The Unmixed Simplicity and Purity υπολαβων τουτο κυριως προσηκειν. γαρ αυτη ∆εικνυει το αµιγες και το απλουν και το καθαρον of The Ideas . For on the one hand , The Simplicity of These Resources is signified by the in Itself , but των ειδων : γαρ µεν την απλοτητα των εκεινων των πραγµατων σηµαινει δια του αυτο on the other hand , Their Purity , Being Unmixed with secondary natures , is signified by the by Itself. δε αυτων καθαροτητα την αµικτον προς τα δευτερα δια του καθ’ αυτο . And on the one hand , through the words by Itself , he separates Ideas from the predications of the many . Και µεν δια του καθ’ αυτο χωριζει τα ειδη επι των κατηγορουµενων τοις πολλοις : For how could this attribute/predication exist by itself , when it has its reality/subsistence, in a subjective γαρ τι τουτο εστιν καθ’ αυτο , εχον την υποστασιν εν προς τα υποκειµενα condition , and is altogether collected from sensible perceptions , and is the object of opinion , and it is σχεσει , και πολλων ισων εκ αισθησεων και υπαρχον δοξαστον , και

10

mixed with and adapted to the notions of the phantasy ? While , on the other hand , by the in Itself , συµφυροµενον ταις επινοιας φανταστικαις ; δε ∆ια του αυτο distinguishes/separates the common element in every particular , which is also the object of definition ; χωριζει το κοινον εν τοις καθ’ εκαστα , ο εστι και οριστον : for this common character is in another and subsists along with matter , from which it is both highly γαρ τουτο εστι εν αλλω και υφεστηκεν µεθ’ υλης , οθεν εστι και αναπιµπλαται mutable and in some way mortal because of its association with what is enmattered ; and yet , to them αλλοιωσεως και πως θνητον δια την κοινωνιαν προς το ενυλον : καιτοι τουτοις he often also applies the designation in itself , to distinguish a particular kind , from the many instances πολλακις και επαγει την προσρησιν του αυτου , αντιδιαιρων εκαστην προς το πληθος ατοµων of those that come under it . But when he does not want to distinguish it from the individual instances , των τουτων υπ’ αυτο . Αλλ’ οταν µη βουληται διοριζειν αυτο των ατοµων , but from The Primary Ideas , he gives the in Itself to These , furthermore on the one hand , the in Itself , αλλα των πρωτων ειδων , αποδιδωσι το αυτο εκεινοις , και µεν το αυτο that belongs to Them as being Distinct Ideas , is not ever indicative of a character peculiar to this rank , ανηκεν κανταυθα τοις χωριστοις ειδεσιν , ουχ µηποτε σηµαντικον , ως ιδιον , but as being indicative of Ideas that are participated . Then the addition of the by Itself , makes clear Their αλλ’ ως και των ειδων µετεχοµενων . δε Το προστεθεν καθ’ αυτο εδηλωσε την Difference from Those Ideas that are participated . Accordingly then , not in any way , must we say that διαφοραν προς εκεινων τα µετεχοµενα . αρα Πολλου δει λεγεσθαι definitions/boundaries/limits or attributes are identical with The Ideas that exist by Themselves , and τοις οριστικοις και κατηγορουµενοις ταυτον εις τα ειδη τα οντα καθ’ αυτα και “are Founded on That Sacred Pedestal” (Phaedrus 254b) , and are Immaterial and Eternal , and identical βεβηκοτα εν αγνω βαθρω και αυλα και διαιωνια και to the ideas in matter of later origin , that are filled-full with diverse conditions . For The Former Ones , 731 τοις ενυλοις υστερογενεσι αναπεπλησµενοις και ποκιλιας και σχεσεως : γαρ εκεινα are Unmixed , Undefiled , and Simple , Being Eternally Founded in The Demiurge , on the one hand , εστιν αµιγη και αχραντα και απλα διαιωνιως ιδρυµενα εν τω δηµιουργω , µεν maintaining Their Purity and Sanctity from The Inflexible Deity that Proceeds in Union with εχοντα το αχραντον και καθαρον απο της αµειλικτου θεοτητος προελθουσης συν The Demiurge , while on the other hand , Their Simplicity is maintained by The Demiurgic Intellectual τω δηµιουργω δε το απλουν απο της δηµιουργου νοερας Essential-Being , which is both Unifying and Indivisible , and , as the barbarians (Chaldeans) would say , ουσιας ουσης και ενιαιας και αµεριστου , και , ως οι βαρβαροι αν ειποµεν , Fontal . Thus , on the one hand , one could say , that the in Itself separates The Idea from mental ones πηγαιας . δ’ µεν αν Λεγοις οτι το αυτο χωριζει το ειδος απο των εννοηµατων (for none of these ideas exists in itself , since they jointly refer to Those Ideas from which they exist , (γαρ ουδεν τουτων αυτο γαρ συναναφερει κακεινα ων εστιν , belonging to Another and derivative from Another ) . Thus , the by Itself , distinguishes it from that οντα αλλων και απ’ αλλων ) : δε το καθ’ αυτο , διιστησι common element which subsists in another ; in each and every particular , so that the two phrases του οντος εν αλλω εν καθ’ εκαστα τοις , ωστε αµφω distinguish The Genuine Idea from both of the others . Concerning which point , Aristotle also ως το αληθως ειδος αµφοτερων : περι ο ο Αριστοτελες και spent some time asserting , that on the one hand , Animal-Itself/Living-Being Itself , is either nothing or διατριβων ποτε φησι µεν το ζωον εστιν η ουδεν η a concept of later origin , then at times on the other hand , that it is either nothing , or that it exists in υστερογενες , ποτε δε , εστιν η ουδεν η εν

11

every particular animal ; from which alternatives , we must exempt , The Idea , for both of the reasons εκαστα καθ’ τοις , ων δει εξηρησθαι το ειδος δι’ αµφω τα mentioned . Accordingly then , we cannot accept the opinion of those who say that The Ideas are ειρηµενα . αρα ηµεις Ουτε αποδεξοµεθα τους λεγοντας τας ιδεας summaries/headings of pervasive common characters in the many particulars ; for They exist before κεφαλαιωµατα του εντρεχοντος κοινου τοις πολλοις : γαρ προυπαρχουσι the common character in perceptible things , and these perceptible things surely get this common των κοινων εν τοις αισθητοις , και ταυτα δη εχει τουτο το characters from Those Ideas . Nor can we accept the opinion of those who suppose that they are notions κοινον απ’ εκεινων : ουτε τους τιθεµενους αυτας επινοιας in our minds , and because of this , raise the question why there are no Ideas of individuals and ηµετερας , και δια τουτο ζητουντας πως εισιν ουχι ιδεαι και των ατοµων και of things that are contrary to nature ; and since our notions about these objects are in every way secondary των παρα φυσιν : και γαρ επινοιαι των πραγµατωνν εισι παντως δευτεραι to that which gives rise to them , and are in us , but not in Him who ordered The Kosmos , in whom αφ’ ων ανακινουνται τουτων , και εισιν εν ηµιν , αλλ ουκ εν τω κοσµησαντι το παν , εν ω we say , The Ideas exist . Nor can we accept the opinion of those who attach them to the seminal reason- φαµεν τας ιδεας ειναι : ουτε τους συναπτοντας αυτας τοις σπερµατικοις sources ; for on the one hand , the reason-sources in the seeds are imperfect , while on the other hand , λογοις : γαρ µεν οι εν τοις σπερµασιν εισιν ατελες , δε the reason-sources that are in the nature that generates the seeds , have no share of cognition and are οι εν τη φυσει γεννωση τα σπερµατα αµοιροι γνωσεως και even below the level of phantasy ; whereas The Ideas Always Subsist Energized according to The Same , κατωτερω φαντασιας : δε αι ιδεαι αει ιστανται ενεργειαν κατ’ την αυτην , and so They Are , according to Their Essential-Being , Intellectual . Then , if indeed we should want και εισι κατ’ ουσιαν νοεραι . Αλλ’ ειπερ εθελοιµεν to define Their Special Nature by terms more easily recognizable , let us take on the one hand , from αφορισασθαι αυτων την ιδιοτητα δια των γνωριµωτατων , λαβωµεν µεν απο the reason sources in nature , the production which they surely also produce by their very being ; but των λογων φυσικων το ποιητοκον ων δη και ποιουσιν τω αυτω ειναι : on the other hand , from the reason-sources in the arts , the recognition of what they produce , and δε απο των τεχνικων , γνωστικον ων ποιουσιν , και even if their mere existence does not lead to production ; and by uniting these two characteristics , 732 ει τω αυτω ειναι µη ποιουσι : και ενωσαντες ταυτα let us say that The Ideas are The Demiurgic and at the same time The Intellectual Causes of everything φωµεν τας ιδεας ειναι δηµιουργικας και αµα νοερας αιτιας των παντων that is perfected according to nature , Subsisting as Immoveable and Prior to the moved , Simple αποτελουµενων κατα φυσιν , υφεστηκυιας ακινητους προ των κινουµενων , απλας and Prior to the compounded , Separate and Prior to the things that are inseparable from Matter . For προ των συνθωτων , χωριστας προ των αχωριστων της υλης . which reason , Parmenides , on the one hand , also does not stop discoursing about Them , until at the end ∆ιο ο Παρµενιδης µεν και ου παυσεται διαλεγοµενος περι αυτων , πριν επι τελει of his arguments (134c) he says They are Gods ; through this , indicating all that we have said before . των λογων και φη αυτας ειναι θεους , δια τουτου σηµαινων παντα οσα ηµεις προειρηκαµεν : But now Socrates , through the in itself and by itself , has concisely presented Their common character , δε νυν ο Σωκρατης δια του αυτο και καθ’αυτο συντοµως παρεστησεν αυτων την κοινον ιδιοτητα , in as many ways in which we have unfolded each of these terms , by so many more ways does he present οσαχως εξηγησαµεθα εκατερον τουτων , τοσαυταχως παριστας

12

this common character to us . So much then , on the one hand , let us say about The Ideas in general αυτην ηµιν . Τοσαυτα µεν ειρησθω περι ειδων παντων in regards to the question that Socrates raises for us . But let us also add the word consider as being απο της ερωτησεως του Σωκρατους ηµιν . δε και Προσκεισθω το νοµιζεις ως properly chosen with reference to The Ideas ; for it is appropriate that any statement about The Ideas οικειως ειληπται τοις ειδεσι : γαρ προσηκει τινας λογους περι των ειδων and doctrines regarding The Immovables be just like Laws , but not opinions nor unsupported notions . και τα δογµατα περι τα των ακινητων ειναι οιον νοµους , αλλ ου δοξας και ψιλας οιησεις : For These Ideas are not matters of opinion , but all Such Realities are founded upon Superior Cognition ; γαρ εκεινα εστιν ουδε δοξαστα , αλλ’ πασαν τοιαυτην ιδρυται την υπερ γνωσιν : surely then , on the one hand , it must be that , by Intellection that we Recognize Intelligible Objects , δη µεν δει νοησει διαγιγνωσκειν τα νοητα but on the other hand , by opinion , that we recognize the objects of opinion . δε δοξη τα δοξαστα . But after these considerations it is fitting to discuss Likeness and Unlikeness . On the one hand , δε Εξης τουτοις προσηκει διελθειν περι τε οµοιοτητος και ανοµοιοτητος , µεν we must first enquire whether The Idea of These exists , and if They do indeed , what is Their Power . και πρωτον ει ειδη τουτων εστιν , επειτα την δυναµιν . Surely then , in approaching the question of their existence , the very words of Plato , which Timaeus δη Απ’ αυτων των ρηµατων του Πλατωνος , ων ο Τιµαιος speaks , will provide us an insight concerning Their Subsistence/Fundamental-Reality . For then , by λεγει , ποιησοµεθα την επιβολην περι αυτων της υποστασεως . γαρ τοι Timaeus choosing to speak of The Cause of the generation of The Kosmos , also refers This , ο Τιµαιος προελοµενος ειπειν αιτιαν της γενεσεως του κοσµου και αναπεµπων ταυτην to The Goodness of The Demiurge (Timaeus 29e) . Thus he says : εις την αγαθοτητα την δηµιουρκικην : φησιν , Timaeus: Surely then , let us state for what Cause He constructed , thereby constructing generation 29e δη Λεγωµεν δι’ ην τινα αιτιαν ο ξυνιστας τοδε ξυνεστησεν γενεσιν and The All (Kosmos). He was Good . Thus in Him that is Good , no envy about anything ever arises ; και το παν . ην αγαθος , δε αγαθω , ουδεις φθονος περι ουδενος ουδεποτε εγγιγνεται Thus , being devoid of this , He desired that All should become , so far as possible , very-like Himself . δ’ ων εκτος τουτου εβουληθη παντα γενεσθαι ο τι µαλιστα παραπλησια εαυτω . If then , as Timaeus says , He desired and was able to make everything very-like Himself , then doubtless Ει τοινυν , ως ο Τιµαιος φησιν , βουλεται και δυναται ποιειν παντα παραπλησια εαυτω , δηπου He has within Him , The Power to produce this . For what he wishes to do , this he can do in every way ; εχει εν εαυτω την δυναµιν ποιητικην τουτου : γαρ ο βουλεται , τουτο δυναται και παντως : thus He has in advance , the potential-power of this which he can do indeed ; for surely all that is capable 733 δε προειληφε την δυναµιν τουτου ο δυναται γε : γαρ τοι παν το δυναµενον is capable , by its potency. Accordingly then , there exists a Potential-power and Cause in The Demiurge , δυναµει δυναται : αρα εστιν τις δυναµις και αιτια εν τω δηµιουργω that is able to liken , to Himself , The Beings that He creates . If this is so , then there does exist , in Him , αφοµοιωτικη προς αυτον των δεδηµιουργηµενων . Ει τουτο εστιν , η εν αυτω The Idea of Likeness , by which , He makes His Creations both like one another and like Himself . η ιδεα της οµοιοτητος , καθ’ ην τα δηµιουργουµενα αφοµοιοι τε προς αλληλα και αυτον : But if so , then without a doubt , He must also equally provide The Cause of Unlikeness to Himself , αλλ ει ταυτα , δηπου δει και οµου παρεχειν την αιτιαν της ανοµοιοτητος προς αυτον

13

on the part of His Creations ; for it is not possible for a likeness/image to be brought into being at some των αυτων δηµιουργουµενων : γαρ ουδε ενδεχεται εικονος γενεσιν υποστηναι ποτε time , unless there is also a complementary notion of unlikeness ; for without this , Plato says , there µη και της συνεπινοουµενης ανοµοιοτητος , ης χωρις , φησιν would be two Cratyluses , both Cratylus and the likeness of Cratylus (Crat 431d) . αν ειεν δυο Κρατυλοι , και ο Κρατυλος και η εικων Κρατυλου . Socrates: Then what about the person who imitates The Essential-Being of Actual/Factual Experiences 431d δε Τι ο αποµιµουµενος την ουσιαν των πραγµατων by means of syllables and words ? Accordingly then by the same Reason , could one not on the one hand , δια των συλλαβων τε και γραµµατων ; αρα κατα τον αυτον λογον αν ου µεν if they assign to it all that is appropriate , then this - the name of the image - will be Beautiful/Good , αποδω παντα εστιν τα προσηκοντα − δ’ τουτο η ονοµα εικων − εσται η καλη but if sometimes , on the other hand , they leave-out or add-on some small detail , in that case , εαν ενιοτε δε ελλειπη η προστιθη σµικρα µεν will the image then become not Beautiful/Good ? So that some names , will be Well-made , εικων δε γενησεται ου καλη ; ωστε τα µεν εσται καλως ειργασµενα whereas other ones , will be poorly-made ? τα δε κακως ; Cratylus: Perhaps . Ισως . Socrates: Perhaps then , one will be a good artisan of names , while another will be faulty ? 431e Ισως δε ο µεν εσται αγαθος δηµιουργος ονοµατων , ο δε κακος ; Cratylus: Yes . Ναι . Socrates: Is it not the case then , that this was the name of The Lawgiver ? Ουκουν τουτω ην ο ονοµα νοµοθετης . Cratylus: Yes . Ναι . Socrates: Perhaps then , By Zeus , just as it is the case in the other Arts , so also with The Art of Ισως δε , νη ∆ι’ ωσπερ εν ταις αλλαις τεχναις , και the Lawgiver , so that one may be good , while another may be bad , if indeed we are to concur with our νοµοθετης ο µεν αγαθος , ο δε κακος , εανπερ οµολογηθη ηµιν previous admissions . (εµπροσθεν εκεινα .) Cratylus: This is the case . But you see , O Socrates , that when we assign these letters ; ταυτα Εστι . αλλ’ ορας , ω Σωκρατες , οταν αποδιδωµεν ταυτα τα γραµµατα , the alpha and the beta and each of these elemental letters to the names , by the grammatical art , 432 τε το αλφα και το βητακαι εκαστον των στοιχειων τοις ονοµασιν τη γραµµατικη τεχνη , if we take away any letter or if we add or we transpose any letter , on the one hand , is it not the case , εαν αφελωµεν τι η προσθωµεν η µεταθωµεν τι , µεν ου that the name has been written for us , but it has been written incorrectly ; and thus it has not been written το ονοµα γεγραπται ηµιν , µεντοι ου ορθως , αλλα ουδε γεγραπται at all , but on the other hand , it is immediately , another word , if anything happens to them . το παραπαν , αλλ’ εστιν ευθυς ετερον , εαν τι παθη τουτων . Socrates: Since by considering the matter in this way , we are not considering it correctly , O Cratylus . Μη γαρ σκοπουντες ουτω ου σκοπωµεν καλως , ω Κρατυλε . Cratylus: In what way then ? Πως δη ; Socrates: Perhaps that which you say could happen , to such beings that must necessarily consist of Ισως , τουτο ο συ λεγεις αν πασχοι , οσα αναγκαιον ειναι εκ a certain number or else not exist , just as the number Ten Itself , or whatever other number you want , τινος αριθµου η µη ειναι , ωσπερ και τα δεκα αυτα , η οστις αλλος αριθµος βουλει ,

14

for if you take-away or add anything , it has immediately become another number . But this is not the kind 432b εαν αφελης η προσθεις τι , ευθυς γεγονε ετερος : δε αυτη µη ουχ η of Correctness which applies to quality or to any image at all ; but on the contrary , an image , must not η ορθοτης του ποιου και τινος εικονος ξυµπασης , αλλα το εναντιον δεη ουδε by any means , yield all the qualities of that which it is to imitate , if they are to be images . But consider , το παραπαν , αποδουναι παντα οιον ω εστιν εικαζει , ει ειναι µελλει εικων . δε σκοπει , if what I say is correct . Would there be two actual existents , such as Cratylus and the image of Cratylus , ει τι λεγω . αρ’ αν δυο πραγµατα οιον Κρατυλος και εικων Κρατυλου , if one of The Gods , should not only imitate your color and form , as painters do , but should also ει τις θεων , µη µονον απεικασειεν σον το χρωµα και σχηµα ωσπερ οι ζωγραφοι , αλλα και make all the inner parts , exactly like yours , and should also reproduce the same flexibility 432c ποιησειεν παντα τα εντος οιαπερ τοιαυτα τα συ , και αποδοιη τας αυτας µαλακοτητας and warmth , and would also put into the parts , Motion , Vitality , and Presence of Mind , such as exist και θερµοτητας , και ενθειη αυτοις κινησιν και ψυχην και φρονησιν οιαπερ η παρα in you , and in a word , should place beside you , another one , exactly like you are ? In such an event , σοι , και ενι λογω καταστησειεν πλησιον συ ετερα σου απερ τοιαυτα εχεις ; το τοιουτον τοτ’ would there be the one actual Cratylus and an image of Cratylus , or two exact Cratyluses ? ποτερον αν ειη Κρατυλος και εικων Κρατυλου η δου Κρατυλοι ; Cratylus: They appear , to me at least , O Socrates , to be two exact Cratyluses . δουκουσιν εµοιγε , ω Σωκρατες , ∆υο Κρατυλοι . It must surely be the case then , that the creations brought into being are also unlike , compared to Him ; ∆ει δη ουν τα παραγοµενα και ανοµοιουσθαι προς αυτον , by being perceptible , instead of Intelligible ; then they must also possess unlikeness to one another , γιγνοµενα αισθητα αντι νοητων , µεντοι εχειν και εχειν ανοµοιοτητα αλληλα in every way , along with their likeness . And this , in turn , accords with The Will of The Father . For παντως µετα της οµοιοτητος . Και τουτο παλιν κατα την βουλησιν του πατρος : γαρ The Kosmos necessarily exists , out of being harmonized ; for every harmony is also a conjunction τον κοσµον δει ειναι εκ ηρµοσµενων : γαρ πασα αρµονια εστι και συναρτησις of those that are both unlike and different ; a singular common analogy which is , as it were , a likeness των εστι και ανοµοιων και διαφεροµενων εις κοινος λογος και οιον οµοιοτης among the unlike . Surely then , The Demiurge must also necessarily possess The Idea of Unlikeness ; εν ανοµοιοις : δη ουν τον δηµιουργον και αναγκη εχειν ειδος ανοµοιοτητος : for He who generated creations that are also subordinate to one another , and which are consequently γαρ αυτος ο γεννησας τα και υπ’ αλληλα , α εστιν δη unlike one another , also harmonized The Whole Kosmos by means of Likeness . Surely then , Likeness ανοµοια αλληλα , και αρµοσας τον ολον κοσµον δια της οµοιοτητος . δη ουν οµοιον and Unlikeness exist Primarily in the Demiurge , and in order to speak more clearly , He is Their Source . και ανοµοιον Εστι πρωτως εν τω δηµιουργω , και ινα ειπω σαφεστερον , πηγαιως : Seeing that This Aspect , is more thoroughly revealed among The Assimilative Gods , and especially επει ταυτα εστι διαφανεστερα εν τοις αφοµοιωτικοις θεοις και µαλιστα among The Fathers in that Order of Being , as it will become clear , when we speak about The Second τοις πατρασιν εκει , ως εσται δηλον , οταν λεγωµεν περι της δευτερας Hypothesis . But seeing that The Demiurge also has to be The Unique Source of Their Being , then υποθεσεως : αλλ’ επει ο δηµιουργος και εχει εστιν την µιαν πηγην τουτων , και without a doubt , The Idea of Likeness ; The Primary Unity of The Ideas , Pre-exists in Him . For surely δηπου το ειδος της οµοιοτητος τη µια µοναδι των ιδεων προυπαρχον εν αυτω : γουν

15

The Demiurge is The Monad that Contains/Embraces/Comprehends The Many Divine Monads , while ο δηµιουργος εστιν µονας περιπληπτικη πολλων θειων µοναδων , και The Many Monads Share Their Unique-Properties with One another ; One , Imparting Purity , αι πολλαι µοναδες µεταδιδουσιν των οικειων ιδιοτητων αλληλαις : η µεν ελαχεν καθαροτητος , another One , Assimilative Essential-Being , another One , some other character , according to which , 734 η δε την αφοµοιωτικης ουσιας , η δε αλλου τινος , καθο They are allotted Their Unique Hyparxis . For we must not suppose that , whereas on the one hand , ελαχεν την οικειαν υπαρξιν : γαρ δει ου νοµιζεσθαι οτι µεν The Ideas Pre-exist as Causes of the creations that come into being in accordance with Them , but that on τα ειδη προυφεστηκεν ως αιτια των γιγνοµενων κατα ταυτα , the other hand , that there does not exist a Distinct Idea that Causes creations to become both Like and δε ουκ εστι τις διαφερουσα ιδεα του γιγνεσθαι και οµοια και Unlike one another ; but that these are mere accidents in generated creations , whose essential-natures ανοµοια προς αυτα : δε ταυτα συµβαινει τοις γιγνοµενοις , τας ουσιας are constituted by The Ideas . For that which comes to be by chance has no place among The Realities συνισταντων των ειδων : γαρ το κατα συµβεβηκος εχει ουτε χωραν επι των that Create and Bring into existence by Virtue of Their Very Own Being , neither does that which belongs ποιουντων και γιγνοµενων τω αυτω ειναι , ουτε το υπαρχον to particulars exist without a Single Cause ; Pervading throughout all of them , The Cause of which each πολλοις υπαρχει χωρις της µιας αιτιας διηκουσης δια παντων , παρ’ ην εκαστον of The Ideas Creates , by Itself , the likeness and unlikeness that comes to be . Accordingly then , The των ειδων ποιει καθ’ αυτο το οµοιον και ανοµοιον γιγνοµενον : αρα την Power of Creating , at once , like and unlike creations , must necessarily belong , to All The Ideas . δυναµιν του ποιειν αµα οµοια και ανοµοια τα γιγνοµενα αναγκη υπαρχειν πασιν . But if This Creative Power is common to All of Them , then Likeness and Unlikeness cannot be Identical δε Ει τουτο κοινον πασι , το οµοιον και ανοµοιον ουδεν ειη ταυτον with any creation in The Kosmos ; since there are Limiting/Distinguishing/Separate Causes of All These των παντων αλλ’ εστι διωρισµενα αιτια παντων τουτων Common Distinctions in All The Ideas , in which , Each of Them , according to Their Unique Kind κοινα πασιν ταυτα , ων εκαστον τουτων προς την οικειαν of Hyparxis , Participates , and thus Possesses Their Power . Surely then , there is both a Demiurgic υπαρξιν µετεχοντα εχει την δυναµιν . δη ουν Εστι και δηµιουργικη Likeness and Unlikeness ; The One , being analogous to The Cause of The Limit , while The Other , οµοιοτης και ανοµοιοτης , η µεν αναλογον προς την αιτιαν του περατος , η δε corresponds to The Unlimited . Furthermore , The One , Joins-together , because of which , he says συστοιχος τω απειρω : και η µεν συναγωγος διο ω φασιν “To the like , the like”132d ; The Other , is Separative , taking delight in procession and variety and το οµοιον οµοιον : η δε διακριτικη , δε χαιρει προοδω και ποικιλια και movement , and at the extreme , is even responsible for the allotment of contrariety ; but Their κινησει , και τελευταιον αχρι υποβασιν ελαχεν της εναντιωσεως : δε αµφοτερων Essential-Being , is Immaterial , Pure , Simple , Uniform , and Eternal ; and Their Powers are analogous ουσια αυλος και αχραντος και απλη και µονοειδης και αιωνιος , και δυναµεις αναλογον to Their Essential-Being , so that The Powers of The One , as we have said , are Collective , and τη ουσια της µεν , ως ειρηται , συναγωγοι και Causing Unification , Limitation and Uniformity ; while those of The Other are Discriminative and ενοποιοι και περατωτικαι και µονοειδεις , της δε διαιρετικαι και Diverse , Causing Indefiniteness and Duality . Then as to their rank , they neither belong among the most αλλοιωτικαι και απειροποιοι και δυοειδεις : δε αυτων ταξις ουτε εστιν εν τοις

16

Generic nor among the most Specific of The Ideas . Thus on the one hand , by the most Generic , I mean γενικωτατοις ουτε εν τοις ειδωκωτατοις των ειδων . δε µεν γενικωτατα Λεγω Those that are participated in by all beings , so that absolutely nothing at all exists which does not share in οσα µετεχεται υπο παντων , ωστε το µηδεν παραπαν ειναι ο µη µετουσιαν Their Subsistence , for example Being Itself , Sameness , and Otherness ; for these extend to all εκεινων την υφεστηκεν , οιον η ουσια αυτη , ταυτοτης , η ετεροτης : γαρ ταυτα διηκει επι παντα beings .For what is there without a share of Being ? What then without Otherness ? What then without 735 τα οντα . γαρ τι αµοιρον ουσιας ; τι δε ετερος ; τι δε Sameness ? Do not all creations also have a certain hyparxis , and are they not distinguished from others ταυτοτητος ; ουχι παντα και εχει τινα υπαρξιν , και διακεκριται των αλλων by this Being Itself , and do they not have traits in common with other beings ? Then , if The Common κατ’ το ειναι αυτο , και κοινωνει τοις αλλοις ; δε ει κοινη Cause of All The Real Beings is This Triad Itself , or rather The Monad indeed , as it will be clear , αιτια παντων των οντων εστι τουτο η τριας αυτη , δε µαλλον η µονας γε , ως εσται δηλον as we proceed . But on the other hand , by the most specific , I mean Those that are naturally adapted to προιουσι : δε ειδικωτατα , οσα πεφυκεν be participated by individuals/units of Ideas , such as a man , a dog , and each of these . For These , µετεχεσθαι υπο των ατοµων ειδων οιον ανθρωπος , κυων , εκαστον των τοιουτων : γαρ τουτων have no part in proximately generating the monads in individuals , such as the man in every particular αι απογεννωσι προσεχως ποιησεις τας µοναδας εν τοις ατοµοις , τον ανθρωπον εν εκαστα καθ’ man or the dog or the horse among the many , and each of the others in like manner . Thus , on the one τοις , και κυνα και ιππον εν τοις πολλοις και εκαστον των αλλων παραπλησιως : δε µεν hand , The Intermediate Ideas , are Those Ideas that are extended even more than These , but on the other µεσα οσα εκτεινεται επι πλεον τουτων , δε hand , are not Active/Energized in all beings . For Justice , if you wish , belongs to souls . But how could µη ενεργει εις παντα τα οντα : γαρ το δικαιον , ει βουλει , υπαρχει µεν ψυχαις : δε πως It be an Attribute in bodies , and in beings without a soul ? For what Righteousness is there in the stone , σωµασι και τοις αυτοις αψυχοις ; γαρ τι δικαιοσυνη εν τω λιθω and in the piece of wood ? For on the one hand , The Energy/Activity of Justice Herself must extend , και εν τω ξυλω ; γαρ µεν την ενεργειαν δικην αυτην θετεον even to these , by Being a Goddess and by containing The Cause of these things ; but on the other hand , και εις ταυτα , και ουσαν θεον και εχουσιν την αιτιαν τουτων ; δε Justice Itself , (which Justice solely Is , quite apart from All The Other Ideas) solely Illuminates , το δικαιον (ο δικαιον µονον εστιν , και δε ουχι παντα τ’ αλλα τα ειδη) µονον ελλαµπει The Beings Capable of receiving It , and that is not absolutely all beings . τοις δεκτικοις αυτου , και ου απλως πασιν τοις ουσι . Now then , among These Ideas of Intermediate Rank , lying between those that are of the most Generic τοινυν εν Τουτων ειδων των µεσων της ταξεως τε εκεινων των γενικωτατων Subsistence , and those that are most Specific , we must place with them , both Likeness and Unlikeness , υποσταντων και των ατοµωτατων , θετεον εκεινοις και την οµοιοτητα και την ανοµοιοτητα , which are the subject of our present consideration . For They are not only present to one species , such as ων εστι ο λογος περι ηµιν παρων : γαρ ταυτα ουτε µονον παρεστι εφ ενος ειδους , οιον I said , to mankind or to horses , but They have a place throughout all of creation ; yet They are not found λεγω ανθρωπου η ιππου , αλλα ταυτα χωρει δια παντων των πεποιηµενων : ουτε θεωρειται in all beings whatsoever . For if we take that subsistence without quality , belonging to bodies , επι παντων των οντων οπωσουν : γαρ ει λαβοις το εκεινο υποκειµενον αποιον των σωµατων itself by itself , which lies between matter and the numerous proximate Ideas ; you will find that αυτο καθ’ αυτο , ο εστι µεταξυ της υλης και των πολλων πρωτως των ειδων , ευρησεις

17

it also has being and form/shape and otherness and sameness . For how could it exist , without Being ? αυτο και εχον ουσιαν και ειδος και ετεροτητα και ταυτοτητα . γαρ Πως αν ειη χωρις ουσιας ; How then could it have three dimensions without Diversity ? Then how could it hold together without 736 πως δε εχοι τρεις διαστασεις χωρις διαιρεσεως ; δε πως συνεχοι χωρις Sameness ? Thus , Likeness and Unlikeness are not in it , for it is without qualities ; but these are in ταυτητος ; Αλλ’οµοιοτης και ανοµοιοτης εστιν ουκ εκει : γαρ εστιν αποιον , δε ταυτα εν those that have already been so qualified . It has both Motion and Rest . Seeing that on the one hand , τοις ηδη πεποιηµενοις , εχει και κινησιν και στασιν , επει µεν it always exists in a state of becoming , it has Motion , and on the other hand , seeing that it never αει γιγνοµενον κινησιν , δε ως µη goes outside its appropriate receptacle , it has Rest ; but still , it has no share of differentiating qualities εξισταµενον της οικειος υποδοξης , στασιν : δε εστιν αµοιρον διαφερουσων ποιοτητων and powers . Then , since we do not indeed regard Likeness and Sameness as being The Same Aspect και δυναµεων . γαρ ηµεις ου γε αξοµεν την οµοιοτητα και την ταυτοτητα εις ταυτον (for Plato also distinguishes them , by assigning one place to Likeness and Unlikeness , but (γαρ ο Πλατων και διεκρινεν αυτας , και απεθετο µεν αλλαχου το οµοιον και ανοµοιον , δε another place to Sameness and Otherness , just as it will be manifest in the hypotheses) , so The One αλλαχου ταυτοτητα και ετεροτητα , καθαπερ εσται φανερον εν ταις υποθεσεσιν ) , και η µεν is The Unification of Essences , but the other , The Unification of Powers ; just as Their Energies εστιν ενοποιος ουσιων η δε δυναµεων : ωσπερ των ενεργειων are United by Equality and Inequality ; because in The Realm of Pure Number there are differences εστι η ισοταχης και ανισοταχος εν τω αληθινω αριθµω ων διαφεροντως of slowness , just as we have learned in the Republic (VII 529d) , και βραδυτης [καθαπερ] µεµαθηκαµεν εν Πολιτεια , Socrates: (then I said) In the following manner . On the one hand , that These Spangled Bodies δ’ εγω ην , Ωδε. µεν ταυτα τα ποικιλµατα in The Heavens , as they are indeed Spangled-Ornamentations in a visible medium , be thought εν τω ουρανω , επειπερ εχειν πεποικιλται εν ορατω , µεν ηγεισθαι to be , The Most Beautiful and The Most Accurate of its kind , but far inferior to Real Beings , 529d καλλιστα και ακριβεστατα των τοιουτων , δε πολυ ενδειν των αληθινων , which Motion of Reality ; Quick (Immediate) or Slow (At Perfect Rest) in Real Number (in Oneness), α η φορας το ον ταχος και βραδυτης εν αληθινω αριθµω and in all True Figures (The Ideas) , both in Relation to One Another , and as Being Vehicles of και πασι αληθεσι τοις σχηµασι τε προς αλληλα και ουσα φερεται all things that are carried within Them . Which Aspects , on the one hand , are Truly to be τα φερει ενοντα : α µεν δη Comprehended by Reason and by The Power of Understanding , but not , on the other hand , ληπτα λογω και διανοια , ου δ’ by sight ; or do you think they can ? οψει : η συ οιει ; In this way , there can also be , on the one hand , Intellectual Energies/Activities of Equal Speed , [ουτω] αν και ειεν µεν νοεραι ενεργειαι ισοταχεις Which are especially , more Unific rather than multiplicative of The Intelligible Idea , and on the other ων διαφεροντως ενικωτερον µαλλον η πληθυοµενον της νοησεως το ειδος , δε hand , Intellectual Energies of Unequal Speed , which are more multiplicative than more Unific . But ανισοταχεις , ων µαλλον πληθυοµενον η ενικοτερον . Αλλα

18

on the one hand , as we said , these are differences in energies , whereas on the other hand , those are µεν , απερ εφην , ταυτα διαφοροτητες των ενεργειαν , δε εκεινα differences in Essential-being/Substance and Potency . Therefore , on the one hand , Those Beings are των ουσιων και δυναµεων : ουν µεν οσα εστιν The Same when They have a Common Substance/Essential-Being , but on the other hand , They are Like ταυτα εχει την κοινην ουσιαν , δε οσα οµοια when Their Powers are held in Common with One Another . But If Likeness is not identical to ταις δυναµεσιν κεκοινωνηκεν αλληλοις . δε Ει η οµοιοτης εστιν µη η αυτη προς Sameness , then it is clear that Unlikeness is also distinct from Otherness ; and These Two Powers ; την ταυτοτητα , δηλον οτι η ανοµοιοτης και διακεκριται της ετεροτητος : και αυται δυο δυναµεις both Likeness and Unlikeness , are at The Head of The Procession of The Two Genera of Being ; I mean , η τε οµοιοτης και η ανοµοιοτης , εισιν προποµπευουσαι των δυο γενων του οντος , λεγω Sameness and Otherness ; and on the one hand , They accompany Them in Their Procession , as far as της ταυτοτητος και της ετεροτητος , και µεν συµπροιουσαι αυτοις εφ’ οσον They are able , but cease at some point , and are unable to advance with Them , into every kind of being δυναται , δε ληγουσαι ποτε και αδυνατουσαι εκτεινεσθαι µετ’ εκεινων επι παν το ον whatsoever . But then , if Likeness is not the same as Sameness , is Likeness Superior to Sameness ? οπωσουν . Αλλ’ αρα ει η οµοιοτης εστιν µη ταυτον προς την ταυτοτητα , εστιν κρειττων αυτης : For on the one hand , we also postulate Likeness among The Gods , and we often speak or write of γαρ µεν και υποτιθεµεθα την οµοιοτητα και εν θεοις , µυριακις λεγοντες και γραφοντεςapproaching Them , through Likeness ; but on the other hand , we assign Sameness to Beings in so far as 737 προσιεναι αυτοις δι’ οµοιοτητος , δε απονεµοµεν την ταυτοτητα τοις ουσιν καθοσον They are Beings , so that if Sameness also Belongs in Its Highest Apex in The Gods , then , It Belongs εστιν οντα , ωστε καν υπαρχη τοις θεοις , υπαρχειν to Them , by Virtue of Their Essential-Being , and not by Virtue of The Unities of Their Essential-being . αυτων κατα τας ουσιας και ου κατα τας εναδας των ουσιων . Or else let us assume that The Likeness in Them is Other , and not such a Kind/Quality as that which now Η λαµβανοµεν την οµοιοτητα εν εκεινοις αλλην , και ου τοιαυτην οια νυν proposed ; but by not being able to make clear The Absolute Unity of The Gods and Their Communion προκειται , δε ουκ εχοντες δηλουν την απλως ενωσιν των θεων και την κοινωνιαν with One Another because of Their Inexpressible and Incomprehensible Hyparxis , we take The Likeness αλληλοις δια αυτων την αρρητον και αληπτον υπαρχιν , λαβοντες οµοιοτητα from secondary things and we apply it to Her . But not Their Sameness . And this , for good reason . απο δευτερων των προειρηκαµεν αυτην , αλλ’ ου ταυτητα , και τουτο εικοτως : For on the one hand , the term Sameness , applies to Their Essential-Form , whereas on the other hand , γαρ µεν το ονοµα της ταυτοτητος ην ουσιωδες , δε the term Likeness , does not apply to Their Essential-Being . From which reason then , we thought It το της οµοιοτητος ουκ ην των ουσιων , οθεν δη υπελαβοµεν αυτο to be Appropriate to The Super-Essentials , since It does not convey to us , of-Itself , The Conception προσηκειν τοις υπερουσιοις , ως ου συνεισφερον ηµιν αφ’ εαυτου την εννοιαν of Essential-Being . But generally , if Likeness is Superior to Sameness , then on the one hand , της ουσιας δε ολως . ει η οµοιοτης κρειττων της ταυτοτητος , µεν all those that partake of Sameness would necessarily also have to partake of Likeness , but on the other παντα τα µετεχοντα της ταυτοτητος εδει και µετεχειν οµοιοτητος , δε hand , all those that share in Likeness would no longer also have to partake of Sameness . For The παντα τα της οµοιοτητος µηκετι και της ταυτοτητος : γαρ αι Powers of The Loftier and more-Generic Beings , extend even further than those of Their Inferiors. αι δυναµεις των υψηλοτερων και γενικωτερων εκτεινονται επι πλεον των καταδεεστερων ,

19

And we see this clearly-beforehand , in the species here below ; for the more generic terms , are και ορωµεν τουτο προδηλως επι των γενων ενταυθα και : γαρ τα γενικωτερα predicated/attributed to more subjects , in imitation of The Rank of The Primary and Creative/Efficacious κατηγορειται πλειονων , µιµουµενα την ταξιν των πρωτουργων και δραστηριων and Demiurgic Genera . Thus certainly , on the one hand , all that exists in The Kosmos participate of και δηµιουργικων γενων : αλλα µην µεν παντα τα εν τω κοσµω µετειληφεν Sameness , but on the other hand , not all that exists participates of Likeness ; for where is The Likeness ταυτοτητος , δε ου παντα [µεταλαµβανω] οµοιοτητος : γαρ που εστιν οµοιοτης in those devoid of quality ? Accordingly then, Likeness is not Superior to Sameness ; but on the contrary , εν τοις αποιοις ; αρα η οµοιοτης Ουκ κρειττων της ταυτοτητος , αλλα τουναντιον Sameness is more-Causal and more-Powerful than Likeness , then just as surely , by the same reasoning , η ταυτοτης εστιν αιτιωτερα και δυνατωτερα της οµοιοτητος , ωσπερ δη κατα τον αυτον λογον Otherness is also Superior to Unlikeness . Surely then on the one hand , This could not be otherwise . η ετεροτης και της ανοµοιοτητος : δη µεν τουτο αν ουκ εχοι αλλως . But on the other hand , one must in turn consider about These Ideas , whether Likeness δε παλιν σκεπτεον Περι τουτων αυτων ποτερον η οµοιοτης is Superior to Unlikeness , as some persons have decided , or on the contrary , whether Unlikeness , εστιν κρειττων της ανοµοιοτητος , ωσπερ τινες ειλοντο , η τουναντιον εκεινη is Superior to Likeness . For it would also appear , that we see likeness , on the one hand , in the cyclical της οµοιοτητος : γαρ αν και δοξειεν θεωρειθαι η οµοιοτης µεν εν ταις κατα κυκλον regressions of natural affairs , whereas on the other hand , we see unlikeness in their progressions . επιστροφαις των πραγµατων , δε η ανοµοιοτης εν ταις προοδοις : Therefore just as progression is superior than regression , surely then so also is Unlikeness Superior ουν ωσπερ η προοδος κρειττων της επιστροφης , δη ουτω και η ανοµοιοτης to Likeness; so that if this is the case, then Otherness is also Superior to Sameness. But if on the one hand, 738 της οµοιοτητος : ωστε ει ταυτα , η ετεροτης και κρειττων της ταυτοτης . Αλλ’ ει µεν The Primary Cause were a plurality , then without a doubt , it would be necessary to assign that Primacy η αρχη ην πληθος , δηπου εδει νεµειν τα πρεσβεια to Otherness , for plurality and dissolution are akin to that same cause [Otherness] . But if on the other τη ετεροτητι : γαρ το πληθος και η διακρισις οικειον ταυτη : ει δε hand , The Cause of The Whole of Creation is One , then it is clear that That which is more-Unifying is το αιτιον των ολων εστι εν , δηλον οτι τα ενικωτερα εστι more-akin to The First Cause , but Those Causes that are more-akin to The First Cause are Superior and συγγενεστερα προς την αρχην , δε τα συγγενεστερα τη αρχη κρειττω και more-honorable . Accordingly then , The More-Unifying Causes are Superior and more-Honorable than τιµιωτερα : αρα τα ενικωτερα εστιν κρειττω και τιµιωτερα those that are not . If then , on the one hand , Sameness is a Unifying Cause , while Otherness is των τοιουτων µη . Ει τοινυν µεν ταυτοτης εστιν ενοποιος , δε η ετεροτης Diversifying and The Cause of Plurality in all the creations in which It will be present , it is quite-clear αλλοποιος και αιτια πληθους πασιν οις αν παραγενηται , προδηλον that Sameness is Superior to Otherness . But if this is the case , then Likeness is Superior to Unlikeness . ως η ταυτοτης κρειττων της ετεροτητος : δε ει τουτο , και οµοιοτης κρειττων ανοµοιοτητος : For by analogy , as Sameness is to Otherness , so also is Likeness to Unlikeness ; and Likeness γαρ αναλογον, ως ταυτοτης προς ετεροτητα, ουτως οµοιοτης προς ανοµοιοτητα: και η οµοιοτης is like Sameness , as a Kind of Unity and Productive of Unity , while Unlikeness is Separative and εστιν οιον ταυτοτης τις ενοτης και ενοποιος , δε η ανοµοιοτης διακρισις και like Otherness . Furthermore , we can confirm this very result in short order from The Causes that οιον ετεροτης . τοινυν Ετι καταδησοµεθα το αυτο συντοµως απο των αρχων

20

follow after The One . Is it not the case then , that Socrates says in the Philebus (23c) that The Limit µετα το εν : ουκουν ο Σωκρατης φησι εν Φιληβω περας and The Unlimited follow after The One ; and on the one hand , The Limit Defines and Measures and και απειρον µετα το εν : και µεν το περας οριζειν και µετρειν και holds everything together , while on the other hand , The Unlimited Diversifies and leads towards συνεχειν παντα , δε το απειρον πληθυνειν και περιαγειν εις the More-and-Less ; and that The Limit is More-Divine than The Unlimited . το µαλλον και ηττον , και το περας ειναι θειοτερον του απειρου : Socrates: Did we not say that of The Real Beings ; The One God Caused The Unlimited and The Limit ? 23c που ελεγοµεν των οντων Τον θεον δειξαι το µεν απειρον , το δε περας ; For so it is , he says , that Intellect gains The Victory over pleasure , for the one is defined in terms of γαρ ουτω και εφατο τον νουν κρατειν της ηδονης , του µεν κατα αφοριζοµενου The Limit , while the other is defined as moving in the way of The Unlimited . If then , on the one hand , το περας , δε κατα της φεροµενης το απειρον . Ει τοινυν µεν Likeness corresponds to the column of The Limit , while Unlikeness , to the column of the Unlimited η οµοιοτης εστι κατα την συστοιχιαν του περατος , δε η ανοµοιοτης κατα την της απειρας (then it is manifest that the More-and-Less belongs to the Unlimited) , it is also clear that Likeness ( δε δηλοι και το µαλλον και ηττον ον της απειριας ) , και δηλον ως την οµοιοτητα is Superior to Unlikeness , for the same reason that also led Socrates to place Intellect ahead of pleasure . υπαρχειν κρειττω της ανοµοιοτητος , δη ηπερ και ο Σωκρατης προυθηκεν τον νουν της ηδονης . Furthermore , and in the third place we also say , that progression itself occurs more through likeness , Ετι τοινυν το τριτον και λεγοµεν , οτι η προοδος αυτη γιγνεται µαλλον δι οµοιοτητος than through unlikeness ; For otherwise that which proceeds would not Revert to its generating Cause , η ανοµοιοτητος : γαρ το προιον αν ου επεστραφη προς το γεννησαν , by being unlike It and totally other ; yet in some way , it makes its procession , while being connected ον ανοµοιων αυτω και απλως ετερον , αλλ’ οπη πεποιηται την προοδον συνηµµενων and established in It . Because of this , Timaeus (29b) also made Likeness to The Demiurge , και ηδρασµενον αυτω . ∆ιο ο Τιµαιος και την οµοιοτητα προς τον δηµιουργον The (Efficient) Cause for The Whole Kosmic Creation , την ητιασατο της ολης κοσµοποιιας : Timaeus: Then in turn , these premises being granted , it is wholly necessary that This Kosmos 29b δε αυ Τουτων υπαρχοντων πασα αναγκη τονδε τον κοσµον be a Copy/Image of some Being . Surely then in regard to every matter , it is most important to begin ειναι εικονα τινος . δη παντος µεγιστον αρξασθαι at the natural beginning .In this way then , in dealing with both The Copy and with Her Model/Paradigm , κατα φυσιν αρχην : ωδε ουν περι τε εικονος και περι αυτης παραδειγµατος one must distinguish then , that the descriptions are themselves also akin to those objects which διοριστεον αρα ως τους λογους οντας αυτων και ξυγγενεις τουτων ωνπερ they serve to explain ; Thus on the one hand , Those Descriptions which deal with That which is Abiding εισιν εξηγηται , ουν µεν , του µετα µονιµους and Unalterable and clearly Intelligible will be Abiding and Firm ; and in so far as Such Descriptions και αµεταπτωτους και καταφανους του µονιµου και βεβαιοου , καθ’ οσον οιον λογοις can properly be both Irrefutable and Invincible , They must in no way fall short of This ; 29c προσηκει ειναι τε ανελγκτοις και ανικητοις , δει µηδεν ελλειπειν τουτου : but on the other hand , the descriptions of That which is being copied in The Likeness of That Model , δε του µεν τους απεικασθεντος προς εκεινο ,

21

and is then a Likeness/Image/Copy Analogously Resembling Those Beings ; for which reason τε οντος δε εικονος ανα λογον εικοτας εκεινων οντας ; ο τι just as Essential-Being is to becoming/generation , so also is Truth to trust/belief . περ ουσια προς γενεσιν τουτο αληθεια προς πιστιν . If then , O Socrates , in our treatment of very many matters regarding The Gods and the generation εαν ουν , ω Σωκρατες , [ειπων] πολλων πολλα περι , θεων και της γενεσεως of The Kosmos/All , we are unable to give descriptions that are themselves always in every way self- του παντος µη δυναται αποδουναι λογους γιγνωµεθα αυτους παντη παντως αυτοις consistent and perfectly exact , do not be surprised ; Thus , accordingly then , we must be Well-disposed , οµολογουµενους και απηκριβωµενους , µη θαυµασης , αλλ’ αρα , χρη αγαπαν , if we can produce descriptions that are inferior to none in Likeness , by remembering that both you who εαν παρεχωµεθα ηττον µηδενος εικοτας , µεµνηµενους ως τε οι discerns and I who am speaking , are but human creatures , so that it is proper for us to accept the likely κριται και εγω ο λεγων εχοµεν ανθρωπινην φυσιν, ωστε πρεπει υµεις αποδεχοµενους τον εικοτα story of these matters and not continue to search beyond this Limit . 29d µυθον περι τουτων µηδεν ετι ζητειν περα . Seeing that it was not possible nor is it Lawful for the product to be The Same as The Producer , 739 επει ην ουκ δυνατον ουδε θεµιτον γαρ τω παραγοντι ειναι ταυτον το παραγοµενον , Progression has come to be in accordance with The Likeness which Turns with Attentive Dependence to η προοδος γεγονεν κατα την οµοιοτητα , ητις προσεχως εξηρτηται That Sameness . Why need we say more , since Plato has declared This , to be The Judgment/Decree της ταυτοτητος . Τι δει λεγειν πολλα , και του Πλατωνος αποφηναµενου ταυτην ειναι ψηφον of The Creator (Tim 33c) ; that The Like is ten thousand times better than The Unlike , just as The δηµιουργικην , το οµοιον ειναι µυριω καλλιον του ανοµοιου , καθαπερ το Self-sufficient is also ten thousand times Better than that which is in need ? Then , if in The Intelligent αυτααρκες και του ενδεους ; δε ει κατα την νοεραν Judgment of The Demiurge , The Like prevails over The Unlike , as being The Better , it is clear at once κρισιν του δηµιουργου το οµοιον κρατει του ανοµοιου , ως ον καλλιον , δηλον δηπουθεν that in The Ideas Themselves , which The Demiurge Comprehends/Contains (in Himself) , The One is οτι εν τοις ειδεσι αυτοις οις ο δηµιουργος περιειληφεν το µεν εστι also Superior , while The Other is inferior . και κρειττον το δε καταδεεστερον . On the one hand , because of this it is clear , that Likeness is Superior to Unlikeness . µεν , δια τουτων δηλον , Οτι η οµοιοτης κρειττων της ανοµοιοτητος : But on the other hand , we must next consider how it is that Plato calls Unlikeness the contrary of δε ηµιν εξης θεωρητον πως ο Πλατων ειρηκεν την ανοµοιοτητα εναντιαν of Likeness at these times ; for it would seem to be impossible that , being Intelligible, They should be της οµοιοτητος εν τουτοις : γαρ αν δοξειε ειναι αδυνατον οντα νοητα εχειν contrary to one another . Perhaps then , we must call contraries , not only those that occur in Matter , εναντιως προς αλληλα . Μηποτε ουν δει λεγειν εναντια ου µονα ταυτα οσα γιγνεται περι την υλην fighting one another and destroying one another ; for these are the extreme and weakest of the contraries ; µαχοµενα αλληλοις και φθειροντα αλληλα : γαρ ταυτα εστι εσχατα και ασθενη των εναντιων : then surely the nature of contraries should not be determined from imperfect examples of them ; for δη την φυσιν ουκ αρχεσθαι απο των ατελων αυτων : γαρ generally , on the one hand , The Purity of qualities/properties is one , while that of strength is another , ολως µεν η καθαροτης των πραγµατων εστιν και αλλη , δε η σφοδροτης αλλη ,

22

and so , on the one hand , the characteristic quality of strength is Supreme/extreme Penetrating/striking και µεν το ιδιον της σφοδροτητος πληκτικον power , whereas on the other hand , that of Purity is Perfection and Ability/Efficiency/Competence . δε το της καθαροτητος το τελειον και δυνατον . Therefore , it must also be the case , that contraries about matter , are in some way , extremely/violently και ∆ει τα εναντια περι την υλην ειναι που σφοδροτητος associated with one another , while Elsewhere Pure Contraries Commune with One Another ; for οµιλουντα µετα αλληλοις , και αλλαχου καθαροτητος συγγιγνοµενα µετα αλληλοις : γαρ in that case , They will not injure One-another nor be destroyed by One-Another , but Each of Them τοτε ουκ απολεσει αλληλα ουδε φθαρησεται υπ αλληλων , αλλ’ εκατερον will Maintain Their Characteristic Purity . So then , contraries in matter , react quite differently µενει .υπο της ιδιας καθαροτητος : αλλα ουν τα εναντια ενυλα , και αλλα than Immaterial Contraries Perform ; since the former strike and destroy one another , while The Latter τα αυλα , τα µεν πληκτικα και φθαρτικα αλληλων , τα δε are Intangible , Pure and Together Breathe The Same Breath . And , if you will , think of the progression αναφη και καθαρα και αλληλοις συµπνεοντα . Και , ει βουλει , νοησον την προοδον of contrariety as being four in number ; suppose one stage of contriety in Intellect , then another in souls , των εναντιων τετραπλη , θεµενος µεν αλλην εναντιωσιν εν νω , δε αλλην εν ψυχαις , then another in the Heavens , then finally another in Matter . For on the one hand , the contraries about δε αλλην εν τω ουρανω , δε τελευταιαν περι την υλην . γαρ µεν Τα εναντια περι matter destroy one another and yield to each other out of their common receptacle , and what has been 740 την υλην φθειρει αλληλα και εξισταται αλληλοις της κοινης υποδοχης , και κεκ− occupied by one can no longer be shared by another . For never will the white become black (Phaedo 103) −ρατηµενον αδυνατον του λοιπου µετεχειν το ετερω : γαρ ουτε ποτε λελευκωµενον µελαινεται , except by the destruction of the white , nor is the hot made cold without the disappearance of heat . µη της ανηρηµενης της λευκοτητος , ουτε το θερµον ψυχραινεται µη παυσαµενης της θηπµοτητος . But Heavenly Contraries Subsist Together According to (Circle of) The Same . For The Motion δε ουρανον Τα συνυφεστηκεν κατα οµου : γαρ κινησις of The Same is Contrary , to the motion of The Other , but The Same Being (The Kosmos) is moved η ταυτου και η θατερου , δε το αυτο κινειται in both ways , and when one motion is moving , it does not abandon the remaining motion ; from which αµφοτερας , και την ετερην κινουµενον ουχι αφισταται της λοιπης , οθεν you can also infer that The Ether is Immaterial in Its Essential-Being , for in matter , the contrary αν και λαβοις ως του αιθερος εστιν αυλος ουσια : γαρ περι την υλην το that was there before , retires at the entrance of the other . Therefore , on the one hand , such Heavenly προυπαρχον εξισταται επεισιοντι τω θατερω : ουν µεν οσα κατ’ ουρανον Contraries Subsist Together ; thus I mean such as Their opposite revolutions , Their Centers , and εναντια συνυφεστηκε , δε λεγω οιον αι αντιπεριφοραι , τα κεντρα , και whatever other Contrarieties there are in The Powers of The Heavens , but have been allotted ει τινες αλλαι εναντιωσεις και εστιν των δυναµεων εκει , αλλ’ ελαχε Their Subsistence in an extended Subject (The Kosmos) . But on the other hand , the contraries in souls , την υποστασιν εν διαστατω πραγµατι . δε Τα εν ταις ψυχαις such as The Circle of The Same and The Circle of the Other , the pair of horses , remain unextended , ο τε κυκλος ταυτου και ο θατερου , και η δυας των ιππων , λοιπον αδιαστατα , yet they are divided and multiple , and exhibit out-flows and unfoldings in performing their functions . αλλ εστι διηρηµενα και πεπληθυσµενα , και διεξοδοις και ανελιξεσι ποιουµενα τας ενεργειας . But The Contraries in The Intellect , being Unified to The Highest Degree , are Partless and Immaterial , δε Τα εν τω νω ηνωµενα κατ’ ακραν υπερβολην εστι και αµερως και αυλως ,

23

and by Subsisting Uniformly , it also belongs to Them to be Creative in The Company of One Another ; και υφεστηκοτα ενοειδως , και υπαρχοντα δηµιουργικα µετ’ αλληλων : for Sameness creates together with Otherness , and Otherness with Sameness . Thus certainly γαρ και η ταυτοτης ποιει µετα της ετεροτητος , και η ετεροτης µετα της ταυτοτητος . Και µην the contraries about matter flee one another ; but , in another way , The Heavenly Ones on the one hand , τα εναντια περι την υλην φευγει αλληλα , δε αλλα τα ουρανια µεν Coexist with One-another , by being Correspondent ; for Their Subsistence is Receptive to both of Them , συνεστι αλληλοις , κατα συµβεβηκος : γαρ το υποκειµενον εστι δεκτικον το αµφοτερων , at the same time , but on the other hand , the contraries in souls co-exist with one another as such , for αµα : δε τα εν ψυχαις συνεστιν αλληλοις καθ’ αυτο , γαρ their Essences are In-Contact with One-another ; while Those in The Intellect also Participate in αυται τα ουσιαι συναπτονται αλληλαις : δε τα εν τω νω και µετεχει One-another . Therefore , The Procession of The Contraries starts from Participation and Joint-contact αλληλων : ουν η προοδος των εναντιων απο της µετοχης και της συναφης and Co-existence in the same subject , and ends in fleeing one-another . Thus on the one hand , της παρουσιας εν τω αυτω ετελευτησεν επι την φυγην αλληλων . Αλλ’ µεν we must lay down that Contraries both exist in The Intelligible Realm , and in what way they exist , and θετεον Οτι τα εναντια και εν τοις νοητοις και οπως , και through this it will be clear , that Contrariety exists in a different way in each Order of Beings . δια τουτων δηλον , οτι η εναντιωσις αλλως καθ εκαστην ταξιν των οντων . Thus on the other hand , I lay down that Contriety also bears The Image of The Two Archetypes δε Προσκεισθω οτι η εναντιωσις και φερει µιµηµα των δυο αρχων that follow after The One , and just as The Limit and The Unlimited are United with One-another , so also 741 µετα το εν , και ωσπερ εκειναι ηνωνται αλληλαις , ουτω και do The Contraries in The Ideas Imitate Their Transcendent Unity by Participating of Them . And τα εναντια εν τοις ειδεσιν µιµειται την εξηρηµενην ενωσιν της µετοχης εκεινων : και because of this , Contraries everywhere , depend upon a Single Summit/Head/Leader (Phaedo 60b) , διο τα εναντια πανταχου εξηρτηται µιας κορυφης , just as The Dyad There , springs from The One and has Its Reality about The One ; thus on the one hand , ως η δυας εκει εκ του ενος και υφεστηκε περι το εν , και µεν The Better of The Two Contraries Imitates The Limit , while on the other hand , The Inferior Imitates το κρειττον των εναντιων µιµειται το περας , δε το καταδεεστερον µιµειται The Unlimited ; surely then from whence the natural scientists also say that The Inferior of the contraries το απειρον : δη οθεν οι φυσικοι και λεγουσι το χειρον των εναντιων is a deprivation of The Limit . Thus , that Likeness is also the contrary of Unlikeness , we must establish ειναι στερησιν του περατος . δε Οτι η οµοιοτης και τη εναντιον ανοµοιοτητι , υπο− by recalling on the one hand , that Likeness , as such , in the first place , never participates in Unlikeness , −µνηστεον µεν το οµοιον καθο οµοιον εκ του προτερον µεν µηδαµου µετεχειν ανοµοιοτητος , nor Unlikeness , as such , in Likeness . But you could also say this of other things that are not contraries ; µηδε το ανοµοιον οµοιοτητος . Αλλα αν φαιης τουτο επ’ αλλων α εστιν µη εναντια , for example ; Man does not participate in The Idea of Horse , nor Horse in that of Man ; hence to what οιον ο ανθρωπος ουτε µετειληφεν της ιδεας ιππου , ουτε ο ιππος του ανθρωπου : ουν τω has been said we should add that whatever is receptive of both , is unlike , if it is not like , and like ειρηµενω προσκεισεται και οτι δεκτικον το αµφοιν , ανοµοιον , ει µη οµοιον , και οµοιον if it is not unlike ; which then , cannot happen in the case of beings that solely belong to one species ; ει µη ανοµοιον , ο δη αδυνατον συµβαινειν επι των µονον ετεροειδων : for that which is not-a-man is not a horse , nor is that which is not-a-horse , a man . But surely you could γαρ το µη ανθρωπος ου ιππος , ουδε το µη ιππος ανθρωπος . Αλλα δη αν

24

say that the statement does apply to privations . For everything that is capable of receiving a condition φαιης οτι το ειρηµενον και υπαρχει ταις στερησεσι : γαρ παν το δεκτικον εξεως or its privation , is deprived ; if it does not have the condition , and if it is not deprived , it has the state . και στερησεως εστερηται : ει µη εχοι την εξιν και ει µη ερτερηται , εχει την εξιν : Thus , I will also add a strange assertion, that it is their [like and unlike] nature to change into each other . ουν και προσκεισθω τι αλλοτριον , οτι πεφυκεν µεταβαλλειν εις αλληλα . But , could this be said to be the case of the likeness and unlikeness here ? Accordingly then , I will reply Αλλα αν τουτο φαιης υπαρχειν τη οµοιοτητι και ανοµοιοτητι ενταυθα : τοινυν λεγεσθω that The Likeness and Unlikeness There [in The Intelligible Realm] are also Themselves Contraries , οτι η και οµοιοτης και ανοµοιοτης εκει εισιν και αυται ενανται , inasmuch as They are The Foundations of all contraries . For if , of two contraries ; the one comes from καθοσον εισιν υποστατικαι εναντιων . γαρ ει των εναντιων το µεν γιγνοιτο υπο One of These , while the other comes from The Other of These , and neither from the remaining one , τησδε το δε υπο τησδε και µηδετερον υπο της λοιπης , thus it is also clear that in their Causes , although in a different way , The Antithesis similarly exists . δε εστιν και δηλον οτι περι αυτων της αιτιας µεν τινα αλλον τροπον , η αντιθεσις οµως εστι . Therefore , by as much as The Unifying Cause is The Antithesis of The Separating Cause , and The ουν Καθ’ οσον το ενοποιον τω διαιρετικω και το Joining Cause is The Antithesis of The Differentiating Cause ,by so much also is The Antithesis (Likeness) συναγωνον αντικειται τω διακριτικω , κατα τοσουτον και η εναντιοτης Opposite to Unlikeness . For if Their Functions are Always and Essentially Contrary , ηνηντιωται προς την ανοµοιοτητα . γαρ ει αυτων αι ενεργειαι αει και κατ’ ουσιαν εναντιαι then it is clear that They possess a Certain Contrariety in Their Essential-being ; for They Act from 742 δηλον οτι εχουσι τινα εναντιωσιν εν τη ουσια : γαρ ενεργουσι Their Very Being and They have been Allotted Activities concurrent with Their Essential-being . But τω αυτω ειναι και ειληχασιν τας ενεργειας συνδροµους ταις ουσιας : δε we have said before , in what Way Contraries Exist There [The Intelligible Realm] . Thus we have shown προειρηται οπως τα εναντια εκει . ουν ∆εδεικται what Likeness is , in which there also exists Unlikeness , and what are Their Essences and what are Their τι οµοιον εστιν, εν ω και ανοµοιον , τε τις αυτων η ουσια και τινες αι Powers , and what Their Rank is , and how They are Arranged as Intermediate among The Ideas , so that δυναµεις , τε τις η ταξις και πως τετακται µεσοις εν τοις ειδεσιν , τε οτι They are Subordinate to Sameness and Otherness , being neither Superior nor The Same (for The Like καταδεεστερα ταυτητος και ετεροτητος , και ουτε κρειττονα ουτε ταυτα (γαρ τα οµοια is Unlike to The Same and The Other) ; and how They Relate to Each-other , so that Likeness ανοµοια προς τα ταυτα και τα ετερα ) , τε πως εχει προς αλληλα , και οτι η οµοιοτης is More-Divine [than Unlikeness] ; and how Contrariety exists among The Intelligibles , and how many θειοτερον και και πως η εναντιωσις εν τοις νοητοις , και ποσαι Ranks of Contrariety there are , and through what Causes They have been Produced ; and finally ταξεις των εναντιων , και δια αιτιας ποιας , και τελος in what way The Like and The Unlike are said to be Contraries . Therefore with these matters πως οµοιον και ανοµοιον λεγεται εναντια . ουν Τουτων having been made clear , we must proceed to what follows . σεσαφηνισµενων µεταβατεον επι τα εξης . Socrates: But that you and me , and all the other things which we certainly 129a δε σε και εµε και ταλλα α δη

25

call many , Participate of These Two Beings ? And that on the one hand , such things that καλουµεν πολλα µεταλαµβανειν τουτοιν δυοιν οντοιν ; και µεν τα Participate of Likeness become like , and in so far as to the degree such things may µεταλαµβανοντα της οµοιοτητος γιγνεσθαι οµοια και οσον κατα τοσουτον αν Participate in this way ; but those that Participate of Unlikeness become unlike ; but that those µεταλαµβανη ταυτη , δε τα της ανοµοιοτητος ανοµοια , δε τα which Participate of both become both ? αµφοτερων αµφοτερα ; On the one hand , the statement of Socrates , as it was proposed , was to lead the inquiry from µεν τω Προθεσις Σωκρατει , καθαπερ υποκειται , ην µεταγαγειν την ζητησιν απο from The Immanent Monads , to The Transcendent and Indivisible Causes Themselves , of These Ideas απο των κατατεταγµενων επ’ τας εξηρηµενας και αµερεις αιτιας αυτας τουτων των ειδων that are [Immanent] in other beings , and to see along with Zeno , in what way These Indivisible Beings εν αλλοις οντων , και θεωρησαι µετα του Ζηνωνος πως αι αυται αµερεις ουσιαι are United to One-another , and whether by Participation in One-another , or by some Innate Unity συνηνωνται αλληλαις , και ποτερον µετεχουσιν αλληλων , η τινα υπαρχει η ενωσις Belonging to Them in another way . Such then , being his proposal , he first asks [Zeno] if he himself is και ταυταις αλλον τροπον . Τοιαυτης δε ουσης της προθεσεως , πρωτον ηρωτησεν ει αυτος εστι also a friend of The Ideas , and as if having answered himself , that being of sound mind , it would not be και φιλος των ειδων , και ωσπερ αποκριναµενος εαυτω οτι οντας σοφους ου right to be distrustful towards such a hypothesis ; he then makes the discussion upon both Likeness and θεµις απιστειν προς τοιαυτην την υποθεσιν , ποιησαµενος τον λογον επι τε της οµοιοτητος και Unlikeness , for which reason , Zeno , in the first of his conclusions , had also advocated These to be ανοµοιοτητος , διοτι ο Ζηνων εν τω πρωτω συµπερασµατι και συνηγεν ταυτα εις the same qualities which he had earlier called Contraries and Socrates agrees with those conclusions . ταυτον α προειρηκεν εναντια και ο Σωκρατης συµφθεγγοµενος εκεινω , And because These are in a certain way Intermediate among The Ideas , and in the third place , as και οτι ταυτα εστι πως µεσα εν τοις ειδεσιν , και υποµεµνησται εν τριτω , ως it should be remembered , that a discussion about Likeness is Appropriate for those who are being led up ; 743 υποµεµνησται , οτι ο λογος περι οµοιοτητος οικειος τοις αναγοµενοις , and for many other reasons , and the more complete of these , is that all The Ideas also in need of These και δι’πολλας αλλας αιτιας , και το τελειοτερον τουτων οτι παντα τα ειδη και δειται τουτων Two , inasmuch as They are Causes of likenesses ; of all things that come into being [in accordance] with των δυο , καθοσον εστιν αιτια εικονων , των παντων γιγνοµενων προςThem , he now proceeds to discourse about the participation of The Ideas , on the one hand , by proposing αυτα , νυν διαλεγεται περι της µετοχης των ειδων , υποθεµος υποθεµος that They are partaken of , then on the other hand , that things here , partake of Them , and through this εκεινα ειναι µεθεκτα , δε τα τηδε µετεχοντα , και δια ταυτης participation , things here come to be like Them . From this you can also understand why we said that της µεθεξεως τα τηδε οµοιουσθαι εκεινοις : οθεν αν και λαβοις ειποµεν this was the most authoritative reason for discoursing about Those Ideas first . For if in general , Ideas ην κυριωτατην αιτιαν δι’ ην διαλεγεται περι τουτων των ειδων πρωτον . γαρ Ει ολως εκεινα are Paradigms/Models/Patterns , while things here are copies/images [of Them] , obviously , the latter are παραδειγµατα δε ταυτα εικονες , δηπου τα τηδε both like and unlike The Former. For such is the nature of copies , that along with its likeness to its οµοια και ανοµοια τοις εκει : γαρ τοιαυτη η εικων , µετα της οµοιοτητος προς το

26

Model , it also reveals its unlikeness .For otherwise Likeness alone , would make a Model/Pattern/Design παραδειγµα και παρεµφαινουσα την ανοµοιοτητα : γαρ η οµοιοτης µονον τε ποιει παραδειµα of This Likeness Itself , instead of a copy , or in turn , Unlikeness alone , in doing away with Likeness , τουτο αντι εικονος , η παλιν ανοµοιοτης αφαιρουµενη την οµοιωσιν would do away with the likeness of the copy . Thus in order that anything becomes a copy of something , αφανιζει την οµοιοτητα της εικονος : ουν ινα αλλη γενηται εικων αλλου it is necessary that both Likeness and Unlikeness exist . Accordingly then These Ideas [of Likeness and δει και οµοιωσιν και ανοµοιωσιν ειναι . αρα ταυτα Unlikeness] must necessarily be presupposed by those who are going to discourse about Ideas ; for if ∆ει προυποκεισθαι τοις διαλεξοµενοις περι των ειδων : γαρ ει They do not exist , there could hardly be some other Ideas . For first an image must come into being , ταυτα µη η , αν σχολη ειη τι των αλλων ειδων : γαρ πρωτον εικονα χρη γενεσθαι , then afterwards , in this way a copy of something . But since our present inquiry is about the participation επειτα ουτως εικονα τινος . Αλλ’ επειδη εν τω παροντι ο λογος περι της µετοχης in Ideas , we must go through whether only perceptible objects participate in Ideas as their Patterns , or των ειδων , διαπορητεον αρα µονα τα αισθητα µετεχει των ειδων ως παραδειγµατων , η whether perceptibles and Intellectual? Beings in addition to these or both of these , and also Intelligibles , η και τα αισθητα και τα νοητα προς τουτοις , η και ταυτα , η ετι τα νοητα , such as are Secondary to Those Prior to Them . For on the one hand , according to those for whom οσα δευτερα των προ αυτων : γαρ µεν καθ’ ους Intellect is One , would not say that Intelligibles Themselves are Patterns of Intelligibles ; while on the νους εστι εις , αν ουκ φαιεν νοητα αυτα παραδειγµατα νοητων : other hand , those who assume a plurality of Intellects , would themselves be entirely distrustful if δε ους πληθος νοων , αν ουτοι παντως απιστησειαν ει we were to say that Intelligibles in The Upper Ranks must be Patterns for Those in The Lower Ranks . φαναι τα εν τοις υπερτεροις δει παραδειγµατα των εν τοις καταδεεστεροις , Thus for example I mean that The Intelligibles in The Unparticipated Intellect are Patterns of Ideas in The δε οιον λεγω τα εν τω αµεθεκτω νω των ειδων εν τω Participated Intellect that are of Secondary Reality and derived from The Former , or that The Ideas in µετεχοµενω των δευτερων οντων απ’ εκεινων , η τα εν The Kosmic Intellect are Patterns of those in particular intellects . Therefore , these matters are worthy 744 τω ολικω των τοις εν µερικοις . δ’ ουν Ταυτα αξια of attention . For they also involve the justifiable inquiry , into what sorts of Beings should be called επιστασεως : γαρ και εχει δικαιαν ζητησιν , ποια των οντων δει καλειν Patterns and what sort of beings should be called copies . Then if , as we have said , copies and Model παραδειγµατα και ποιας εικονας . Αλλ ει , ωσπερ ελεγοµεν , εικων και παραδειγµα are so arranged to one another , that the copy equally reveals in itself its Likeness εχει ταυτην την ταξιν προς αλληλα , ως την εικονα εξισης αρεφαινειν εν εαυτη την οµοιοτητα and its unlikeness to its Model , in order that it may also be recognized as a copy ; for a perfect/peak και την ανοµοιοτητα προς την το παραδειγµα , ινα και γνωριζηται ως εικων : γαρ η ακρα likeness , it was said (Crat 432c , page 12) , no longer sees the copy as a copy , since it prepares one οµοιοτης , φησιν , ουκετι θεωρει την εικονα ως εικονα , αλλ αυτο παρασκευαζει to conclude that pattern and “copy” are the same . If then , we have been correct in saying this , then , εις συναγειν το παραδειγµα και την εικονα ταυτον. Ει τοινυν ορθως ειρηται ταυτα , µην without a doubt , we must never make , an Intelligible a “copy” of an Intelligible . For All Intelligible δηπου δει µηδαµως ποιειν νοητα εικονας νοητων : γαρ πασα η νοητη Being , as Timaeus says (Tim 35a) , is Indivisible ; then , by Her Being Indivisible , it is not possible ουσια , καθα ο Τιµαιος φησιν , εστιν αµεριστος : δε αυτης ουσης αµεριστου , εστι ουκ

27

to say, that She is part Model , and part copy ; for the interval/gap/space/difference/separation λεγειν το µεν παραδειγµα , το δε εικονα : γαρ η διαστασις between these is so extreme . τουτων πλειστη : Timaeus: From The Indivisible and Eternal Being , Abiding According to The Same , and 35a Της αµεριστου και αει ουσιας εχουσης κατα ταυτα και in turn , from the divisible , ever changing existence of the physical realm , He mixed a Third αυ της µεριστης γιγνοµενης περι τα σωµατα , συνεκερασατο τριτον Form/Idea/Genera of Intermediate Existence from both of them . Again , and in the same way ειδος εν µεσω ουσιας εξ αµφοιν , αυ και κατα ταυτα with the nature of both The Same and of The Other , It was combined together , in between them , περι φυσεως τε της ταυτου και της θατερου , ξυνεστησεν εν µεσω αυτων from both The Indivisible and that which is divisible about the physical realm : τε του αµερους και του µεριστου κατα τα σωµατα . For the copy ,as (Plato) says , in so far as it is a copy , is not in-itself , but belongs as it were , to-another , γαρ η εικων , ως φησιν , καθοσον εστιν εικων , εστιν ουδε εν εαυτη , αλλ’εστιν ωσπερ , αλλου and accordingly then , in this way , it is in-another . But instead we should say that , on the one hand , και αρα ουτως εστιν εν αλλου : αλλ’ χρη λεγειν µεν Cause and Effect are in That Realm , and Monads and Numbers , but never at all , on the other hand , αιτιον και αιτιατον επ’ εκεινων και µοναδας και αριθµους , µηδαµως δε Model and copy . For The One is indeed The Cause of Intelligibles , but not Their Pattern ; nor is it παραδειγµα και εικονα : γαρ το εν και αιτιον των νοητων , αλλ’ ου παραδειγµα , ουδε Lawful to speak thus , of That Realm . Therefore , Intelligible Being Itself , Proceeds Towards Itself , θεµις λεγειν ουτως επ’ εκεινων . ουν η νοητη ουσια Αυτη προιουσα εις εαυτην just as The Intelligible Proceeds from The One . And generally , every image/copy/likeness , according ουτω ως το νοητον προεισιν εκ του ενος : τε ολως πασαν εικονα κατα to the Timaeus (39e) , must partake of generation in some way , in order that by this process of coming τον Τιµαιον δει µετεχειν γενεσεως πη , ινα δια ταυτης εις into being , it may be likened , to (perpetual : Eternal . jfb) The Truly Real Being . το ειναι παριον απεικαζηται προς την οντως ουσαν ουσιαν . Timaeus: Thus , on the one hand , up until the birth/generation of Time , This Realm had already 39e Και µεν µεχρι γενεσεως χρονου ηδη been Designed/Fashioned in all other respects , in the Likeness of That to which It was being Likened , απειργαστο τα αλλα εις οµοιοτητα ωπερ απεικαζετο , but on the other hand , inasmuch as it did not yet contain within itself , the whole range of generated δε µηπω περιειληφεναι εντος αυτου τα παντα γεγενηµενα living creatures , in this way , it was still dissimilar . ζωα ταυτη ειχεν ετι ανοµοιως . For if The Likeness Itself , was also One of The Eternal and Truly Real Beings , it would no longer be γαρ Εαν αυτη η και των αιωνιων και των οντως οντων , ουκετι εσται an image , as Plato also says in the Sophist (240b) , for The Genuine , Truly Is , but the image , εικων , ως αυτος και ειρηκεν εν Σοφιστη , γαρ το οντως ον , δε η εικων , in so far as it is an image , exists neither in-Truth nor in-Reality but rather , it exists , in an unreal way . καθοσον εστιν εικων , εστιν ουκ αληθως ουδε οντως , αλλα µαλλον ουκ οντως .

28

Stranger: But do you mean another such True One , or in what sense did you mean such ? 240b δε λεγεις Ετερον τοιουτον αληθινον , η επι τινι ειπες το τοιουτον ; Theaetetus: Indeed not by any means a True One , but only like The True One . γε Ουδαµως αληθινον , αλλ’ εοικος µεν . Stranger: Accordingly then , by The True One you mean That which Truly Is ? Αρα το αληθινον λεγων οντως ον ; Theaetetus: Exactly, in this way . (Ουτως .) Stranger: What follows then , is the not-true the opposite of the true? Τι δε ; αρ το µη αληθινον εναντιον αληθους ; Theaetetus: Of what else ? Τι µην ; Stranger: Accordingly then , you mean that , that which is like , does not Truly Exist , if indeed αρα λεγεις το εοικος , Ουκ οντως ον , ειπερ γε you say that it is not Truly-Real . ερεις αυτο µη αληθινον . Theatetus: Yet , it certainly does indeed exist , in some way . Αλλ’ µην γε εστι πως . What then ? Should we only apply the name of image , to these sensible appearances ? But Plato Τι ουν και µονα ερουµεν εικονας τα ταυτα αισθητα φαινοµενα ; αλλ’ ο Πλατων himself said that Time is an image of Eternity (Tim 37d) ; so that as Time is to Eternity , so also is αυτος ειρηκεν τον χρονον εικονα αιωνος : δε ως χρονος εστι προς αιωνα , ουτω Soul to Intellect ; for Time is a Psychical Measure , while Eternity is an Intellectual Measure . 745 ψυχη προς νουν : γαρ ο χρονος µεν ψυχικον µετρον , δε αιων νοερον : Timaeus: Therefore , just as It (The Model) is an Eternal Living Being , He thus took in hand 37d ουν καθαπερ αυτο τυγχανει αιδον ζωον ον , ουτως επεχειρησε to complete The All (The Image) as much as possible , of such a kind , and in the following way . αποτελειν το παν εις δυναµιν τοιουτον και τοδε . Thus on the one hand , The Nature of The Living Being is Eternal (Unmoving) . And surely it was ουν µεν η φυσις του ζωου ουσα ετυγχανεν αιωνιος . και δη ην ουκ δυνατον impossible to attach This Quality , in Its Entirety , on the one hand , to that which is generated ; ουκ δυνατον προσαπτειν τουτο παντελως µεν τω γεννητω : thus on the other hand , He Envisioned to Make a Moving Image of Eternity , δ’ επινοει ποιησαι τινα κινητον εικω αιωνος , So that The Soul will also have the relation of image to The Intellect , and for the most part , generation ωστε η ψυχη και εξει τον λογον εικονος προς τον νουν , και ολως γενησις will not only be found in perceptibles , but will also be found in souls . For The Soul is The Best of ουκ µονον εν τοις αισθητοις , αλλα και εν ταις ψυχαις : γαρ η ψυχη εστι αριστη of The Entities that are generated , and at the same time , of The Beings that are not wholly Eternal , as των γεννητων αµα των οντων µη αει , ως the Timaeus says (35a , page 26) , by being both divisible , and at the same time , Indivisible , whereas ο Τιµαιον φησιν τε µεριστη και αµα αµεριστος : δε Intellect , is only Indivisible . Is it not the case then , that we are not being told of the generation of νους , µονον αµεριστος . Ουκουν ουδε παραδεδοται(παραδιδωµι) Intellect , but of the generation of The Soul ? Accordingly then , on the one hand , Intellect is not νου καθαπερ ψυχης : αρα µεν νους εστιν ουκ

29

an image of The Father , but Intellect is a Secondary Procession from The Father that arises by way of εικων του πατρος , αλλ’ δευτερα προοδος εκεινου γενοµενου δια Identity/Sameness , whereas on the other hand , The Soul is an Image of Primary Rank , since It is ταυτοτητος δε η ψυχη εικων πρωτως , επειδη και The First of the entities that are generated , then , physical entities/bodies , come after Soul , as images . πρωτη των γεννητων : δε τα σωµατα µετα ψυχην ως εικονες : Thus on the one hand , The Indivisible has The Nature of a Model/Pattern only , but on the other hand , και µεν αµεριστος η φυσις παραδειµατικη µονον , δε that which is Indivisible and at the same time divisible , is at the same time , both like a Model and η αµεριστος αµα µεριστη αµα τε παραδειγµατικη και like a copy , in order to preserve in the same way , The Intermediate Status Appropriate to It . Thus , εικονικη , ινα διασωζη και ταυτη την µεσοτητα την προσηκουσαν αυτη . δε generally , all procession occurs either by way of Unification , or by way of Likeness , or by way of of Ολως πασα προοδος γιγνεται η καθ’ ενωσιν , η καθ’ οµοιοτητα , η κατα Identity/Sameness . By way of Unification , as in The Super-Celestial Unities Themselves ; for there is ταυτοτητα : µεν καθ’ ενωσιν , ως επ’ των υπερουσιων εναδων αυτων : γαρ εστιν no Sameness/Identity among Them , nor Likeness of Form , but only Unity . Then , by way of Sameness , ου ταυτοτης εν εκειναις η κατ’ οµοιοτης ειδος , αλλ’ µονον ενωσις : δε κατα ταυτοτητα , as in The Indivisible Beings , where That which Proceeds , is somehow The Same , as That from where ως επι των αµεριστον ουσιων , οπου το προιιον εστι πως ταυτον τω µεν− It came , for All are Being Safeguarded/Maintained/Watched-over and Held-together by The Eternal , −οντι : γαρ πασαι φρουρουµεναι και συνεχοµεναι υπο του αιωνος They manifest , in a way , The Sameness of The Part to The Whole . Finally , by way of Likeness , as in αποφαινουσι πως ταυτον το µερος τω ολω : δε κατα οµοιοτητα , ως επι the entities of The Intermediate and of the lowest levels , for these (Souls) , although Intermediate , are ουσιων των µεσων και των εσχατων : γαρ ταυτα καν αλλα µεσα η the first to welcome Procession by way of Likeness , whether Their Cause be Sameness or Otherness , πρωτα ηγαπησε την προοδον δια της οµοιοτητος , ειτε αιτια ειη ταυτοτης και ετεροτης , or in some Unlikeness and Likeness . For surely , some other Causes are involved in making entities ειτε τινων ανοµοιοτης και οµοιοτης : δη τινων αλλων δια ποιει other and same and unlike and like one another ; for example ; being like each other by being either white ετερα και ταυτα και ανοµοια και οµοια αλληλοις , οιον οµοια οµοια λευκοτητος or black , while some are unlike , by one being white while another is black . For all entities that και µελανιας , δε ανοµοια , δια αµφοιν : γαρ τα παντα are related in some way , are like offshoots/hybrids , and in which different species are fused together ; προς τι εοικε παραφυασιν και αλλοις ειδεσι συµφυεται and thus , The Causes produce them , in every way , in conjunction with Other Ideas , so that one must και ουν τα αιτια ποιει αυτων παντως µετ’ αλλων ειδων , ωστ’ δει not search for some of Them that produce “Themselves-by-Themselves” , apart from Other Ideas .Then , ου ζητειν τινα τουτων ποιουντα αυτα καθ’ αυτα χωρις των αλλων ειδων : δε we must also remember that The Monads of all entities whatsoever that are said to exist , as in the case of 746 δει κακεινων µεµνησθαι οτι αι µοναδες των πασαι οπωσουν λεγοµενων ειναι ως απο particular entities , on the one hand , being produced in a whole way by declension by Their Own Being , τα µερικωτερα µεν παραγουσιν ολικων καθ’ υποβασιν εαυτων by Maintaining their specific character , while these latter become more particular . Then on the other µενουσης της αυτης της ιδιοτητος , δε τουτων γιγνοµενης µερικωτερας , δε hand , other entities come to be , by a change in their Essential-being , as in the case of The Procession τα γιγνεσθαι κατ’ εξαλλαγην ουσιας , ως απο προοδους

30

of images from Paradigms ; for all images are inclined to change their Essential-being , from that of εικονων παραδειγνµατων : γαρ πασαι εικονες ειναι βουλονται εξηλλαγµεναι κατ’ ουσιαν των their own Paradigms , since they no longer have The Same Design , but only one like , Those from which οικειων παραδειγµατων, και µηκετι εχειν τον αυτον λογον , αλλα τον οµοιον τοις αφ’ ων they came . Surely then , in this way The Whole Intellect , on the one hand , gives subsistence to προηλθον . δη ουν Ουτω ο ολος νους µεν υφιστησι particular intellects by Declension , but on the other hand , It gives subsistence to souls by Procession ; τους µερικους νους καθ’ υποβασιν , δε τας ψυχας κατα προοδον , the former , being particular instances of its whole nature , the latter , being images/copies from Itself ; τους µεν µερικους εξ εαυτου ολου , τας δε εικονας εκ εαυτου their Paradigm . But on the other hand , The Whole Soul first gives subsistence to particular souls παραδειγµατος : δε η ολη ψυχη µεν τας µερικωτερας ψυχας by declension ,who exist entirely in a partial way , all that The Former is Wholly , but they give life καθ υποβασιν , ουσας παντως µερικως οσα εκεινη ολικως , δε to partible natures in the physical realm by procession , as images of itself , but no longer having τας µεριστας τας φυσεις περι τα σωµατα κατα προοδον ως εικονας εαυτης , ουκετι εχουσας The Same Psychical Design , but only that characteristic resembling The Life-Giving Power of Soul , τον αυτον ψυχικον λογον , αλλα µονον το ιδιωµα οµοιον προς την διαζωτικον ψυχην Accordingly then , from these considerations , it is clear that we must suppose that images begin with αρα εκ τουτων ∆ηλον οτι υποθετεον τας εικονας αρχοµενας The Beings of Intermediate Rank being sent down as far as the lowest level ; so that on the one hand , των ουσιων µεσων προιεναι µεχρι των εσχατων , ωστε µεν we speak of Intellectual Beings as Being Participated , while on the other hand , the beings that Primarily ηµας λεγειν τα νοερα µετεχοµενα , δε τα πρωτως Participate are souls , while that which participates secondarily is the whole realm of divisible existence . µετεχοντα ψυχας , δε τα δευτερως απασαν την µεριστην ουσιαν . And if these views are accepted , on the one hand , we can say that the ‘you and me’ (129a) , that partake Και ει ταυτα κρατοιη , µεν ερουµεν το σε και εµε µετεχειν of Likeness and Unlikeness are souls ; for every individual is his own soul , according to Socrates οµοιοτητος και ανοµοιοτητος τας ψυχας : γαρ εκαστος αυτος η ψυχη , κατα Σωκρατης in the Alcibiades (I-130) ; εν το Αλκιβιαδης Socrates: Surely then , I think , that no one can think otherwise about the following statement . 130 γε µην οιµαι ουδενα αν οιηθηναι αλλως τοδε . Alcibiades : What is it ? (Το ποιον ; ) Socrates: That man can not indeed be anything else than one of three possibilities . τον ανθρωπον Μη ου γε ειναι τι εν τριων . Alcibiades: What are they ? (Τινων ;) Socrates: Soul or body or both together as a whole . Ψυχην η σωµα η συναµφοτερον , τουτο το ολον . Alcibiades: What follows then ? (Τι µην ;) Socrates: But we have certainly agreed that the ruler himself of the body is man ? Αλλα µην ωµολογησαµεν το αρχον αυτο του σωµατος ειναι ανθρωπον ; Alcibiades: We have so agreed . (Ωµολογησαµεν .) Socrates: Take notice then , does the body rule itself through itself ? 130b Αρ’ ουν σωµα αρχει αυτο αυτου ; Alcibiades: Not in any way . (Ουδαµως .)

31

Socrates: Because we said that it is ruled .(γαρ ειποµεν αυτο Αρχεσθαι .) Alcibiades: Yes . (Ναι .) Socrates: Surely then , this cannot be that which we are searching for . γε δη τουτο αν Ουκ ειη ο ζητουµεν . Alcibiades: It appears not to be . (Ουκ εοικεν .) Socrates: Then could the combination of both rule the body , and thus this whole is the man ? Αλλ’ αρα το συναµφοτερον αρχει του σωµατος , και δη τουτο εστι ανθρωπος ; Alcibiades: Perhaps it may surely be . (Ισως δητα .) Socrates: It is indeed the least of all possibilities ; for if one of them , in no way shares in the rule , γε ηκιστα Παντων : γαρ του ετερου ουδεµια συναρχοντος it is quite inconceivable that the combination of the two can somehow rule . µη µηχανη το συναµφοτερον που αρχειν . Alcibiades: Rightly so . (Ορθως .) Socrates: Then , seeing that neither the body nor the combination of both is man , I suspect , that what is 130c δε Επειδη ουτε σωµα ουτε το συναµφοτερον εστιν ανθρωπος , οιµαι λειπ− left , is that either man is nothing at all , or if something , the man turns out to be nothing else than soul . −εται , η αυτο ειναι µηδεν , η ειπερ τι , τον ανθρωπον συµβαινειν εστι µηδεν αλλο η ψυχην . but that ‘the other entities (129a) are the patterns of sense ; for it is to these that these terms are most δε τα αλλα τα παραδειγµατα αισθητα : γαρ τουτοις ταυτα τα ονοµατα µαλιστα appropriate , just as these considerations will be clear to us later through the words of Plato . Thus προσηκει , καθαπερ ταυτα εσται εναργες ηµιν µετα δια των ρηµατων αυτου . ουν on the one hand , he named The Intellectual Ideas ‘Themselves by Themselves’ , but on the other hand , µεν προσωνοµαζε Τα νοερα ειδη αυτα καθ’ αυτα δε he calls perceptible entities ‘other’ and ‘many’ (129a) , since The Simplicity and Substantiality that is καλει τα αισθητα αλλα και πολλα , µεν της απλοτητος και προσηκουσης αµικτου της Unmixed with Matter is most appropriate to That Reality , while otherness and plurality is most apropos αµικτου υλην προς εκεινοις υποστασεως , δε της ετεροτητος και του πληθυσµου to these latter terms . Thus on the one hand , such may be said about The Paradigms that in some way τουτοις . ουν µεν Ταυτα ειρησθω περι τα παραδειγµατα του τινα Participate of The Ideas ; but on the other hand , following these matters our discussion next speaks about µετεχοντα των ειδων : δε τουτοις αυτης εξης διαλεγεται περι participation Itself , and since The Ideas are Indivisible and United with each other , and since They are 747 της µετοχης , και οτι των ειδων οντων αµεριστον και ηνωµενων αλληλοις , και οντων Measures , that do not admit of the more-and-less . For The Entities that are Established in Eternity µετρων, ου δεχοµενων το µαλλον και το ηττον : γαρ τα ιδρυµενα εν αιωνι in a Pure Way , are far removed from such indeterminateness ; since The Ideas have such a Hyparxis , καθαρως εστιν πορρω της τοιαυτης αοριστιας : δ’ ουν εκεινων τοιουτων υπαρχοντων , whereas the entities here , participate in Them partially and separately and are subject to the qualification τα τηδε µετεσχεν εκεινων µεριστως και διηρηµενως και ηδη κατα of ‘more-and-less’. For the words ‘and in so far as to the degree that they may participate in this way’ is το µαλλον και ηττον . γαρ Το τε και κατα τοσουτον οσον αν µεταλαµβανη ταυτη εστι indicative all of those terms . For on the one hand , the ‘in this way’ makes clear that the participation δηλωτικον απαντων τουτων : γαρ µεν το ταυτη δηλοι της µεθεξεως is partial ; for it is not ‘in every way’ that each of them is like or unlike , but ‘in a way’ . But the , ‘to the µεριστον : γαρ ου κατα παν εκαστον τουτων εστι οµοια και ανοµοια , αλλα πη . δε το κατα degree’ suggests ‘the going beyond’ or ‘the falling short of The Mark’ , like the more-and-less ; for on the τοσουτον λεγει πορρωτερον , εγγυτερον , και το µαλλον και ηττον : γαρ

32

one hand , Likeness itself , if you examine The Intellectual Idea , is a Whole that is Homogeneous with µεν , το οµοιον αυτο , αν θεωρης το νοερον ειδος , ολον εστι οµοχρουν προς Itself ; for example , like the part is like the whole , as among entities here , where a portion of fire is fire . εαυτο , οιον και το µερος εστιν οµοιον αυτου , και ενταυθα οπου το µερος του πυρος πυρ : And Unlikeness is Equally Homogeneous , being the very Entity , such as It is , throughout the whole και το ανοµοιων οµοιως , εστι οτι περ , τοιουτον εστι , καθ’ ολον of itself , not being unlike in one part , and like in another , for it is a simple Idea , having the same nature εαυτο , ου ανοµοιον τη µεν , και οµοιον τη δε : γαρ εστιν απλουν ειδος , εχον την αυτην φυσιν as a whole and throughout the whole of itself . But likeness here , is not in every way like , nor in turn , ολον δι’ ολου εαυτου . δε οµοιον ενταυθα εστιν ου παντη οµοιον , ουδ’ αυ unlikeness . Again , what participates in Likeness , does not participate in a similar way all over ; thus το ανοµοιον : παλιν το µετεχον οµοιοτητος ου µετειληφεν οµοιως παν , αλλα one part does so more , while another part does so less ; and that which participates in Unlikeness is not το µεν µαλλον , το δε ηττον , και το µετεχον ανοµοιοτητος εστιν ου unlike in the same way all over ; rather , each of them is said to be like or unlike according to the degree ανοµοιον οµοιως παν:αλλα εκαστον τουτων λεγεται οµοιον και ανοµοιον κατα τουσουτον καθ’ that it partakes of Likeness Itself and in Unlikeness Itself ; thus sometimes it is more , οσον αν µεταλαγχανη της οµοιοτητος αυτου και της ανοµοιοτητος αυτου αλλα το µεν µαλλον but sometimes it is less ; and the paradox is that , though this interposition of the more-and-less , το δε ηττον : και το παραδοξον οτι δια την παρεµπλοκην του µαλλον και ηττον , like entities are by this fact also unlike ; whereas unlike entities , by this very fact that they have τα οµοια µεν εστι ευθυς και ανοµοια , τα ανοµοια δε δι’ αυτο αυτοις υπαρχον in common This Idea of Unlikeness , are like ; so pervasive being This Conspiring of The Ideas . For both κοινον το ειδος της ανοµοιοτητος εστι οµοια : τοσαυτη εστι συµπνοια των ειδων : γαρ και Sameness and Otherness and Equality and Inequality have to be similarly related ; for the reason that All ταυτοττης και ετεροτης και ισοτης και ανισοτης εχουσι οµοιως , διοτι παντα The Primary Ideas are Unified-with-One-another , and Create-in-common-with One-another , even Those τα πρωτιστα ειδη ηνωνται αλληλοις , και δηµιουργει αλληλων και οσα that have to appear as ‘the antitheses of Each-other . εχειν δοκει την αντιθεσιν προς αλληλα . Socrates: But if all entities also Participate of both Opposite Beings , δε ει παντα και µεταλαµβανει αµφοτερων εναντιων οντων , and are like and unlike to each other through Participating in Both ; what is 129b και εστι οµοια τε και ανοµοια αυτοις αυτα τω µετεχειν αµφοιν , τι extraordinary about this ? But if , on the one hand , anyone shows that Like Beings Themselves , θαυµαστον ; γαρ ει µεν τις απεφαινεν οµοια τα αυτα become Unlike , or Unlike Beings Themselves , become Like , I should think , it would be , γιγνοµενα ανοµοια η ανοµοια τα οµοια , οιµαι , αν ην , monstrously absurd ; but if on the other hand , one shows that such entities that Participate both τερας : ει δε αποφαινει τα µετεχοντα αµφοτερων of These Genera have undergone both of these conditions , as far as I am concerned , O Zeno , τουτων πεπονθοτα αµφοτερα , εµοιγε , ω Ζηνων , in no way appear to be out of the ordinary ; ουδεν δοκει ειναι ατοπον , On the one hand , entities here , partake of both Likeness and Unlikeness , and are thus called like 748 µεν τα τηδε Μετεχει και οµοιοτητος και ανοµοιοτητος , και ταυτη λεγεται οµοια

33

and unlike by participating in Them . But on the other hand , Each of Them -Likeness and Unlikeness- και ανοµοια τω µετεχειν εκεινων . δε εκατερον µεν και η οµοιοτης και η ανοµοιοτης is a Simple Idea There , by First being United to The Limit , and then by being United to The Unlimited . Εστι απλουν ειδος εκει , και η µεν προς του περατος , η δε προς της απειριας . But first , here , likeness exists in a monadic way , while unlikeness exists in a dyadic way , the one , δε µεν Ενταυθα η οµοιοτης εστιν µοναδικως , δε η ανοµοιοτης δυαδικως , η µεν deriving its character from Above , while the other , springs from the indefiniteness of matter . For there και εκειθεν , η δε απο της αοριστιας υλικης : γαρ are two ways in which an entity may be unlike itself or unlike another , either by nature , or contrary διχως εστιν ανοµοιον εαυτω και αλλο αλλω , η κατα φυσιν , η παρα to nature ; for example , Theaetetus is unlike Socrates by nature , since nature has made him in this way . φυσιν, ει οιον Θεαιτητος ανοµοιος Σωκρατει κατα φυσιν,γαρ της φυσεως εδεδηµιουργητο ουτω : Call this , ideal unlikeness and put it down as being an image of The Unlikeness There , καλει ταυτην την ειδητικην ανοµοιοτητα τιθεσο ειναι και εικονα της ανοµοιοτητος εκεινης , for it is the work of nature . But if you see something becoming either unlike itself or unlike another γαρ εστιν εργον φυσεως : δε εαν ιδης τι γιγνοµενον τοδε ανοµοιον εαυτω η τω αλλω because of a tendency contrary to nature , say that this unlikeness comes upon it , from “the sea of δια την τροπην το παρα επι φυσιν , φαθι την ταυτην ανοµοιοτητα επιγιγνεσθαι απο του ποντου unlikeness” (Statesman 273e) , and from , the indeterminateness of matter . της ανοµοιοτητος και της αοριστιας υλικης . Statesman: Then because of which , and in that instant , God , The Creator of The Kosmic Order , 273e δη διο και τοτ’ ηδη θεος ο αυτον κοσµησας , perceiving that It was in dire straits and taking-care in order that It might not succumb to the storm-tossed καθορων οντα εν αποριαις κηδοµενος ινα µη δυη υπο χειµασθεις confusion and Itself be dissolved in “the unlimited sea of unlikeness” , He again ταραχης αυτου οντα διαλυθεις εις τον απειρον ποντον της ανοµοιοτητος , καθ’ εαυτον παλιν took His Place as Its Helmsman , reversing that which had become unsound and unbound in εφεδρος των πηδαλιων στρεψας τα γιγνοµενος νοσησαντα και λυθεντα εν the previous period ; and Restoring and Adorning It by Making It Completely Immortal and Ageless . τη προτερα περιοδω τε επανορθων και κοσµει αυτον απεργαζεται αθανατον και αγηρων . And those who say that likeness is ideal , but unlikeness material , should have seen this Και τους λεγοντας την οµοιοτητα ειδητικην δε την ανοµοιοτητα υλικην , εδει συνοραν ταυτα and not made The Divine mingle with the material , and on the one hand , by means of this mixture , και µη ποιειν τον θειον συµµιγη προς την υλην , και µεν δια την ταυτην µιξιν produce likeness among created entities through Himself , but on the other hand , produce unlikeness οµοιουν τα δηµιουργηµατα δι’ εαυτον , δε ανοµοιουν through Matter , but rather (they should have said) that he does both functions through Himself , δια την υλην , αλλ δραν αµφω δι’ εαυτον by containing in Himself The Ideas of both of Them ; but that in what happens to be disposed contrary to εχοντα καθ’ εαυτον τας ιδεας αµφοιν : δε εν τα γιγνοµενα διαθεσει παρα τη nature , unlikeness occurs through matter only . For nothing that is unnatural or is generally evil , φυσιν ανοµοιουσθαι δια την υλην µονως : γαρ ουδεν των παρα φυσιν και ολως των κακων has its origin from Above and is modeled upon The Intelligibles There . For it is not possible for that εχει την γενεσιν εκειθεν και προς εκεινα : γαρ εστι ουδε το which is being assimilated to The Intelligibles to be contrary to nature , nor is it Lawful that what moves οµοιουµενον τοις νοητοις εχειν παρα φυσιν , ουδε θεµις το χωρειν

34

towards the worthlessness of matter should itself be moved towards being assimilated to The Intelligible 749 εις την αισχροτητα της υλης αυτο υποφεροµενον εις την εξοµοιωσιν προς τα νοερα Ideas , so that , the unlikeness which springs from being contrary to nature should be called earthborn , τα ειδη , ωστε την ανοµοιοτητα εκ µεν του παρα την φυσιν προσαγορειειν γηγενη and not worthy of being called Olympian , whereas the unlikeness that springs from nature , being seen και ουκ αξιον ολυµπιαν , δε την εκ του κατα φυσιν ορωµενην in wholes and its parts , and in genera and its constituents , coming from That Place to all the entities τε εν ολοις και µερεσιν , τε εν ειδεσι και εν τοις ατοµοις εφηκεν εκειθεν απασιν in which it may be present . However , we must think of Likeness as being Singular ; for all possess οις αν παρη . δε οιητεον Την οµοιοτητα µιαν : γαρ παν εχει likeness from nature , both to itself and to other entities ; but Likeness is unable to correspond with το οµοιον εκ του κατα φυσιν και προς εαυτο και προς αλλο , δε το οµοιον δυνατον συµβηναι anything that is contrary to nature , neither then , to itself , nor to anything else , since what is contrary to ουδενι εκ του παρα φυσιν , ουτ’ ουν προς εαυτο , ουτε προς αλλο , διοτι το παρα nature is indefinite/undefinable , and it lies outside the limit of The One and the unity appropriate to it . φυσιν εστι αοριστον , και εκβαινει του ενος και της ενοτητος προσηκουσης αυτω . Accordingly then , the following is also a fitting characterization of these genera ; thus on the one hand , αρα τουτο τοισδε και Επρεπε τοις γενεσιν , δε µεν Uniformity and Being Always The Same properly belong to Likeness , whereas on the other hand , this µονοειδες και το αει ταυτον οµοιοτητι , δε τουτο duplicity , and multiformity belong to Unlikeness , and as we said before , seeing that Likeness , on the το διπλουν και ετεροειδες ανοµοιοτητι , και ως προειρηται , επειδη η οµοιοτης one hand ,is also in the coordinate column of The Limit ,whereas Unlikeness is in that of The Unlimited ; µεν και συστοιχος τω περατι , δε η ανοµοιοτης τη απειρα : for Socrates is also looking at these two co-ordinations and always makes his procession in accordance γαρ ο Σωκρατης και βλεπων εις τας δυο συστοιχιας αει ποιειται την προοδον κατα to them . ταυτα . Therefore on the one hand , these comments have been said for the sake of this analogy . ουν µεν Ταυτα λελεχθω ενεκεν της αναλογιας : But on the other hand , let us go back again to the thought of Socrates , and let us say that he now δε αναδραµωµεν παλιν επι την διανοιαν του Σωκρατους , και λεγωµεν οτι αυτω µεν proposes to change (the direction) of the conversation , away from the many and immanent monads προκειται µεταγαγειν την συνουσιαν απο των πολλων και κατατεταγµενων µοναδων , towards which , Zeno was also trying to lead the multitude , to certain Intermediate Monads between εφ’ ας ο Ζηνων και επειρατο αναγαγειν τους πολλους , επι τινας µεσας µοναδας τε The Doctrine of Parmenides and the exposition of Zeno . And he summons The Intellectual Power της θεωριας Παρµενιδειου και της επιδειξεως του Ζηνωνος : και προκαλειται την νοεραν δυναµιν of Zeno , according to which Zeno is Perfectly United with Parmenides , seeing that The Object of his του Ζηνωνος , καθ’ ην και τελεως ηνωται προς τον Παρµενιδην , ορων εκεινω προς Intellection is The Same and has The Same End . Then , having such a proposed end , on the one hand , νοητον το αυτο και εχων το αυτο τελος . δε ουσης Τοιαυτης της προθεσεως µεν he remarks that there is nothing wonderful in the way there seems to be a mixture of Ideas in sensibles , αυτω φησι ειναι ουδεν θαυµαστον οπως δοκει µιγνυσθαι τα ειδη των αισθητων , for the same subject is able to partake of contrary attributes according to different ways ; but on the other γαρ αυτο υποκειµενον δυνατον µετεχειν των εναντιων κατ’ αλλο και αλλο : δε

35

hand , that it becomes quite puzzling to him how Beings in The Intelligible Realm are United , in an γιγνεσθαι πολλην αποριαν αυτω οπως εκεινα επι των νοητων ηνωται unconfused way , and in turn how They can be thoroughly Distinct without being divided/split in turn ; ασυγχυτως , και αυ οπως διακεκριται αδιαιρετως παλιν : which problem then , also appears to be troubling to others who came after him , so that some of them , ο δη και εδοξεν ειναι απορον αλλοις µετ’ αυτον , ωστε τινες following up these difficulties in their own way , on the one hand , they declared that “everything is 750 εφεποµενοι ταις αποριας εαυτων µεν οι απεφηναντο παντα ειναι everything” , and that Likeness Itself is Unlikeness , and that Rest Itself is Motion , and that each part is παντα , και την οµοιοτητα αυτην ανοµοιοτητα και την στασιν κινησιν , και εκαστον ειναι no less than the whole , so that the completeness of the parts as parts is homogeneous to that of the whole. ουδεν ελαττον παρ’ του ολου , και την υπαρξιν των µερων ειναι οµοχρουν προς το ολον : And that they surely think that they are accomplishing some deed that would be admired by Socrates . και δη και οιονται ποιειν πραγµα αγασθεν υπο Σωκρατους : At any rate , he himself will say , as he comes to the end of his speech , that if anyone should then show γουν αυτος ερει προελθων προς τω τελει της ρησεως , ως ει τις αρα δειξειε to him that all entities are mixed with one another , he would wondrously admire such a demonstration , αυτω παντα συγκεραννυµενα αλληλοις , αν θαυµαστως αγασθειη την τοιαυτην αποδειξιν , because surely he desired to have this demonstrated . Furthermore they will even interpret the words ως δη εραστης υπαρχων της τοιαυτης αποδειξεως : δε αυτοι και εξηγηδαντο της λεξεως at the beginning of the speech of Socrates , that it would be monstrous/wondrous/portentous as denoting εν το αρχη αν ειη το τερας κατα that which is supernatural and transcending natural distinctions , and in this way they say that Socrates το υπερφυες και υπεραιρον την φυσικην διαιρεσιν , και ουτως ερουσι τω Σωκρατει is in agreement with himself in naming the same thing both monstrous and admirable . But others , συµφωνειν αυτον αυτω ονοµαζοντα το αυτο και τερας και αγαστον . δε Οι in looking at The Unmixed Purity of The Ideas , say that Each of Them are Distinct from One another ; αποβλεψαντες προς την αµικτον καθαροτητα των ειδων λεγουσιν εκαστα διωρισθαι απ’ αλληλων , and neither is The Like filled with Unlikeness and so divisible with respect to that Unlikeness , nor is και µητε ειναι το οµοιον αναπλεων ανοµοιοτητος και διαιρετον προς το το ανοµοιον , µητε The Unlike filled with Likeness , but Each of Them is Pure and Simple and Uniform . This is why το ανοµοιον οµοιοτητος , αλλ’ εκαστον ειναι ειλικρινες και απλουν και µονοειδης : οθεν και Socrates says at the beginning of his speech , that if anyone can show that The Ideas Themselves , τον Σωκρατη ειπειν κατ’ αρχας της ρησεως , ως ει τις επιδειξει τα ειδη ταυτα including Likeness and Unlikeness , Themselves partake of One another , it would be wondrous . και το οµοιον και ανοµοιον εκει µετεχοντα αλληλων , αν ειη τερας : For we must maintain Each of Them in Its Own Peculiar Character Unconfused/Unmingled with Others . γαρ δει τηρειν εκαστον επι της οικειας ιδιοτητος ασυγχυτον προς τ’ αλλα : Then , at the end , when he says that he would admire anyone if they would show him that These Ideas δε επι τελει ειπειν οτι αν αγασθειη τις ει δειξειεν αυτω ταυτα are comingled , not as praising the one who could earnestly demonstrate this , but as condemning the συγκρινοµενα , ουχ ως επαινετην του σπουδαζοντος δεικνυναι ταυτα , αλλ’ ως κατηγορον της vainness of effort of the person ; for they say , we also marvel at those who attempt the impossible , µαταιοπονιας του ανδρος : γαρ φησι , και θαυµαζοµεν τους επιχειρουντας αδυνατως , in that they do not perceive their own inability , nor the nature of affairs that surpass their own οτι µη συναισθανονται εαυτων της αδυναµιας η της φυσεως των πραγµατων αληπτων αυτοις being . Still others , establishing themselves between these two groups , said that Socrates neither accepts οντων. δε Οι τινες σταντες εν µεσω τουτων, εφασαν τον Σωκρατη ουτε εγκρινειν

36

nor rejects , the comingling of the Ideas in this passage , but only expresses doubts and raises questions , ουτε απογινωσκειν την µιχιν των ειδων εν τουτοις , αλλα µονον απορειν και ερωταν , summoning Zeno to deliver their difficulty . And in this way the “it would be wondrous” and the προκαλουµενον τον Ζηνωνα εις το λυσαι τας αποριας : και ουτω το αν ειη τερας και το “I would be amazed” and the “I would admire” are the words of one in doubt , and neither accepting , 751 θαυµαζω και το αν αγασθειην ειναι ρηµατα απορουντος , και ουτε εγκρινοντος , nor rejecting of the mixture (of Ideas) , neither simply affirming , nor simply denying ; for we often ουτε αποδοκιµαζοντος την µιξιν , ουτε απλως καταφασκοντος , ουτε απογινωσκοντος : γαρ πολλακις use such terms to challenge our teachers , in order to prove their worth . χρωµεθα τοις τοιουτοις ονοµασιν προκαλεσωµεθα τους διδασκαλους , ινα την αυτων αξιαν . Such are the words then , on the one hand , that those illustrious and blessed people τοιαυτα Αλλα µεν οι εκεινοι κλεινοι και µακαριοι have said about these matters ; and on the other hand , it appears to me that they all spoke correctly , ειρηκασι περι τουτων : δε δοκουσι µοι τε παντες λεγειν ορθως , and yet , Plato speaks even more-Divinely . For he arranged these matters in the way before us , καιτοι ο Πλατων θειοτερον , και ο ταξας ταυτα τον τουτον τροπον το προσηκον by assigning to Socrates the role of a young man , who is well-disposed and finely-filtered/refined in και απονειµας τω Σωκρατει µεν νεω , δε ευφυει και λεπτω The Contemplation of Intelligibles , and through which providing him in due measure with the procedure θεωρια νοητη , και δι’ οιων παρασχοµενος αυτου κατα µετρα οπως προοδον and Reasonings required to reach The Very Truth . But in order to fully understand what is being said , και λογισµων εγενετο επι το αληθεστατον . δε Ινα τελειοτερον συλλαβωµεν το λεγοµενον , come along then , if you please , and let us first consider these questions through , in the following way . φερε , ει δοκει , πρωτον διασκεψωµεθα τουτων περι ουτωσι : Should we say that Likeness Itself has to be Unlikeness , and that Unlikeness is likewise Likeness , αρα φαναι την οµοιοτητα αυτην χρη ανοµοιοτητα , και την ανοµοιοτητα ωσαυτως οµοιοτητα , and that on the one hand , Sameness Itself is Otherness , whereas The One Itself is Many , and will και µεν την ταυτοτητα ετεροτητα , δε το εν αυτο πληθος , και we speak correctly in saying this , that each entity is also in all the rest of them , and so there is not one ερουµεν ορθως λεγοντες τουτο , ως εκαστον εστι και παντα τα λοιπα , και ουδεν that is not in all of them , and in this way we shall make the part no less than the whole ? But then should οτι µη παντα , και ουτω ποιησοµεν οτι παρ’ το µερος ουδεν ελαττον του ολου ; Αλλα ποτερον one simply say that each entity is all , or also say that each of the many parts in this all , is similarly µονον ρητεον εκαστον τα παντα , η και εκαστον των παντων εν τουτω , οµοιως all , and in turn that each of the parts of the parts is all , and proceed in this way , to infinity ? τα παντα , και αυ εκαστων των τουτων τα παντα , και προχωρητεον ουτως επ’ απειρον ; For if on the one hand , we say from the beginning that only each one of the totality of entities will be γαρ Ει µεν εξ αρχης µονον εκαστον των τα παντα εσται in this , but on the other hand , that every part in this is likewise no longer the totality of all , what is εν τουτω , δε εκαστον και οµοιως ουκετι των παντων τα παντα , τις the reason for this , and how will we be consistent with ourselves , in saying that on the one hand , some ο λογος και πως ακολουθησοµεν εαυτοις , λεγοντες τα µεν τα ideas partake of each other , whereas on the other hand , others are unmixed with each other , no longer ειδη µετεχειν αλληλων , δε τα αµιγη προς αλληλα , ουκετι making the parts of the parts the same as the wholes ? But if on the other hand , every part (idea) always ποιουντες τα µερη των µερων τα αυτα τοις ολοις ; Ει δε εκαστον αει partakes of other parts (ideas) , then the ideas will be infinite in number and each of them infinitely so ; µεθεξει των αλλων , τα ειδη εσται απειρα και εκαστον απειραχως :

37

for it is not the totality alone that will have this infinity , but each of them as well . Furthermore how can γαρ ου τα παντα µονον εξει ταυτην την απειριαν , αλλα εκαστον και : καιτοι πως δυνατον Entities that are near The One be infinite in number ? For Entities that are More-Unified by being Limited 752 τα ειναι εγγυς του ενος απειρα ? γαρ Τα ενικωτερα συνεσταλµενα in Quantity have to be Unlimited in Potential-Power . But how can there be an infinity of paradigms τω ποσω εχει το απειρον τη δυναµει . δε Πως εσονται απειρα παραδιγµατα in Intellect , for every single perceptible form , corresponding to the infinite number of men that exist ? εν νω παρα τινος ενος αισθητου ειδους , παρα το απειροι ανθρωποι ειναι ; But on the contrary , there must be One Idea of the infinite number of cases . So for this reason we revert δε τουναντιον χρη ειναι εν ειδος των απειρων : και γαρ δια τουτο ανατρεχοµεν to the hypothesis of Ideas ; in order that we contain in Intellect The Monads of the many separate cases , επι την υποθεσιν των ειδων : ινα εχωµεν εν νω τας µοναδας των πολλων και διηρηµενων , and since The Monad Essentially Precedes Plurality , not plurality The One Ideal . And και επει την µοναδα κατ’ουσιαν προηγεισθαι του πληθους , ου το πληθους του ενος ειδους . και so , generally , if The One Idea posited in Intellect will produce the same results , what need have we δε Ολως ει εν ειδος υποτιθεν εν νω ποιησει τα αυτα , τι δεοµεθα of an infinity of them ? For it is better to work from those that have been set within limits than from της απειριας ; γαρ βελτιον ποιειν εκ πεπερασµενων η εξ those that have no limits , for that which has been set within a limit is also more akin to The Beginning απειρων , γαρ το πεπερασµενον εστι και συγγενεστερον τη αρχη and more suitable for Knowledge . For all Knowledge belongs to those that have been set within limits , και οικειοτερον προς την επιστηµην : γαρ αι επιστηµαι εισι των πεπερασµενων , and those that have been set within limits go unrecognized by those that have no limits ; but on the και τα πεπερασµενα ου γινωσκουσιν τοις απειροις , αλλ’ του− contrary , those that have no limits are always recognized by those that have been set within limits . −ναντιον τα απειρα αει τοις πεπερασµενοις . Accordingly then , we should by no means think that Intellect knows , or creates Limited Entities αρα δει Πολλου ο νους γινωσκειν η ποιειν τα πεπερασµενα by means of an unlimited number of ideas ; that Intellect which is so much more Unified than Knowledge τοις απειροις ειδεσιν , ος εστι τοσουτον ενικωτερος της επιστηµης so that It Embraces/Contains/Comprehends all the varieties of Itself Indivisibly and Anticipates their ωστε περιεχειν πασαν την ποικιλιαν αυτης αµεριστως και προειληφεναι την entire unfoldment . Now then in the second place , when we refer to that kind of Likeness and Unlikeness πασαν ανελιξιν . τοινυν ∆ευτερον οταν λεγωµεν την εκει οµοιοτητα και ανοµοιοτητα (for I shall turn my attention to These) are we referring to one Entity , although it is called by two names , (γαρ γιγνεσθω η σκεψις επι τουτων) , εστι αρα µεν εν πραγµα , δε αυτο καλουµεν δυο ονοµασιν , as we habitually do when we speak of those entities that have more than one name , or are we indicating ως ειωθαµεν λεγειν επι των πολυωνυµων , η δηλουµεν a distinct Entity by each one of the names , and in this latter case , is it the result of our bare reflection , τι ιδιον δι’ εκατερου των ονοµατων , και τουτο ποτερον ηµετεραν ψιλην κατ’ επινοιαν , or According to Itself , is it The Essential-Being of These Resources ? For if on the one hand , they are η κατ’ αυτην την ουσιαν των πραγµατων ; γαρ Ει µεν two names applied to one object/resource , these terms are not contrary to one another , for contraries δυο ονοµατα καθ’λεγεται ενος πραγµατος , ταυτα εστι ουτε εναντια αλληλοις : γαρ τα εναντια are objects/entities/resources , not just mere names . Nor will entities originating from Unlikeness , εστιν τα πραγµατα , αλλ’ ου τα ψιλα τα ονοµατα . Ουτε αλλα µεν απο της ανοµοιοτητος be different from those originating from Likeness , but it will be one and the same originating from Both ; εσται αλλα δε απο της οµοιοτητος , αλλ’ εν και ταυτον εξ αµφοιν :

38

for we are supposing that the object is one , but that which comes into being has its generation from γαρ υποκειται το πραγµα εν , δε το γιγνοµενον εχει την γενεσιν εκ the object/resource and is assimilated to the object , not to the name . Nor generally , will The Ideas του πραγµατος και οµοιουται προς το πραγµα , αλλ’ ου προς τα ονοµατα : ουτε ολως τα ειδη be many , but as it is likely the case , a certain Unit called by many names . Nor will The Genera of Being 753 εσται πολλα , αλλ’ ως εοικεν τι εν καλουµενον πολλοις ονοµασι : ουδε τα γενη του οντος be Five-fold , (Being-Sameness-Otherness-Rest-Motion . Sophist 254) if indeed These Many Ideas are πεντε , ειπερ ταυτα παντα εστι According to Their Essential-Being , Singular , and so , Sameness , does not in any way differ from κατα την ουσιαν εν , και η ταυτοτης απαραλλακτως Otherness and Otherness from Sameness , and each of Them from All of Them ; so that if All are in All , ετεροτης και η ετεροτης ταυτοτης , και εκαστον τα παντα : ωστε ει παντα εν πασιν , in this way , All are also All , and furthermore nothing is in anything ; for there will be only One , and so ουτω παντα εστι και παντα και ουδεν εστιν εν ουδενι : γαρ εσται µονον εν , δε the others will be names , only . But if on the other hand , when we say that Likeness is a certain Idea , τα αλλα ονοµατα µονον . Ει δε οταν λεγωµενοτι η οµοιοτης τι ειδος , and when in turn we add that Unlikeness is also , in a similar way , a certain Idea , we are indicating και οταν αυ επιφερωµεν οτι η ανοµοιοτης και οµοιως τι ειδος , σηµαινοµεν different entities by these names (or what is the source of us saying on the one hand , that one is superior ετερα δια τωνδε των ονοµατων ( η ποθεν φαµεν µεν το κρειττον whereas the other is inferior , if we do not also see the distinction between them ?) , shall we then say δε το καταδεεστερον , µη και θεωρουντες την διακρισιν αυτων ;) , ποτερον φησοµεν that The Entities being indicated are different in our thought only , or according to Itself in the very nature τα σηµαινοµενα ετερα επινοια µονον , η κατ’ αυτην την φυσιν of These Resources ? For if on the one hand , they are different only by our thought , the distinction των πραγµατων ; γαρ Ει µεν µονον επινοια , η ετεροτης of The Ideas will go away when our thought is removed , and again when the soul is not thinking , των ειδων οιχησεται ηµων της επινοιας αρθεισης , ως παλιν ψυχης µη νοουσης there will be One Intelligible Idea and not many ; for entities that possess their distinctness by our thought εσται εν νοητον και ου πολλα : γαρ τα εχοντα την διακρισιν ηµετεραις επινοιαις are reasonably annihilated together along with our thought ; and since the totality that comes to be from εικοτως συναναιρειται µετα των επινοιων : και γαρ το παν γιγνοµενον εξ our thought is also founded on that alone , it is abolished and is gone when our ηµετερας επινοιας και ιδρυµενον εν ταυτη µονη ανηρηµενης [αναιρεω] και φρουδον της thought itself is gone , since nothing at all can remain in existence , when the primary cause that produces επινοιας αυτο οιχεται , ως µηδεν ολως , δυναται µενειν και της πρωτης αιτιας του παραγοντος it does not exist . But again , surely if , according to Themselves , These Resources differ by αυτο µη οντος , δε και δη Ει κατ’ αυτην των πραγµατων διαφερει Their Essential-Being , accordingly then , Likeness and Unlikeness are quite Distinct from one another , την ουσιαν , αρα οµοιοτης και ανοµοιοτης διακεκριται αλληλων so also Sameness and Otherness , and each one of The Ideas ; and so neither is Likeness just like και ταυτοτης και ετεροτης και εκαστα των ειδων , και ουτε η οµοιοτης οπερ Unlikeness , nor is Sameness just like Otherness , nor is Each one just like all of Them . η ανοµοιοτης , ουτε η ταυτοτης οπερ ετεροτης , ουτε εκαστον οπερ τα παντα . Therefore , on the one hand , through these considerations this should be clear , and taken ουν µεν δια τουτων Τουτο εστω φανερον , και κεισθω as having being proved , that Each of The Ideas is not All of Them , and so the part , as they say , is not δεδειγµενον ως εκαστον των ειδων εστιν ουκ τα παντα , και το µερος , ως φασιν , εστι ουκ

39

identical to the whole , but rather The Part is both a Whole and not The Whole , and The Whole is ταυτον τω ολω , αλλα το µερος τε ολον και ουχ ολον , τε το ολον Essentially Superior to The Parts . But then , shall we say that All The Ideas are unmingled and τη ουσια κρειττον των µερων . Αλλ’ αρα φησοµεν παντα τα ειδη αµικτα και do not Participate of One-another ? But this is also absurd ; for we see that even the parts of sensibles 754 αµετοχα αλληλων ; αλλα τουτο και ατοπον : γαρ ορωµεν οτι και τα µερη των αισθητων are in sympathy and joined-together with one another , having been allotted for the establishment and εστιν συµπαθη και συνεχη αλληλοις παρειληµµενα[λαγχανω] προς υποστασιν και fulfillment of one form . Surely then , much more must The Ideas Above , whether being Parts of συµπληρωσιν ενος ειδους . δη ουν πολλω ∆ει τα ειδη εν εκεινοις ποτερον οντα µερη The One Intellect , passing through One-another and Existing in One-another . For on the one hand , του ενος νου χωρειν δι’ αλληλων και ειναι εν αλληλοις : γαρ µεν sensibles , that need extension/place , welcome cohesiveness/continuity as a substitute for Unity ; τα αισθητα τα δεοµενα τοπου ηγαπησε την συνεχειαν αντι της ενωσεως , but Intelligibles on the other hand , possess The Unity that is Proper for Them and Penetrate through τα νοητα δε εχει την ενωσιν την πρεπουσαν αυτοις και την διιξιν δι’ One-another , without confusion ; for They are in an Indivisible Subject , and so The Beings (Ideas) αλληλων , ασυγχυτον : γαρ εστι εν αµερει , δε τα οντα That are in an Indivisible Subject (Ousia) , Co-exist with One-another in an Undivided Way ; for some εν αµερει συνεστιν αλληλοις αδιακριτως : γαρ τα µεν of them are not in this place , while others are in another , for That in which They Are , is in no way αυτων εσται ου ωδι , τα δε εν αλλω , εν ω οντος εστιν ουδαµως divisible . And certainly , we see such evidence , even in seeds , for each seed contains all the µεριστου . και Αλλα το τοιουτον µεν επι των σπερµατων , γαρ ενι εν παντες οι reason-sources (DNA) and whatever part of a seed you may take , you will find in it all the reason-source . λογοι , και ο τι του σπερµατος αν λαβοις , ευρησεις εν αυτω παντας τους λογους : Thus , on the one hand , the seed , by having the reason-source in potency , also has all of that reason- ουν µεν το περµα , εχον τους λογους δυναµει , και εχει παντας τους source potentially in each part . But on the other hand , prior to this seed , there must be , that which λογους δυναµει εν εκαστω . δε προ τουτου ∆ει ειναι το has everything in actuality in each part . For nowhere does nature start from the imperfect ; for neither εχον παντα κατ’ ενεργειαν εν εκαστω: γαρ ουδαµου η φυσις αρχεται απο των ατελων : γαρ ουδε could imperfect beings proceed to their perfection , if there were not Perfect Beings existing before them , αν τα ατελη προηλθεν επι το τελας , µη των τελειων προυπαρχοντων , to which they also bear a dim likeness , by having received an imperfect image . Therefore , what else is It ων και φερει τινα αµυδραν οµοιωσιν , παραδεξαµενα την ατελη εικασιαν . ουν Τι αλλο εστιν than Intellect , in which all beings partake of all qualities ? And whatever it is that you may take , it is η νους εν ω παντα µετεχει παντων ; και παν αν λαβοις That Very Resource that will be found to have community with other beings ; for if we also say that οπερ ευρησεις κεκοινωνηκος των αλληλων : γαρ ει και λεγοµεν That Essential-Being is Indivisible , how can It/She be divided in such a way , so as to be unmingled and εκεινην ουσιαν αµεριστον , πως αυτην µερισοµεν ουτως ως ειναι αµικτον και without community with Herself ? For beings that are unmixed with one another and have absolutely no ακοινωνητον προς εαυτην ; γαρ τα αµικτα προς αλληλα και εχοντα µηδεµιαν common-ground are in every way , unsympathetic to one-another , and neither is it in their nature to love κοινωνιαν εστιν παντως ασυµπαθη αλληλοις , και ουτε πεφυκεν εραν one-another nor complete the fulfillment of their unification , but on the contrary they are divided and αλληλων ουτε τελειν εκπληρωσιν εις ενος , αλλα τουναντιον µεµερισθαι και

40

estranged from one another . For if each part preserves its own nature in being unmixed with the others , διεσπασθαι αλληλων . γαρ ει εκαστον σωζει την εαυτου φυσιν εν τω αµιγει προς τα αλλα it will flee from having community with them in order to be preserved . Surely then , where will that φευξεται την κοινωνιαν προς εκεινα ινα σωζηται . δη ουν Που which is Indivisible have a place throughout The Divine Ideas ? Where then , will that Friendship be 755 ο αµεριστον εξει χωραν δια των θειων ειδων ; που δε η φιλια throughout The Intelligibles and that Love , of which we are in the habit of singing ? Then where is δια των νοητων και εκεινος ο ερως , ον ειωθαµεν υµνειν ; δε που The Unity that comes upon Them from The One , and such other Qualities that we speak of in praising η ενωσις η εφηκουσα εκ του ενος , και οσα αλλα λεγοµεν υµνουντες That Divine Nature ? Accordingly then , one must not suppose that The Ideas are altogether unmixed and εκεινην την φυσιν ; αρα Ουκ θετεον τα ειδη παντη αµικτα και without communion with one another , certainly then nor must we say , that each one , is all of them , as ακοινωντα αλληλοις , αλλα µην ουδε ρητεον εκαστον τα παντα , ως it has been demonstrated . How then , and in what way are we to dialectically engage this subject itself ? δεδεικται . Πως δε και τινα τροπον διαλεκτεον περι αυτου ; On the one hand , we must say that Each of Them is Precisely just as It Is , by Preserving Pure , Its Own µεν Εκαστον ειναι οπερ εστι , σωζον καθαραν την εαυτου Specific Nature , but on the other hand , by also Partaking of The Others in an Unconfused Way ; not by την ιδιοτητα , δε και µετεχειν των αλλων ασυγχυτως , ουχ ως becoming one of Them , but by Participating of The Specific Nature of That Other , and by Sharing Its γιγνοµενον εκεινων , αλλ’ ως µεταλαµβανον της ιδιοτητος της εκεινου και µεταδιδον της Own Nature with It , such as by saying that Sameness Partakes in a certain way of Otherness and without οικειας εκεινω , οιον ο λεγων την ταυτοτητα µετεχειν πη της ετεροτητος και µη being Otherness ; for there is also a Plurality in This Idea ; and not only is It Other than Unlikeness , ουσαν ετεροτητα : γαρ εστι και πληθος εν ταυτη , και ου µονον εστιν ετερον ανοµοιοτητος , but It is also Other than Itself ; and that in a similar way , Otherness Partakes of Sameness , inasmuch as it αλλα και εαυτης : και οµοιως την ετεροτητα µετεχειν ταυτοτητος , καθοσον is also Common to All Others and in another way is The Same as Itself ; neither is Sameness Otherness , και κοινωνει προς τα αλλα και αλλη εστιν ταυτον εαυτη: µητε ειναι την ταυτοτητα ετεροτητα , nor Otherness Sameness ; for this has been refuted by what we said earlier ; and in turn we say again µητε την ετεροτητα ταυτοτητα : γαρ τουτο ενηλεγκται δια των λογων προειρηµενων : και αυ παλιν that Unlikeness Partakes of Likeness ; for inasmuch as All The Ideas Partake of One Certain Character , οµοιοτητος µετεχειν την ανοµοιοτητα : γαρ καθοσον παντα τα ειδη µετεχει ενος τινος ιδιωµατος They are Like One-another ; and that Likeness Partakes of Unlikeness ; for generally (like All The Ideas) ωµοιωται αλληλοις : και την οµοιοτητα ανοµοιοτητος : γαρ ολως if Likeness Shares/Imparts of Itself to Others , It is Unlike Them ; for in this way It will be The Provider , ει η οµοιοτης µεταδιδωσι εαυτης τοις αλλοις, ανωµοιωται αυτοις: γαρ ουτω αν µεν η µετεδιδω , but The Others will be The Partakers ; and if Unlikeness Provides of Itself to Others , It becomes δε τα µετελαµβανε : και ει η ανοµοιοτης µεταδιδωσιν εαυτης τοις αλλοις , γιγνεται Like them , but more than that , (Unlikeness) Itself and That (Likeness) become Like . But neither is οµοιουται αυτοις , δε µαλλον αυτη τε και εκεινη οµοια : δε µητε ειναι Likeness , Unlikeness , nor Unlikeness Itself , Likeness . Neither is Unlikeness την οµοιοτητα ανοµοιοτητα , µητε την ανοµοιοτητα αυτην οµοιοτητα , µηδε ειναι ανοµοιον just like Likeness , nor Likeness just like Unlikeness . For the term in so far as is twofold . For we use καθο οµοιοτης , µηδε οµοιον , καθο ανοµοιοτης . γαρ Το καθο εστιν διττον : γαρ λεγοµεν the term in this way ; that whatever may be grasped of one , then so also of the other , just as when το καθο ουτω , ως ο τι περ αν λαβοις ενος του ετερου , ωσπερ

41

they say , that just as this is air , so also is it light , and that just as this is light , so also is it air . So then , λεγοι κατα τουτο αηρ , καθο και φως , και κατα τουτο φως , καθο και αηρ . δε let there be a volume of air that is full of light , and so , neither is the air , light , nor the light , air ; yet Εστω τις αηρ πεφωτισµενος , και ουτε ο αηρ φως , ουτε το φως αηρ , αλλα the air is also in the light , and the light is in the air , for the reason that both the parts of air and the parts 756 ο αηρ και εν τω φωτι , και το φως εν τω αερι , διοτι τε των µοριων του αερος και του of light subsist together with one-another ; there being no part of either of these that we can take in which φωτος παρακειµενων αλληλοις , εστι ουδεν θατερου τουτων λαβειν the other is not also seen , by just as much . Or , according to another way , thus we can use the term as το λοιπον µη και θεωρειται καθο . Η καθ’ ετερον τροπον , ουτω λεγοµεν το αυτο ως meaning what we usually express by in as much as , for example , man in as much as he is a man , ειωθαµεν λεγειν η οιον ανθρωπος η is receptive of knowledge . For it is not true that , air in as much as it is air , contains the light , δεκτικον επιστηµης : γαρ εστι ουκ αληθες οτι το αηρ η τω αερι εν το φως according to this indication , since air does not at all imply light , as we say that man κατα τουτο το σηµαινοµενον του αερος ου παντως συνεισαγοντος το φως , ως φαµεν τον ανθρωπον implies being receptive to knowledge . For air is one essence , and light , another . So then , it is also συνεισαγειν δεκτικον το επιστηµης : γαρ αερος αλλη ουσια , και φωτος αλλη . τοινυν και in this way , that Likeness , in so far as It is Likeness , It also Partakes of Unlikeness . For there is not one Ουτω η οµοιοτης , καθο µεν οµοιοτης , και µετεχει ανοµοιοτητος : γαρ εστιν ουδεν part of Itself which does not also Partake of That Unlikeness , for The Being of Likeness It/Herself , is αυτης ο µη µετεχει κακεινης η ανοµοιοτης : γαρ το ειναι αυτης One Essence , while The Being of Unlikeness is Another Essence . So then , Unlikeness , in so far as It is αλλο και εκεινης αλλο : και τοινυν η ανοµοιοτης καθο Unlikeness , It Partakes of Likeness . For it is not the case that one part of it partakes of the other , while ανοµοιοτης , µετεχει της οµοιοτητος . γαρ Ου το µεν µερος αυτης µετεσχεν εκεινης , another part remains un-participating .For nothing prevents Its penetrating That , nor does its Impartibility το δε εµεινειν αµετοχον : γαρ ουτε τις κωλυει την διιξιν εκεινης , ουτε αυτης το αµεριστον being such as it is , for example ; allows one part to participate , while another part remains unmixed τοιουτον εστιν , οιον τη µεν µετεχειν , τη δε µενειν αµικτον with Itself . Accordingly then , Likeness as a Whole also pervades through Unlikeness as a Whole , προς αυτην . αρα η οµοιοτης Ολη και χωρει δια της ανοµοιοτητος δι’ ολης , and Unlikeness through Likeness . Not however in so far as either one of the two , does one partake και η ανοµοιοτης δια της οµοιοτητος : ου µεντοι η εκατερα εστι ταυτη µετεχει of the other , but The One Partakes while Protecting Pure Its Own Essential-Being and The Others . And της λοιπης , αλλα µετεχει φυλαττουσα καθαραν την εαυτης ουσιαν και εκεινης . Και Likeness is not Unlikeness , neither in-Itself in so far as it is Likeness ; nor as being primarily Likeness , η οµοιοτης εστιν ουτε ανοµοιοτης , ουτε καθ’αυτο η οµοιοτης : ουτε µεν πρωτως οµοιοτης , then by implication Unlikeness ; nor is it wholly Unlikeness , although it partakes of Unlikeness δε κατ επακολουθησιν ανοµοιοτης , ουθ’ ολως ανοµοιοτης , αλλα µετεχει της ανοµοιοτητος throughout The Whole of Itself . Thus , It is unlike , but not Unlikeness ; being unlike by Participation . καθ’ ολην εαυτην : και εστιν ανοµοιον , αλλ’ ουκ ανοµοιοτης , τη δε ανοµοιον µετουσια . For in this way Plato also demonstrated in the Sophist (256) the communion of Sameness and Otherness , γαρ Ουτω ο Πλατων και δειξας εν Σοφιστη την κοινωνιαν ταυτοτητος και ετεροτητος by not also calling Sameness Otherness , but other , and because of this “not-Being” . ου και προσειρηκε ταυτοτητα ετεροτητα , αλλ’ ετερον , και δια τουτο µη ον :

42

Stranger: For when we say that it (motion) is the same and not the same , we do not apply these terms 256 γαρ οταν ειπωµεν αυτην ταυτον και µη ταυτον, ου ειρηκαµεν in the same way ; but on the one hand , whenever we call it the same in relation to itself , by its partaking οµοιως , αλλ’ µεν οποταν λεγοµεν ταυτον προς εαυτην , δια την µεθεξιν of The Same in this way , but on the other hand , when we call it not the same , because in turn by its ταυτου ουτω , δε οταν µη ταυτον , δια αυ την having communion with The Other , through which , it has become severed from The Same , κοινωνιαν θατερου, δι’ ην αποχωριζοµενη ταυτου and has become not that (same) , but other , so that again in turn , it is rightly spoken of as not the same . γεγονεν ουκ εκεινο αλλ’ ετερον , ωστε παλιν αυ ορθως λεγεται ου ταυτον . For it (motion) became other by participation ; yet other , while remaining the same in Essential-Being . γαρ τη γεγονεν ετερον µετουσια , αλλ’ ετερον µενουσα ταυτοτης τη ουσια . And so , in the same way Otherness is , on the one hand , in Essential-being , Otherness , but on the other και δε οµοιως η ετεροτης µεν τη ουσια ετεροτης , δε hand , the same by Participation . And generally , Each Idea , Is what It Is , by Its Essential-Being , but ταυτον τη µετουσια . Και ολως εκαστα εστιν α εστι τη µεν ουσια δε also Enjoy The Benefit of The Others , through Its Participation . And in this way , All The Ideas are 757 και απολελαυκεν[απολαυω] των αλλων τη µετουσια : και ουτω παντα τα ειδη Beautiful by Partaking of Beauty , and are Just by Partaking of Justice , but it is certainly not the case that καλα µετασχοντα του καλου , και δικαια του δικαιου , µην ου each of Them is Beauty Itself and Justice Itself . Accordingly then , The Ideas are both Unified with εκαστον καλον αυτο και δικαιον αυτο . αρα τα ειδη Και ηνωται One-another and are also Distinct from One-another. Certainly then , by This Being The Innate Qualities αλληλοις και διακεκριται απ’ αλληλων : γουν τουτο εστι ιδιον of The Bodiless Ideas , then They also Penetrate/Pass Through One-another in an Unconfused Way and των ασωµατων ειδων , και το χωρειν δι’ αλληλων ασυγχυτως και are Distinct from One-another in an Undivided Way , and on the one hand , because of Their Indivisible διακεκρισθαι απ’ αλληλων αδιακριτως , και µεν δια αυτων την αµεριστον Nature , They are More-Unified than the elements that dissolve into each other , but on the other hand , φυσιν µαλλον ηνωσθαι των συνεφθαρµενων δε because of Their Unmixed Purity , They are more Distinct than the spatially separated entities here . δια αυτων την αµικτον καθαροτητα µαλλον διακεκρισθαι των διεστωτων ενταυθα . Surely then , having thus set in order these preliminary considerations , let us proceed δη ουν ουτω Τουτων προδιατεταγµενων , επανελθοντες to the contemplation of the words before us , and let us say , that on the one hand , Socrates looks-over εις την θεωριαν των προκειµενων , ειπωµεν : µεν ο Σωκρατης αποβλεπων a portion of the arguments above , when he rejects mixture in the case of The Ideas , and expresses his τι των ειρηµενων απογιγνωσκει την µιξιν προς επι των ειδων , και αποκαλει amazement at any argument leading to it . For , from where he stands , he expresses as wondrous , that τερας τον λογον τρεποµενον ταυτη : γαρ αυτοθεν εκαλεσε τερας Likeness Itself be Unlike . But on the other hand , by reviewing the question from another point of view , το οµοιον αυτο ειναι ανοµοιον : δε παλιν απιδων τι he suspects (the truth of the matter) , since he says that he would admire/wondrously respect , if this could καθυπονοει µεν , δε φησιν θαυµασειν ει τουτο in any way be shown . Then , at the third stage , having an insight of the truth of doctrine , he declares πη δειχθειη : δε το τριτον επιβαλλων τω αληθεστατω λογω αποκαλει

43

that the one who is capable of proving this would be worthy of admiration . Therefore , in his perplexity τον δυναµενον δειξαι τουτο αγαστον . ουν απορων whether The Ideas are associated with one another , he summons Zeno to help in the solution ει τα ειδη µετ αλληλων , καλων τον Ζηνωνα βοηθον προς την διαλυσιν of this problem ; and by taking into account , that if perhaps The Ideas are not so mixed that Likeness τουτου , και υπολαβων αρα τα ειδη µη ουτω µεµικται ως το οµοιον Itself is Unlike , he rejects mixture of that sort and calls such a doctrine amazing ; but then again , αυτο ειναι ανοµοιον, απεγνω µιξιν τοιαυτην και απεκαλεσε τοιουτον το δογµα τερας : δε παλιν maybe not ; by suspecting that because of The Unity of The Intelligible Realm , then The Ideas may αρα µη υπονοησας δια την ενωσιν των νοητων εκεινα somehow Partake of One-another , he says that he would surely be amazed , if anyone were able to prove πως µετεχει αλληλων , εφη δη θαυµασειν , του χρησαµενος δεικνυντος this ; using the word (prove/demonstrate) as if already suspecting The Truth . Then finally , by having τουτο , φωνη ηδη υπονοουντος ταληθες : δε τελος επι− the Insight , that They may be Capable of Being both Unified and Distinct , he calls , worthy of −βαλλων οτι δυναται και ηνωσθαι και διακεκρισθαι , επωνοµασε admiration , anyone who could demonstrate this . And see through what stages he advances . For first , αγαστον τον αποδεικνυντα τουτο . Και ορας οση της ταξις ανοδου : γαρ πρωτον he rejects , secondly , he gets a suspicion into how The Truth is Ordained , then finally , he arrives απεγνω , δευτερον υπονοιαν εις του αληθους κατεστη , επειτα τελευταιον κατηντησε at the doctrine itself, being firmly established by proofs. And neither is his rejection of mixture mistaken ; 758 εις το αυτο βεβαιωθεν δια των αποδειξεων. Και ουτε η απογνωσις της µιξεως επταισµενη : for The Ideas are not mixed according to that way ; nor is his suspicion false ; for on the one hand , They γαρ τα ειδη αµικτα κατα εκεινον τον τροπον : ουτε η υπονοια ψευδης : γαρ µεν are somehow able to Participate of one another , but on the other hand , somehow exist without anything πως δυναται µετεχειν αλληλων ; δε πως εστιν α− in common with one another ? And his ultimate calculation is truest of all ; for They are both Unified and κοινωνητα αλληλοις ; και η τελευταια ψηφος αληθεστατη : γαρ και ηνωνται και Distinct , as has been demonstrated by what we have said above . And all the judgments of Socrates διακεκριται , καθαπερ δεδεικται δια των προειρηµενων : και παντα τα κριµατα του Σωκρατους are in harmony with one another ; such as that “it would be amazing”, and that “it would be wondrous ”, συµφωνα αλληλοις , το αν ειη τερας , το θαυµασειν , and that “I shall admire”, they are (respectively) , expressions of rejection , and suspicion and hope . το αν αγασθειην , η τε απογηωσις και υπονοια και η ελπις . And from these transitions it is clear , how Plato portrays the representation of a well-disposed soul . και απο τουτων δηλον , οση τω Πλατωνι παρα Η µιµησις της ευφυους ψυχης : For on the one hand , it is characteristic of those who are being led upward that after the rejection , γαρ µεν ιδιον των ανογοµενων το µετα την απογνωσιν to suspect The Truth , and then grasp It round , and continue to move forward . But on the other hand , υπονοειν ταληθες , επειτ’ δραττεσθαι αυτου περι , και αει χωρειν προσωτερω : δε this is also characteristic of the good-natured soul ; that neither its rejection (of a doctrine) be empty , τουτο και προσεστι τη ευφυει ψυχη το µητε την απογνωσιν ειναι διακενον , nor is its suspicion (of The Truth) be illusory , because it is taking into view the way in which the µητε την υπονοιαν πλασµατωδη , δια το αφοραν τους τροπους καθ’ ους το statement is not true in relation to them , or in what way it is the case , but in what way it is not . πραγµα εστιν ουκ προς εκεινους η πη εστι µεν , δε πη εστι ουκ . Thus on the one hand , we shall consider the other stages later-on , but now on the other hand , ουν µεν επισκεψοµεθα Τα αλλα εισαυθις : δε νυν

44

let us speak about the words under consideration . Now then , Socrates agrees that in sensibles , the same ειπωµεν περι των ρηµατων εκκειµενων . τοινυν συγχωρει εν τοις αισθητοις Το αυτο singular aspect under consideration can be seen to be both like and unlike ; and so , εν περι υποκειµενον θεωρουµενων ειναι αµφοτερων οµοιον και ανοµοιον, και µεν be like in one way , but unlike in another way , but he is puzzled whether it is also the case , if among της οµοιοτητος κατ’ αλλο , δε της ανοµοιοτητος κατ’ αλλο : δε απορει και ει επι The Ideas Themselves , the like is unlike and the unlike like , and in his doubt , των ειδων αυτων το οµοιον εστι ανοµοιον , και το ανοµοιον οµοιον : και απορησας he calls that statement amazing , for this is not the mode of the mixture , which makes each one προσηγορευσεν αυτο τερας , γαρ ουτος εστιν ου ο τροπος της µιξεως , ος ποιει εκαστον of The Ideas , precisely what Each one is , as shown by the reasons set forth above . And to me , it is των ειδων , οπερ εκαστον , δια τους λογους προειρηµενους . Και µοι not surprising that if in dealing with The Idea Itself , he presents It again in the plural by saying , ου θαυµασης ει ποιουµενος περι του ειδους αυτου προσηνεγκατο αυτο παλιν πληθυντικως ειπων “if on the one hand , someone were showing that They are likes” for Likeness is both one and many , ει µεν τις απεφαινεν αυτα οµοια : γαρ το οµοιον εστιν εν και πολλα , so that It is both Like and likes . For as the arithmeticians say , the parts of an Even-times Even Number , ωστε αυτο εστι και οµοιον και οµοια . γαρ Ως οι αριθµητικοι φασιν τα µερη του αρτιου αρτιακις are Themselves Even , so also must we speak ; and so the many parts of The Like are Likes , and those 759 και αυτα αρτια , ουτω και ηµιν ρητεον : και το πληθους του οµοιου οµοια , και του of The Unlike are unlikes . For The Whole of Intellect also consists of Intellects ; for Intellect does not ανοµοιου ανοµοια : γαρ ο ολος νους και εκ νοων : γαρ ο νους ου consist of unintelligent beings ; nor does The Like consist of Unlikes . And if Likeness is a plurality and εξ ανοητων , ουδε το οµοιον ανοµοιων . και Ει η οµοιοτητος πληθος και Itself not-One , it is not only Likeness , but also Likenesses , for It also contains many , or rather αυτο µη εν , εστιν ουχ µονον οµοιοτης , αλλα και οµοιοτητες : γαρ και εχει πολλας , δε µαλλον All The Assimilative Powers ; such as either those that assimilate images to their models , or the images απασας οµοιωτικας δυναµεις η των εικονων προς τα παραδειγµατα , η των εικονων to one-another , or parts to wholes , or parts to one another . Thus , the likeness corresponding to each προς αλληλας, η των µερων προς τα ολα, η των µερων προς αλληλα : δε οµοιοτης καθ’εκαστην of These Powers also makes Likeness Itself a Being of Likes/Likenesses . Unless perhaps the object of των δυναµεων και ποιει το αυτοοµοιον τις ουσα οµοια . µη αρα Ει τουτο Socrates’ search is also , not if The Like and The Unlike partake of One-another ; but whether , even if all ο Σωκρατης ζητει και ει το οµοιον και το ανοµοιον µετειληχεν αλλγηλων : αλλ’ ει και παντα The Intelligible Ideas are Like One-another , are All of Them also Unlike , through partaking of both τα νοητα ειδη οµοια αλληλοις , εστι παντα και ανοµοια τω µετεχειν Likeness and Unlikeness , just as the entities in this realm also partake of The Likeness and Unlikeness οµοιοτητος και ανοµοιοτητος, ωσπερ τα τηδε και τω µετεχειν της οµοιοτητος και ανοµοιοτητος in Them , are like and unlike through one another . But let us , if you please , look in another way at the εν αυτοις εστιν οµοια και ανοµοια δι’ αλληλα . δε ει βουλει ορα ετερως την cause of his speaking of Likes and Unlikes in the plural . For This Likeness ; The Idea Itself , exists αιτιαν ειπειν τα οµοια και ανοµοια του πληθυντικως : γαρ τουτο το οµοιοντο ειδος αυτο εστι on the one hand , in The Maker of The All , and on the other hand , It also exists , in The Other Intellects ; και µεν εν τω δηµιουργω του παντος δε και εστι εν τοις αλλοις νοις both The Super-Kosmic and The En-Kosmic Intellects . Now then , suppose that our object , is to search τε τοις υπερκοσµιοις και τοις εγκοσµιοις . τοινυν ο λογος Ζητειτω whether All These Likenesses Themselves , are The Same as The Unlikenesses , and that in this way , ει περι των παντων αυτοοµοιων εστι ταυτα τοις ανοµοιοις , και ουτω

45

there is nothing remarkable in his saying Likenesses , but not The Like . For The Like does not exist ουδεν θαυµαστον αυτον λεγειν οµοια , αλλα µη οµοιον : γαρ ου εστι in one way only , but by as numerous as are The Orders of Intelligent Beings , Proceeding from µοναχως , αλλ’ οσαι ταξεις νοεραι προεληλυθασι απο The Demiurge , so also , just as numerous , may be regarded as existing , the energy of This Idea , του δηµιουργου , τοσαυταχως θεωρηθησεται το τουτο ειδος by us considering that it is active in each Intellect in its appropriate fashion ; on the one hand , ηµιν θεωρουµενον εν εκαστω νω οικειως , µεν in a Super-Kosmic Way , in The Super-Kosmic Intellects , but on the other hand , in an En-Kosmic Way υπερκοσµιως εν τοις υπερκοσµιοις , δε εγκοσµιως in The Participatory Intellects under The Kosmic Arc . Accordingly then , is this doctrine totally false , εν τοις µετερχοµενοις υπο του κοσµου . αρα Αλλ ουτος ο λογος παντη ψευδης , and are Likeness and Unlikeness not in any way , The Same ? Or is this doctrine also true , in some way . και εστιν η οµοιοτης και η ανοµοιοτης ουδαµου ταυτον ; Η εστι τουτο και αληθες πως . For surely there must be a Monad which brings together in every way The Duality of these terms , before γαρ δη ∆ει ειναι τινα µοναδα συναγωγον παντως την τουτων προ The Dyad Itself . For every Dyad comes forth from some Monad , which Comprehends in a Unific Way της δυαδος αυτης : γαρ πασα δυας προεισιν απο τινος µοναδος , η προειληφεν ενιαιως The Power of Duality Itself . But if this is true , there must be a Single Monad of Them , which is also 760 την δυναµιν ταυτης : δε ει τουτο , δει ειναι τιναµιαν µοναδα τουτων , η εστιν και The Uniform Cause of both Likeness and Unlikeness . If then you say that in This Unity , Their Causes ενοειδως αιτια και οµοοιτητος και ανοµοιοτητος . Ει τοινυν λεγεις εν ταυτη τουτων τας αιτιας are Secretly Contained , and exist Completely in a Unified and Unseparated Way , so that There , κρυφιως και παντη ενιαιως και αιακριτως , ωστε εκει Likeness is Unlikeness , and Unlikeness Likeness , existing with no distinction , την οµοιοτητα ειναι ανοµοιοτητα , και την ανοµοιοτητα οµοιοτητα , ουσης ουκ διακρισεως but in Singular Oneness , then perhaps you would not hit far from The Truth . For all distinctions αλλα µιαν ενοτητος , ταχ’ αν ουκ βαλλοις πορρω ταληθους : γαρ παντα διακεκριµενα come from The Unities , and are at first in every way One , and exist Immanifestly and Ineffably in εστι απο των ηνωµενων , και εστι πρωτον παντως εν και ανεκφαντως και αρρητως εν Their Own Causes , and afterwards exist Distinctly and Separately from One-another , in order that , and ταις αυτων αιτιαις , επειτα διηρηµενως και διακεκριµενως απ’ αλληλων , ινα και in as much as there be an Order of Procession , following after That which is One , only , then following η ειναι κατα ταξις την προοδον µετα το εν µονον That which is Secretly One , in which Every Being is Every Being ; and after This , That which is το κρυφιως εν , εν ω παν εστι παν , και µετα τουτο το Distinctively One , in which All Beings Partake of One-another ; but in which Each of Them is not διακεκριµενως εν , εν ω τα παντα µετεχει αλληλων : δε εκαστον εχει ουκ The Rest of Them , but maintains Its Freedom from mixture along with Its Communion (with Them) . τα λοιπα , αλλ’ εχει την αµιξιαν µετα της κοινωνιας . Nor indeed , if anyone should reveal that all entities are one , 129b Ουδε γε ει τις αποφαινει απαντα εν through their Participation of The One , and that these same things are many , in turn , τω µετεχειν του ενος και ταυτα ταυτα πολλα αυ through their Participation of Plurality . But if anyone should show that , that which is One , τω µετεχειν πληθους : αλλ’ ει αποδειξει ο εστιν εν ,

46

This Itself , is many , and in turn that the many is indeed One ; this , I shall immediately admire . τουτο αυτο πολλα και αυ τα πολλα δη εν , τουτο ηδη θαυµασοµαι . After the words about Likeness and Unlikeness he shifts back again to The One and Μετα τους λογους περι οµοιοτητος και ανοµοιοτητος µεταβεβηκε παλιν επι το εν και Plurality , and these words draw from the discourses of Zeno . For surely just as Zeno had refuted those το πληθος , και ταυτα λαβων απο των λογων Ζηνωνος . γαρ δη καθαπερ Εκεινος διηλεγχε τους who separate the many from The One by showing that likeness and unlikeness are the same , so also χωριζοντας τα πολλα του ενος δεικνυς οµοιον και ανοµοιον το αυτο , και in same way he argues against them by taking his beginning from The One and from plurality , τον αυτον τροπον διηγωνιζετο προς αυτους επιχειρων απο του ενος και απο του πληθους , by bringing to light that apart from The One the same entity will be multiple and the many , one . For αποφαινων οτι χωρις του ενος το αυτο εσται πληθος και τα πολλα εν : γαρ plurality , all by itself , has to be and is many , by the very fact that it does not partake of The One . For τα πληθη κατ’ αυτο εχοντα και εστι πολλα ουτως µη µετεχειν το εναδος . γαρ whatever is not under the authority of The One , is many ; and since they have in common their being το µη υπο κρατουµενον του ενος εστι πολλα : και επει εχει κοινον το not-one , they are in turn one , by this very fact ; for entities that share a character in common , are one , µη εν , εστιν παλιν εν κατα τουτο : γαρ το µετειληχος τινος κοινου εστι εν by virtue of this common character itself , so that if their being not-one is common to them , the many 761κατα τουτο το κοινον αυτο , ωστε ει το ουχ εν κοινον αυτοις , τα πολλα will be one , by virtue of their being not-one ; and again in the same way their being not-one , will be εσται εν κατα το ουχ εν : και παλιν ωσαυτως το ουχ εν ειναι one and the same , by its being present in all of them . Surely then , on the one hand , in some such way εν ταυτον τω εν πασιν . δη µεν πως ουτωσι and from such premises , Zeno conducted his argument . But first on the other hand , Socrates indeed και απο τουτων Ο Ζηνων µετηει τον λογον : µεν δε ο Σωκρατης γε admits that Zeno has sufficiently argued his case before the multitude and has not neglected The Monads συγχωρει αυτον ικανως διαγωνισασθαι µεν προς τους πολλους µηδε απολειποντα τας µοναδας in sensibles , but then thinks it fitting that they go on to The Other Intellectual Monads , to look at εν τοις αισθητοις , δε αξιοι µετελθοντα επ’ τας αλλας νοερας µοναδας ιδειν The One and The Plurality There , and show how There also , These are Unified with one another , and το εν και το πληθος εκει , και επιδειξαι οπως εκει και ταυτα ηνωται αλληλοις , και whether it is by way of participation , and what sort of participation it is . Surely then , at which point ει κατα µεθεξιν , και τις η µεθεξις : δη ου you can clearly discover that Socrates is already beginning to suspect The Community/Communion of και σαφως ευροις τον Σωκρατη αν ηδη καθισταµενον εις υπονοιαν της κοινωνιας The Ideas . For this “admiration in advance” is the expression of a mind that on the one hand , suspects των ειδων . γαρ τουτο θαυµασοµαι εστιν Το διανοιας µεν υπονοουσης The Truth , but on the other hand , is not yet secure in Its possession , as it will indeed still be the case ταληθες , δε ουπω τασφαλες εγουσης , ως γε ετι when it has gone further in intent study of the question and can speak the tones of one who is already προελθων προς ατενισας το πραγµα και αφησει φωνην ηδη committed to the doctrine and one who has already seen the mode of mixture involved . επιβεβληκοτος τω δογµατι εωρακοτος τον τροπον της µιξεως . Such then on the one hand , is the way of our arguments . But on the other hand , τοιουτος δη µεν Ο τροπος των λογων : δε

47

at this point , we must consider what , this One and this Many happen to be , and in what way They have ενταυθα ηµιν επισκεπτεον τι τουτο το εν και το πληθος γενοµενοις , και οπως εχει to be related both to Each-other and to The Genera mentioned previously . And we should take notice that προς τε αλληλα , και προς τα γενη ειρηµενα : και ρητεον οτι each of us individuals is both one and many ; or on the one hand , one in essential-being , yet many εκαστος ηµων των ατοµων εστι και εν και πληθος , η µεν εν τη ουσια , δε πληθος in potential abilities , or first , one in subsistence , and then many in possible results , or on the one hand , δυναµεσι , η µεν εν τω υποκειµενω , δε πληθος τοις συµβεβηκοσι , η µεν one , as a whole , but then , many in its parts , or on the one hand , one according to its form , but on εν τω ολω , δε πληθος τοις µερεσι , η µεν εν κατα το ειδος , the other hand , many according to Its matter . For it is possible to conceive of both our unity and our δε πληθος κατα την υλην . γαρ δυνατον επινοειν τε ηµιν την ενωσιν και plurality in a number of ways , and in every case , unity is seen to be superior to plurality ; το πληθος Πολλαχως , πολλαχου της ενωσεως ορωµενης κατα το κρειττον του πληθους : for the whole is superior to the parts , and the form to the matter , the subsistence to the potential-results , γαρ το ολον κρειττων των µερων,και το ειδος της υλης,και το υποκειµενον των συµβεβηκοτων , and The Essential-Being to the innate-potencies . Therefore , each of us is both one and many ; but it is και η ουσια των δυναµεων . ουν εκαστος ηµων Εστιν και εν και πληθος : αλλα clear , that it is by virtue of our likeness to The All that this characteristic belongs to each individual δηλον οτι κατα την οµοιοτητα προς το παν τουτο την υπαρχει τοις ατοµοις and to the parts they contain . For long before us This Very Great Kosmos Is , One and Many . On the one και µερικοις αυτω εν : γαρ πολλω προτερον ουτος ο παµµεγας ο κοσµος εστι εις και πολυς : µεν hand , It is Many not only by its physical immensity (and first , by This All , Containing such contrasts 762 πολυς ου µονον κατα το σωµατικον (και µεν κατα τουτο εχον τοσαυτην εξαλλαγην as such between The Eternal to the perishable ,The Immaterial to the material ,The Self-Perpetuating Life οσην γαρ το αιδον προς το φθαρτον , και το αυλον προς το ενυλον , και το αυτοζωον to that which is lifeless by its native constitution ) , but also in The Incorporeal Lives It Contains , προς το αζωον απο της οικειας συστασεως) , αλλα και κατα τας ασωµατους ζωας αυτω εν : for there are Gods in It , and Spirits , men , animals , and plants , and the phenomena dependant upon γαρ θεοι εν αυτω , δαιµονες , ανθρωποι , ζωα , φυτα , και του φαινοµενα προς the variety of The Kosmically-Arranged Life . But on the other hand , The Kosmos is again in turn One , ο ποικιλος της διακοσµος ζωης : δε ο κοσµος παλιν αυ εις because of The Harmony of its physical arrangement , through the mutual-sympathy of its natural δια την αρµονιαν την σωµατικην , δια την συµπαθειαν την φυσ− processes , and through The Provision of The Singular Life , emanating from The Soul of The Whole , −ικην , δια την χορηγιαν της µιας ζωης απο της ψυχης της ολης , and through The Singular Intellectual Bond-Holding-It-Together . Because out of All These Causes , δια τον ενα νοερον συνδεσµον : γαρ απο παντων τουτων The Singular Unified-Breath of Them All , also exists The Singular Life and The Singular Indissoluble µια συµπνοια του παντος και εστι µια ζωη και µια αλυτος Kosmic-Arrangement , brought into Being , by Intellect . From where then , has This Kosmos such a διακοσµησις γενοµενη απο νου . Ποθεν δη ουν ουτος ο κοσµος τοι− Character ? I mean , so as to be both One and Many ? Does It not come from The God who Fashioned −ουτος λεγω , εις και πολυς ; αρ’ ουκ απο του θεου δηµιουργησαντος and Arranged-It-According-to-The-Laws-of-Harmony ? Then , from What Sources did He Fashion It , και αυτον αρµοσαντος ; δε Ποθεν εκεινος , or from What Sources did He Provide It with both Its Unity and Its Multiplicity ? Was it not from His η ποθεν δεδωκεν αυτω και την ενωσιν και το πληθος ; αρ’ ουκ απο

48

Own Essential-Being ? Indeed , it is also necessary to say this , and it has to be in this way ! For He της οικειας ουσιας ; Η και αναγκη φαναι τουτο , και εχον εστιν ουτως : γαρ αυτω Creates By His Very Own Being . But The One Who Creates By His Very Being , Creates and Bestows δηµιουργει τω ειναι : δε το ποιει τω αυτω ειναι ποιουν και διδωσιν This Character which He Created which He Possesses , This Character which Exists in Himself , or rather τουτο τω ποιουµενω ο εχει τουτο ο εστιν εν αυτω , δε µαλλον This Character which Exists in Himself , Primarily . If then , The Demiurgic Intellect has established ο εστιν εν αυτω πρωτως . Ει ουν ο δηµιουργικος νους υπεστησε The Kosmos as One and Many , The Plurality and The Unity would be in Him ; and just as The Kosmos τον κοσµον ενα και πολυν , το πληθος και το εν αν ειη εν αυτω : και ωσπερ ο κοσµος is not a unity here , and a plurality there , but is Wholly both a Unity , and at the same time , a Plurality εστι ουχι εις τη µεν , πολυς τη δε , αλλ’ ολος και εις και αµα πολυς throughout Its Whole Being (for whatever part of It you take , It will also Partake of Unity and Plurality) , δι’ ολου (γαρ ο τι αν λαβοις , και µετεχον και ενος και πληθους ) then in the same way The Demiurgic Intellect is both One and Many throughout The Whole of Itself ; for δη ουτω και ο δηµιουργικος νους εστι και εις και πολυς καθ’ ολον εαυτον : γαρ Its Plurality is also wholly Uniform , and Its Oneness Multiple , and there is nothing you can take of Itself αυτου το πληθος εστι και παν ενοειδες, και το εν πεπληθυσµενον,και εστιν ουδεν λαβειν αυτου which is not both One and Many . Surely then , Each of The Ideas , is both Unified and a Multiple . And ο εστι µη και εν και πληθος . γουν Εκαστον των ειδων εστι και ηνωται και πολλα : και besides it was not possible , that That Intellect should be solely a Plurality ; for it would not be One αλλως ην ου δυνατον εκεινον τον νουν ειναι µονον πολλα : γαρ αν ου ην εις nor Indivisible , nor would it be possible for there to be a multiplicity that is not One , nor yet only One ; ουδε αµεριστος , ουδε ολως εστι πληθος µη εν , ουτε µονον εν for then it would not be a Demiurge , nor an Intellect at all , but it would lie beyond that order of Being . γαρ αν ου ην δηµιουργος , ουδ’ νους ολως , αλλ’ επεκεινα ταυτης της ταξεως . Thus , on the one hand , from these considerations it is clear that there is The One and Plurality There . 763 Αλλ’ µεν δια τουτων δηλον οτι εστιν το εν και το πληθος εκει : But on the other hand , what is it that we must inquire into next ? Thus , in the first place , The One There δε τινα εστιν ηµιν σκεπτεον εξης . ουν Το µεν εν must not be understood as The Primary One ; for That One is Transcendent over all Beings ; for That One ουτε ληπτεον το πρωτως εν : γαρ εστι εξηρηµενον παντων : γαρ εκεινο το εν is neither Genus nor Idea/Species; for a Genus is also a Genus of something , but That One is relative to εστι ου γενος η ειδος : γαρ το γενος εστι τε γενος τινος , δε εκεινο nothing ; and The Idea/Genera/Species is in every way Essential-Being and Multiple and Secondary to Its ουδενος : και το ειδος παντως ουσια και πληθος και δευτερον του Genus , but That One is Super-Essential , Above all Plurality, and second to nothing at all . Nor is it γενους , δε εκεινο υπερ ουσιαν , υπερ παν πληθος , δευτερον ουδενος ολως : ουτε in turn “The Divine Character of Intellect” , by which Intellect is both Father and Maker of Wholes ; for αυ την θεοτητα του νου , καθ’ ην εστι και πατηρ και δηµιουργος των ολων : γαρ This Divinity cannot partake of plurality ; because It is indeed The Producer of All The Plurality in Itself , ταυτην δυνατον ουδε µετεχειν πληθους : γουν εστι γεννητοκος παντος του πληθους εν αυτω , and so it is not Lawful that what is being generated should be participated in by its Generator . But neither δε εστι ουκ θεµις το γεννηθεν γιγνεσθαι µεθεκτον τω γεννωντι . Αλλ’ ουδε can we take This to be The One , which Is as it were The Whole of The Ideas . For again we seriously ληπτεον τουτο το εν ο εστιν οιον ολοτης των ειδων : γαρ παλιν επι βραχυ restrict Its power when we speak in this way ; for on the one hand , This One and Many are also The Full συστελλοµεν αυτου την δυναµιν λεγοντες ουτω : γαρ µεν τουτο εν και πληθος εστι και το ολον

49

Complement of The Ideas , but still this character does not embrace The Whole Nature of The Demiurge . πληρωµα των ειδων, αλλ’ τουτο εστι ου επι εκτεινοµενον το πασαν την φυσιν του δηµιουργου . Therefore , The One must be said to be That Character , which is The Wholeness of The Entire τοινυν το εν ρητεον Εκεινο , ο εστιν ολοτης παντος Demiurgic Intellect ; that to which the theologian is looking , when he says , “One came to be”. For του δηµιουργικου νου : εις ο ο θεολογος αποβλεπων , φησιν , Εν εγενετο : γαρ The Demiurgic Intellect Itself , Contains All Beings Intellectually ; for It is a Single Intellect Embracing και αυτος εχει παντα νοερως , και εστιν εις νους περιληπτικος Many Intellects , and a Kosmos which is a Monad of Intellectually Self-Perfected Intellects . For not only πολλων νοων και κοσµος µονας νοερως αυτοτελων νοων : γαρ ου µονον is The Whole of The Ideas in It , but also Many Others , just as the theologians have taught us . η ολοτης των ιδεων εν αυτω , αλλα και πολλαι αλλαι , καθαπερ οι θεολογοι παραδεδωκασι . Therefore , we must call That Single Wholeness , The Unity that Pervades through All , in order that ουν προσρητεον την µιαν Την ολοτητα την εναδα διηκουσαν δια πασων , ινα we also guard Its Character as Truly-Essential-Being (for The Whole is Essential-Being) ; but on the και φυλαξωµεν αυτης το ουσιωδες (γαρ το ολον εστι ουσια ) : δε other hand , in turn The Plurality are the more specific ranks of Beings which are Comprehended by This αυ το πληθος τε τας µερικωτερας ταξεις αι περιεχονται υπο µεν Wholeness , for there are none of Them which appear without a share in This Whole ; for anyone of all της ολοτητος , γαρ ουδεν αυτων ο επιδεικνυται αµετοχον του ολου : γαρ οτιπερ παν of Them that you might take , participates in The Whole and in Its Intellectual Character , if you wish αυτων αν λαβοις µετεχει του ολου και της νοερας ιδιοτητος , ει βουλει to say so . These (Unity and Plurality) are the most Generic of all Beings whatsoever , in as much as it is 764 λεγειν : ταυτα εστι γενικωτατα παντων των οντων οπωσουν , η also through Them that The Demiurgic Intellect Himself is The Cause of All Ideas . Thus , if in the και ο δηµιουργικος νους αυτος αιτιος απαντων των ειδων . δε Ει εν Sophist [252-254] , Being is called The Greatest Genus of All , we should not be surprised ; for Σοφιστη του οντος προειρηκεν τα µεγιστα γενη παντα , ου θαυµαστον : γαρ he was searching for The Greatest of The Many Genera and Ideas in The Demiurge ; but This One and επεζητει τα µεγιστα των πολλων γενων και ειδων εν τω δηµιουργω : δε τουτο το εν και Many are not in Intellect , they Are Intellect Itself . For One is Its Wholeness , and The Indivisible το πληθος εστιν ουκ εν τω νω, αλλ’ο νους αυτος: γαρ εν εστι αυτου η ολοτης, και το αδιακριτον Idea by which It Foresees for Its Own Proper Care , but Multiple is Its many Characteristics and Its ειδος καθο προνοειται των οικειων , δε πληθος τα πολλα ιδιωµατα και αι particular Wholenesses ; and because of this each of The Demiurgic Ideas is One and Multiple , just as µερικαι ολοτητες : και διο εκαστον των δηµιουργικων ειδων εστιν εν και πληθος ωσπερ The Entire Demiurgic Intellect . And it is for this reason that This One is The Idea/Form that Unifies both ο πας δηµιουργικος νους . Και εστι δια µεν τουτο το εν ειδος ενοποιον τε The Whole and Its Various Ideas/Forms in It , and Its Multiplicity is One , prior to everything else , του ολου και των παντοιων ειδων εν αυτω , τε το πληθος εν προ παντων , in virtue of which Intellect , as a Whole , has been made Many ; and in virtue of which Each-One of The καθο ο νους ολος πεπληθυται : και εκαστον των Intellectual Ideas is Many , in-Itself , so that These (One and Many) are The Most Generic of The Genera, νοερων ειδων εστιν πολλα καθ αυτο , ωστ’ ταυτα ειναι γενικωτατα των γενων , The Source from which Each Idea is both One and Many . Being fundamentally analogous to The υπαρχει αφ’ ων εκαστοις ειναι και ενι και πολλοις . υποστασεσι αναλογον προς το Primary Limit and The Primary Unlimited . And because That which Unifies Plurality is Limit , πρωτον το περας και την πρωτιστην απειριαν : και γαρ το ενοποιον του πληθους εστιν περας ,

50

but the converse is not the case . For what if it makes an infinite in magnitude or in power ? Then if αλλ’ αναπαλιν ουκ . γαρ Τι ει ποιει απειρον κατα µεγεθος η κατα δυναµιν ; αρα ει anything that pluralizes , as such , makes for the unlimited ; but not every factor making for the unlimited Τι πληθοποιον , καθο τοιουτον , εστιν απειροποιον , δε ου παν απειροποιον is a pluralizing factor . Then if Plato , as we said , in the Sophist did not remember These (One/Many) πληθοποιον . δε Ει , ως εφαµεν , εν Σοφιστη ουκ εµνηµονευσεν τουτων among The Greatest Genera , what is there surprising in this ? For may it not be , that since Multitude εν τοις µεγιστοις γενεσι , τι θαυµαστον ; γαρ Μη ποτε , επειδη πληθος and Unity exist not only in The Realm of Essential-Being , but also in The Realm Beyond-Being , και εν εστιν ου µονον ουσιωδες , αλλα και υπερ ουσιαν , whereas The Same and The Other belong among Essential-Beings , when he was dealing with δε ταυτον και ετερον εν ουσιαις , προχειριζοµενος The Genera of Being he duly remembered These (The Same/The Other) as rightly being in Them , γενη του οντος µεν εικοτως µνηµης ταυτα ηξιωσε εν εκεινοις , but on the other hand , he kept quiet about The Cause that Unifies Pluralities and The Cause that δε σεσιωπηκε(σιωπαω) την ενοποιον των πεπληθυσµενων και την Pluralizes Unities , surely because in that passage , he had also posited Being as The Greatest and πληθοποιον των ηνωµενων , δη διοτι εκει και ετιθετο το ον µεγιστον και Most Sovereign of The Genera ; for The Same and The Other are appropriate to This (Being) ; αρχηγικον των γενων : γαρ το ταυτον και ετερον οικειον τουτω : Stranger: 38 And certainly one of these must indeed be the case ; either (1) everything 252e Και µην εν τουτων αναγκαιον γε τι , η παντα will mingle together , or (2) nothing will , or (3) some will , but others will not . συµµιγνυσθαι η µηδεν η τα µεν εθελειν , τα δε µη . Theatetus: How could this not be the case ? (Πως γαρ ου ;) St: And certainly two of them were indeed found to be impossible . Και µην δυο τα γε ευρηθη αδυνατον . Th: Yes . (Ναι.) St: Accordingly then , all who wish to answer correctly , will take up the remaining one αρα Πας ο βουλοµενος αποκρινεσθαι ορθως θησει το λοιπον of the three possibilities . των τριων . Th: Precisely So . (Κοµιδη µεν ουν .) St: Surely then , since some things will do this , while others will not , they are in much the same δη Οτε τα µεν εθελει δραν τουτο , τα δ’ ου , αν ειη σχεδον condition as the letters (of the alphabet) . And since some of these do not harmonize with one another , 253 πεπονθοτ οιον τα γραµµατα . και γαρ τα µεν εκεινων αναρµοστει προς αλληλα in some way , while others do harmonize . που , τα δε ξυναρµοττει . Th: How could it not be so ? (Πως δ’ ου ;) St: Thus , the vowels run through all of the other letters in a greater degree just as if it were a bond , δε Τα φωνηεντα κεχωρηκεν δια παντων των αλλων διαφεροντως οιον δεσµος , so that without one of the vowels , the other letters cannot be harmonized one to the other . ωστε ανευ τινος αυτων των αλλων αρµοττειν ετερον και ετερω . Th: Very much so indeed . (Και µαλα γε .) St: Therefore , does everyone know which letters can conjoin with which others , or ουν Πας οιδεν οποια δυνατα κοινωνειν οποιοις , η

51

does the one who is to know them in a sufficient way have need of an Art ? δραν τω µελλοντι αυτα ικανως δει τεχνης ; Th: They have the need of an Art . (Τεχνης .) St: What Art ; (Ποιας ;) Th: The Art of Grammar . (Της γραµµατικης .) St: What follows then ? Is it not also the case in regards to high and low sounds ? On the one hand , 253b Τι δε ; αρ’ ουχ ουτως περι των οξεων και βαρεων φθογγους ; µεν is the one who has the Art musical , by recognizing which sounds mingle together and which do not , ο εχων τεχνην µουσικος γιγνωσκειν τους συγκεραννυµενους τε και µη , while on the other hand , the one who does not understand this , is unmusical ? δε ο µη ξυνιεις αµουσος ; Th: It is so . (Ουτως .) St: And we shall surely find other similar conditions in the other Arts and in those that lack Art . Και δη ευρησοµεν ετερα τοιαυτα των αλλων τεχνων και ατεχνιων . Th: How could it not be so ? (Πως δ’ ου ;) St: What follows then ? Since we have agreed that The Genera also have to mix with One-another Τι δ’ ; επειδη οµολογηκαµεν τα γενη και εχειν µιχεως προς αλληλα in the same way (Some do & Some do not) , must not one posses some knowledge in order to proceed κατα ταυτα αναγκαιον αρ ου µετ’ τινος επιστηµης πορευεσθαι by the processes of Reason who is to Correctly show which of The Genera harmonize with which , and δια των λογων τον µελλοντα ορθως δειξειν ποια των γενων συµφωνει ποιους , και which Ones do not accept One-another ? And then again , if there are some Genera extending through All, 253c ποια ου δεχεται αλληλα ; και δη και ει εστιν αττ’ αυτ’ συνεχοντ’ , so that They are able to Join-together , and in turn , in Their Separation , if there are Other Whole Causes ωστε ειναι δυνατα συµµιγνυσθαι , και παλιν εν ταις διαιρεσεσιν , ει ετερα ολων αιτια of Their Separation ? δι’ της διαιρεσεως ; Th: For how could they not need knowledge , and perhaps indeed , nearly The Greatest of Knowledges . γαρ Πως ουκ δει επιστηµης και ισως γε σχεδον της µεγιστης : St: 39 Therefore in turn , what Name shall we give , O Theatetus , to This Knowledge ? Or by Zeus , ουν αυ Τιν προσερουµεν , ω Θεαιτητε , ταυτην ; η προς ∆ιος have we stumbled upon The Knowledge that belongs to a Free-people , without noticing it , and perhaps εµπεσοντες εις την επιστηµην των ελευθερων , ελαθοµεν , και κινδυνευοµεν we found The Philosopher beforehand , while searching for the sophist ? ανηυρηκεναι τον φιλοσοφον προτερον , ζητουντες τον σοφιστην ; Th: What do you mean ? (Πως λεγεις ;) St: Shall we not say that The Division/Separation of Genera and the avoidance of being led to believe 253d µων ου φησοµεν Το διαιρεισθαι κατα γενη και µητε ηγησασθαι that The Same Idea is another , nor that another is The Same , belongs to The Knowledge of Dialectics ? ταυτον ειδος ετερον µητε ετερον ον ταυτον ειναι της επιστηµης διαλεκτικης ; Th: Yes , we shall say so . (Ναι , φησοµεν.) St: Is it not the case then , that the one who is indeed able to do this , has a clear perception of One Idea , Ουκουν ο γε δυνατος δραν τουτο ικανως διαισθανεται µιαν ιδεαν Orderly-extended in every way , throughout Many Ideas , Each One lying apart , and sufficiently διατεταµενην παντη δια πολλων εκαστου ενος κειµενου χωρις , και perceiving Many Ideas differing from One-another , Being-Comprehended under One Idea from Outside , πολλας ετερας αλληλων περιεχοµενας υπο µιας εξωθεν

52

and again , have a clear perception , of One Idea Diffused Throughout Many Wholes in One Union , και αυ µιαν δι’ πολλων ολων εν ενι ξυνηµµενην , and have a clear perception , of Many Distinct Ideas Set-apart in every way . This then it is To Know , 253e και πολλας διωρισµενας χωρις παντη : τουτο δ’ εστιν επιστασθαι, in as much as One is Able to Distinguish according to Genus , in what way , Each One , can or cannot η διακρινειν κατα γενος , οπη εκαστα δυναται τε και µη Communicate . κοινωνειν . Th: Entirely so . (Πανταπασι µεν ουν .) St: But you will certainly indeed , as it appears to me , not grant The Art of Dialectics to any one , Αλλα µην γε , ως εγωµαι , ουκ δωσεις το διαλεκτικον αλλω except to The One Who Philosophizes in a Pure and Just Way . πλην τω φιλοσοφουντι καθαρως τε και δικαιως . Th: For how could it be granted to anyone else ; (γαρ Πως αν δοιη τις αλλω ;) St: Surely then , on the one hand , we shall find The Philosopher , both now and hereafter , in some δη µεν ανευρησοµεν Τον φιλοσοφον και νυν και επειτα εν τινι Place like This , if we look ; since it is also difficult to clearly see This Place , but the difficulty is 254 τοπω τοιουτω , εαν ζητωµεν , µεν και χαλεπον εναργως ιδειν τουτον , χαλεποτης certainly different in his case , and in that of the sophist . µην ετερον η τε τουτου τροπον η τε του σοφιστου . Th: How ? (Πως ;) St: On the one hand , the sophist runs-away into the darkness of not-being , feeling his way in it by habit , µεν Ο αποδιδρασκων εις την σκοτεινοτητα του µη οντος , προσαπτοµενος αυτης τριβη , and will thus be difficult to observe , on account of the darkness of the place . Or for what reason ? χαλεπος κατανοησαι δια το σκοτεινον του τοπου : η γαρ ; Th: It is reasonable .(Εοικεν.) St: But on the other hand , The Philosopher Indeed , by always devoting himself through Reasoned- δε Ο φιλοσοφος γε , αει προσκειµενος δια λογισµων Argumentation to The Idea of Being , is in turn , not in any way , easy to catch sight of , on account of τη ιδεα του οντος , αυ ουδαµως ευπετης οφθηναι δια The Brilliant Light of The Place . For the eyes of the soul of the many , are unable to endure 254b το λαµπρον της χωρας : γαρ της οµµατα ψυχης των πολλων αδυνατα προς καρτερειν The Sight of The Divine . το αφορωντα θειον . Th: And in the same way , these statements have to be no less reasonable than those . Και ουτως ταυτα εχειν ουχ ηττον εικος εκεινων . St: Is it not also the case then , that presently on the one hand , we will be able to make a more clear και Ουκουν ταχα µεν σαφεστερον investigation concerning this subject , if we still care to do so indeed , but on the other hand , concerning επισκεψοµεθα περι τουτου , αν ηµιν ετι βουλοµενοις η , δε περι the sophist , it is somehow clear that we must not dismiss him ,until we have a sufficient view of him . του σοφιστου που δηλον ως ουκ ανετεον , πριν αν ικανως θεασωµεθα αυτον . Th: You speak correctly . (ειπες Καλως .) yet certainly not to Absolute/Simple Unity and Plurality , whose Underlying Reality was Prior to Being . 765 µεντοι ου απλως το εν και το πληθος , ων υποστασις ην προ του οντος . And at any rate , of all the problems that Plato raises in those passages , and all the problems he explains και γουν Παντα οσα διηπορησεν εν εκεινοις , και οσα εξηπορησεν

53

in the context of Being , each record receives the appropriate treatment to Being , whether extended or ως διατριβων περι το ον , εκαστα µνηµης ετυχεν της προσηκουσης τω οντι , πλειονος η brief .Thus , if you inquire in what way these Ideas , I mean The One and Plurality, differ from The Same ελασσονος . δε Ει σκοποιης οπη ταυτα λεγω εν και πληθος , διεστηκε ταυτου and The Other, you will find that The Former Beings belong among The Beings that Exist In-Themselves, και ετερου , ευρησεις τα µεν οντα των καθ’ αυτο , while The Latter Beings belong among beings that are in every way relative to something . For neither τα δε οντα των παντως προς τι : γαρ ουτε The One nor Plurality is called such , relatively to another of The Supreme Beings ; whereas The Same and το εν ουτε τα πολλα λεγεται προς τι αλλο των οντων , δε ταυτον and The Other , whether said In-Themselves or in-something-else , are used relatively , never Absolutely ; και ετερον καν λεγηται εν εαυτω καν αλλω λεγεται προς τι , και ουχ παντως according to Itself .For this reason The One and Plurality are by nature Prior to The Same and The Other , ως καθ’ εαυτο : διο το εν και το πληθος τη φυσει προτερα ταυτον και ετερου in the same way as Absolute Terms naturally precede relative terms . Thus it is reasonable that The One τον τουτον τροπον ον καθ’αυτο τα κατα φυσιν προηγειται προς τι των . δε Εοικε το εν and Plurality in these passages , in both The Demiurgic Intellect and in each of The Ideas , are being και το πληθος εν τουτοις , εν τε τω δηµιουργικω νω και εν εκαστω των ειδων , Contemplated/Beheld , as depending in turn upon The Limit and The Unlimited as Their Primary Causes ; θεωρουµενων , ως ηρτησθαι παλιν απ του περας και της απειριας πρωτουργων αιτιων : for The Limit Unifies , but The Unlimited Fundamentally-Provides The Plurality in Each One . Thus , γαρ το περας ενοποιον , δε η απειρια υφιστησιν το πληθος εν εκαστω . δε one should not grasp The Super-Essential One , but That One on The Level of Being , such as The Whole χρη ου λαµβανειν το υπερουσιον εν , αλλα Οτι το ουσιωδες οιον το ολον and The Entirety of Intellect . And this is what Plato intends by saying “But if anyone demonstrates that , και το παντελες του νου , και ο Πλατων δηλοι ειπων , αλλ ει αποδειξει That which is One , This Itself is many” . For he seeks to demonstrate about This One ; if It partakes ο εστιν εν τουτο αυτο πολλα . γαρ ζητει αποδειχθηναι Τουτο το εν µετεχον of Plurality , and is That to which we connect the verb is , but not That which is Superior to Being . πληθους και ω προσαγοµεν το εστι , αλλ’ ου το κρειττον του εστι . Socrates: Likewise concerning all of the others : if on the one hand , one would show a subject worthy 129c και ωσαυτως περι απαντων των αλλων : ει µεν αποφαινοι , αξιον of admiration ; by showing that both Genera and Species Themselves undergo these opposite θαυµαζειν , τε τα γενη και ειδη αυτα πασχοντα ταυτα ταναντια affections in Themselves . But if , on the other hand , someone demonstrates that I myself am παθη εν αυτοις : ει δ’ τις αποδειξει εµε οντα both one and many , what would be wondrous about this ? And demonstrate this assertion , εν και πολλα , τι θαυµαστον , by saying , on the one hand , that when he wishes to assert that I am many , that the parts on λεγων , µεν οταν βουληται αποφαινειν πολλα , ως µεν τα επι the right side of me are different , from those parts on the left , and the front parts , δεξια µου εστιν ετερα , δε τα ετερα επ αριστερα , και µεν τα προσθεν ετερα , from the back parts , and in like manner , the upper from the lower parts ; for I think that δε τα οπισθεν ετερα , και ωσαυτως ανω και κατω : γαρ οιµαι I participate of Plurality . But on the other hand , when he desires to show that I am one , 129d µετεχω πληθους : δε οταν εν

54

he should say that since there are seven of us , I am one man and participate of The One , ερει ως οντων επτα ηµων εγω ειµι εις ανθρωπος και µετεχων του ενος so that in this way he would demonstrate the truth of both these assertions . Thus , if anyone , ωστε αποφαινει αληθη αµφοτερα . ουν εαν τις should endeavor to show that stones and wood and such particulars , are both many and one , επιχειρη αποφαινειν λιθους και ξυλα και τα τοιαυτα , πολλα και εν , we should say that he exhibits to our view such things as are many and one , but that he does not αν φησοµεν αυτον αποδεικνυναι ταυτα τοιαυτα πολλα και εν , ου show that The One is many , nor the many , One ; nor speak of any thing wonderful , but το εν πολλα ουδε τα πολλα εν , ουδε λεγειν τι θαυµαστον , αλλ’ agrees to that which is affirmed by all . οµολογοιµεν απερ παντες . In These passages he gives us a general rule about The Communion of Ideas , by us rising above 766 εν τουτοις παραδιδοται Κοινος κανων περι της κοινενιας των ειδων , ηµας ανατεινων from sensibles and the intermixture of the contradictory genera and species in them , to απο των αισθητων και της συµπλοκης των αντικειµενων γενων τε και ειδων εν τοιτοις επ’ The Preeminent/Supernatural and Intellectual Essential-Beings Themselves, by declaring on the one hand, τας υπερφυεις και νοερας ουσιας αυτας , ο αποφαινοµενος µεν that there is nothing surprising to observe among these divisible and extended works , if the same thing ουδεν θαµαστον θεωρεισθαι τοις τουτοις µεριστοις και αδιαστατοις πραγµασιν , ει ταυτον appears to be one and many , but on the other hand , by introducing us to The Unified and Indivisible δοκει ειναι εν και πολλα , δε προσαγων ηµας επι την ηνωµενην και αµεριστον Substance and to the recognition of Eternal and Pure Ideas , which Exist According to Themselves , υποστασιν και την κατανοησιν των αιωνιων και καθαρων ειδων , α εστιν αυτα καθ’ αυτα by having no need of a seat and receptacle , such as we require . For we see that perceptible things are και ουδε δειται εδρας και υποδοξης , οποιας δεοµεθα . οραται Τα αισθητα both one and many ; on the one hand , one in their Essence , Wholeness , Subsistence , and their Form ; και εν και πολλα : µεν εν τη ουσια , τη ολοτητι , τω υποκειµενω , τω ειδει : but on the other hand , many in their unpredictability , their parts , their powers , their matter and δε πολλα τοις συµβεβηκοσι , τοις µερεσι , ταις δυναµεσι , τη υλη και simply , in all those respects from which we are accustomed to expose the partibility and plurality απλως , πασιν εξ ων ειωθαµεν απελεγχειν το µεριστον και πεπληθυσµενον of sensible things . Are these not those beings which have various shapes , and are separated by intervals των αισθητων : η ταυτα ου ταις α και ποικιλλεται σχεσεσι , και διισταται τοις of space , and generally appear to have unity , while plurality dominates their whole reality . τοποις , και ολως φαινοµενον εχει το εν τοδε πληθος επικρατουν αυτων της ολης υποστασεως : For their nature is partible and enmattered . Thus on the one hand , it is not surprising , as Socrates says , γαρ αυτων η φυσις εστι µεριστη και ενυλος . Αλλ’ µεν ου θαυµαστον και ως ο Σωκρατης φησι , if the same thing is both one and many (in the realm of sense) , in one sense one , but in another many , ει το αυτο εστι και εν και πληθος , αλλως µεν εν , αλλως δε πληθος , but on the other hand , in The Intelligible Realm , it is surprising , if The Same Singular Being , partakes δε επ των νοητων αυτων θαυµαστον , ει το αυτο εν µετεχει of Plurality , and if That Plurality partakes of Unity , which is also something that Socrates suspects , but πληθους , και ει το πληθους ενος , α και µεν ο Σωκρατης υπονοει , δε would be surprised if it can be demonstrated. And from ourselves we have said in what way this suspicion θαυµαζει ει εστι αποδεικτα . Και παρ’ ηµων ειρηται οπως η αυτη υπονοια

55

of Socrates is sound ; for The Community of The Ideas does not come about in every way , but in the way του Σωκρατους αληθες : γαρ η κοινωνια των ειδων ου γιγνεται παντα τροπον , αλλα κατα Appropriate to Them ; but what this is , we have already said before . But let us return to the text , 767 τον προσηκοντα αυτοις : δε τις ουτος εστιν, ειρηται προτερον. Αλλ’επανιτεον επι την λεξιν, and examine each of the underlying phrases . Now then , on the one hand , by saying , “concerning και θεατεον εκαστον των εκκειµενων ρηµατων . τοινυν και µεν Τω ειπειν περι all of the others”, he was clearly showing The Completely Ordered Arrangement of The Divine Ideas and παντων , εδηλωσε την παντελη διακοσµησιν των θειων ειδων και Their Unity and Sympathy with One-another ; but by adding “concerning all the others”, he is showing αυτων την ενωσιν και την συµπνοιαν : δε τω προσθειναι και περι των αλλων , ενεδειξατο The Distinctive and Unconfused Character of Their Plurality . But in turn through the words Genera and την διακρισιν και το ασυγχυτον αυτων πληθος . δε αυ ∆ια των γενων και Species he teaches us that Plurality There , contains both More-Simple and More-Whole Causes as well των ειδων εδιδαξε ηµας εκει τε τας απλουστερας και ολικωτερας αιτιας και as more-Particular and Those that are more-Composite Realities . For The More-Comprehensive and τας µερικωτερας και οιον συνθετωτερας υποστασεις . γαρ τα περιληπτικωτερα και More-Uniform and More-Causal Ideas , he calls Genera . He is saying , “What are they then ? Surely not ενοειδεστερα και αιτιωτερα τα ειδη προσειρηκεν γενη : φησι τινα αλλα , δη ουχ such as those that are later-born , and are immanent in individual things .” For these latter , are images οια τα υστερογενη και τοις καθ’ εν τα εκαστα : γαρ ταυτα εστι ινδαλµατα of The Former Ones , and the function of division is to behold primarily , The Intellectual Plurality of The τουτων , και η διαιρετικη θεαται πρωτως το νοερον πληθος των Ideas and of The Genera , and The Order of Procession , and The Intellectual Series among Them . ειδων και των γενων , και την ταξιν των προοδων , και τας νοερας τας σειρας εν εκεινοις . Then by the phrase “in themselves” he is showing what kind of Communion he is seeking in The Ideas , δε ∆ια του εν αυτοις εδειξεν οποιαν κοινωνιαν ζητει επι των ειδων a Communion not acquired , nor existing in Them from any External Source , but from Their Very Own µη επικτητον , µηδε υπαρχουσαν αυτοις εξωθεν ποθεν , αλλ’ απο της αυτων Essential-Substance and Their Own Nature . And surely the antitheses which he takes up describing της ουσιας και της φυσεως . Και µην δια των αντιθεσεων ων παρελαβε ενεφηνεν the plurality of sensible things and their divisible character have sufficiently been refuted , I think . το πληθος των αισθητων και αυτων το µεριστον ικανως απελεγχων , οιµαι . For their relations/conditions are infinitely numerous , and by being (of all things) , the least substantial , γαρ αι σχεσεις εισι απειροι , και δια το µαλιστα ανουσιον they are carried to the limit of divisibility and infinity . Then what about the numbers which pertain to υποφεροµεναι εις το αµεριστον και απειρον . δε Τι οι αριθµοι ο both The Hexad and to The Heptad ? Are they brought in without a purpose ? Or because six was , τε της εξαδος και ο της επταδος ; αρα παρεληφθησαν µατην ; Η προς η εξας ην , on the one hand , appropriate for exhibiting plurality , because six is an even number and above all , µεν προσηκουσα την ενδειξιν του πληθους δια το αρτιον και ολως a perfect number ; for a plurality that is to partake of The One must not be imperfect ; and because seven το τελειον : γαρ το πληθος το µελλον µεθεξειν του ενος δει ου ειναι ατελες : δε προς η επτας is appropriate for exhibiting The One ; for it is a monadic number , and the product of The Monad alone , την του ενος : γαρ εστι µοναδικη και γεγονος µοναδος µονης , and odd numbers are generally on the side of The One ? And if you wish to mount up to The Gods και το περιττον εστι ολως προς του ενος . Και ει βουλει ανιεναι επ’ τους θεους analogously corresponding to these numbers , you will also see There , The Cause of The Communion και αναλογον τοισδε τοις αριθµοις , και οψει εκει το αιτιον της κοινωνιας

56

and Separation of The Ideas . For The Hexad is on the one hand , Sacred to Aphrodite , as the children 768 τε και της διακρισεως των ειδων . γαρ Η εξας εστιν µεν ιερα Αφροδιτης , παιδες of Pythagoras say . But The Heptad on the other hand , is Sacred to our Mistress Athena . Thus , Πυθαγορειων φασι : η επτας δε ηµων της δεσποινης Αθηνας : δε The One is The Leader from Plurality into Unity , while The Other Provides Communion in Plurality η µεν εστι αναγωγος απο του πληθους εις εν , η δε παρεχοµενη κοινωνιαν εν τω πληθει for The Intelligibles and for all other beings . Now then , if you say that The Heptad of Athena is τοις νοητοις τε και πασι τοις ουσιν . τοινυν Ει λεγεις την επταδα την Αθηναικην Unifying , while The Hexad of Aphrodite Safeguards Plurality along with Its Communion , you will find ενοποιον , δε την εξαδα την Αφροδισιακην φυλαττειν το πληθος µετα της κοινωνιας , ευρησεις that each number is aptly introduced ,The One to demonstrate Plurality , The Other to demonstrate Unity . εκατεραν οικειως παρειληµµενην ,την µεν εις την του πληθους ,την δε την αποδειξιν της ενωσεως. Now then in turn , “to show that stones and wood and such particulars , are both one and many” is a τοινυν παλιν αποφαινειν το λιθους και ξυλα και τα τοιαυτα εν και πολλα marvelous way of showing in what way , how The One and plurality exist here , and that they are divided θαυµαστως ενδεικνυται οπως πως το εν και το πληθος ενταυθα , και οτι διηρηµενα from each other and are in need of something to bind them . For how is the form , which is one , απ’ αλληλων και δεοµενα τινος συνδεσµου . γαρ Πως το ειδος ον εν joined with matter ? Evidently through Nature ; for She is what brings them both together . But There συναπτεται τη υλη , δηλον ως δια της φυσεως : γαρ αυτη εστι αµφοιν συναγωγος , δε εκει we have “The One-Many” and “The Many-One” without the addition of conjunction . For on the one το εν πολλα και τα πολλα εν ανευ προσθεσεως συνδεσµου . γαρ µεν hand , The Whole Intellect Itself , is One-Many ; but on the other hand indeed , The Many Particular ο ολος νους αυτος εστι εν πολλα , δε γε αι πολλαι µερικωτεραι Uniform Orders within It , are in turn not simply others alongside of It ; for All-Together-They-Form ενοειδεις ταξεις εν αυτω εισιν παλιν ουκ απλως ετεραι παρ αυτον : γαρ συµπληρουσι Its Singular Wholeness . την µιαν ολοτητα . Socrates: But if on the one hand , anyone should in the first place , δε εαν µεν τις πρωτον define The Ideas , of which I have just now been speaking , separating Them apart , διαιρηται τα ειδη , ο εγω δη νυν ελεγον , χωρις 129e Themselves by Themselves , such as Likeness and Unlikeness and Plurality and Unity , αυτα καθ’ αυτα , οιον οµοιοτητα τε και ανοµοιοτητα και πληθος και το εν and Rest and Motion and all such as These , and then show himself able to mix και στασιν και κινησιν και παντα τα τοιαυτα , ειτα αποφαινη δυναµενα συγκεραννυσθαι and separate Them apart In-Themselves , then I will be in awe , O Zeno , in a wondrous manner . και διακρινεσθαι ταυτα εν εαυτοις , εγωγε αν αγαιµην , ω Ζηνων , θαυµαστως . Socrates has run-up to the final hypothesis itself in regards to The Communion of Ideas ο Σωκρατης αναδεδραµηκεν Επ’ την τελεωτατην υποθεσιν αυτην περι της κοινωνιας των ειδων by saying that they all (separate) and combine . For The Presence of These Resources at the same time , ειπων παντα και συγκρινεσθαι : γαρ υπαρχειν ταυτα πραγµασιν αµα , thus Provide both Unconfused Unity and Inseparable Distinctness to These Divine Beings , in order that 769 δε αµφω ασυγχυτον ενωσιν τε και αδιαρετεον διακρισιν τοις εκεινοις θειοις , ινα while They are In-One-another , Each-One may indeed also Preserve Its Own Purity . Thus he admires και εν αλληλοις και η σωζη την εαυτων την καθαροτητα . ουν αγαται

57

the one who is able to show this : in what way The Intelligible Ideas can be both Unified and Distinct , Τουτον τον δυναµενον δειξαι τουτο , οπως τα νοητα τα ειδη και ηνωται και διακεκριται , and in what way They may neither lose Their Unmixed Purity through Their Union , nor Their Divine και οπως ουτε απολλυσι την αµικτον καθαροτητα δια την ενωσιν , ουτε την θειαν Communion through Their Separation , but They are both Distinct and Conjoined , at the same time , την κοινωνιαν δια την διακρισιν , αλλα και διακεκριται και συγκεκριται αµα by The Bond “of The Wondrous , Love” , who according to The Oracle : δεσµω αγητου Ερωτος κατα το Λογιον :

The Jointly-Bonding Fire συνδεσµιον πυρ

Which Sprang forth First , From The Source ; ος εκθορε πρωτος Πηγαιους

Out of Intellect , Furiously burning with Fire , εκ νοου Εσσαµενος πυρι Directing The Bloom of His Fire , in order to mix the mixing bowls . επισχων ανθος εου πυρος οφρα κερασα κρατηρας (Chald. Or. , Fr. 42) Therefore , it is This Co-mingling Joined to Distinctiveness that Socrates seeks to see among The Partless ουν Ταυτην την συγκρασιν µετα της διακρισεως ο Σωκρατης ζητει ιδειν επι των αµερων and Intelligible Realities , and to this he invites the attention of these men , and admires και νοητων υποστασεων , και επι ταυτην προκαλειται την θεωριαν τους ανδρες , και αγαται This Insight which Unites while at the same time Distinguishes The Intellectual Powers over sensibles , ταυτην την ενιζουσαν αµα διακρινουσαν τας νοερας δυναµεις των αισθητων , and That Ideal Likeness and Unlikeness , The Plurality and Unity There , The Divine Rest and Motion . και εκεινην οµοιοτητα και ανοµοιοτητα,το πληθος και το εν εκει,την θειαν στασιν και κινησιν: For surely he has added these pairs , to the pairs previously mentioned , since Zeno had not only drawn γαρ δη προσεθηκε ταυτα τοις συγυγιαις ειρηµεναις : επει ο Ζηνων ου µονον καν from those , but also from those reckless and absurd consequences following from separating εξ εκεινων, αλλα και εκ της τουτων απηλεγχε την ατοπιαν ακολουθιας των χωριζοντων the many from The One . For his endeavor had been made not only from Likeness and Unlikeness , τα πολλα του ενος . γαρ την επιχειρησιν επεποιητο ου µονον εκ του οµοιου και ανοµοιου , nor in turn , from only Unity and Plurality , but surely also from Rest and Motion . For ουδε αυ εκ µονον του ενος και του πληθους , αλλ ηδη και απο στασεως και κινησεως . γαρ he showed that if the many do not partake of The One , then the same thing is both at rest and in motion απεφηνεν ει τα πολλα µη µετεχοι του ενος , Το αυτο και ισταµενον και κινουµενον and in the same way . Thus all that is at rest is contained in one thing , and all that is in motion και κατα το αυτο : παν το ισταµενον εστιν εν ενι τινι , και παν το κινουµενον is departing from one place ; so that if the many do not partake of some Unity , they exist without rest ; εξισταται του ενος , ωστε ει τα πολλα µη µετεχοι τινος ενος εστι αστατα and in turn , if they have in common this same character of not sharing in something , they will be in και παλιν ει εχοι κοινον τουτο αυτο το µη µετεχειν τινος , εσται εν something (state/condition) ; and hence they will be in this respect unmoving . Accordingly then , the τινι : παλιν ουν ταυτη ακινητα : αρα τα many are not altogether devoid of The One . In such on the one hand , was contained the argument of πολλα εσται ουκ παντη ερηµα του ενος . ενταυθα τοιουτος µεν ο λογος Zeno , but on the other hand , it had already been sufficiently demonstrated to Socrates that these aspects 770 Ζηνωνος Αλλ’ δε ικανως δεδειγµενων ο Σωκρατης ως τουτων

58

must always partake of Unity , and is delighted that Zeno has left aside the demonstration that sensible δειν πανταχου µετεχειν ενωσεως , χαιρειν εασαντα το δεικνυναι τα τηδε pluralities are not merely separated , but also united with one another , requests that he not show πολλα µη µονον διηρηµενα , αλλα και ηνωµενα αλληλοις , αξιοι αυτον µη δεικνυειν in what way the same thing is both moving and at rest in perceptibles , but that he change-over to οπως το αυτο κινειται και εστηκεν εν τοις αισθητοις , αλλα µεταβαινειν επι The Intellectual Monads , and bring to light how They are also Unified and Partake of One-another . τας νοερας µοναδας , και αποφαινειν οπως εκειναι και ηνωνται και µετεχουσιν αλληλων . For on the one hand , it has been sufficiently shown , that the pluralities in this realm partake of certain γαρ µεν ικανως δεδεικται , Οτι τα πληθη ενταυθα µετεχει τινων Monads through which their divided and separate existences are also brought together into One Bond ; µοναδων δια τουτων αυτων το µεριστον και διεσπαρµενον και περιαγεται εις ενα συνδεσµον , but on the other hand, before we can rise to that highest Parmenidean Unity Herself, we must contemplate δε πριν επανελθωµεν επ την ακροτατην την Παρµενιδειον ενωσιν αυτην , θεωρησωµεν how The Many and Invisible and Transcendent Monads exist in One-another ; how Homogeneous Their πως τας πολλας και αφανεις και ακατατακτους µοναδας εισι εν αλληλαις , πως οµοφυης αυτων Community and how Unmingled Their Purity is , how Likeness is mingled with Unlikeness , κοινωνια τε και ασυγχυτος καθαροτης εστιν, πως η οµοιοτης συγκεκραται προς την ανοµοιοτητα , how The One and Plurality Pass-through One-another , how Rest and Motion Partake of One-another . πως το εν και το πληθος χωρει δι’αλληλων, πως η στασις και η κινησις µετειληφασιν αλληλων: For the one who apprehends This Form of Mixture and Interweaving of The Ideas , is the very one whom γαρ ο τεθεαµενος την τοιαυτην µιξιν και διαπλοκην των ειδων , εστιν τω ουτος Socrates truly admires , and not as an ordinary object of admiration , for the euphemism “wondrous” , Σωκρατει οντως αγαστος , και ουχ ως ετυχεν αγαστος , γαρ την ευφηµιαν θαυµαστως adds more emphasis , and indicates nothing else than , that which is really and truly and deservedly ποιει βεβαιοτεραν και εµφαινει ουδεν αλλο η το οντως και αληθως και επαξιως the object of wonder. Accordingly then , Socrates felt all of the good intentions ; the rejection , suspicion , του θαυµατος . αρα του Σωκρατους παθη Παντα τα ευστοχα , η απογνωσις , η υπονοια , and hope ; the first one , when he gazes-upon “intermingled confusion” of The Divine Ideas towards η ελπις , η µεν εις αυτου αποβλεψαντος την συγχυσιν και την συµφυρσιντων θειων ειδων προς One-another , the second one , when he contemplates Their Unity and Distinction at the same time , αλληλα , η δε εις την ενωσιν και διακρισιν αµα , which also applied to the last one ; being kindled by itself , like the light coming from fire-brands , ην και επεθηκεν τελευταιαν , αναψας[απτω] εαυτω οιον φως εκ πυρειων by means of his attentive gaze of the problem and his continuous attentiveness to The Ideas Themselves . δια της ενατενισεως προς το πραγµα και της συνεχους ανατασεως προς τα ειδη αυτα . Therefore , on the one hand , these things may be said regarding the character of these discussions and ουν µεν Ταυτα ειρησθω περι του τροπου τουτων των λογων και their purpose in general . But on the other hand , let us in turn consider the problems themselves : της προθεσεως ολης : δε ηµιν παλιν σκεπτεον τα πραγµατα αυτα , What is Rest There and what is Motion , and what is Their Rank ? Do They Participate of One-another ? 771 τις η στασις εκει και τις η κινησις , και τινα εχουσι ταξιν , και ει µετεχουσιν αλληλων . Is it not the case then , I believe , that it is clear to all that on the one hand , The Demiurgic Intellect , ουκουν οιµαι ειναι δηλον παντι οτι µεν τον δηµιουργικον νουν must necessarily be Unchangeable in both Essential-Being and Activity/Energy , Fundamentally-subsists αναγκη ειναι αµεταβλητον τε τη ουσια και ταις ενεργειαις , υφεστηκοτα in Pure and Immaterial Intellections , and by being The Super-Kosmic Creator of All in a collected way . εν καθαραις και αυλοις νοησεσιν , και οντα υπερκοσµιον δηµιουργικον παντων αθροως ,

59

For every Indivisible Idea is Eternal , thus , All that is Eternal has Its Nature in Rest . γαρ παν το αµεριστον ειδος εστι αιωνιον , δε παν το αιωνιον εχει εαυτου την φυσιν εν στασει : For that which changes either in Essence or in Activity , either by becoming or by activating/energizing γαρ το µεταβαλλον η κατ ουσιαν η κατ ενεργειαν η γιγνοµενον η ενεργουν at one time in one way and at another time in another , is either primarily or eventually divisible ; but αλλοτε και αλλως εστιν η πρωτως η εσχατως µεριστον , δε every Intellect is Indivisible , and Simple , and Un-generated . Now then , if every Intellect is Indivisible , πας νους αµεριστος και απλους και αγεννητος . τοινυν Ει πας νους αµεριστος but every Indivisible Being is Eternal , then every Eternal Being is Immutably at Rest , it is clear , beyond δε παν το αµεριστον αιωνιον , δε παν το αιωνιον ατρεπτως εστηκε , δηλον δηπου− a doubt , that every Intellect is at Rest , and much more so , The Demiurgic Intellect ; for by as much as −θεν οτι πας νους εστηκε , και πολλω µαλλον ο δηµιουργικος νους : γαρ οσω It is More-Powerful than The Beings that come after It , by so much more does It Guard Its Own Order , εστι δυνατωτερος των µετ’ αυτον , τοσουτω µαλλον φρουρει την εαυτου ταξιν Unmoved . Then , if It Establishes The Whole Kosmos according to Its Wholeness , both Its Whole Form αµεταστατον . δε Ει εδραζει τον ολον κοσµον κατα αυτου την ολοτητα τε και το ολον ειδος and the Poles within It , and Their Centers and Axes , and gives to each of Them και τους πολους τους εν αυτω και τα κεντρα και τους αξονας , και διδωσιν εκαστω τουτων an Abiding Power , from where could This Gift be given , other than from Its Kindred Essential-Being ? µονιµον δυναµιν , ποθεν αν ταυτην ειη διδους η απο της οικειας ουσιας ? For It Gives of Its Very Being ; for there is Rest within It which is The Cause of all that is at Rest . γαρ διδωσιν τω αυτω ειναι : γαρ εστι στασις εν αυτω αιτια απαντων εστωτων , But surely there is also Motion in It ; for if Intellect is The Demiurge , and if , It Thinks Itself , clearly It αλλα µην και κινησις : γαρ ει εστι δηµιουργος και ει νοει εαυτον , δηλον does so as It Energizes . For The Energy is said to be Perfect Motion , then as such , It is The Demiurgic ως ενεργει : γαρ η ενεργεια λεγεται τελεια κινησις , δε τοιαυτη εστιν η δηµιουργικη Making and Thinking . But if Motion is also , the life of bodies , just as Plato says (Timaeus 36d) , ποιησις τε και νοησις . δε Ει η κινησις εστιν και ζωη των σωµατων οιον εκεινος φησιν , much more so must we necessarily call Motion , That Life-Giving Cause that Pre-Subsists in πολλω δει καλειν κινησιν την ζωοποιον αιτιαν προτερον εν The Demiurge ; for Life Itself , has to be possessed of Motion . εκεινω γαρ το ζην αυτο εχειν εστιν κινησιν : Timaeus: Then after this , since The Constitution of The Soul had been completed according to (36d) δε µετα τουτο Επει η ξυστασις της ψυχης εγεγενητο κατα The Mind of The One Who Put-Them-All-Together , He then Artfully-constructed within Her All that is νουν τω πασα συνισταντι , ετεκταινετο εντος αυτης παν το Elementally-formed , by Uniting Them Center to Center , He made Them Harmonize-together . Thus , 36e σωµατοειδες ξυναγαγων µεσον µεση προσηρµοττεν . δ’ The Soul by being woven throughout Heaven in every way from Center to The Extremity , and η διαπλακεισα ουρανον παντη εκ µεσον προς τον εσχατον , τε by Enveloping The Elemental Itself in a Circle from Without , and by revolving Herself around Herself , περικαλυψασα αυτον κυκλω εξωθεν , τε στρεφοµενη αυτη εν αυτη , thus Began That Divine Beginning of Unceasing and Rationally-gifted Life , to Last throughout All of ηρξατο θειαν αρχην απαυστου και εµφρονος βιου προς ξυµπαντα Time . And whereas on the one hand , The Body of Heaven has come to be Visible , The Soul Herself , is τον χρονον . και δη µεν το σωµα ουρανου γεγονεν ορατον , αυτη µεν

60

on the other hand , Invisible , but Partakes of Reasoning and Harmony , and having come into existence , 37 δε αορατος δε µετεχουσα λογισµου και αρµονιας , τε γενοµενη by The Agency of The Best , Eternal , Intelligible Beings , as The Best of Generated Beings . Therefore , υπο του αριστου αει των νοητων οντων αριστη των γεννηθεντων . ουν inasmuch as She is Combined out of The Natures of The Same and of The Other and of Being , She is ατε συγκραθεισα εκ φυσεως της ταυτου και της θατερου τε ουσιας also Analogically Proportioned and Bound-together out of These Three Portions . And by Revolving-back και ανα λογον µερισθεισα και ξυνδεθεισα εκ τουτων τριων µοιρων , τε ανακυκλουµενη upon Herself , whenever She Touches anything which has its Essential-being dispersed , or whenever προς αυτην , οταν εφαπτηται τινας εχοντος ουσιαν σκεδαστην και οταν She Touches that which has Its Essential-being Undivided , She is moved throughout Her Whole Being , αµεριστον , κινουµενη δια εαυτης πασης , and Announces in relation to what object it will be indeed The Same , and from what object it will be 37b τ’ λεγει προς οτω ο τι αν η ταυτον και οτου τι αν Different , and according to the highest degree ; and in what way , and how and when , it results that each ετερον τε κατα µαλιστα και οπη και οπως και οποτε ξυµβαινει εκαστα of the entities that arise , are continuously , both acted upon by others and act upon others , according τα γιγνοµενα ειναι αει και πασχειν και προς κατα to these circumstances . Thus The Word/Announcement , coming to be in the same way True , concerning τα ταυτα εχοντα . δε ο λογος γιγνοµενος κατα ταυτον αληθης , περι both The Other and concerning The Same , being carried-through The Self-Moved without sound τε θατερον και περι το ταυτον , ων φεροµενος εν τω υφ’ αυτου κινουµενω ανευ φθογγου nor noise , whenever on the one hand , It is concerned with the perceptible and The Circle of the Other , και ηχης , οταν µεν γιγνηται περι το αισθητον και ο κυκλος του θατερου by being impelled in a upright/straight way , Proclaims them to The Whole of Its Soul , then opinions and ιων ορθος διαγγειλη αυτα εις την πασαν ψυχην , δοξαι και trustworthy beliefs arise which are Firm and True ; but on the other hand , when in turn , It is concerned πιστεις γιγνονται βεβαιοι και αληθεις : δε οταν αυ περι with The Rational , and inasmuch as it is The Circle of The Same ; by being Well-rounded , 37c το λογιστικον και η ο κυκλος του ταυτου ων ευτροχος She Proclaims that information , from which , Intellect and Knowledge is Necessarily Perfected . But if αυτα µηνυση εξ νους τε επιστηµη αναγκης αποτελειται . δε anyone should say at any time that This in which These Real Beings Arise , is Itself something other τις αν ειπη ποτε τουτω εν ω των οντων εγγιγνεσθον , αυτο αλλο than Soul , then they assert much more than The Truth . πλην ψυχην , ερει παν µαλλον η ταληθες . But if It Gives Motion to The Realm of Generation and Heaven ; then how much more could there δε ει διδωσι την κινησιν τη γενεσει τε και τω ουρανω , δε πως πολλω not be Motion in It beforehand , if it gives from Its Very Own Essential-Being/Substance ? For All ου εστιν κινησις εν αυτω προτερον ; διδωσι απο της εαυτου ουσιας ; γαρ παν that Create by virtue of Their Being , transmit to others from The Being that they have in Themselves . το ποιουν τω ειναι µεταδιδωσι τοις αλλοις απο του οντος εν εαυτω : For fire also , does not transmit coolness to others , but heat ; for it creates 772 γαρ το πυρ και ουχι µεταδιδωσι ψυχροτητος τοις αλλοις , αλλα θερµοτητος : γαρ ποιει not by choice , but by its being , and it has no coolness (in its being/substance) . Likewise , The Sun ου προελοµενον δε τω ειναι και ειχε ουκ ψυχροτητα : και ο ηλιος

61

Gives Light , and The Soul Life . So that , if The Demiurge also Gives Motion to The Beings below διδωσι φως , και η ψυχη ζωην : ωστε , ει ο δηµιουργος και διδωσι κινησιν τοις µετ’ Him , then He has The Cause of Motion , together with That of Rest , in His Constitution . Then it is αυτον , εχει την αιτιαν της κινησεως οµου τη στασει συνυφεστηκυιαν . Αλλ’ µεν clear that through these considerations , both Rest and Motion exist There (in The Intelligible Realm) , δηλον οτι δια τουτων , και στασις και κινησις εστιν εκει The One as The Eternity of The Demiurgic Mind that is also The Energy of His Providence/Forethought , και η µεν ως το αιωνιον της δηµιουργικης νοησεως εστι και το ενεργον της προνοιας , The Other likewise , as The Continuity of His Demiurgic Energy , that Guards His Efficacious Power . η δε ωσαυτως το αει του δηµιουργου της ενεργειας , φρουρουσα αυτου δραστηριον της δυαµιν: For through what Agency can The Forethought of The Demiurge of Wholes Remain Ever-Alert and γαρ δια τι η προνοια του δηµιουργου των ολων εστι αγρυπνος και at The Apex of Effectiveness , other than through Motion ? Then through what agency can It Remain ακµαια και δραστηριος , η δια την κινησιν ; δε δια τι Steadfast and Undeviating and Unchangeable , other than through Rest ? µονιµος και ανεξαλλακτος και ακλινης , η δια την στασιν ; Accordingly then , These Two Genera ; Rest and Motion , we must posit as existing in αρα ταυτα γενη στασιν και κινησιν , θετεον εν The Demiurge . But do These Two Genera Participate of One-another , or not ? For the Eleatic Stranger αυτω : δε ταυτα τα δυο γενη µετεχειν αλληλων , η ου ; γαρ ο Ελεατης ξενος in the Sophist (P49) appears to deny mixture in Their case ; for it is neither proper for everything to be εν τω σοφιστη δοκει αποφησαι την µιξιν επι τουτων : γαρ ουτε προσηκε παντα ειναι unmixed with one-another , nor for everything to be mixed with one-another , so that on the one hand , αµικτα αλληλοις , ουτε παντα µεµιγµενα , αλλα µεν Sameness and Otherness Commune with One-another , but on the other hand , Rest and Motion do not . ταυτον και θατερον κοινενειν αλληλοις , δε στασιν και κινησιν ουκετι . Therefore , under these circumstances , Socrates was not in any way saying that he would admire the one ουν εν τουτοις ο Σωκρατης Μηποτε λεγων αγασθαι τον who is able to show that these Ideas can be mingled , since he is making room for the arguments in the δυναµενον δειξαι ταυτα δυναµενα συγκρινεσθαι , και διδωσι χωραν τοις λογοις εν Sophist (p49) that distinguish/set-apart on the one hand , Some Ideas that are Distinct from One-another , Σοφιστη διοριζουσι µεν τινα διακεκριται απ’ αλληλων and on the other hand , Some that Commune with One-another . And on the one hand , Socrates himself δε τινα κοινωνει : και µεν αυτος as if being in doubt , intends to learn something about these matters ; whereas the Sage on the other hand , ως απορων , εφιεται µαθειν τι περι τουτων , ο σοφος δε makes the dialogue an artistic exposition about the matters , demonstrating that Some of The Genera are πεποιηται εκει την επιστηµονικην υφηγησιν περι αυτων , αποδειξας τα µεν των γενων Distinct/Set-apart from One-another , while Others are Co-mingled with One-another ; for having the αποκεκριµενα απ’ αλληλων , τα δε συγκεκριµενα αλληλοις : γαρ το capability/potential of undergoing these Generic affections does not necessarily lead to participation δυνασθαι πασχειν ταυτα ουκ ηναγκασµενην αγει µετουσιαν with One-another ; for “being receptive” is the same as “having the capability” . Not ever then , shall The αλληλων : γαρ το ενδεχεσθαι ταυτον τω δυνασθαι . Μηποτε δε τα Measures of Separation and Combination not be the same for all The Ideas . For there is Unity and 773 µετρα και της διακρισεως και συγκρισεως ου εστιν τα αυτα παντων . γαρ Εστι ενωσις τε και Division about The Genera of Being , and there is not one of Them which does not Commune with The διαιρεσις περι τα γενη του οντος , και εστιν ουδεν ο µη κοινωνει και των

62

Rest of Them . But just as in These Genera , Some are more Unified , while Others are more Divided , λοιπων . δε ως εν τοις τουτοις γενεσι τα µεν µαλλον ηνωνται , τα δε µαλλον διακεκριται , so also , Some are more active with Each-other in Their Participation , while Others are more Able και τα µεν πλειω ποιειται αλληλων την µεθεξιν , τα δε πλειω to Preserve Their Purity , and because of this , when comparing Rest and Motion in Those , with σωζει την καθαροτητα , και δια τουτο ως παραβαλλοντες στασιν και κινησιν εν εκεινοις προς The Others ,we said that They do not participate of One-another , we did not mean that they are altogether τα αλλα , ελεγοµεν µη µετεχειν αλληλων ουχ ως οντα παντελως incommunicative and unmixable . For how can it be , that being correspondent to One-another in One ακοινωνητα και αµικτα . γαρ Πως εσται οντα συστοιχα αλληλοις εν ενι Being , they can still fail to be friends with one another , and in a sense , Participate of One-another ; και ουχι φιλα αλληλοις και που µεθεξει αλληλων , on the one hand , Rest deriving Effective Energy from Motion , while on the other hand , Motion derives µεν η στασις δραστηριου ενεργειας απο της κινησεως , δε η κινησις Enduring Power from Rest ? For shall we make Rest ineffective and lifeless beforehand , µονιµου δυναµεως απο της στασεως ; γαρ ποιησοµεν την στασιν ανενεργητον και αζωον Ποτερον or shall we give Rest a Share of Life and Energy ? But if on the one hand , it is ineffective and lifeless , η ταυτη µεταδωσοµεν και ζωης και ενεργειας ; Αλλ’ ει µεν εστι ανενεργητος και αζωος , then neither will it be Generative , nor an Intellectual Idea . For All of Intellect also Partakes of One Life ; ουτε εσται γεννητικη , ουτε νοερον ειδος : γαρ παν νω και µετεχει το εν ζωης : for it is not Lawful to constitute Intellect out of something mindless nor Life out of something lifeless . γαρ ουτε θεµιτον υφεσταναι τον νουν εξ τινος ανοητων ουτε την ζωην εκ µη ζωντων . But if on the other hand , Rest is to have both Life and Energy , it will also have Motion . Surely then Ει δε η στασις εξει και ζωην και ενεργειαν , και εξει κινησιν . δη αρα in the same way , shall we not also say that Motion Energizes in a Stable and Unvarying Way ? Or Οµοιως ουχι και φησοµεν την κινησιν ενεργειν µονιµως και ακινητως ; η otherwise , how would One of The Intellectual Ideas Energize ? For This is why we call Them αλλως πως αν τι των νοερων ειδων ενεργοιη ; γαρ τουτο δια κεκληκαµεν εκεινας Unmoving Causes . Then if They have Unmoving Power , then in a way , they also Partake of Rest , so ακινητους αιτιας . δε ει εχειν ακινητον δυναµιν , δε πη και µετεχειν της στασεως , that , These Ideas also Participate of One-another . But for all that , we often say that They are unmixed , ωστε ταυτα και µετειληφασιν αλληλων . οµως πολλακις Φαµεν αυτα αµικτα , for which reason there is more Otherness and Division in Them than there is in Sameness and Otherness ; διοτι πλειων η ετεροτης και η διακρισις εν αυτοις η εν ταυτοτητι και ετεροτητι : for These are more Unified than Divided , but Rest and Motion are more Divided than Co-mingled . γαρ ταυτα µαλλον ηνωνται η διηρηται, δε στασις και κινησις µαλλον διηρηται η συγκεκραται . Thus , never will Each of The Ideas aim to be both Unified and Divided , just as it was said earlier δε Μηποτε εκαστον των ειδων βουλεται ειναι και ηνωµενον και διηρηµενον , ωστε προειρηκεν also , about the beings in this realm , that each of us is both one and many , and in this way , Socrates said και περι των τηδε , οτι εκαστος ηµων εστι τε εν και πολλα , και ουτως εφατο that he would admire the one who could demonstrate that Each One of The Intelligible Ideas is both 774 αν αγασθηναι τον δεικνυντα εκαστον των νοητων ειδων και Separate and Complex . And this should also be clearly shown by the added phrase itself (Page55) διακρινοµενον και συγκρινοµενον : και τουτο αν και δηλοιη το προσκειµενον αυτω “In-Themselves” . For he does not say “with each other” , in order that we should search for Their εν εαυτοις : γαρ ου ειπεν αλληλοις , ινα αν εζητησαµεν αυτων mixture with one another , but “In-Themselves” , in order that we should consider how each of Them , is την µιξιν προς αλληλα , αλλα εν εαυτοις θεωρησωµεν πως εκαστον

63

at the same time , Distinct and Compounded-together , so that Rest is One and Many , and so is Motion , αµα διακεκριµενον και συγκεκριµενον , ως την στασιν ειναι και εν και πολλα και την κινησιν , just like you and me and every sensible being , so that The Unity There , is Pluralized , and The Many , ωσπερ και σε και εµε και εκαστον των αισθητων τε το εν το εκει πληθυοµενον και το πληθος Unified . For if these views would hold sway , then being unmixed here , must be quite different from ενιζοµενον . γαρ Ει ταυτα κρατοιη , αµιξιαν δει πολλου διαφερεσθαι προς that of Rest and Motion in the Sophist (254b) ; την της στασεως και της κινησεως εν τω Σοφιστη : Stranger: 40 Therefore , since it is surely agreed by us that some of The Genera Desire/Wish/Aim ουν δη ωµολογηται ηµιν Οτ’ τα µεν των γενων εθελειν to Commune with One-another , while Others do not , and that Some Aim to Commune with few , κοινωνειν αλληλοις , τα δε µη , και τα µεν επ’ ολιγον , while others Aim to Commune with Many , and that there is nothing to hinder Others , from having τα δ’ επι πολλα , και ουδεν κωλυειν τα δε κε− Communion throughout All and with All of Them , then following this discussion , let us follow through 254c κοινωνηκεναι δια παντων πασι τοις , δη το µετα τουτο τω λογω συνεπισπωµεθα by investigating in turn , that concerning not all The Ideas , in order that we do not become confused σκοπουντες τηδε , περι µη παντων των ειδων , ινα µη ταραττωµεθα among so many , but some only , selecting Them , from Those that are considered The Most Important . εν πολλοις , αλλα αττα προελοµενοι των λεγοµενων µεγιστων , On the one hand , let us first consider What is The Nature of Each One , then , how They possess/have µεν πρωτον εστιν ποια εκαστα , επειτα πως εχει The Power/Ability of Communicating with One-another , in order that , on the other hand , if we are not δυναµεως κοινωνιας αλληλων , ινα ει µη able to grasp both Being and not-Being with Perfect Clearness , at any rate then , we shall indeed not δυναµεθα λαβειν τε το ον και µη ον παση σαφηνεια , αλλ’ ουν γιγνωµεθα γε µηδεν fail to Reason about Them , by as much as the method of our present enquiry permits . Accordingly then , ενδεεις λογου περι αυτων , καθ’ οσον ο τροπος της νυν σκεψεως ενδεχεται , αρα by making comparisons in this way , let us see if it is permitted for us to say , that “not-being really is” , 254d παρεικαθη πη εαν απαλλαττειν ηµιν λεγουσιν ως το µη ον οντως εστιν although not being , without being at fault . µη ον αθωοις . Theatetus: In that case , we must do so . (Ουκουν χρη .) Stranger: Certainly then , The Most Important of The Genera , are Those which we just now described ; µην δη Μεγιστα των γενων , α νυν διηµεν , Being Itself and Rest and Motion . τε το ον αυτο και στασις και κινησις . Theatetus: Very much so indeed . (Πολυ γε .) Stranger: And certainly , we say indeed that Two of Them , remain unmixable with One-another . Και µην φαµεν γε τω δυο αυτοιν αµικτω προς αλληλω . Theatetus: Very much so indeed . (Σφοδρα γε.) Stranger: But yet , Being indeed mixes with both of Them ; for both of Them exist in some way . δε Το ον γε µικτον αµφοιν : γαρ αµφω εστον που . Theatetus: How could this not be the case ? (Πως δ’ ου ;) Stranger: Surely then , these have become three . δη ταυτα γιγνεται Τρια . Theatetus: What else ? (Τι µην ;)

64

Stranger: Is it not the case then , that on the one hand , each of Them is Other than the remaining Two , Ουκουν µεν εκαστον αυτων εστιν ετερον τοιν δυοιν , but on the other hand , Each One is Itself The Same as Itself . δ’ αυτο ταυτον εαυτω . Theatetus: It is in this way . (Ουτως .) Stranger: Then in turn , what in the world do we now mean by using the words The Same and The Other 254e αυ Τι ποτ’ νυν ειρηκαµεν το ταυτον τε και θατερον in this way ? Are They Two new Genera , still other than The Three , and must certainly always be mixed ουτως ; ποτερα τινε δυο αυτω γενη , µεν αλλω των τριων , µην εξ αναγκης αει ξυµµιγνυµενω with Those , and conduct our search on the assumption that They are Five Genera , but not Three , εκεινοις , και σκεπτεον περι ως οντων πεντε αυτων , αλλ’ ου περι τριων , or are we addressing One of Those Three Themselves , without noticing this , when we say the same 255 η προσαγορευοντες τι εκεινων αυτους λανθανον τουτο ως ηµας το ταυτον and the other ? και θατερον ; Theatetus: Perhaps . (Ισως .) Stranger: But it is certainly not the case that either Motion or Rest are indeed The Other or The Same . Αλλ’ µην ου τι ουθ’ κινησις και στασις εστι γε ετερον ουτε ταυτον . Theatetus: How could it be the case ; (Πως;) Stranger: Whatever term we may apply to Rest and Motion in common , it cannot be either of Those . Οτιπερ αν προσειπωµεν κινησιν και στασιν κοινη , τουτο ουδετερον ειναι οιον τε αυτοιν . Theatetus: Why then ? (Τι δη;) Stranger: Because then , Motion would be at Rest , and in turn Rest would be in Motion ; for in either Κινησις τε στησεται αυ στασις και κινηθησεται : γαρ περι case , whichever one of the two became other , it would force the other to change its αµφοτερα , οποτερονουν αυτοιν γιγνοµενον θατερον αναγκσσει θατερον µεταβαλλειν αυτου nature into that of its opposite , seeing that it would be participating of its opposite . 255b της φυσεως επι τουναντιον , ατε µετασχον του εναντιου . Theatetus: Precisely so indeed . (Κοµιδη γε .) Stranger: Certainly then , both Participate of The Same and of The Other . µην αµφω Μετεχετον ταυτου και θατερου . Theatetus: Yes . (Ναι .) Stranger: So then , we must not say that Motion , nor in turn Rest , is indeed The Same or The Other . τοινυν Μη λεγωµεν κινησιν , µηδ’ αυ στασιν , ειναι γ’ ταυτον η θατερον . Theatetus: No we must not .(Μη γαρ .) Stranger: But then , should we conceive of Being and The Same as one entity ? Αλλ’ αρα διανοητεον το ον και το ταυτον ως εν τι ; Theatetus: Perhaps . (Ισως .) Stranger: But if Being and The Same have no difference in meaning/significance , then again in this way Αλλ’ ει το ον και το ταυτον µηδεν διαφορον σηµαινετον , παλιν ουτως when we say in turn , that both Rest and Motion exist , we shall be saying that they are both The Same , λεγοντες αυ αµφοτερα κινησιν και στασιν ειναι , προσερουµεν αµφοτερα ταυτον since They exist . 255c ως αυτα οντα . Theatetus: But this is certainly indeed impossible . Αλλα τουτο µην γε αδυνατον . Stranger: Accordingly then , it is impossible for Being and The Same to be one . αρα Αδυνατον το ον και ταυτον ειναι εν .

65

Theatetus: Quite so . (Σχεδον .) Stranger: Surely then we shall place The Same as The Forth , next to The Three Other Ideas ? δη τιθωµεν το ταυτον Τεταρτον προς τοις τρισιν ειδεσι ; Theatetus: Very much so .(Πανυ µεν ουν .) Stranger: What then ? Shall we call The Other , The Fifth ? Or must we conceive of This and Being Τι δε ; αρα ηµιν λεκτεον το θατερον πεµπτον ; η δει διανοεισθαι τουτο και το ον as two different names for one genera ? ως δυ’ αττα ονοµατα εφ’ ενι γενει ; Theatetus: Perhaps .(Ταχ’ αν .) Stranger: But I suspect that you admit that of The Real Beings (Reality) , Some are always said to be Αλλ’ οιµαι σε συγχωρειν των οντων τα µεν αει λεγεσθαι Absolute/Themselves in Themselves , while others are Relative to another . αυτα καθ’ αυτα , τα δε προς αλλα . Theatetus: How could it not be so ? (Τι δ’ ου ;) Stranger: So then , is Other always relative to Other ; or what do you say ? 255d δ’ ετερον αει προς ετερον : η γαρ ; Theatetus: It is so .( Ουτως .) Stranger: It would not be so , if indeed Being and The Other were not , in every way different . But αν Ουκ , ει γε το ον και το θατερον µη παµπολυ διεφερετην : αλλ’ if indeed The Other , participated of both Absolute and Relative existence , just like Being , there would ειπερ θατερον µετειχε αµφοιν τοιν ειδοιν ωσπερ το ον αν also be at some time among the others that exist , another not in any relation to any other ; but as it is , και ην τι ποτε των ετερων ετερον ου προς ετερον δε νυν it absolutely happens with us , that whatever is other , must be just what it is , in relation to some other . ατεχνως συµβεβηκεν ηµιν , οτιπερ αν ετερον , εξ αναγκης ειναι οπερ τουτο εστιν, η ετερου . Theatetus: You speak just as it has to be . (Λεγεις καθαπερ εχει .) Stranger: Surely then , we must proclaim The Nature of The Other as being The Fifth among The Ideas , δη λεκτεον την φυσιν θατερου ουσαν Πεµπτον εν τοις ειδεσιν , from which we make our selection . 255e εν οις προαιρουµεθα . Theatetus: Yes .(Ναι .) Stranger: And we shall indeed say , that The Other Herself Permeates throughout all of Them ; for Και γε φησοµεν αυτην διεληλυθυιαν δια παντων αυτων : γαρ Each One is Other than The Other Ones , not because of Its Own Nature , but because Each One εκαστον εν ειναι ετερον των αλλων ου δια την αυτου φυσιν , αλλα δια το Participates of The Idea of The Other . µετεχειν της ιδεας της θατερου . Theatetus: Exactly so . (Κοµιδη µεν ουν .) but this accords more with what has been written in the Philebus (13e) , in which it says that the same δε συναδειν µαλλον τοις γεγραµµενοις εν Φιληβω , εν οις ελεγεν οτι το αυτο object being one and many , is commonplace about sensibles , but that on the other hand , it is worth ειναι εν και πολλα εστιν δεδηµευµενον επι των αισθητων , δε αξιον searching-out in what way Each of Those Intelligible Monads is both One and Many . ζητησεως επι οπως εκαστη εκεινων των νοητων µοναδων εστι εν και πολλα : Socrates: 4 Assume , O Protarchus , that I am being questioned in turn , by you . 13e θες , ω Προταρχε , ερωτωµενον παλιν υπο σου .

66

Protarchus: Then , what question do I ask ; δη Το ποιον ; Socrates: Then ask if Mindfulness and Knowledge and Intellect and all Such Entities -which I said at first δη Φρονησις τε και επιστηµη και νους και πανθ’ οποσα εγω ειπον κατ’ αρχας were set-up as being Good , when it was asked “What is Good” -will not undergo the same fate , just as θεµενος αγαθα , ποτ’ διερωτωµενος ο τι εστιν αγαθον , αρ’ ου πεισονται ταυτον οπερ this argument of yours ? τουτο ο λογος σος ; Protarchus: How ? (Πως ;) Socrates: By appearing that the collective forms of knowledge are both many and some of them are unlike δοξουσαν αι ξυναπασαι επιστηµαι τε Πολλαι και τινες αυτων ανοµοιοι one another . But if some of them also turn out to be in some way opposite , then would I be fit 14 αλληλαις : δε ει τινες και γιγνονται πη εναντιαι αρα αν ειην αξιος to engage in Dialectics now , if through fear of this itself , I should say that no form of knowledge is του δισλεγεσθαι νυν , ει φοβηθεις τουτο αυτο φαιην µηδεµιαν επιστηµην γιγνεσθαι unlike any form of knowledge , and then , the argument should vanish , being lost to us in the same way , ανοµοιον επιστηµη , καπειθ’ ο λογος οιχοιτο απολοµενος ηµιν ουτως just like the tale (Ody 5.350) ; then we ourselves would be saved by clinging to some irrational notion ? ωσπερ µυθος , δε αυτοι σωζοιµεθα επι τινος αλογιας ; Protarchus: But certainly that must never come to pass , except the part about our being saved . However , Αλλ’ µην τουτο δει ου γενεσθαι , πλην του σωθηναι . the equal treatment of your doctrine and mine is most certainly acceptable . Thus on the one hand , το ισον του σου λογου τε και εµου γε µην αρεσκει : µεν let it be that pleasures are many and unlike , and also that the forms of knowledge are many and different . γιγνεσθων ηδοναι πολλαι και ανοµοιοι , δε επιστηµαι πολλαι και διαφοροι .

The Doctrine of The Warrior

Socrates: Now then , O Protarchus , with no concealment of the difference between my Good 14b τοινυν , ω Προταρχε , µη αποκρυπτοµενοι Την διαφοροτητα του τ εµου του αγαθου and yours , but let us be bold , in proposing to openly disclose upon cross-examination , whether και του σου , δε τολµωµεν , κατατιθεντες εις το µεσον µηνυσωσι ελεγχοµενοι , ποτερον pleasure must be said to be in some way The Good , or Mindfulness , or some other third Entity . ηδονην δει λεγειν ειναι αν πη ταγαθον η φρονησιν η τι αλλο τριτον For surely The Object Itself of the present conflict is without a doubt , not that we gain the victory , γαρ γε αυτο προς τουτο νυν δηπου ου φιλονεικουµεν , in some way , for my assertions or for yours , but I suppose that This should be That for the sake of οπως αγω τιθεµαι η ταυθ’ α συ , δ’ που ταυτ’ εσται τα which we fight for ; that we must both Fight to Gain The Most Perfect Truth . νικωντα , ηµας δει αµφω συµµαχειν τω αληθεστατω . Protarchus: Yes , we must do so . ( γαρ ∆ει ουν .) Socrates: 5 So then let us establish This Doctrine still more firmly by means of an agreement . 14c τοινυν Τουτον τον λογον ετι µαλλον βεβαιωσωµεθα δι’ οµολογιας . Protarchus: What kind of doctrine then ? (ποιον Τον δη ;) Socrates: The Doctrine which gives trouble to all men willingly , and to some at times , against their will . Τον παρεχοντα πραγµατα πασι ανθρωποις εκουσι τε και ενιοις ενιοτε ακουσιν . Protarchus: Please speak more clearly . (Λεγε σαφεστερον .) Socrates: I mean The Doctrine which came our way just now . Its Nature being somehow full of wonder . λεγω Τον παραπεσοντα δη νυν , φυσει πως πεφυκοτα θαυµαστον .

67

For surely the assertions that one is the many and many are the one are wondrous , and it is easy γαρ δη λεχθεν εν ειναι τα πολλα και πολλα το εν θαυµαστον , και ραδιον to dispute with anyone who asserts either of them . αµφισβητησαι τω τιθεµενω οποτερονουν τουτων . Protarchus: Do you mean , as when someone says that I , Protarchus , am one by nature , and in turn that 14d Αρ’ ουν λεγεις , οταν τις φη εµε Πρωταρχον γεγονοτα ενα φυσει παλιν there are many parts of me which are also opposites of each other , that implicitly assert , that the same ειναι πολλους τους εµε και εναντιους αλληλοις , τιθεµενος τον person , is great and small and heavy and light and countless other things ? αυτον µεγαν και σµικρον και βαρυν και κουφον και µυρια αλλα ; Socrates: On the one hand , O Protarchus , you have mentioned those wonders concerning the one and µεν , ω Πρωταρχηε , Συ ειρηκας των θαυµαστων περι το εν και many that are in the hands of the people , so that on the other hand , by the common agreement of πολλα τα δεδηµευµενα , δε συγκεχωρηµενα υπο all people , as the saying goes , such things must now not be touched , for these assertions are considered παντων ως επος ειπειν των τοιουτων δειν ηδη µη απτεσθαι , υπολαµβανοντων to be childish and easy , and extreme impediments to discussions , since it is now also agreed , to never γιγνεσθαι παιδαριωδη και ραδια , και σφοδρα εµποδια τοις λογοις , επει οµολογησαµενος µηδε introduce into such discussions , as an example of one and many , the members and , at the same time 14e τα τοιαδε οταν τις εκαστου τα µελη τε και αµα the parts which are considered as being divisible in that assertion . Because when someone acknowledges µερη διελων τω λογω , οτι that all those parts are collectively that one member , they are refuted and ridiculed (by the person who παντα ταυτα ειναι εκεινο το εν ελεγχη καταγελων questions them) for having been forced to assert such monstrous absurdities ; that a single member is both διηναγκασται φαναι τερατα , ως το εν τε many and infinite in number , and that the many , is only one . εστι πολλα και απειρα και τα πολλα ως µονον εν . Protarchus: But then , what other wonders do you mean , O Socrates , in relation to this same doctrine , δε δη ποια ετερα Συ λεγεις , ω Σωκρατες , περι τον τουτον αυτον λογον which are not yet generally acknowledged by the people ? α µηπω συγκεχωρηµενα δεδηµευται ; Socrates: 15 Whenever , O child , anyone asserts The One that is not one of those beings that come Οποταν , ω παι , τις τιθηται το εν µη των into existence and perish , just as in the examples we said just now . For on the one hand , in such cases γιγνοµενων τε και απολλυµενων , καθαπερ ηµεις ειποµεν αρτιως , γαρ µεν ενταυθοι of unity of that kind , as we said just now , it is agreed by both parties that refutation is not necessary . το εν τοιουτον , οπερ ειποµεν δη νυν , συγκεχωρηται και το ελεγχειν µη δειν . But on the other hand , when anyone takes-up the assertion , whether man is one , or ox is one , or Beauty δε οταν τις επιχειρη τιθεσθαι ανθρωπον ενα και βουν ενα και το καλον is one , or The Good is one , the intense interest in these and similar Unities become εν και το αγαθον εν , η πολλη σπουδη µετα περι τουτων και των τοιουτων εναδων γιγνεται divisive conflicts of interest . διαιρεσεως αµφισβητησις . Protarchus: How ? Πως ; Socrates: On the one hand , our first consideration should be if any Such Monads Truly Exist . 15b µεν Πρωτον υπολαµβανειν δει ειναι ει τινας τοιαυτας µοναδας αληθως ουσας :

68

Then in turn , how These Unities , Each One being Singular , remains Always The Same , and how They ειτα αυ πως ταυτας , εκαστην ουσαν µιαν αει την αυτην και neither admit generation nor destruction , and nevertheless permanently remain This Singular Being . µητε προσδεχοµενην γενεσιν µητε ολεθρον , οµως βεβαιοτατα ειναι ταυτην µιαν : Then after this , if Each Unity , exists among the infinite number of entities , are we either to assume δε µετα τουτ εν τοις αυ και απειροις γιγνοµενοις ειτε θετεον that It is dispersed and has become many , or that It/She is entirely separated from It/Herself , which διεσπασµενην και γεγονυιαν πολλα , ειθ’ αυτην ολην χωρις αυτης , ο would surely appear to be the most impossible notion of all , being The Same and One , becomes One αν δη φαινοιτ’ αδυνατωτατον παντων , ταυτον και εν γιγνεσθαι εν and at the same time Many . These are the questions , O Protarchus , about This Kind of One and Many , τε και ενι αµα πολλοις . ταυτ’ εστι τα , ω Προταρχε , περι τα τοιαυτα εν και πολλα , but not of those others , which cause the utmost perplexity , if they are not brought into agreement 15c αλλ’ ουκ εκεινα , αιτια απασης αποριας µη οµολογηθεντα in a good way , but if in turn they are well-harmonized , they provide an abundance of advantages . καλως και αυ καλως ευποριας . Protarchus: Is it not the case then , O Socrates , that we must now first work-out this matter ? Ουκουν , ω Σωκρατες , ηµας χρη εν τω νυν πρωτον διαπονησασθαι τουθ’ ; Socrates: That is indeed what I would say . γουν ως εγω αν φαιην . Protarchus: And so , you may assume that we all agree with you about such matters ; but perhaps Και τοινυν υπολαβε ηµας παντας συγχωρειν σοι τουσδε τα τοιαυτα : δ’ ισως it is best that in the present round of questions , it is good that Philebus remains unstirred . κρατιστον εν τω νυν επερωτωντα ευ Φιληβον κειµενον µη κινειν . For this is the same as to say that Each of The Intelligible Ideas is both Separate and Conjoined , 774 γαρ τουτω ταυτον φησι το εκαστον των νοητων ειδων διακεκριµενον και συγκρινοµενον as in the present passage . ως εν τουτοις . Therefore , I have made these comments , on the one hand , about The Communion ουν ειρησθω Ταυτα µεν περι της κοινωνιας of The Ideas , and according to Their Unification and Distinction from One-Another , Each of Them των ειδων τε και κατα την ενωσιν και την διαιρεσιν προς αλληλα εκαστου Being In-Itself , in an Absolute Way . But on the other hand , in order to understand Their Capacity καθ’ αυτο απλως : δε οπως εκλαµβανειν αυτων to Mix and Their Incapacity to Mix , it should perhaps also be opportune to refer to the exposition και την µιξιν και την αµιξιαν , χρη ισως και ευκαιροτερον διελθειν ταις εξηγησεσιν in the Sophist , where the primary discussion of Plato is the participation with each other or εν Σοφιστου , οπου προηγουµενως διαλεγεται ο Πλατων του µετεχειν αλληλων η the non-participation of The Genera of Being . Such as , whether Likeness and Unlikeness mix , µη µετεχειν τα γενη του οντος . δε Ποτερον οµοιοτης και ανοµοιοτης µιγνυται not only with one-another , but also with others , I mean Rest and Motion , and generally , whether ου µονον αλληλοις , αλλα και τοις αλλοις , λεγω στασει και κινησει , και ολως ποτερον The Genera of Being mix not only with themselves , but also with The Species of Being , or whether τα γενη του οντος ουκ µονον αλληλοις , αλλα και τοις ειδεσι του οντος , η only Some of Them partake of one another , while others do not , is a matter for later inquiry. Therefore , µονον τα µεν αλληλοις , τα δε ου , ταυτα µετα σκεπτεον .

69

it appears to be absurd that The Causes Participate of those effects that they cause , but The Five Genera φαινεται ειναι ατοπον τα αιτια µετεχειν των αιτιατων : δε των η πεµπτας γενων are The Causes of The Subsistence of all The Species . Therefore , we must never say that mixture occurs εστι αιτια της υποστασεως πασιν τοις ειδεσι . ουν Μηποτε ρητεον την µιξην γιγνεσθαι in every way ; for Beings of a Co-ordinate Order/Genera/Series will mix with each other in one way , 775 πολλαχως : γαρ τα συστοιχα µιγνυσθαι αλληλοις αλλως , while Superiors mix with those who are below Them in another way , and subordinates mix with Those τα κρειττονα τοις υφειµενοις αλλως , τα καταδεεστερα τοις who are their Betters in still another way . For on the one hand , Beings of a Co-ordinate Order αυτων αµεινοσι αλλως : γαρ µεν τα και Move-about Freely through One-another and Share with one another Their Peculiar Powers ; while on the φοιτα δι’ αλληλων και µεταδιδωσιν αλληλοις των οικειων δυναµεων : other hand , Superiors pass through Their Subordinates , and provide a share of Their Specific/Peculiar δε τα χωρει δια των υφειµενων , τε µεταδιδωσι αφ εαυτων της ιδιοτητος Characteristics/Qualities/Properties to them , and exist in them through participation ; the sub-ordinates οικειας αυτοις , και εστιν εν αυτοις κατα µεθεξιν : τα δε have their foundation in their superiors , they become hearth-companions with Them and enjoy Their ενιδρυει αυτα µεν τοις κρειττοσιν , δε γιγνεται οµεστια αυτοις και απολαυει των Own Intelligible Nourishment , since They would exist in them Causally . If then , we made αυτων νοητων , ως αν οντα εν αυτοις κατ’ αιτιαν . Ει δη λεγοµεν these comments correctly , then both the species mix with one another , and so do The Genera , but ταυτα ορθως τε τα ειδη µιγνυται αλληλοις και τα γενη in accordance with The First kind of Mixture (Communion) ; for Such Fellowship is appropriate to κατα το πρωτον ειδος της µιξεως : γαρ τοιαυτη η κοινωνια εν Beings of a Co-ordinate Rank ; then The Genera with their species in the second way ; for They Provide τοις συστοιχοις : και τα γενη τοις ειδεσι κατα το δευτερον , γαρ µεταδιδωσι a Portion of Themselves to Their species ; and the species with their Genera in the third way ; for εαυτων αυτοις : και τα ειδη τοις γενεσι κατα το τριτον , γαρ they have their Foundation in Them , and their Unity , and their Existence in Them , or rather , ενιδρυεται αυτοις και ενιζεται και γιγνεται εν αυτοις , δε µαλλον They exist Causally in them from a long time before , since The Fundamental Being/Underlying Reality εστι κατ αιτιαν εν αυτοις πολλω προτερον , δια την υποστασιν /Subsistence of All is in The Indivisible . And these distinctions were not invented by us , since παντων εν αµερει . Και ταυτα ουχ αναπλαττοµεν ηµεις , αλλα the theologians have also expressed them enigmatically through the riddle of “The Sacred Marriages”. οι θεολογοι και ταυτα αινιττονται δια των ιερων γαµων : For on the one hand , what they call Being Mystically Married in The Absolute Sense , is a Homogeneous γαρ µεν προσαγορευουσι µυστικως γαµον απλως οµοφυη Union and Communion between The Divine Causes . and on the other hand , This Fellowship at times συζευξιν και την κοινωνιαν των θειων αιτιων : δε ταυτην µεν ποτε they see in Co-ordinate Beings of The Same Order , and so speak of The Marriage of Hera and Zeus , ορωσι εν τοις συστοιχοις , και καλουσι γαµον Ηρας και ∆ιος , of Heaven and Earth ,of Kronos and Rhea ; then at times in The Marriage of inferiors to their Superiors , Ουρανου και Γης , Κρονου και Ρεας : δε ποτε των καταδεεστερων τα κρειττω , and so speak of The Marriage between Zeus and Demeter ; then sometimes , conversely , of Superiors και καλουσι γαµον ∆ιος και ∆ηµητρος : δε και ποτε εµπαλιν των κρειττονων with inferiors , and so they speak of the Marriage of Zeus and Kore ; since indeed on the one hand , Some προς τα υφειµενα , και λεγουσι γαµον ∆ιος και Κορης , επειδη µεν αλλαι

70

Marriages represent The Communion between Divine Co-ordinate Beings , while on the other hand , εισιν αι κοινωνιαι προς των θεων τα συστοιχα , δε Some Marriages are with Divine Beings Prior to themselves , while others are with beings that come into αλλαι αι προς τα προ αυτων , δε αλλαι προς τα existence after These Divine Beings , and we must bear in mind the special character of each Communion µετα ταυτα , και δει κατανοειν την ιδιοτητα εκαστης and transfer from The Gods , to The Ideas , the type of interweaving involved . και µεταγειν απο των θεων επι τα ειδη την τοιαυτην διαπλοκην . But since then the subjects it deals with have been given in due order , let us move on 776 Αλλ’ επειδη των πραγµατων περι ειρηται της ταξεως , φερε and consider the text itself . First of all on the one hand is it not the case then , that the distinction between και θεωρησωµεν την λεξιν αυτην . πρωτον µεν Ουκουν τω διαιρεισθαι the beings which participate and Those that are being participated and between The Intelligibles and τα µετεχοντα και τα µετεχοµενα και τα νοητα και the sensibles , and by Elevating The Superior over the inferior , the text represents , The Undefiled τα αισθητα , και εξαιρειν τα κρειττω των καταδεεστερων , µιµειται την αχραντον Power of Intellect , The Cutting-off of all that is enmattered , composite and alien from The Intellectual δυναµιν του νου,την αποκοπτουσαν παν το ενυλον και συνθετον και αλλοτριον απο των νοερων and Divine Beings . But The Placing of The Intelligible Ideas , Apart , Themselves-By-Themselves , και θειων ουσιων : δε τω τιθεναι τα νοερα ειδη χωρις αυτα καθ αυτα is an image of The Implacable Power , that Maintains UnFailing Guard over Their Purity . απεικονιζεται την αµειλικτον δυναµιν, εκεινα ατρεπτως φυλαττουσαν επι αυτων της καθαροτητος One the one hand , by The Taking-Them-up-in-Pairs , exhibits All Their Generative and Infinitely µεν ∆ια της περιληψεως αυτων δυαδας ενδεικνυται παν αυτων το γεννητικον και απει− Productive Powers , and on the other hand , by The Triadic Presentation of the antithesis within them , −ροποιον : δε δια της τριαδικης εκθεσεως των αντιθεσεων εν εκεινοις , reveals All of Their Completeness and Self-sufficiency and Their Whole Power of Producing Perfection . παν αυτων το παντελειον και αυταρκες και τελεσιουργον . And certainly , The Order of Their Enumeration also represents Their Continuity/Connexion and Unity ; Και µην η ταξις της απαριθµησεως και µιµειται αυτων την συνεχειαν και την ενωσιν : for after (1) Likeness and Unlikeness , come (2) Plurality and Unity , then after Them , (3) Rest γαρ µετα οµοιοτητα και ανοµοιοτητα , επιφερει το πληθος και το εν , ειτα µετα ταυτα , στασιν and Motion . Therefore , Plurality is on the one hand , Appropriately Joined to Likeness and Unlikeness , και κινησιν . ουν το πληθος µεν οικειως Συνηπται τη οµοιοτητι και ανοµοιοτητι , and on the other hand , Rest to Unity . If then on the one hand , as we have said , Unity and Plurality δε η στασις τω ενι : ει τοινυν µεν , ως ειρηται , το εν και το πληθος are seen throughout The Whole of Intellect , then on the other hand , Rest and Motion are seen throughout θεωρειται περι την ολοτητα του νου , δε η στασις και κινησις περι The Primary Genera , then Likeness and Unlikeness are seen throughout The Secondary Genera . And so , τα πρωτα γενη , δε οµοιοτης και ανοµοιοτης περι τα δευτερα : και The One Pair (Likeness/Unlikeness) shall never be seen in the highest degree in That Part of Intellect τα µεν µηποτε οραται µαλιστα το του νου which Remains At Rest , for That also is Many and One . Whereas on the other hand , the other pair κατα µενον , γαρ εκεινο και πολλα και εν : τα δε (Rest/Motion) shall be seen to the highest degree in that Part which Proceeds ; for That which Proceeds κατα το προιον , γαρ το προιον from It , also Moves in a Stable Way , then again Likeness and Unlikeness , shall be seen in αυτου και κινειται εστως : τα δε κατα

71

that Part which Returns , for every such being is both like That and unlike That to which it returns . το επιστρεφον , γαρ παν το τοιουτον οµοιον εκεινω και ανοµοιον εκεινω προς ο επεστραπται : So that it is reasonable , that he should be content with these three antitheses . ωστ’ εικοτως ηρκεσθη ταυταις ταις τρισι αντιθεσεσι . Therefore , These are also Genera , and are more universal than the other Ideas . Thus it is with them , δ’ ουν ταυτα και Γενη και καθολικωτερα αλλων ειδων : δε απ’ αυτων with which (Socrates) he begins , following upon the arguments of Zeno . For that , he is following 777 ηρξατο εποµενος τοις λογοις του Ζηνωνος : γαρ οτι εποµενος those arguments by raising these points , will be evident from what Parmenides later says to him : εκεινοις εµνηµονευσε τουτων , δηλωσει και ο Παρµενιδης λεγων προς αυτον : “And does there appear to you to be a certain Idea of Likeness , and indeed of Unity and Plurality , και δοκει σοι ειναι τι ειδος οµοιοτητος , και δη εν και πολλα , and surely all such entities of which you have heard from Zeno ? ” δη οσα ηκουσες Ζηνωνος ; Then “the mixing” expresses The Inseparable Communion among The Ideas/Genera and δε Η συγκρασις εµφαινει την αδιαζευκτον την κοινωνιαν αυτων των ειδων και The Immaterial Bond of Their Unity ; then perhaps also Their Source-like Nature that also points-out την αυλον την ενωσιν , δε ισως και αυτων την πηγαιαν φυσιν και ενδεικνυται Their Primal Efficacy . For some other writers also usually speak of “Mixing-bowls from The Source” , πρωτουργον : γαρ τινες αλλοι και ειωθασι λεγειν κρατηρας πηγαιους , and then the Timaeus (41d) calls a mixing-bowl , The Cause in which The Genera of Being are mixed . και δε ο Τιµαιος καλει κρατηρα την αιτιαν εν η τα γενη του οντος µιγνυται . Timaeus: Thus He Spoke , and into The Former Mixing-bowl , in which He had mixed ; when He mixed 41d Ταυτ ειπε , και επι τον προτερον κρατηρα , εν ω εµισγε κεραννυς The Soul of The All , again in turn , the remainder of what was used then , that He held-back , was mixed την ψυχην του παντος , παλιν τα υπολοιπα των προσθεν κατεχειτο µισγων on the one hand ,to some degree the same way , but these beings on the other hand , were no longer mixed µεν τινα τον αυτον τροπον , ταυτα δε ουκετι according to The Same Way with Invariable Purity , but in a second and third degree of purity . κατα ωσαυτως ακηρατα , αλλα δευτερα και τριτα .

72

Therefore , it is also in conformity to These Ideas that he calls the mixture a Co-mingling . For ουν και ενταυθα Οικειως τουτοις προσηγορευσεν την µιξιν συγκρασιν : γαρ The Philosopher knows many kinds of inter-mixing ; as on the one hand , in the Timaeus , of Zeus , ο φιλοσοφος οιδε πολλας συγκρασεις , ως µεν εν Τιµαιω την ∆ιιον and on the other hand , in the Philebus (61) of Dionysus and Hephaestus . δε εν Φιληβω , την τε ∆ιονυσιακην και την Ηφαιστικην . Socrates: Now then , one must either clearly conceive The Good , or at least have some imprint/ 61 τοινυν ητοι σαφως ληπτεον Το αγαθον η και τινα τυπον image/outline of It , in order that , as we said , we may know to what the second place is to be given . αυτου , ιν’ , οπερ ελεγοµεν , εχωµεν οτω δευτερα δωσοµεν . Protarchus: You speak most correctly . λεγεις Ορθοτατα . Socrates: Is it not the case then , that we have found a Road which leads to The Good ? Ουκουν µεν ειληφαµεν τινα οδον επι ταγαθον ; Protarchus: What road ? (Τινα ;) Socrates: It is just as if you were searching for some particular person , and first , you correctly learned , 61b Καθαπερ ει ζητων τις τινα ανθρωπον πρωτον αυτου ορθως πυθοιτο the house in which they lived , then without a doubt you would have made great progress in finding την οικησιν ιν’ οικει , δη που αν εχοι µεγα προς την ευρεσιν the one whom you were searching for . του ζητουµενου . Protarchus: How could this not be the case . (Πως δ’ ου ;) Socrates: And just a while ago a Reasoned (Resourceful) Argument was revealed to us , just as it was Και δη νυν τις λογος εµηνυσεν ηµιν , ωσπερ και in the beginning , that we must not seek The Good , in the unmixed life , but in The Mixed Life . κατ’ αρχας µη ζητειν ταγαθον εν τω αµικτω βιω αλλ’ εν τω µικτω . Protarchus: Entirely so . (Πανυ γε .) Socrates: Then there is certainly greater hope that The Object of our search will be more manifest µην πλειων Ελπις το ζητουµενον εσεσθαι φανερωτερον in The Well Mixed Life , rather than in one that is not . εν τω καλως µιχθεντι η εν τω µη Protarchus: Far more so indeed . (Πολυ γε .) Socrates: Surely then let us make the mixture , O Protarchus , with a Prayer to The Gods ; 61c δη κεραννυωµεν , ω Πρωταρχηε , ευχοµενοι Τοις θεοις whether Dionysus or Hephaestus , or whoever Gods They be Whose Office is to Preside over the mixing . ειτε ∆ιονυσος ειτε Ηφαιστος , ειθ’ οστις θεων ταυτην την τιµην ειληχε της συγκρασεως . Protarchus: Let us do so , by all means . (Πανυ µεν ουν .) Socrates: And we are certainly just like accomplished wine-bearers , standing beside some source . Και ηµιν µην καθαπερ κρηναι οινοχοοις παρεστασι τισι : The one of pleasure may be likened to a fountain of honey , while the wine-less , Sober Source µεν της ηδονης αν απεικαζοι τις την µειτος , δε την αοινον νηφαντικην of Presence of Mind/Mindfulness , may be likened to a fountain of austere , health-producing water , της φρονησεως τινος αυστηρου υγιεινου υδατος , from which , we must take to heart to mix , to the best of our ability . ας προθυµητεον συµµιγνυναι ως καλλιστα Protarchus: How could this not be so ? (Πως γαρ ου ;)

73

Socrates: Surely then , before moving on , would we be most likely to succeed , 61d δη προτερον Φερε : αρα αν µαλιστα του καλως επιτυχοιµεν by mixing all pleasure with all Mindfulness ? µιγνυντες πασαν ηδονην παση φρονησει ; Protarchus: Perhaps . (Ισως .) Socrates: But that is not safe . But it appears to me that we can produce a plan by which Αλλ’ ουκ ασφαλες . δε δοκω µοι αν αποφηνασθαι τινα δοξαν η we can make our mixture more free of danger . αν µιγνυοιµεν ακινδυνοτερον . Protarchus: What do you mean . (τινα Λεγε .) Socrates: Just as it appeared to us , that both one pleasure was truly quite different from another , ως οιοµεθα ηµιν , τε ηδονη Ην αληθως µαλλον ετερας αλλη and then also one art was more precise than another art ? και δη και τεχνη ακριβεστερα τεχνη ; Protarchus: How could they not be ; (Πως γαρ ου ;) Socrates: So that concerning the different kinds of knowledge , on the one hand , one kind turns its gaze Και δη διαφορος επιστηµης µεν η επιστηµη αποβλεπουσα towards things that come into being and are destroyed , while on the other hand , the other kind , turns its επι τα γιγνοµενα και απολλυµενα , δε η attention towards Beings that neither come into Being nor are destroyed , but Always Exist Uniformly 61e επι τα µητε γιγνοµενα µητε απολλυµενα , δε αει οντα και ωσαυτως according to The Same . Therefore , by considering them with a view to The Truth , we were led to see κατα ταυτα . επισκοπουµενοι ταυτην εις το αληθες ηγησαµεθα that The Latter were Truer . εκεινης ειναι αληθεστεραν . Protarchus: Quite rightly so .(Πανυ µεν ουν ορθως .) Socrates: Is it not the case then , that if we first mix The Truest Sections of each , and see whether Ουκουν ει προτων συµµιξαντες ταληθεστατα τµηµαστα εκατερας ιδοιµεν αρα when They are mixed together , They are able to completely Provide us The Most Well-Contented Life , συγκεκραµενα ταυτα ικανα απεργασαµενα παρεχειν ηµιν τον αγαπητοτατον βιον , or whether we still need something else not such as these ? η ετι προσδεοµεθα τινος και µη των τοιουτων ; Protarchus: To me at least , it appears that we should do it in this way . 62 Εµοι γουν δοκε δραν ουτως . So then finally , the expression , O Zeno , is invoked (p55) because of his knowledge and because of τοινυν Τελευταιον το προσρησιν , ω Ζηνων , της ανακλησεως δια αυτου της επιστηµης και the arguments contained in him , and it expresses adherence to the theory contained in him as a whole , των λογων εν αυτω , ενφαινει αντοχην της θεωριας εν αυτω ολης , by Socrates all but presenting and uniting himself with Zeno himself , and by means of του Σωκρατους µονονουχι προσαγοντος και ενιζοντος εαυτον προς αυτον , και δια this fellowship with Zeno , he turns himself towards The One Intellect of Parmenides . And from whence της κοινωνιας προς τον Ζηνωνα επιστρεφοντος εαυτον εις τον ενα νουν Παρµενιδειον: και οθεν then , in the following conversation Parmenides responds to him , who has furnished such proofs , of his δη εν τοις εξης λογοις Παρµενιδης αποκρινεται προς αυτον , ενεδεχετο καθοσον , και της keenness , and of his stability , and of his inspired fury for The Divine , by one so young submitting him- οξυτητος και της ασφαλειας και της µανιας περι τα θεια , τον ουτω νεον παρασχοµενον

74

self to be tested by them ; and also because , of all those who are present , he is the most fitted/adapted πειραν αυτοις , και οτι ταντων των παροντων εστι µαλιστα επιτηδειος to be a receptacle (mixing-bowl) of this mystical doctrine of The Divine . προς υποδοχην περι της µυστικης θεωριας των θειων . Parmenides: So on the one hand , I am led to think that we should strenuously labor in the investigation 129e δε µεν ηγουµαι πανυ ανδρειως πεπραγµατευσθαι of these particulars ; but yet on the other hand , it would be deserving of much more admiration , ταυτα : µεντ’ αν πολυ µαλλον , αγασθειην , if anyone could solve the following doubt , as I said , which is itself so profoundly woven into ει τις αν εχοι ωδε αποριαν , ως λεγω , αυτην την ταυτην πλεκοµενην εν The Ideas Themselves , in a manifold manner ; just as you demonstrated in detail about those 130 τοις ειδεσι (Rep 510 b,510d,511c) αυτοις παντοδαπως , ωσπερ επιδειξαι διηλθετε τοις laid hold of by sight , so also in the same manner would demonstrate in detail about The Ideas , λαµβανοµενοις , και ουτως εν τοις which are defined by The Reasoning Power . ορωµενοις λογισµω . The whole purpose of Socrates and the whole scope of the words under discussion are contained in 778 το Παν βουληµα του Σωκρατους και ο πας σκοπος των λογων ειρηµενων περιειληπται εν these phrases . For on the one hand , he praises the work of Zeno as having been practiced in a venerable τοις ρηµασιν : γαρ µεν επαινει τον λογον Ζηνωνος ως πεπραγµατευµενον ανδρειως way , not only because it argues by uncovering the ignorance of the multitude , and because this work ου µονον οτι διηλεγξε απαρακαλυπτως ανοιαν των πολλων , και οτι τουτον λογον maintains the relation to The Being of Parmenides just as the allies/assistants are related to the Guardians. εχει προς τον ον Παρµενιδην το επικουρικον προς το φυλακικον , But Zeno has said that he wrote the work under the love of contention , for Socrates changes the , αλλα αυτω ειρηκε γεγραφθαι τον λογον υπο φιλονεικιας : γαρ µετελαβε το in a contentious way , into , a venerable way , by making the transformation from a passion into a φιλονεικως εις το ανδρειως , ποιησαµενος την µεταληψιν απο του παθους εις την Virtue . Or how else would it have been fitting for a young man to converse with his superior ? αρητην . Η πως αλλως ηρµοζε νεω διαλεγεσθαι προς εαυτου τον κρειττονα ; Therefore on the one hand , he surely praises , as I said , the work of Zeno with luminous attentiveness , ουν µεν δη Επαινει , οπερ ειπον , την πραγµατειαν Ζηνωνος µετα λαµπρας επιστασεως but on the other hand , he diverts the inquiry from the seen to The Unseen Realm . For it has been shown δε µεταγει την θεωριαν απο των ορωµενων επι τα αφανη . γαρ ∆εδειχθω that there are some Monads in those that are visible . For even if Zeno was speaking of every plurality , οτι εισι τινες µοναδες εν τουτοις τοις ορωµενοις . γαρ και Ει ο Ζηνων ελεγεν περι παντος πληθος that they are not devoid of Unity , whether the plurality is supposed to be an object of Intellection , or ως εστιν ουκ ερηµον ενος , ειτε το πληθους υποθη τις νοητον , ειτε discursive reasoning or of sense-perception , for he did not attach any qualification to this plurality , but διανοητον , ειτε και αισθητον : γαρ ου προσετιθη ποιοτητα τοις πολλοις , αλλα he demonstrated even more absurd consequences for each plurality he postulated , but the multitude , εδεικνυ πολλα µαλλον των ατοπων εκαστον υποθεµενος , αλλ’ οι πολλοι , to whom the argument was indeed directed , believed the argument was only concerned , in every case , προς ους ο λογος γε , εδοκουν τον λογον γιγνεσθαι µονον εκαστων with visible pluralities . Therefore , it has been demonstrated to the multitude , that there are certain περι των ορωµενων . ουν ∆εδειξθω τοις πολλοις οτι εισι τινες

75

Monads in the visible pluralities , that bind together their multiplicity . In the same way then , show me , µοναδες εν τοις ορωµενοις και συνδεσµοι του πληθους : ουτω δη δειξατε µοι , says Socrates , The Communion of The Ideas in The Intelligible Realm ; in order that just as you have φησιν ο Σωκρατης , την κοινωνιαν των ειδων εν τοις νοητοις : ινα ωσπερ εδειξ− shown to the multitude , that visible entities are both many and one , in the same way , you may show that −ατε τοις πολλοις τα ορωµενα και πολλα και εν , τον αυτον τροπον επιδειζητε all The Beings in The Upper Realm are Mingled-with One-another and Distinct-from One-another ; παντα κακει συγκρινοµενα αλληλοις και διακρινοµενα απ’ αλληλων : and Socrates could be saying on the one hand , that he was persuaded that the many of that visible realm και ο Σωκρατης αν ειποι µεν οτι πεπεισθαι τα πολλα κακεινα are united with one-another in every way , since these visible entities are indefinite ; but on the other ηνωνται αλληλοις παντως ως ταυτα αοριστα , δε hand , he is investigating how They are United ; for Their Absolute Simplicity leads him to doubt , if ζητει πως ηνωνται : γαρ αυτων την απλοτητα δια απορει , ει They can be both Unified and Distinct , at the same time , whereas the composite character of the visible και ηνωνται και διηρηται αµα , ως των συνθετων ορατων realm makes it easy to recognize that they have both characteristics . Therefore , it is not whether they ευκολως γιγνωσκοµενων οτι πεπονθεν αµφω . ουν Ουχι ει are Unified and Distinct , he would say , but how these characteristics will be well-accepted in Them , 779 ηνωνται και διακεκριται , αν ειπον , αλλα πως ταυτα εσται ευπαραδεκτα εν εκεινοις , just as they are in visible things ? For there are many things that we know are possible , but we seek after καθαπερ εν τοις ορατοις ; γαρ πολλα οτι ειδοτες δυνατα , ζητει how they are so . For instance , we know that The Gods even have Foreknowledge of events based on το πως : οιον , ειδοτες οτι οι θεοι και προνοουσιν των ενδεχο− chance , in a complete way , yet we seek after how They Fore-know . Therefore , in the same way , −µενων ολως , ζητουµεν πως προνοουσιν : ουν ουτως even though we know there is Unity and Distinctness among The Ideas , we seek after how this is so , και ειδοτες ειναι ενωσιν και διακρισιν εν τοις ειδεσι , ζητουµεν πως εστιν : for it is thus by searching , that we will discover The Unifying Cause of The Intelligibles . For there must γαρ υπαρχει ουτω ζητουσιν ανευρειν το ενοποιον αιτιον των νοητων : γαρ δει be a Single Cause of Their Inter-mingling , just as The Intelligibles are The Causes of The Communion ειναι µιαν αιτιαν της µιξεως , ωσπερ τα νοητα εστιν αιτια της κοινωνιας etween sensible entities ; for the community in these comes from Those Monads . And so on the one των αισθητων : γαρ αι κοινωναι εν τουτοις ηκουσι απ εκεινων µοναδες . Και µεν hand , this is the whole thought of this text . But on the other hand , about the all-various interweaving ουτος ο συµπας νους των λεξεων : δε περι της παντοδαπους διαπλοκης we have spoken before : About The Co-ordinate Beings that Mingle with One-another , and about ειρηται προτερον και τα συστοιχα οτι µιγνυται αλληλοις , και the subordinate beings that have community with Those Above them , and about The Superiors that Give τα καταδεεστερα κοινωνει τοις υψηλοτεροις , και τα κρειττω µεταδιδωσιν of Themselves to those below , and about how each of them is differentiated from itself and combined εαυτων τοις υφειµενοις , και εκαστον διακρινεται αφ’εαυτου και συγκρινεται with itself . And that on the one hand , we may philosophically call these relationships , inter-weavings , προς εαυτο : και µεν φιλοσοφως ονοµασεις ταυτα διαπλοκης but on the other hand , theologically , sacred marriages , and the entities generated in common by them , δε θεολογικως , ιερους γαµους , και τας απογεννησεις κοινας αυτων

76

offspring . Therefore , this is the way he also proceeds in the Sophist , then , this is also the way of τοκους : δε ουτω αυτος και εν Σοφιστη , δε ταυτα και Socrates in the Philebus when he says that he would be in awe , if anyone could rise-up from sensibles ο Σωκρατης εν Φιληβω ελεγε θαυµασασθαι , ει τις αναδραµοι απο των αισθητων to The Monads of The Ideas , and show that Each One of Them is One and Multifarious . επι τας µοναδας των ειδων , και επιδειξοι εκαστην εκεινων ουσαν εν και πληθους .

Antiphon : 4 Pythodorus said , that when Socrates had said these things , he believed , 130 ο Πυθοδωρος εφη , δη του Σωκρατους Λεγοντος ταυτα , αυτος οιεσθαι that on the one hand , both Parmenides and Zeno would be annoyed at several particulars of his , µεν τε τον Παρµενιδην και τον Ζηνωνα αχθεσθαι εφ’ εκαστου , but that on the other hand , they offered-up their mind entirely , to what he said , δε τους προσεχειν τον νουν πανυ τε αυτω : and frequently looking at each other , smiled , as if in admiration of Socrates . και θαµα βλεποντας εις αλληλους µειδιαν ως αγαµενους τον Σωκρατη : And that once he ceased to speak , Parmenides then spoke , saying . . . και οπερ αυτου παυσαµενου ειπειν τον Παρµενιδην ουν φαναι From these words it is clear to those willing to take notice , that on the one hand , Pythodoros εκ τουτων δηλον τοις βουλοµενοις κατανοειν , οτι µεν Ο Πυθοδωρος is also more unperfected in disposition than Socrates . For , first of all , he has not understood the mode εστιν και ατελεστερος την εξιν Σωκρατους : γαρ πρωτον µεν ου συνηκε τον τροπον of the remarks of Socrates ; that they were calling-forth the knowledge of these men , and transforms 780 των λογων Σωκρατικων , οτι ειχον προκλησιν της επιστηµης των ανδρων, και µεταθεσιν the hypothesis into an inquiry of a higher order ; instead Pythodorus supposes that the reply of Socrates της υποθεσεως επι τινα ζητησιν υψηλοτερον , αλλ’ υπελαβον την αυτον was solely made for the sake of refutation and for the love of contention . Furthermore , he has not απαντησιν ποιεισθαι ενεκεν ελεγχου και φιλονεικιας : επειτα ου grasped the greatness of these men , even though he is on most familiar terms with them , but he thinks κατανενοηκε το µεγεθος των ανδρων , ουδεπω οις ην οικειοτατος τουτων , αλλ’ οιεται that they will react in a cold and sophistical way and be annoyed by objections . But αυτους πασχειν ψυχρον και σοφιστικον πραγµα και αγανακτειν προς τους απορουντας . δε he has been moved to this , first of all , from Zeno also saying that , “as you believe , the work Κεκινηται προς τουτο , πρωτον µεν απο τον Ζηνωνα και ειπειν του ως οιει τον λογον was written by me ,by being under the influence of the love of honor”, and then by the words of Socrates, γεγραφθαι µοι , υπο φιλοτιµιας : επειτα απο των λογων Σωκρατους , “and he tries to deceive us , by implying that he does not mean these things” and “if anyone shows that και εξαπατατε ηµας ως προειρηκε οτι ου λεγοντες ταυτα , και ει τις επιδειξειεν οτι The Like Itself is Unlike would be monstrous” and that “he demonstrates nothing marvelous in showing το οµοιον αυτο εστιν ανοµοιον τερας και οτι δεικνυειν ουδεν θαυµαστον εστιν that these (Like-Unlike) come-together/coincide in sensibles” . And so from other such remarks as these , ταυτα συντρεχοντα επι των αισθητων , και δη εξ αλλων τοιουτων τινων on the one hand , he supposes Socrates to be more course than he should have been , but them , on the µεν υπελαβεν τον ειναι φορτικωτερον του δεοντος , τους other hand , to be slightly more cold-hearted than befits the philosophic disposition . Thus , on the one δε σµικροτερον ψυχροτερους η κατα φιλοσοφον εξιν : αλλ’ µεν hand , from these considerations it is clear , that he is more imperfect according to his way of life , and εκ τουτων δηλον οτι εστι ατελεστερος κατα την ζωην , και

77

because he is disturbed by the difficulties of Socrates , and by not following/grasping neither the object οτι ταραττεται και εν αποριων Σωκρατους , και ως ου παρηκολουθηκεν ουτε τω σκοπω of Socrates nor the purpose and the high-minded intentions of those Divine Men … But neither is he του Σωκρατους ουτε τη προθεσει και τη µεγαλοφροσυνη των εκεινων θειων ανδρων... Ουδε εστι unphilosophical in disposition , nor is he a sophist , since after all , it is he , who reports the conversation , αφιλοσοφος κατα το ηθος ουδε σοφιστικος , γουν αυτος απαγγελλων την συνουσιαν , nor does he keep his own feelings in secret , in order to give the report to everyone and reveal a picture ουδε το εαυτου παθος απεκρυψεν , ινα εξαγγελλη πασιν και εκφαινη την of the life of those who took part in the first conversation . And thus , he reveals to the second audience , ζωην των τετελεκοτων την πρωτην ουσιαν : τε ουν δεικνυσιν τοις δευτεροις ακροαταις both his own imperfection and The Superabundant Knowledge in The Mind of his teachers . For και την εαυτου ατελειαν και υπερπληρη της επιστηµης την διανοιαν των διδασκαλων . γαρ first of all , he says , that “they offered-up their mind” to Socrates , recognizing his inspired excitement πρωτον µεν , φησι , Ουτοι προσειχον τον νουν αυτω , κατανοουντες αυτου την ενθεον πτοιαν and his drive towards the conception of The Immaterial Realm . Then afterwards , “they looked at και την ορµην επι την νοησεις τας αυλους : επειτα απεβλεπον εις each other” , as if they thought that Socrates was already naturally revealing their own mystical doctrine , αλληλους , ως του Σωκρατους ηδη αυτοφυως εµφαινοντος αυτων την µυστικην θεωριαν : for that which they had said to one another in secret , this they now heard Socrates 781 γαρ α αυτοι ελεγον προς αλληλους εν απορρητοις , ταυτα ακηκοασιν του Σωκρατους stirring-forth by virtue of his innate genius . And then “they smiled” , as if in admiration of Socrates . ανακινουντος δι’ ευφυιαν : επειτα εµειδιων ως αγαµενοι τον Σωκρατη , Therefore , this response is a symbol of their goodness ; for they were not dispirited by his objections , δε τουτο εποιουν συµβολον αυτων της αγαθοτητος : γαρ ου συνεσταλησαν εκ των αποριων , but rejoiced in finding a worthy recipient/receptacle of their own doctrines . And through these words αλλ’ ησθησαν ευποντες επαξιαν υποδοχην των οικειων δογµατων . και ∆ιο των λογων Parmenides is also moved , to touch him , “once Socrates ceased to speak” . Surely in this phrase , ο Παρµενιδης και κινειται , προς απτεται αυτον του Σωκρατους παυσαµενου , δη τουτο Plato has also imparted to us a Divine Symbol . For surely the soul preparing to participate of the του Πλατωνος και παραδιδοντος τι θειον συµβολον. γαρ δη της ψυχης εις µετουσιαν της Divine Presence of its Superiors , must exert itself to stir up and rekindle the divine spark within itself , των θειων των κρειττονων ∆ει προ ανακινειν και αναζωπυρειν το θειον εαυτον , but when The Illumination From Above is at hand one must be silent ; which surely Socrates also does ; δε της ελλαµψεως εκειθεν ηκουσης ηρεµειν ; ο δη ο Σωκρατης και ποιει : and by his words having unfolded and exhibited his fitness to them , for the participation , και δια των λογων αναπλωσας και επιδειχας εαυτου επιτηδειοτητα αυτοις προς την µεταληψιν he stops his words , and receives the beginnings of the conversation of the midwife , from them to him . παυεται των λογων , και δεχεται τας προιουσας συνουσιας µαιευτικας εξ εκεινων εις αυτον . Parmenides: O Socrates , how worthy of admiration could your zeal in the pursuit of these doctrines be ! 130 ω Σωκρατες , ως αξιος αγασθαι ει της ορµης επι της τους λογους . On the one hand , Parmenides has been moved to speak , as he himself says , by observing µεν ο Παρµενιδες Κεκινηται προς τους λογους , ως αυτος λεγει , ιδων the keenness and the verve/vitality of Socrates , who is not content to remain among sensibles , nor to be την οξυτητα και την ορµην την Σωκρατους , ουκ ανεχοµενου µενειν επι των ορωµενων , ουδε still busying himself among The Co-ordinate Monads in that realm , but on the other hand , he has raised ετι πολυπραγµονουντος τας κατατεταγµενας µοναδες εν αυτοις , αλλ’ αναφεροντος

78

his own Intellect to The Intellectual Monads Themselves , Immaterial and Partless , and so , just like εαυτου τον νουν επ’ τας νοερας µοναδας αυτας και αυλους και αµεριστους , και δη κατα a circle returning to itself , from the procession into plurality , back again to The One Itself , in this way τινα κυκλον παλιν επ’ αυτο , απο της προοδου της επι το πληθους το εν ποιου− imitating The Divine Realm , unfolding what follows after The Power that generates the secondary orders −µενου τα θεια , ανελισσοντα τα µετα την δυναµιν γονιµον των δευτερων and turning back the limit/completed term of the procession , to its own beginning . For as we have said , το περας της προοδου επι την οικειαν αρχην . γαρ , ως ειρηται , that while Zeno , was mainly contending against the multitude , Socrates was withdrawing from plurality Του Ζηνωνος , πολλακις αγωνιζοµενου προς τους πολλους , ο Σωκρατης αφισταµενος του πληθους and ascending to the One ; for as Zeno was uniting plurality , Socrates himself was fleeing upwards 782 ανεισιν επι το εν , εκεινου ενιζοντος το πληθους , αυτος αναφευγων from the many , and returning to The Parmenidean Unity . For on the one hand , The Monad is απο των πολλων και επιστρεφων επι την Παρµενιδειον την ενωσιν : γαρ µεν η µονη Appropriate to Beings of a Paternal and Monadic Nature ; but on the other hand The Dyad ; is οικεια τοις πατρικοις και µοναδικοις δε Appropriate to The Generative Power from Them that leads to Plurality ; to Beings of The Second Order , η γονιµως δυναµις απο τουτων και η µεχρι του πληθους , δευτεροις then to those after Them , the power in the third order ; of conversion and of leading up to The Abiding δε τοις µετα ταυτα τριτοις η επιστρεπτικη και αναγωγος επι την µενουσαν Cause , those that have proceeded . Surely then , this is what Socrates has done , according to his rank , αιτιαν των προελθοντων . δη ουν Τουτο του Σωκρατους ποιησααντος κατα εαυτου την ταξιν, and so Parmenides having been moved , it still remains to converse with Socrates . For The Gift και ο Παρµενιδης κεκινηται λοιπον εις την κοινωνιαν προς αυτον : γαρ η µεταδοσις from The First Causes are not conferred upon beings of the third rank before The Conversion Itself , των πρωτον ου παραγιγνεται τοις τριτοις προ της επιστροφης , but The Perfection from Them comes by means of The Conversion to make The Conjunction with Them . αλλα την τελεαν εκεινων δια της επιστροφης ποιει συναφην προς αυτα . Therefore , as we said , being moved , Parmenides begins on the one hand , from the salutation , δε , ωσπερ ειποµεν , Κινηθεις , αρχεται µεν απο της ανακλησεως , which summons Socrates to himself . For the , O Socrates , is not an empty name here , but signifies συλλεγων αυτον εις εαυτον : γαρ το ω Σωκρατες , εστιν ου ψιλον ονοµα , αλλ’ the unification of his soul with that of Parmenides . For it is this that is The Authentic Socrates , ενωσις αυτον της ψυχης περι εκεινου : γαρ τουτο ο αληθινος Σωκρατης , which in addressing , he appears to be doing nothing else , than drawing together itself , the soul of the ον ανακαλουµενος εοικεν ποιειν ουδεν αλλο , η συναγειν αυτην την ψυχην του young man , and uniting it with his own Intellect . Then to the salutation he joins praise , which νεου και ενουν προς τον οικειον νουν . δε τη ανακλησει Προστιθησι το επαινον , ο is surely the gift of abundant power ; for the praise coming from Divine Men makes εστι δη µεταδοσις πλειονος δυναµεως : γαρ οι επαινοι παρα των θειων ανδρων ποιουσι the well-disposed youth even more vigorous , for the reception of Greater Goods . Hence in praising τους ευφυεις νεους ερρωµενεστερους προς την αντιληψιν των µειζονων αγαθων : ουν επαινει his passion for The Intellectual Realm , he is also imparting to him a More-perfect Power . But in the τε αυτου την πτοιαν περι τα νοητα , και µεταδιδωσι την τελεωτερας δυναµεως . δε επι third place , he interrogates him about The Foundation/Subsistence of The Ideas , arousing Τριτον τουτοις διερωτα αυτον περι της υποστασεως των ειδων , ανεγειρων The Intellectual ; for to what else does it belong to enquire into Intelligibles than to The Intellect and το νοερον : γαρ τινος αλλου εστιν το θεωρειν τα νοητα η νου και

79

The Intellectual Life ? If then , on the one hand , by saluting him , he gave him unity with himself , νοερας ζωης ; Ει τοινυν µεν εκ της ανακλησεως µεταδεδωκεν ενωσεως αυτω , then by praising , power , then by his questioning , intellectual insight , then again , from all this δε εκ του επαινου , δυναµεως , δε εκ της ερωτησεως , νοερας επιβολης , και παλιν εκ τουτων it is clear in what manner it is The First Causes , among The Gods also , that Provide The Unity , Power δηλον οπως τα πρωτα αιτια εν θεοις και παραγει τε ενωσιν και την δυναµιν and Intellect of The Secondary Order . But what the question is (that he asks) , we will see next . και τον νουν των δευτερων . Αλλα τις η ερωτησις , θεωρησοµεν εφεξης .

10/16/ 2009

This work is available for free athttps://archive.org/details/proclus-commentary-parmenides-balboa

and also in hard-copy in various formats at https://www.lulu.com/shop/search.ep?

keyWords=juan+balboa+proclus+commentary+parmenides

This work is governed by a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

You are free to:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Under the following terms:

• Attribution (“BY”) — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do soin any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

• NonCommercial (“NC”) — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

• NoDerivatives (“ND”) — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.

No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

More information on this license is available athttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Posted to the NS Archive April 4, 2018