Chapter LI (13)

[278] The words αιτια γεννητικη, αλλα πασα αιτια γεννητικη ουκ εστι ζωογονικη, are wanting in the original.

[279] The words within the brackets are wanting in the original, which I have supplied from the version of Patricius. Hence, in the printed Greek text it is necessary to supply the words, εν τοις θεοις αρα, η μεν καθαροτης εστι και πρωτως αγαθον, και η φρουρα, και παν τοιουτον.

[280] For τι εν, it appears requisite to read τι ον.

[281] From the version of Patricius, it is necessary to supply the words η προς εαυτον, η προς το κρειττον επιστρεφεται which are wanting in the original.

[282] For νῳ here it is necessary to read νοητον.

[283] For μεθεκτου here, it is necessary to read αμεθεκτου.

[284] For τον νουν, it is necessary to read το ον.

[285] The original in the beginning of this proposition is both defective and erroneous. For it is as follows: παν το πληθος των εναδων των μετεχομενων υπο τινος ***** γαρ εστι των του κοσμου μερων, και δια μεσου, και της ψυχης. From the version of Patricius, however, the defect and error may be removed by reading παν το πληθος των εναδων των μετεχομενων υπο τινος αισθητου σωματος εγκοσμιον εστι. επιλαμπει γαρ των του κοσμου μερων, και δια μεσου νου, και της ψυχης.

[286] Instead of νοητον εστι τουτο here, it is necessary to read νοητον εστι τουτῳ.

[287] For ει γαρ εαυτον νοει, πας νους, it is requisite to read ἢ γαρ εαυτον νοει πας νους.

[288] δηλον is omitted in the original.

[289] For ακινητος here, it is requisite to read αιωνιος.

[290] From the version of Patricius, it is here necessary to supply the words καθεν. ει γαρ.

[291] The word παντα is omitted in the original.

[292] Here also it is requisite to supply the words ομοιως παντα νοησουσι.

[293] By an intellectual perception of all things _according to one_, Proclus means a perception of all things in one. For all intellectual forms are in each; so that a perception of one, is a perception of all forms, and therefore of all things.

[294] It is here necessary from the version of Patricius to supply the words και ακινητος, αμεριστος εστι. παν γαρ.

[295] From the version of Patricius, it is likewise necessary to supply in this place the words κατα την αυτου ουσιαν αρα οριζει.

[296] The words within the brackets are omitted in the original, but may be supplied from the version of Patricius by reading after το ειναι, as follows, αει εχει εν τῳ ποιειν. η νοησις αρα εν τῳ ποειν.

[297] αμεγεθει is omitted in the original.

[298] Instead of οι δε μετ’ εκεινους, δια πλειονων, ελασσω κατα την δυναμιν ουν ελλαμψιν εκεινοι, κ. λ. it is necessary to read οι δε μετ’ εκεινους, δια πλειονων ελασσω, κατα την δυναμεως ελλεεψιν. ει ουν εκεινοι, κ. λ.

[299] It is here requisite to supply from the version of Patricius, the words εκ των δευτερων διηρημενως.

[300] It is necessary here to read and supply from the version of Patricius, πορρωτερον του ενος, ο δε νοερος αριθμος εγγυτερω του ενος.

[301] For ει here it is necessary to read η.

[302] From the version of Patricius, it is here necessary to supply the words δει τον νουν μη μετεχοντα.

[303] The words και νους θειος are omitted in the original.

[304] θειος is omitted in the original.

[305] θειαι is omitted in the original.

[306] For των νοερων, it is necessary to read το νοερον.

[307] From the version of Patricius, it is here necessary to supply the words και χωριστος του σωματος.

[308] The words ψυχης ου λογιζομενης are wanting in the original; but from the version of Patricius ought to be added.

[309] Here too, the words οτι ζωης εξωθεν, are wanting in the original.

[310] The original here is defective, but may be restored to the true sense by reading αλλα και ουσιας, ειπερ ζωης δηλον. προ γαρ ψυχης κ.λ. instead of αλλα και ουσιας, ειπερ ζωης. δηλον γαρ ψυχης κ.λ.

[311] Instead of οτι δε και το πρωτως ζωτικον, ουκ εστι φανερον, it is necessary to read οτι δε και το πρωτως γνωστικον ουκ εστι, φανερον.

[312] It is here requisite to supply the words κατ’ ενεργειαν δε του χρονου μετεχουσα.

[313] The words ζωη και γνωσις are wanting in the original. And immediately after, for ου γνωσεται, it is requisite to read ου γαρ γνωσεται.

[314] For ανους here, it is necessary to read ανουσιος.

[315] ουχ is omitted in the original.

[316] For η διακινησις, it is necessary to read ιδια κινησις.

[317] For φυσικως here, it is necessary to read ψυχικως.

[318] There is a chasm here in the original after the word δεχομενων, which may be supplied by reading ει γαρ θεια ηγεμονικην κ. λ.; and γεννητικην must be substituted for γενικην.

[319] For εξῃρηται τοις χρωμενοις αυτῳ ψυχης, it is necessary to read εξηρτηται της χρωμενης αυτῳ ψυχης.

[320] Instead of ωστε και η μερικη ψυχη, και το αιτιον αρα του οχηματος αυτης, it appears to me to be necessary to read ωστε και το αιτιον της μερικης ψυχης, και αρα του οχηματος αυτης.

[321] There is a chasm here in the original, which as it is not supplied in the version of Patricius, I have filled up by conjecture. Hence, I have added the words καθαραν, ανατρεχει εις την αυτης αρχαιαν φυσιν. το γαρ οχημα.

[322] For τας ψυχας here, it is necessary to read των ψυχων.

[323] For εαυτων here, the sense as well as the version of Patricius, require that we should read εαυτης.

[324] That is, not through the medium of dæmoniacal and divine souls.

[325] From the version of Patricius, it is here necessary to supply the words και του ποτε νοουντος.

[326] The barbarous version of Morbeka has _insinuare_ here, but the word employed by Proclus was, I have no doubt, παρεισαγειν _adducere_.

[327] “Differenter elucidata.” So Morbeka; _differenter_ being doubtless his version of διαφεροντως.

[328] “Summa enim totorum.” This I suppose was in the Greek ολως γαρ.

[329] “Separavit ejus epistasiam, id est superstationem.” So Morbeka.

[330] Propter meliorem vicinitatem ipsi animam, in Morbeka’s translation, should doubtless be, propter vicinitatem hujus animæ ad meliorem naturam.

[331] Accessibus in Morbeka, was I suppose in the original εφοδοις, expositions or discussions.

[332] “Quia est utrumque,” with Morbeka.

[333] “Qualificat,” with Morbeka.

[334] “Et sunt tria hæc differentia ab invicem, faciens, quod fit, actio.” So Morbeka. But _actio_ was doubtless in the original ποιησις.

[335] “Operatio,” with Morbeka; in the original ενεργεια.

[336] ψυχικην, with Morbeka _animalem_.

[337] ολως; _totaliter_ Morbeka.

[338] _aspirantur_ in Morbeka, should evidently be _inspirantur_.

[339] In Morbeka opportunitatem.

[340] “Sed et in hoc omni.” So Morbeka.

[341] “Ubi autem in corporeis penitus.” So Morbeka.

[342] “Intellectu participante necessitati corporum.” _Participante_ here is perhaps an error of the transcriber; for Morbeka I have no doubt wrote _principante_.

[343] “Velut lumen Sol,” should be _velut lumen sole_.

[344] Iram is omitted here in the version of Morbeka.

[345] “Dicens quod neque audimus, circum nihil, neque videmus.” So Morbeka.

[346] Virtutes in Morbeka, i.e. δυναμεις in the original.

[347] “Multam habere partem.” So Morbeka.

[348] In Morbeka, sobrietate meliorem.

[349] Divinæ partis. So Morbeka.

[350] In Morbeka, “obtinetur et ab aliorum regnante causa.”

[351] In Morbeka _captat_ instead of _copulat_.

[352] “Quicunque autem pacis opera intelligentes reverendi fient, sortis fatalem alam effugiunt.” So Morbeka; in which, for _pacis_ read _patris_, and for _alam_, _aleam_. This oracle in the original is as follows:

Νοησασαι τα εργα του πατρος
Μοιρης ειμαρμενης το πτερον φευγουσιν αναιδες.

See my Collection of Chaldæan Oracles in the Monthly Magazine.

[353] In Morbeka, _concupiscentiæ_; but in the Greek it was doubtless επιθυμιας. This word as used by Plato and Aristotle, signifies an appetite of the soul directed to the possession and enjoyment of eternal good.

[354] “Et nondum purgatus illud,” in Morbeka, i.e. illum oculum.

[355] Morbeka’s version of this part is as follows: “Omnis igitur anima secundum quod virtute participat, et quod est liberam esse: secundum quod autem malitia et debilitate et eo quod est servire aliis,” &c. But it should be, conformably to the above version; Omnis igitur anima secundum quod virtute participat, et quod est, liberam esse; secundum quod autem malitia et debilitate, et eo quod non est, servire aliis.

[356] This is barbarously expressed in the version of Morbeka, as follows, “et servire quidem aut desuper principatum, aut desuptus.”

[357] In the version of Morbeka, “quæ sine causa solam cognoscentem ipsius quia veritatem.”

[358] In Morbeka, “agibilia;” but in the Greek, I have no doubt, τα πρακτα.

[359] In Morbeka rejungentem, but I read adaptantem.

[360] In Morbeka “_solvere_,” instead of _scire_.

[361] “Et totaliter agibilium politicam.” So Morbeka. This in the original was, I suppose, και ολως τοις πρακτοις τῃν πολιτικην.

[362] Instead of “quia et aliis animalibus necesse partibus entibus omnes et facere, sed et pati,” as in Morbeka, it is necessary to read, in order to make sense of the passage, quia et aliis animalibus necesse partibus entibus, non modo et facere, sed et pati.

[363] This in Morbeka is, “neque rursum sequestrare animam a dominis electionum.”

[364] Morbeka has _quia_ here instead of _nisi_.

[365] _Quando_ in Morbeka, instead of _aliquando_.

[366] Here too Morbeka has _quando_ instead of _aliquando_.

[367] “Inecferribile in universum.” Morbeka.

[368] Morbeka has _differentem_ here, instead of _indifferentem_.

[369] The words _ad seipsam convertitur_, are omitted by Morbeka.

[370] Morbeka has _directionem_, but the original was I have no doubt κατορθωσιν.

[371] του ουρανου υπεραστρονομουσα. So Plato.

[372] In decisione lineæ. So Morbeka.

[373] The Greek of this, agreeably to my translation, was I have no doubt τ’ αγαθον μονον εξηρημενον ειναι.

[374] “Mediam habens notitiam, et solummodo scientiam, et eorum qui non totaliter.” So Morbeka; but the sense requires the following emendation: Mediam habens notitiam, et solummodo scientiam, et eorum qui totaliter, et eorum qui non totaliter.

[375] Morbeka has αυτοπεριγραπτον; but it should obviously be αυτοαπεριγραπτον.

[376] Morbeka has _contra_ here, instead of _nihilominus_.

[377] _Superessentialiter_ is omitted here in the version of Morbeka.

[378] “Neque enim tua fictio,” should be, neque enim si tua factio, (i.e. ars mechanica).

[379] See Plutarch’s admirable treatise, concerning those who are slowly punished by divinity; from which Proclus has derived much in what follows.

[380] The Pseudo-Dionysius, the Areopagite, in his treatise On the Divine Names has evidently taken what follows from this passage of Proclus: ουκ αρα ουδε εν αγγελοις εστι το κακον, αλλα κολαζειν τους αμαρτανοντας εισι κακοι. τουτῳ γουν τῳ λογῳ και οι σωφρονισται των πλημμελουντων κακοι. και των ιερεων οι τον βεβηλον των θειων μυστηριων απειργοντες. καιτοι ουδε το κολαζεσθαι κακον, αλλα το αξιον γενεσθαι κολασεως. i.e. “Neither, therefore, is there evil in angels, unless it should be said they are evil because they punish offenders. For the same reason, however, the castigators of those that act wrong, are evil. And in a similar manner those priests are evil who prohibit the profane from divine mysteries. Though indeed it is not evil to be punished, but to deserve to be punished.” The reader who peruses the above-mentioned treatise of this Dionysius will find that he has extracted largely from the present work of Proclus.

[381] In his 2d. Epistle.

[382] διεξοδικως is omitted in the original.

[383] προοδον is omitted in the original.

[384] Viz. self-subsistent superessential natures; for to these the αυτο, or _itself_ primarily belongs. The next to these are intellects. Those in the third rank, are souls. Those in the fourth, the natures that are divided about bodies. And those in the fifth and last rank are bodies.

[385] Viz. _the one_, and matter.

[386] μη is wanting in the original.

[387] _The good itself_ is prior to being. Nothing or non-being is not that which is most distant from _the good_; for it is that in which the procession of being ends, but that which is most distant from _the good_ is _evil itself_. Hence, _evil itself_ is posterior to non-entity.

[388] For πολυαρατον, it is necessary to read πολυορατον.

[389] For περι here, it is requisite to read παρα.

[390] μοχθηρας is omitted in the original.

[391] For the proper parts of a self-motive whole, are also self-motive.

[392] For απ’ αιτιας here, it is necessary to read απεναντιως.

[393] For το μεν δυναμενον in this place, it is necessary to read, το μη δυναμενον.

[394] For συμμετριᾳ here, it is necessary to read ασυμμετριᾳ.

[395] viz. angels, dæmons and heroes.

[396] Proclus here alludes to one of the Chaldæan oracles.

[397] The first effable subsists in the god Phanes, or the extremity of the intelligible order.

[398] See this explained in the notes on my translation of the Parmenides of Plato.

[399] The _Iynx, Synoches, and Teletarchæ_ of the Chaldæans, compose that divine order, which is called by Proclus _intelligible and at the same time intellectual_, and is unfolded by him in the fourth book.

[400] This is one of the Chaldæan oracles.

[401] See the Timæus.

[402] It must however be carefully observed that multitude when it subsists causally, subsists without that distinction and separation which it possesses when unfolded; and that in _the one_ it has no distinction whatever. For _the one_ is all things prior to all.

[403] See the 7th Epistle of Plato.

[404] As that which is below all knowledge is an ignorance worse than knowledge, so the silence in which our ascent to the ineffable terminates is preceded by an ignorance superior to all knowledge. Let it however, be carefully remembered, that such an ignorance is only to be obtained after the most scientific and intellectual energies.

[405] Vid. Excerpta ex Damascio, a Wolfio, p. 232.

[406] Let the reader be careful to remember that _the one_ of the gods is their superessential characteristic.

[407] Vid. Excerpta, p. 228.

[408] Αλλ’ αυται μεν ουκ εισι κατα αληθειαν, ουτε μιαν, ουτε τρεις, ουτε μια αμα και τρεις.

[409] Vid. Wolfii Anecdot. Græc. tom. iii. p. 252.

[410] ως νουν is omitted in the original.

[411] μηποτε is erroneously printed instead of ποτε.

[412] το τριτον is I conceive erroneously omitted in the original.

[413] Την is printed instead of Γην.

[414] As the whole of the Grecian theology is the progeny of the mystic traditions of Orpheus, it is evident that the Gods which Hesiod celebrates by the epithets of _Earth_, _Heaven_, &c. cannot be the visible _Heaven_ and _Earth_: for Plato in the Cratylus, following the Orphic doctrine concerning the Gods, as we have evinced in our notes on that dialogue, plainly shews, in explaining the name of Jupiter, that this divinity is the artificer of the sensible universe; and consequently _Saturn_, _Heaven_, _Earth_, &c. are much superior to the mundane deities. Indeed if this be not admitted, the Theogony of Hesiod must be perfectly absurd and inexplicable. For why does he call Jupiter, agreeably to Homer (πατηρ ανδρων τε θεων τε), “_father of Gods and men_?” Shall we say that he means literally that Jupiter is the father of all the Gods? But this is impossible; for he delivers the generation of Gods who are the parents of Jupiter. He can therefore only mean that Jupiter is the parent of all the mundane Gods: and his Theogony, when considered according to this exposition, will be found to be beautifully consistent, accurate and sublime. I only add, that την is again erroneously printed in the Excerpta of Wolfius for γην.

[415] χθονον is printed for χρονον.

[416] That is, from _bound_ and _infinite_.

[417] χουσώρος should be read instead of χουσώρου.

[418] Vid. Pici Opera, tom. i. p. 54.

[419] _i.e._ θεοι νοητοι, νοητοι και νοεροι, νοεροι, υπερκοσμιοι, απολυτοι sive υπερουρανιοι, et εγκοσμιοι.

[420] For ολης here, it is necessary to read υλης, because matter according to Plato proceeds from the father Phanes, or animal itself, and not from the demiurgus.

[421] For αυτους, it is necessary to read αιτιας.

[422] viz. From axioms and definitions.

[423] μερικωτερας is omitted in the original.

[424] For δη here, it is requisite to read δει.

[425] Proclus here alludes to the fabulous wanderings of Ulysses in the Odyssey. For Homer by these occultly indicates the life of a man who passes in a regular manner from a sensible to an intellectual life, and who being thoroughly purified by the exercise of the cathartic virtues, is at length able to energize according to the intuitive perception of intellect, and thus after becoming reunited to Penelope or Philosophy, meets with and embraces his father. This appears also to have been the opinion of the Pythagorean Numenius, as we are informed by Porphyry in his treatise De Antro Nympharum. “For he thought that the person of Ulysses in the Odyssey represented to us a man who passes in a regular manner over the dark and stormy sea of generation; and thus at length arrives at that region (i.e. the intellectual region) where tempests and seas are unknown, and finds a nation

Who ne’er knew salt, or heard the billows roar.”

See more on this subject in my Restoration of the Platonic Theology, p. 294.

[426] For μηδε ευροντα δυνατα δυνατον ειναι λεγειν, it is necessary to read, μηδε ευροντα εις απαντας δυνατον, κ. λ.

[427] For απεστραμμενης, it is requisite to read επιστραμμεγης.

[428] Plato in the Politicus thus calls the realms of generation, i.e. the whole of a visible nature.

[429] That is, intelligible intellect, the extremity of the intelligible order.

[430] That is, the divinities who compose the middle of that order of Gods, which is denominated intelligible and at the same time intellectual.

[431] As what is here said from Orpheus concerning Jupiter is very remarkable, and is no where else to be found, I give the original for the sake of the learned reader: διο και Ορφευς δημιουργουντα μεν αυτον την ουρανιαν πασαν γενεαν παραδιδωσι, και ηλιον ποιουντα και σεληνην, και τους αλλους αστρῳους θεους· δημιουργουντα δε τα υποσεληνην στοιχεια, και διακρινοντα τοις ειδεσιν ατακτως εχοντα προτερον· σειρας δ’ εφισταντα θεων περι ολον τον κοσμον εις αυτον ανηρτημενας, και διαθεσμοθετουντα πασι τοις εγκοσμιοις θεοις κατ’ αξιαν διανομας της εν τῳ παντι προνοιας.

[432] Iliad. XX. v. 4.

[433] See the 14th line.

[434] Ibid v. 32.

[435] Iliad. IV. v. 58.

[436] Iliad. XV. v. 187.

[437] For the Saturnian triad belongs to that order of Gods which is called supermundane, and which immediately subsists after the intellectual order; so that the Jupiter who ranks at the summit of this triad is different from and inferior to the demiurgus.

[438] That is, he is not an intellect consubsistent with soul.

[439] And the duad considered as a divine form or idea is the source of fecundity.

[440] i.e. The twelve Gods who first subsist in the _liberated_ or supercelestial order and who are divided into four triads, and the twelve mundane Gods, Jupiter, Neptune, Vulcan; Vesta, Minerva, Mars; Ceres, Juno, Diana; and Mercury, Venus, Apollo. The first of these triads is _fabricative_; the second _defensive_; the third _vivific_; and the fourth _anagogic_ or _elevating_, as is shown by Proclus in the 6th book of his Theology.

[441] This royal series consists of Phanes, Night, Heaven, Saturn, Jupiter, Bacchus. “Ancient theologists, says Syrianus (in his commentary on the 14th book of Aristotle’s Metaphysics) assert that Night and Heaven reigned, and prior to these the mighty father of Night and Heaven, who distributed the world to Gods and mortals, and who first possessed royal authority, the illustrious Ericapæus.

τοιον ελων διενειμε θεοις, θνητοισι δε κοσμον
ου πρωτος βασιλευε περικλυτος ηρικεπαιος.

Night succeeded Ericapæus, in the hands of whom she has a sceptre:

σκεπτρον εχουσ’ εν χερσιν ηρικεπαιου·

To Night, Heaven succeeded, who first reigned over the Gods after mother Night.

ος πρωτος βασιλευε θεων μετα μητερα νυκτα.

Chaos transcends the habitude of sovereign dominion: and, with respect to Jupiter, the oracles given to him by Night, manifestly call him not the first, but the fifth immortal king of the Gods.

αθανατον βασιλεα θεων πεμπτον γενεσθαι.

According to these theologists therefore, that principle which is most eminently the first, is _the one_ or _the good_, after which according to Pythagoras, are those two principles Æther and Chaos, which are superior to the possession of sovereign dominion. In the next place succeed the first and occult genera of the Gods, in which first shines forth the father and king of all wholes, and whom on this account they call _Phanes_.“

[442] Of these intellects the first is Phanes, the second Heaven, the third Earth, and the fourth the Subcelestial Arch which is celebrated in the Phædrus, viz. νους νοητος ο Φανης, εκφαντορικος νους ο Ουρανος, συνεκτικος νους η γη, τελεσιουργος δε νους η υπ’ουρανιος αψις.

[443] That is of the whole intellectual order, which consists of Saturn, Rhea, Jupiter, the three Curetes, and the separating monad Ocean.

[444] ως δ’ Ορφευς ενθεῳ στοματι λεγει, και καταπινει τον προγονον αυτου τον φανητα, και εγκολπιζιται πασας αυτου τας δυναμεις ο ζευς, και γινεται παντα νοερως, οσαπερ ην εκεινος νοητως.

[445] διο και τρεφεσθαι φησιν αυτον ο θεολογος υπο της νυκτος. “εκ παντων δε κρονον νυξ ετρεφεν ηδ’ ατιταλλεν.”

[446] That is Phanes, intelligible intellect, or in the language of Plato αυτοζωον _animal_ itself.

[447] Homer however appears to have ascended as far as to the goddess Night, or the summit of the intelligible and at the same time intellectual order.

[448] That is to say _the first cause and bound_, which is called by Orpheus _æther_.

[449] See this explained in the notes of my translation of the Parmenides of Plato.

[450] That is to say, it is false to assert of intellectual and divine natures, that they are in a perpetual flux; for they are eternally stable themselves, and are the sources of stability to other things.

[451] Gesner misled by Patricius, has inserted these lines among the Orphic fragments, in his edition of the works of Orpheus.

[452] Proclus here means that there is the same analogy between Saturn, Rhea, and Jupiter, as in the intelligible triad, between father, power, and intellect.

[453] Οτι ωνομασται η Τηθυς παρα το διαττομενον και ηθουμενον, οιον Διατηθυ, και αφαιρεσει των πρωτων δυσσυλλαβων Τηθυς.

[454] Iliad XV. v. 187.

[455] Iliad, XV. v. 189.

[456] See the Theogony of Hesiod, v. 176, &c.

[457] Proclus here alludes to the following Orphic verses cited by him in his Commentary on the Timæus, lib. 5. p. 296.

ενθ’ ουν τ’ ωκεανος μεν, ενι μεγαροισιν εμιμνεν
ορμαινων ποτερωσε νοον τpαποι, ηε πατερα
ον γνωσῃ τε βιης, και ατασθαλα λωβησαιτο
συν κρονῳ, ηδ’ αλλοις αδελφοις οι πεπιθοντο
μητρι φιλῃ, η τους γε λιπων, μενει ενδον εκηλος·
πολλα δε πορφυρων, μενει ημερος εν μεγαροισι
σκυζομενος τῃ μητρι, κασιγνητοισι δε μαλλον.

i.e. “But Ocean remained within the ample house, considering how he should act, whether he should deprive his father of his strength, and basely injure him, together with Saturn and the rest of his brethren, who were obedient to their dear mother; or whether leaving these, he should stay quietly at home. After much deliberation, he remained quietly at home, being angry with his mother, but more so with his brothers.”

[458] That is, of the first triad of the supermundane, which subsists immediately after the intellectual order.

[459] Hom. Iliad.

[460] This cause is Saturn, who according to the fable cut off the genital parts of Heaven. See the Theogony of Hesiod.

[461] This Orphic fragment is not to be found in Gesner’s collection of the Orphic remains.

[462] See p. 521. Vol. V. of my Translation of Plato.

[463] Because Night subsists at the summit of _the intelligible and at the same time intellectual_ order, and is wholly absorbed in the intelligible.

[464] That is, according to one of the Chaldean Oracles.

[465] These verses likewise, are not in Gesner’s collection.

[466] Iliad XIV. v. 328.

[467] Proclus says this conformably to the theology of the Chaldeans. For according to that theology, the first monad of the vivific triad is _Hecate_, the second _Soul_, and the third _Virtue_.

[468] That is, of a supermundane nature: for the _ruling_, are the _supermundane_, Gods.

[469] That is, the Corybantes.

[470]

Η δ’ αρα εκατη παιδος μελη αυθι λυπουσα
Λητους ευπλοκαμοιο κορη προσεβησατ’ ολυμπον.

[471] These admirable Scholia on the Cratylus end here; being unfortunately, like most both of the published and unpublished writings of Proclus, incompleat. These very scholia too appear to be nothing more than extracts from a copious commentary of Proclus which is lost.

Transcriber’s Notes:

1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been corrected silently.

2. Where appropriate, the original spelling has been retained.

3. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have been retained as in the original.

4. Italics are shown as _xxx_.