Proclus’ Chaldaic Philosophy

Category: Neoplatonism > Chaldaica & Procliana

1 Introduction

Modern scholarship on the corpus of Chaldaic writings attributed to Julian the Theurge (2nd century CE) has been focused squarely on his Oracles, firstly their textual reconstitution in the form of fragment collections, secondly their “original meaning” when freed of Neoplatonic exegesis. This, in my view, is the opposite of what should be done.

Since (a) our knowledge of the Chaldaica comes almost exclusively from the Neoplatonists (directly or indirectly), and (b) we know that the Neoplatonists used not only the Oracles but also Chaldaic prose writings, it is incumbent on us to comprehensively study the Neoplatonic interpretation of the Chaldaica before we attempt to identify Chaldaic fragments, isolate them from their context, and distill their intended sense.

Otherwise, that supposed “original meaning” we “reconstruct” is little more than our fantasy, and we will continue to be ignorant about what the Oracles actually meant to people in antiquity – not to mention the Chaldaic prose writings, which scholars do not so much neglect as pretend never existed at all.

2 This page and its sources

The most important source for the approach to the Chaldaica that I propose are the various quotations and paraphrases that Michael Psellus (11th century CE), and a few others, give of the now lost Chaldaic writings of the Neoplatonic philosopher of Proclus of Lycia (5th century CE). Here, I present fourteen such quotations or fragments, as preserved in two Byzantine collections, which I will call Doxai and Eklogai.

  • Doxai is a sort of essay by Psellus, which comes down carrying the slightly inappropriate title Διάφοροι δόξαι Ἑλληνικαὶ περὶ ψυχῆς or Different Hellenic (i.e., Greek/Pagan) Opinions On The Soul. As Psellus himself makes quite clear, the text is really little more than a patchwork of fourteen or so (abbreviated) quotations from Proclus. The Greek text has been edited by D.J. O’Meara, Michaelis Pselli philosophica minora, vol. 2, p. 17–20.
  • Eklogai consists of five excerpts from the same text, which is identified in the heading of the first excerpt as Proclus’ Chaldaic Philosophy (Πρόκλου ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς χαλδαϊκῆς φιλοσοφίας).* This, presumably, is the proper title of the work, and perhaps of Proclus’ Chaldaic compendium (which would mean that much other material should also be included under the title; but this is very unclear). Each of the five excerpts gives a longer and fuller version of one of the quotations also found in Doxai, and in the same order, namely fragments 1–3, 11 and 14. The Greek text has been edited by É. des Places, Oracles Chaldaïques, pp. 206–212. It has been previously translated in Nicola Spanu, Proclus and the Chaldean Oracles, but frankly not well.

(*Nicola Spanu mistranslates this as “Proclus from On the Same Chaldean Philosophy” (Proclus and the Chaldean Oracles, p. 147), which is grammatically wrong. It suffices to look at a few of the headings in John Stobaeus’ Anthology or a similar ancient or Byzantine Greek compilation – including the rest of Eklogai – to see that “the same” in such cases refers back to a previous excerpt, and is not part of the title.)

The shared material strongly suggests that both sets of excerpts derive in their entirety from a single work of Proclus (whether technically part of his compendium or not) in which he commented directly on the Oracles – as opposed to prose works like the Outlines. The original format was perhaps similar to that found in Psellus’ Exegesis of the Chaldaic Oracles, but the relationship between the present Proclian fragments and the Neoplatonic material in the Exegesis is not entirely clear. It is worth noting that the only part of the Exegesis (section 36) explicitly attributed to Proclus is an abbreviated version of the present fragment 6, perhaps suggesting parallel texts both expounding the same line of the Oracles; on the other hand, a text much like fragment 2 is also included in the Exegesis (section 18), suggesting rather that they are originally the same work (perhaps a compendium where Proclus gave not only his own exegesis but also that of his predecessors).

3 Presentation of the Greek text

Because the text as I give it is composite, I employ a somewhat complicated system of brackets. Ordinary additions are marked with ‹guillemets›, deletions (text to be ignored) in [square brackets], incomprehensible text with †cruces†.

In a fragment attested in both sources, shared text is not marked at all, text found only in Eklogai is marked with ⟨angle brackets⟩, text exclusive to Doxai with {curly brackets}. Occasional additions from elsehwere are in (round brackets). When such texts are alternatives to each other rather than simply additional material, I place a / between the brackets.

If, for instance, Eklogai had the text “Alexandra, Bolon and Charmides hate Dion”, but Doxai had “Bolon and Charmides love Dion and Eudemus”, I would write the composite text as follows: “⟨Alexandra,⟩ Bolon and Charmides ⟨hate⟩ / {love} Dion {and Eudemus}.”

4 Notes on the translation

The translation is still preliminary, and there is only minimal commentary for now. The whole page (like all my translations of Chaldaica) must be regarded as a work in progress.

I have omitted information about the composition of the text from the translation, except where necessary for understanding. Obvious quotations from the Oracles are given in “quotation marks”, but there are likely to be several more which I did not feel confident enough about to definitively mark in this way.

To avoid having too many ambiguous uses of ‘it’, I gender the soul feminine, as in Greek. (If you think I may have accidentally used ‘it’ of soul anywhere here and so only made things more difficult to understand, please point it out to me!)

5 The fragments

Fragment 1 (from Doxai and Eklogai)

The halls and mansions of divine beings are their eternal orders, and the “all-receptive hall of the Father”¹ is the paternal order, which receives and holds all souls that have been led upwards. And how does “the division of the angels” lead the soul upwards? By “lighting the soul with fire”, says (the Oracle), that is, by encompassing her with light from all sides, and filling her with the immaculate fire, which endows her with a stable order and power, on account of which the soul will not be poured downwards into the material disorder, but instead joined to the light of the divine beings. And it holds the soul in its own place, and makes her free of mixture with matter, raising her upwards with hot spirit, and makes her levitate through elevatory life. For “hot spirit” is the imparting of life. And everything that strives is raised upwards to the place above, whereas that which is carried into matter is heavy.

The purpose of the ascents is “sharing in the divine fruits”, and “being filled with self-revealing fire”,² that is, the vision of god, as the soul is placed “under the eyes of the Father”. And the soul is rendered a “singer of hymns of the divine beings”, according to the oracle, by holding before herself the ineffable tokens of the Father, which the Father placed into the soul in the first appearance of her essence, and by offering them to the Father. Such are the intellective and secret hymns of the soul as it is led upwards: they awaken the memory of the musical patterns that carry the ineffable images of the divine powers in the soul.

1: In all, the Oracle seems to have said something like that “the division of angels leads the soul upwards to the all-receptive hall of the Father by lighting her with fire and raising her with hot spirit, so that she shares in the divine fruits and is filled with self-revealing fire as she is placed under the eyes of the Father. She becomes a singer of hymns of the divine beings by holding the ineffable tokens of the Father before her.” I give this reconstruction (as it were) only in English, because it is only ad sensum. The precise wording cannot be recovered, although with long study, it may be better approximated.
2: More literally, it is the “filling” that is “self-revealing”.

⟨Αὺλαὶ τῶν θείων καὶ οἰκήσεις αἱ ἀΐδιαι τάξεις. καὶ ἡ ‘πανδεκτικὴ αὐλὴ’ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡ πατρικὴ τάξις ἐστίν, ἡ πάσας ὑποδεχομένη καὶ συνέχουσα τὰς ἀνα‹χ›θείσας ψυχάς·⟩ ⟨ἡ δὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων μερὶς πῶς ἀνάγει ψυχήν;⟩ / {φερομένη περὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ἀγγέλων μερὶς} ⟨φέγγουσα, φησί, πυρὶ τὴν ψυχήν, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι⟩ / {καὶ} περιλάμπουσα αὐτὴν πανταχόθεν, καὶ πλήρη ποιοῦσα τοῦ ἀχράντου πυρὸς ὃ ἐνδίδωσιν αὐτῇ τάξιν ἄκλιτον καὶ δύναμιν δι᾽ ἣν οὐκ ἐκροιζεῖται εἰς τὴν ὑλικὴν ἀταξίαν ἀλλὰ συνάπτεται ⟨τῷ φωτὶ τῶν θείων καὶ⟩ / {τῷ θείῳ φωτί}· συνέχει δὲ αὐτὴν ἐν οἰκείῳ τόπῳ, καὶ ἀμιγῆ ποιεῖ πρὸς τὴν ὕλην, τῷ θερμῷ πνεύματι κουφίζουσα καὶ ποιοῦσα μετέωρον διὰ τῆς ἀναγωγοῦ ζωῆς· ⟨τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμα τὸ θερμὸν ζωῆς ἐστὶ μετάδοσις. κουφίζεται δὲ ἅπαν τὸ σπεῦδον εἰς τὸν ἄνω τόπον, ὥσπερ βρίθει τὸ εἰς τὴν ὕλην φερόμενον.⟩

τέλος δὲ τῶν ἀνόδων ἡ μετουσία τῶν θείων καρπῶν καὶ ἡ αὐτοφαὴς τοῦ πυρὸς ἀποπλήρωσις, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἡ θεοῦ ὄψις, ὡς ὑπ᾽ ὄμμασιν αὐτὴν τιθεῖσα τοῦ πατρός. ὑμνῳδὸς δὲ ἀποτελεῖται τῶν θείων ⟨ἡ ψυχή, κατὰ τὸ λόγιον,⟩ / {καὶ} τὰ συνθήματα τοῦ πατρός τὰ ἄρρητα προβαλλομένη ⟨καὶ προσφέρουσα αὐτὰ τῷ πατρί, ἃ ἐνέθετο ὁ πατὴρ εἰς αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ παρόδῳ τῆς οὐσίας⟩. Τοιοῦτοι γὰρ οἱ νοεροὶ καὶ ἀφανεῖς ὕμνοι τῆς ἀναγομένης ψυχῆς, ἀνακινοῦντες τὴν μνήμην τῶν ἁρμονικῶν ⟨λόγων⟩, οἳ φέρουσιν ἀπορρήτους εἰκόνας τῶν θείων ἐν αὐτῇ δυνάμενων.

Fragment 2 (from Doxai and Eklogai; cf. Exegesis 18)

(The Oracle) says “the depth of the soul”¹ (to mean) her triple cognitive powers, the intellective ones, the reasoning, and the conjecturing;² “all eyes” (means) their triple cognitive activities. For the eye is a symbol of knowledge; but life, of conation; and both are triple. The “earth” from which one must “raise the heart” is all material things and the variety of things that are borne in origination, and every bodily mould. After them³ comes the sight of the paternal monad, the immaculate “joy”⁴ over it,⁵ and the tranquility from this intellective vision. From these things, it is clear that our good is mixed, (consisting) of motion and natural joy. For every soul that possesses her own activity freely is allotted the pleasure associated with her. And the “hymn of the Father” is not a composition of words, not a set of actions; for since he alone is imperishable, he does not accept a perishable hymn. So, let us not hope to persuade the lord of true lógoi (both ‘patterns’ and ‘words’) through an empty storm of words, nor through an appearance of actions adorned with art; god loves unadorned beauty. So, let us dedicate this hymn to the god: let us become acquainted with the lord, let us love the Father; let us persuade be persuaded by his call; let us approach the warmth and flee the cold; let us become fire, let us walk through fire! We have a free path to liberation – the Father leads the way, and since he has unfolded paths of fire, let us not run as lowly streams out of forgetfulness!

1: Part of the Oracle under discussion is quoted by Psellus, Exegesis 18: “Let the immortal depth (bathos) of the soul be opened! All eyes open up lifted on high!”. This parallel came to my attention late in the process, so that I have not (yet) integrated it into the Greek text or translation.
2: The distinction between (from superior to inferior) noēsis, dianoia and doxa, i.e., knowledge, discursive reasoning and opinion, comes from the analogy of the divided line in Plato, Republic 509d–511e.
3: I.e., the raising of the heart from the earth, and whatever is supposed to be done with the depth of the soul and its eyes.
4: A poetic word, so presumably from the Oracles.
5: “It” may be the sight or the monad, i.e., the Father.

⟨Ψυχῆς βάθος τὰς τριπλᾶς αὐτῆς γνωστικὰς δυνάμεις φησί, νοεράς, διανοητικάς, δόξαστικάς· ‘ὄμματα’ δὲ ‘πάντα’, τὰς τριπλᾶς αὐτῶν γνωστικὰς ἐνεργείας. τὸ γὰρ ὄμμα, γνώσεως σύμβολον· ἡ δὲ ζωή, ὀρέξεως· τριπλᾶ δὲ ἑκατέρα.⟩ / {Βάθος δὲ ψυχῆς ἐστιν αἱ τριπλαῖ αὐτῆς γνωστικαὶ δυνάμεις, αἱ νοεραί, αἱ ‹δια›νοητικαί, αἱ δοξαστικαί· ὄμματα δὲ αἱ τριπλαῖ τούτων ἐνέργειαι· τὸ γὰρ ὄμμα γνώσεως σύμβολον, ὥσπερ ἡ ζωὴ ὀρέξεως.} ⟨γῆ δὲ ἀφ᾽ ἧς δεῖ κουφίζειν τὴν καρδίαν, τὰ ὑλικὰ πάντα καὶ τὰ ποικίλα τῶν ἐν γενέσει φερομένων, καὶ πᾶς τύπος σωματικός· οἷς ἕπεται θέα μὲν τῆς πατρικῆς μονάδος, εὐφροσύνη δὲ ἄχραντος ἐπ᾽αὐτήν, εὐστάθειά τε ἀπὸ τῆς νοερᾶς ταύτης περιωπῆς· ἀφ᾽ ὧν δῆλον ὡς μικτὸν ἡμῶν τὸ ἀγαθόν, ἔκ τε κινήσεως καὶ τῆς συμφυοῦς εὐφροσύνης. πᾶσα γὰρ ζωή, τὴν ἑαυτῆς ἐνέργειαν εὔλυτον ἔχουσα, ἡδονὴν ἔλαχεν αὐτῇ σύζυγον. ὕμνος δὲ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐ λόγοι σύνθετοι, οὐκ ἔργων κατασκευή· μόνος γὰρ ἄφθαρτος ὤν, φθαρτὸν ὕμνον οὐ δέχεται· μὴ οὖν κενῇ ῥημάτων καταιγίδι πείσειν ἐλπίζωμεν τὸν λόγων ἀληθῶν δεσπότην μηδὲ ἔργων φαντασίᾳ μετὰ τέχνης κεκαλλωπισμένων· ἀκαλλώπιστον εὐμορφίαν θεὸς φιλεῖ. ὕμνον οὖν τῷ θεῷ τοῦτον ἀναθῶμεν· καταλίπωμεν τὴν ῥέουσαν οὐσίαν· ἔλθωμεν ἐπὶ τὸν ἀληθῆ σκοπόν, τὴν εἰς αὐτὸν ἐξομοίωσιν· γνωρίσωμεν τὸν δεσπότην, ἀγαπήσωμεν τὸν πατέρα· καλοῦντι πεισθῶμεν· τῷ θερμῷ προσδράμωμεν, τὸ ψυχρὸν ἐκφυγόντες· πῦρ γενώμεθα, διὰ πυρὸς ὁδεύσωμεν. ἔχομεν εὔλυτον ὁδὸν εἰς ἀνέλευσιν· πατὴρ ὀδηγεῖ, πυρὸς ὁδοὺς ἀναπτύξας μὴ ταπεινὸν ἐκ λήθης ῥευσωμεν χεῦμα.⟩

Fragment 3 (from Doxai and Eklogai)

The “root”¹ of vice is the body, as that of virtue is intellect. For while the latter² gushes forth from above into souls, the former³ rushes forth from lesser beings and from below. “To cast down into the Earth” (means) to cut off from ourselves, and “to leave” (means) to be brought to the place ordained; and (vice) has been ordained in the whole (realm of) origination.⁴ Since there are evils here and “they traverse this place here of necessity”,⁵ and our body is also a part of the (realm of) origination, it is possible to make a part free of evil, but impossible (to free) the entire (realm of) origination (from evil), except by taking away its being. Jealousy and envy must be cast into it, from where they were taken up; for, being material, they have matter as their nurse.⁶ And “do not extinguish (them) with your mind!” is in regard to enclosing, not in regard to disappearance, insofar as things extinguished by something are wholly contained in it and fill it with their heat;⁷ so “cast down!” instead of “extinguish”, as not having it shut up inside. Which is why (the Oracle) adds: “Do not defile the spirit!”, because having (the vices) inside and hiding them (defiles the spirit). And envy is material, because it is associated with deprivation of goods, and deprivation co-subsists with sterile matter;⁸ but the theurge tribe⁹ is unenvying, and lifted up to zeal¹⁰ for the goodness of the god,¹¹ but not drawn to contention and enmity with humans. These affects, which are shut up within the souls, shut up a certain enmattered evil (or ‘vice’) within the spirit and fill it with material deprivation and lifelessness.

1: Judging from what follows, and an overlapping quotation in Psellus, Exegesis 19, the Oracle being commented on enjoined something like, “Cast the envy down from its root into the Earth and leave them, but do not extinguish them with your mind! Do not defile the spirit (pneûma), nor lower the ground!” The current fragment collections contain only parts of this, broken into two fragments and arranged in the opposite order from that indicated here by the word epágei. (Namely, des Places numbers “do not defile the breath (etc.)” as fr. 104 and “do not extinguish with your mind” as fr. 105.)
2: Virtue.
3: Vice.
4: Coming-to-be and passing-away, the lowly earthly realm.
5: This could be part of the same passage of the Oracles, or a different one.
6: A term from Plato, Timaeus 49a.
7: As a flame extinguished with your fingers burns the fingers, so vices should not be quenched with the mind but thrown from it.
8: A reference to the phrase “dry matter” (ὕλην αὐχμηρὰν), which Proclus quotes as being from the Oracles and glosses as meaning “sterile” in On the Republic, vol. 2, p. 156 and ibid., vol. 2, p. 347. Bizarrely, des Places includes only the word αὐχμηρὰν as fr. 100 (sans ὕλην, which co-occurs in both Proclian passages and here). Whether the phrase is from the same passage of the Oracles or not, I cannot say; perhaps more likely not.
9: I.e., the theurges. “Tribe” being used metaphorically. This thought may or may not be taken from the Oracles.
10: The word translated “jealousy” above, but now used positively.
11: The Father, or the gods in general.

⟨Ῥίζα τῆς κακίας τὸ σῶμα, ὥσπερ τῆς ἀρετῆς ὁ νοῦς.⟩ / {Ῥίζα μὲν τῆς κακίας τὸ σῶμα, τῆς δὲ ἀρετῆς ὁ νοῦς.} ⟨ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἄνωθεν ἐκβλυστάνει ταῖς ψυχαίς, ἡ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν χειρόνων ἐπεισκωμάζει καὶ κάτωθεν· τὸ δὲ καταβαλεῖν εἰς γῆν, τὸ ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἐκκόψαι· ἐᾶσαι δὲ αὐτήν, ὅποι παρετάχθη φέρεσθαι· τέτακται δὲ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ γενέσει. ἐπειδὴ δὲ τὰ κακὰ ἐνθάδε καὶ τόνδε τὸν τόπον ἐξ ἀνάγκης περιπολεῖ, μέρος δὲ καὶ τὸ ἡμέτερον σῶμα τῆς γενέσεως, μέρος μὲν οὖν ἀκάκυντον ποιεῖν, δυνατόν, ὅλην δὲ τὴν γένεσιν, ἀδύνατον, εἰ μὴ καὶ τὸ εἶναι αὐτῆς ἀνέλοιμεν· εἰς ἣν καὶ ζῆλον καὶ φθόνον καταβλητέον ὅθενπερ αὐτὰ κατελέξατο· ὑλικὰ γὰρ ὄντα τὴν ὕλην ἔχει τιθήνην· τὸ δὲ μὴ σβέσαι φρενὶ πρὸς τὴν ἀπόκλεισιν, οὐ πρὸς τὸν ἀφανισμὸν εἴρηται, καθάπερ τὰ ἐναποσβεννύμενά τινι περιέχεται ὅλα ἐν ἐκείνῳ καὶ ἀναπίμπλησιν αὐτὸ τῆς οἰκείας θέρμης· ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ σβέσαι κατάβαλε, μὴ ἔχων αὐτὸν ἔνδον καθειργμένον· διόπερ ἐπάγει· μὴ πνεῦμα μολύνῃς, διὰ τοῦ ἔχειν ἔνδον καὶ ἀποκρύψαι. ὑλικὸς δὲ ὁ φθόνος· στερήσει γὰρ τῶν ἀγαθῶν σύνοικος, ἡ δὲ στέρησις τῇ ἀγόνῳ ὕλῃ συνυφέστηκεν· ἄφθονον δὲ τὸ θεουργὸν φῦλον καὶ ἀνατεινόμενον εἰς τὸν ζῆλον τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ἀγαθότητος, ἀλλ᾽οὐκ εἰς φιλονεικίας ἀνθρώπων καὶ δυσμενείας κατασπώμενον. ταῦτα δὲ τὰ πάθη, ταῖς ψυχαῖς ἐναποκλειόμενα, ἐναπομόργυνταί τινα ἐν τῷ πνεύματι κακίαν ἔνυλον καὶ ἀναπίμπλησιν αὐτὸ τῆς ὑλικῆς στερήσεως καὶ ἀζωΐας.⟩

Fragment 4 (from Doxai)

No one shall attribute the causes of the punishments here¹ to the wrath of a god, but rather, because there is a justice and judgment in the whole cosmos, by which all things are guided and measured with the appropriate limits, it follows of necessity that for those who move away from the Greater Beings,² a punitive [unintelligible word] follows those who have gone wrong regarding the divine, to help those who support justice.

1: The bad things that happen to us in our earthly lives.
2: The gods.

Μηδεὶς εἰς ὀργὴν θεοῦ ἀναφερέτω τὰς αἰτίας τῶν ἐνταῦθα τιμωριῶν, ἀλλ’ οὔσης ἐν τῷ παντὶ κόσμῳ δίκης τε καὶ κρίσεως, ὑφ’ ὧν κατευθύνεται πάντα καὶ μετρεῖται τοῖς προσήκουσιν ὅροις, ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἕπεται τοῖς ἀφισταμένοις τῶν κρειττόνων ἀκόλουθος †πάθη† τιμωρὸς τῶν πλημμελησάντων περὶ τὸ θεῖον ἐπ’ ὠφελείᾳ τῶν τὴν δίκην ὑπεχόντων.

Fragment 5 (from Doxai; cf. Exegesis 4)

Do not subject the vast measures of the land to your mind,
For the plant of truth does not grow on the Earth.¹
Do not apply a ruler and measure the measure of the Sun;
It is carried around by the eternal will of the Father, not for your sake.
Let the course of the Moon be; she runs eternal by Necessity’s act.
The astral procession was not brought forth on your account.²
The aerial flat wing of birds is never true,³
Nor the cuts of victim’s innards.⁴ These all are playthings,
A support for purveyors of lies. Flee from these things
If you wish to open the sacred paradise of paradise!
There, virtue, wisdom and good order are arrayed.⁵
(a quotation from the Oracles)

1: Caution against concern with earthly matters, perhaps especially geography (or geometry).
2: Astronomy (and astrology) is prying into divine matters.
3: Divination by augury/ornithoscopy is unreliable.
4: Haruspicy/thyoscopy, divination from sacrificial victims’ livers (or sometimes other organs).
5: The Oracle sets up the theurges as superior to divining ritual experts.

Μὴ τὰ πελώρια μέτρα γύης ὑπὸ σὴν φρένα βάλλου
(οὐ γὰρ ἀληθείης φυτὸν ἐν χθονί ‹ἐστιν›. Exegesis)
μηδὲ μέτρει μέτρον ἠελίου κανόνας συναθροίσας·
ἀιδίῳ βουλῇ φέρεται πατρός, οὐχ ἕνεκεν σοῦ.
μήνης ῥοῖζον ἔασον· ἀεὶ τρέχει ἔργῳ ἀνάγκης,
ἀστέριον προπόρευμα σέθεν χάριν οὐκ ἐλοχεύθη.
αἴθριος ὀρνίθων ταρσὸς πλατὺς οὔποτ’ ἀληθής,
θυσιῶν σπλάγχνων τε τομαί· τάδ’ ἀθύρματα πάντα,
ἐμπορικῆς ἀπάτης στηρίγματα. φεῦγε σὺ ταῦτα
μέλλων εὐσεβίης ἱερὸν παράδεισον ἀνοίγειν,
ἔνθ’ ἀρετὴ σοφία ‹τε› καὶ εὐνομία συνάγονται.

Fragment 6 (from Doxai; cf. Exegesis 36)

(The excerpt is a commentary on the Oracle, “Ah, ah, the Earth howls at these, even down to their children”. Psellus cites it in his Exegesis on this line.)

(Psellus writes: The philosopher, perhaps having heard from our oracles¹ that the punishment from God extends to descendants, adduces a reason for this that is not only unknown but antithetical to us, saying:)

The order of related souls is of like nature, and those souls which have not yet been released from the chains of Nature are confined by the affects of their relatives. For the communion of life with the offending souls has rubbed a certain evil that cannot be washed out off on them.

1: Meaning the Bible.

(Ἆ ἆ τούσδε χθὼν κατωρύεται ἐς τέκνα μέχρις. Oracle in Exegesis)

(Φησὶ δὲ ὁ φιλόσοφος παρακούσας ἴσως τῶν ἡμετέρων λογίων μέχρι τῶν ἀπογόνων διατείνειν τὴν ἀπὸ θεοῦ κόλασιν, αἰτίαν ἐπάγων οὐκ ἄγνωστον μόνον ἡμῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀντίθετον. ‘τῶν συγγενικῶν’ φησὶ γάρ ‘ψυχῶν’, etc. Psellus in Doxai)

ἐναπεμόρξατο γάρ τι καὶ ταύταις δυσέκνιπτον κακὸν ἡ πρὸς τὰς πλημμελεῖς ψυχὰς κοινωνία τῆς ζωῆς. δεῖ οὖν καὶ ταύτας τὸ μέρος τυχεῖν τῆς ὅλης δίκης καὶ ἀναπλησθείσας διὰ τὴν φυσικὴν συγγένειαν τῶν μιασμάτων καθαρθῆναι πάλιν δι’ αὐτῶν / (ἐξ αὐτῶν Exegesis).

Fragment 7 (from Doxai)

In order for the region around the Earth to possess the living being most pious toward the gods,¹ which is able to know the divine beings and serve them, souls are sent into the (realm of) origination by the Father.

1: A Platonic expression (Timaeus 42a, Laws 902b), while the justification of why souls were sent down by the Father is a Chaldaic concern, attested already in Porphyry.

Ἵνα ἔχῃ καὶ ὁ περὶ γῆν τόπος ζῷον θεοσεβέστατον γινώσκειν τὰ θεῖα καὶ θεραπεύειν δυνατόν, αἱ ψυχαὶ πέμπονται παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς εἰς τὴν γένεσιν.

Fragment 8 (from Doxai)

He (Proclus) says that the forms contain the entire demiurgy of the cosmos; in accordance with them, the Father ordered matter before the cumpletions, pre-establishing the primary-productive causes of all things within him. The conceptions are demiurgic, and the intellections are creations.

Τὰς δὲ ἰδέας φησὶ πᾶσαν τὴν τοῦ κόσμου δημιουργίαν συνέχειν, καθ’ ἃς ὁ πατὴρ τὴν ὕλην διεκόσμησε πρὸ τῶν ἀποτελεσμάτων τὰ πρωτουργὰ αἴτια τῶν ὅλων ἐν ἑαυτῷ προστησάμενος. καὶ αἱ μὲν ἔννοιαί εἰσι δημιουργικαί, αἱ δὲ νοήσεις ποιήσεις.

Fragment 9 (from Doxai)

The God brings forward the undivided intellect, possessing eternity both in essence and activity, while body is divided, both in subsistence and motion, and the soul is intermediate, having an undivided nature, but an activity put in motion in accordance with time. And the first is unmoved, the second moved by another, the third self-moved.

Τὸν μὲν νοῦν ἀμέριστον παρήγαγεν ὁ θεὸς αἰωνίαν ἔχοντα καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν καὶ τὴν ἐνέργειαν, τὸ δὲ σῶμα μεριστὸν καὶ τὴν ὑπόστασιν καὶ τὴν κίνησιν, τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν μέσην, τὴν μὲν φύσιν ἀμέριστον ἔχουσαν, τὴν δὲ ἐνέργειαν κατὰ χρόνον κινουμένην· καὶ τὸν μὲν ἀκίνητον, τὸ δὲ ἑτεροκίνητον, τὴν δὲ αὐτοκίνητον.

Fragment 10 (from Doxai)

The summits of the elements fill heaven indissolubly, but their sediments the (realm of) origination; for not all things consist of these, nor are they intermingled with each other in this way, even though all perceptible things are made up of the four elements.

Αἱ μὲν ἀκρότητες τῶν στοιχείων ἀλύτως συμπληροῦσι τὸν οὐρανόν, αἱ δὲ ὑποστάθμαι τὴν γένεσιν· οὐ γὰρ ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν πάντα, οὐδὲ ὡσαύτως κεραννύμενα ἀλλήλοις, εἰ καὶ ἐκ τῶν τεττάρων στοιχείων ὅλα τὰ αἰσθητά.

Fragment 11 (from Doxai and Eklogai; cf. Exegesis 31)

For there is a certain intelligible which you must think with the flower of intellect.¹
(For if you encline your intellect, and think that [certain intelligible]
As if thinking something, you will not be thinking it. Oracle)

When the soul is in a state in accordance with her reasoning (faculty), she is a knower of beings. When she has seated herself in the intellective (faculty) of her own essence, she thinks all things through simple and undivided apprehensions. And when she has soared aloft to the One, and has gathered together the whole multitude within herself, then she acts entheastically² and is joined to the subsistences above intellect. For it happens everywhere that like is joined to like, and all knowlege binds what comprehends to what is comprehended through likeness, the perceptive (faculty) to the perceptible, the reasoning (faculty) to what can be reasoned though, the intellectual (faculty) to the intelligible, and thus also the “flower of intellect”² to what is before intellect. For as, among other things, the most summital is not intellect but the cause above intellect, so in souls, the first form of activity is not intellective but more divine than intellect; and every soul as well as every intellect has double activities, one set uniform and greater than intellection, the other set intellectual.

Now, one must think that intelligible according to the thing at hand itself and its subsistence, being shut off to all other lives and powers. For as we approach intellect by becoming intellect-like (‘intellectiform’), so we soar aloft towards union (by becoming) uniform, standing upon the summital (part) of our own intellect; because even the eye sees the Sun in no other way than by becoming sun-like (‘soliform’), and not through the light from its fire; whereby it is also clear that to think that is not (really) to think. “And if”, (the Oracle) says, “you incline your intellect”, that is, if you direct yourself towards connection with that⁴ through intellective apprehensions, then in this way too, “when you think that”, the intelligible, “as if you were thinking something”, that is, by apprehending (it) according to a certain measure of form and knowledge, “then you will not be thinking that”. For even if such intellections should be simple, they fall short of the unitary simplicity of the intelligible, and are carried to certain secondary intellective natures(?), which proceed into multitude. For nothing knowable is known through something less than knowledge;⁵ nor what is above intellect through intellect; for intellect apprehends something and at the same time takes it up as something being thought (or ‘an object of intellection’), which is secondary to the intelligible.

But even if we think this intelligible, which is seated atop the summit of the first intelligible triad, in the “flower of the intellect” in us, still, how can it be joined with the One, which is unrelated to all things, and unparticipated? For if is said that the first “Father snatched himself away” from intellect and “Power”,⁶ then who is the one who did not even need to snatch himself away in this manner, if not the one who is simply snatched away above all things, and hymned as god of all?⁷ And if, in other passage, “even the first power of the sacred word (lógos)”,⁸ the first Father is spoken about, then who is the one above him, by participating in whom he is called “sacred”?⁹ And if the one who reveals that there is one even more ineffable (than him) is called “word”, then the one before the word who causes the word to subsist must be a silence, and before everything sacred, (there must be) the cause that divinizes it. So, as the things after the intelligibles are the words (or ‘patterns’, lógoi) of the intelligibles, which are gathered together, so also the word among them – subsisting from another, more ineffable henad –, is the word of the silence before the intelligibles, and (that of which) the intelligibles keep silent is silence.

So, the “flower of intellect” is not at all the same as the “flower” of the whole soul; rather, the former is the most uniform (faculty) of our intellective life, the later is the one of all our psychic faculties, which are multiform; for we are not only intellect, but also reasoning and conjecture and attention and choice, and before these powers, both one essence and many, both divided and undivided. So, the one (in us) appears to be twofold, and while the first is the first flower of our powers, the other is the center of our whole essence, and all the kinds of powers around it, and only that joins us to the Father of the intelligibles.¹⁰ For one (the former) is intellective, and that is conceived by the paternal intellect, according to the the one in it; but the other, which all of the psychic powers converge in, this alone is able to bring us towards that which is transcendent of all beings, and it is what unifies all that is in us; on account of which, we are rooted in this by essence, and because of this rootedness, we are not cut off from our cause.¹¹

1: This fragment most clearly shows the way Proclus proceeds in his commentary, since the passage he is commenting on (fr. 1 des Places) is extant through another source. In Doxai, as in Exegesis 31, Psellus quotes the first line, but not the others; in Proclus, presumably a longer quotation was given, perhaps the two and a half I am including (taken from Damascius, who gives another seven and a half lines after, which Proclus does not address in this excerpt).
2: In the manner of divine inspiration or possession.
3: Discussed in fragment 12 below and Psellus, Exegesis 31.
4: I.e., the “a certain intelligible” quoted in the following fragment.
5: Here, all three words come from gnôs-, not noûs.
6: A different passage from the Oracles, often referenced by ancient authors: “the Father snatched himself away, nor has he enclosed his own fire in his Power” (fr. 3 des Places).
7: The One, which for Proclus is not the Father who “snatched himself away”, but is even higher, above any kind of relationship, even one of distancing.
8: Collected by des Places as fr. 175. Note that here and with fr. 3 above, Proclus marks that he is quoting another passage, suggesting that where he does not do so in our excerpts, he is commenting on a continuous text.
9: The first power is below the first Father; the Father is called the “sacred lógos” because he participates in something even higher, the One. (Being sacred seems to imply being sacred to a deity.)
10: The father of the intelligibles is the One, whereas the paternal intellect is the lower “first Father”.
11: So, it seems, that part of the soul which grasps the One is in fact not the flower of intellect, but the flower of the whole soul, which ties her whole essence back to the First Cause; the flower of intellect can only tie us back to the first intellective Father, it seems.

{Ἔστιν γάρ τι νοητόν, ὃ χρή σε νοεῖν νόου ἄνθει.}
(ἢν γὰρ ἐπεγκλίνῃς σὸν νοῦν κἀκεῖνο νοήσῃς
ὥς τι νοῶν, οὐ κεῖνο νοήσεις· ἔστι γὰρ ἀλκῆς
ἀμφιφαοῦς δύναμις νοεραῖς στράπτουσα τομαῖσιν. fuller Oracle in Damascius)

Ἱσταμένη ἡ ψυχὴ κατὰ τὸ διανοητικὸν τὸ ἑαυτῆς ἐπιστήμων ἐστὶ τῶν ὄντων· ἐν δὲ τῷ νοερῷ τῆς οἰκείας οὐσίας ἑαυτὴν ἱδρύσασα, νοεῖ ⟨τὰ πάντα⟩ / {τὰ ὅλα} ταῖς ἁπλαῖς καὶ ἀμερίστοις ἐπιβολαῖς. εἰς δὲ τὸ ἓν ἀναδραμοῦσα, καὶ πᾶν τὸ ⟨ἐν αὐτῇ⟩ / {‹ἐν› ἑαυτῇ} συμπτύξασα πλῆθος, ἐνθεαστικῶς ἐνεργεῖ καὶ συνάπτεται ταῖς ὑπὲρ νοῦν ὑπάρξεσι· τῷ γὰρ ὁμοίῳ πανταχοῦ τὸ ὅμοιον συνάπτεσθαι πέφυκε⟨ν, καὶ πᾶσα γνῶσις δι’ ὁμοιότητα συνδεῖ τῷ κατανοουμένῳ τὸ κατανοοῦν, τῷ μὲν αἰσθητῷ τὸ αἰσθητικόν, τῷ δὲ διανοητῷ τὸ διανοητικόν, τῶ δὲ νοητῷ τὸ νοητικόν, ὥστε καὶ τῷ πρὸ νοῦ τὸ ἄνθος τοῦ νοῦ. ὡς γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις οὔκ ἐστι νοῦς τὸ ἀκρότατον, ἀλλ’ ἡ ὑπὲρ νοῦν αἰτία, οὕτως ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς οὔκ ἐστι νοερὸν τὸ πρῶτον τῆς ἐνεργείας εἶδος, ἀλλὰ τοῦ νοῦ θειότερον· καὶ πᾶσα ψυχὴ καὶ πᾶς νοῦς ἐνεργείας ἔχει διττάς, τὰς μὲν ἑνοειδεῖς καὶ κρείττονας νοήσεως, τὰς δὲ νοητικάς.

δεῖ οὖν ἐκεῖνο τὸ νοητὸν καὶ κατ’ αὐτὸ τὸ ἐνιστάμενον καὶ τὴν ὕπαρξιν νοεῖν, μύσαντα κατὰ πάσας τὰς ἄλλας ζωὰς καὶ δυνάμεις. ὡς γὰρ νοειδεῖς γιγνόμενοι τῷ νῷ πρόσιμεν, οὕτως ἑνοειδεῖς πρὸς τὴν ἕνωσιν ἁνατρέχομεν, ἑπ’ ἄκρῳ τῷ οἰκείῳ στάντες νῷ· ἐπεὶ καὶ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ ἄλλως ὁρᾷ τὸν ἥλιον ἢ γενόμενος ἡλιοειδής, ἀλλ’ οὐ τῷ ἐκ πυρὸς φωτί· ᾧ καὶ δῆλον ὅτι τὸ νοεῖν ἐκεῖνο μὴ νοεῖν ἐστίν. ἐὰν δέ, φησίν, ἐπεγκλίνῃς σὸν νοῦν, τοῦτ’ ἐστιν, ἐπερείσῃς ταῖς νοεραῖς ἐπιβολαῖς εἰς τὴν πρὸς ἐκεῖνο συναφήν, καὶ οὕτως ἐκεῖνο νοήσῃς τὸ νοητόν, ὥς τι νοῶν, τοῦτ’ ἐστι, κατά τι μέτρον εἴδους καὶ γνώσεως ἐπιβλητικῶς, οὐκ ἐκεῖνο νοήσεις· κἂν γὰρ ὦσιν αἱ τοιαῦται νοήσεις ἁπλαῖ, ἀπολείπονται τῆς τοῦ νοητοῦ ἑνιαίας ἁπλότητος καὶ εἰς δευτέρας φέρονταί τινας νοερὰς <φύσεις> εἰς πλῆθος ἤδη προελθούσας.⟩

οὐδὲν γὰρ γνωστὸν δι’ ἐλάττονος γιγνώσκεται γνώσεως· ⟨οὐ τοίνυν οὐδὲ τὸ ὑπὲρ νοῦν, διὰ νοῦ· ἅμα γὰρ νοῦς ἐπιβάλλει τινὶ καὶ τοιόνδε λέγει τὸ νοούμενον, ὅπερ ἐστὶ τοῦ νοητοῦ δεύτερον· ἀλλ’ εἰ ἐν τῷ ἄνθει τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν νοῦ τὸ νοητὸν τοῦτο νοοῦμεν, ἐπ’ ἄκρῳ τῆς πρώτης νοητῆς τριάδος ἱδρυνθέν, τίνι ἂν ἔτι συναφθείη μὲν πρὸς τὸ ἕν, ὅ ἐστιν ἀσύντακτον πρὸς πάντα καὶ ἀμέθεκτον; εἰ γὰρ ὁ πρῶτος ‘πατὴρ’ ἁρπάζειν ‘ἑαυτόν’ λέγεται τοῦ νοῦ καὶ τῆς ‘δυνάμεως’, τίς ὁ μηδέ οὕτως ἁρπάσαι δεηθεὶς ἑαυτόν, ἀλλ’ ὑπερηρπασμένος ἀπὸ πάντων ἁπλῶς καὶ θεὸς πάντων ὑμνούμενος; εἰ δὲ καὶ περὶ τοῦ πρωτίστου πατρὸς ἐν ἄλλοις εἴρηται· ‘καὶ δύναμιν πρώτην ἱεροῦ λόγου’, τίς ὁ ὑπὲρ τοῦτον καὶ οὗπερ οὗτος μετέχων ἱερὸς λέγεται; καὶ εἰ ὁ ἐκφαίνων ἀρρητότερον ὄντα λόγος ὀνομάζεται, δεῖ πρὸ τοῦ λόγου τὴν τὸν λόγον ὑποστήσασαν εἶναι σιγήν, καὶ πρὸ παντὸς ἱεροῦ τὴν ἐκθεωτικὴν αἰτίαν. ὡς οὖν τὰ μετὰ τὰ νοητὰ λόγοι τῶν νοητῶν εἰσί, συνηγμένων ὄντων, οὕτως ὁ ἐν ἐκείνοις λόγος, ἀπ’ ἄλλης ἀρρητοτέρας ἑνάδος ὑποστάς, λόγος μέν ἐστι τῆς πρὸ τῶν νοητῶν σιγῆς, τῶν δὲ νοητῶν σιγωμένων, σιγή.

μήποτε οὖν οὔκ ἐστι ταὐτὸν νοῦ ἄνθος καὶ πάσης ἡμῶν τῆς ψυχῆς ἄνθος· ἀλλὰ τὸ μέν ἐστι τῆς νοερᾶς ἡμῶν ζωῆς τὸ ἑνοειδέστατον, τὸ δὲ ἁπασῶν τῶν ψυχικῶν δυνάμεων ἕν, πολυειδῶν οὐσῶν· οὐ γάρ ἐσμεν νοῦς μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ διάνοια καὶ δόξα καὶ προσοχὴ καὶ προαίρεσις, καὶ πρὸ τῶν δυνάμεων τούτων οὐσία μία τε καὶ πολλὴ καὶ μεριστή τε καὶ ἀμερής. διττοῦ τε τοῦ ἑνὸς πεφηνότος, καὶ τοῦ μὲν τῆς πρωτίστης ἡμῶν τῶν δυνάμεων ἄνθους ὄντος, ‹τοῦ› δὲ τῆς ὅλης οὐσίας κέντρου καὶ τῶν περὶ αὐτὴν ἁπασῶν παντοίων δυνάμεων, ἐκεῖνο μόνον ἡμᾶς συνάπτει τῷ πατρὶ τῶν νοητῶν· νοερὸν γάρ ἐστιν ἕν, νοεῖται δὲ καὶ ἐκεῖνο ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρικοῦ νοῦ κατὰ τὸ ἓν τὸ ἐν αυτῷ· τὸ δὲ ἓν εἰς ὃ πᾶσαι αἱ ψυχικαὶ δυνάμεις συννεύουσιν αὐτῆς [ὃ] μόνον πέφυκε προσάγειν ἡμᾶς τῷ πάντων ἐπέκεινα τῶν ὄντων, καὶ αὐτὸ πάντων ὂν τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν ἑνοποίον· καθὸ καὶ ἐρριζώθημεν κατ’ οὐσίαν ἐν ἐκείνῳ, καὶ τῷ ἐρριζῶσθαι κἂν προΐωμεν, οὐκ ἀποστησόμεθα τῆς ἑαυτῶν αἰτίας.⟩ / {διττὸν δέ φησι τὸ ἐν ἡμῖν ἕν· τὸ μὲν τῆς πρωτίστης ἡμῶν τῶν δυνάμεων οἷον ἄνθος, τὸ δὲ τῆς ὅλης οὐσίας κέντρον καὶ τῶν περὶ αὐτὴν παντοίων δυνάμεων· οὐ γάρ ἐσμεν νοῦς μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ προσοχὴ καὶ προαίρεσις καὶ διάνοια καὶ δόξα καὶ πρὸ τῶν δυνάμεων τούτων οὐσία μία καὶ πολλὴ καὶ μεριστὴ καὶ ἀμερής.}

Fragment 12 (from Doxai)

Being is the intelligible intellect, but subsistence is the intelligible.

Ὄν μέν ἐστιν ὁ νοητὸς νοῦς, ὕπαρξις δὲ τὸ νοητόν.

Fragment 13 (from Doxai; cf. Exegesis 28)

The soul possesses “the fullnesses of many wombs”, that is, life-endowing powers which fill her with many receptacles with the power to be endowed with life by herself.

Ἡ ψυχὴ περιέχει πολλῶν κόλπων πληρώματα, τουτέστι ζωοποιοὺς δυνάμεις ἀποπληρωτικὰς πολλῶν ὑποδοχῶν τῶν δυναμένων ζωοποιεῖσθαι παρ’ αὐτῆς.

Fragment 14 (from Doxai and Eklogai)

Philosophy claims that forgetting and remembrance of the eternal patterns are the cause of the departure from the gods and the return (or ‘reversion’) to them; the oracles (claim that it is the oblivion and remembrance) of the paternal tokens. Both are in harmony. For the soul has been composed of sacred patterns and divine symbols.¹ The former of these come from the intellective forms, the latter from the divine henads; and we are images of the intellective essences, and cult statues of the unknowable tokens. And as the whole soul is a fullness of all forms, but subsists as a whole in accordance with one cause (‘form’ in Doxai), so she also participates in all the tokens, through which she was joined together by the god,² but her subsistence has been defined in one, in accordance with which the whole multitude within her is gathered into one apex.

(The rest of this fragment is transmitted in two forms; they differ both in content and order.)

(Eklogai version:)
For this too one must know, that every soul is distinguished from every (other soul), and that there are as many kinds of souls as there are souls. For, firstly, in accordance with one form, there is a subsistence of many uniform individuals across matter and composite beings, but their underlying nature participates, in various ways, in the same form. For if the being of the soul is a pattern and a single form, then a given soul either will not differ from another soul in essence at all, or she differs in form. Hence, it is clear that every soul, even if it is filled with the same patterns, still is has been allotted one form distinguishing it from the others, so that the solar form characterizes the solar soul, and another (form) another (soul).

(Doxai version:)
Every soul is distinuished from every (other soul) in form. For if the being of the soul is a pattern and a single form, then a given soul either will not differ from another soul in essence at all, or she differs in form.

And all things are in each soul in accordance with one, both the intellective patterns and the tokens.³ For the subsistence of many individuals of the same form to be in accordance with one form is (peculiar to beings?) across (the realm) of matter and composite beings, while the underlying nature participates, in various ways, in the same form.⁴

1: Synonymous with the paternal tokens.
2: The Father.
3: Each soul in a fashion contains all patterns from the intellective forms, and all tokens of the gods (the ‘divine henads’), but all in accordance with one form (and one divine series?).
4: I find this version of the sentence unintelligible.

⟨‘Η φιλοσοφία τήν τε λήθην καὶ ἀνάμνησιν τῶν ἀιδίων λόγων αἰτιᾶται τῆς τε ἀποφοιτήσεως τὴς ἀπὸ τῶν θεῶν καὶ τῆς ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς ἐπιστροφῆς· τἂ δὲ λόγια, τῶν πατρικῶν συνθημάτων. συνᾴδει δὲ ἀμφότερα·⟩ συνέστηκε γὰρ ⟨ἡ ψυχὴ⟩ / {αὕτη} ἀπὸ τῶν ἱερῶν λόγων καὶ τῶν θείων συμβόλων· ⟨ὧν οἱ μέν εἰσιν ἀπὸ τῶν νοερῶν εἰδῶν, τὰ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν θείων ἑνάδων· καί ἐσμεν εἰκόνες μὲν τῶν νοερῶν οὐσιῶν, ἀγάλματα [τὰ] δὲ τῶν ἀγνώστων συνθημάτων.⟩ Καὶ ὥσπερ πᾶσα ψυχὴ πάντων ⟨μέν⟩ ἐστι πλήρωμα τῶν εἰδῶν, κατὰ μίαν δὲ ⟨ὅλως αἰτίαν⟩ / {ἰδέαν} ὑφέστηκεν, οὕτω καὶ πάντων ⟨μὲν⟩ μετέχει τῶν συνθημάτων, δι’ ὧν συνάπτεται τῷ θεῷ, ἀφώρισται δὲ ἡ ὕπαρξις {αὐτῆς} ἐν ἑνὶ, ⟨καθὸ συνάγεται πᾶν τὸ ἐν αὐτῇ πλῆθος εἰς μίαν κορυφήν.⟩

⟨δεῖ γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο εἰδέναι, ὡς πᾶσα ψυχὴ πάσης κατ’ εἶδος διέστηκε, καὶ ὅσαι ψυχαί, τοσαῦτα καὶ τὰ εἴδη τῶν ψυχῶν ἐστι· πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ καθ’ ἓν εἶδος, πολλῶν ἀτόμων ὑπόστασις ἑνοειδῶν περί τε τὴν ὕλην ἐστὶ καὶ τὰ σύνθετα τῶν ὄντων, μιᾶς ὑποκειμένης φύσεως ποικίλως τοῦ αὐτοῦ μετεχούσης εἴδους· εἰ γὰρ τὸ εἶναι τῆς ψυχῆς λόγος εστὶ καὶ εἶδος ἁπλοῦν, ἢ οὐδὲν διοίσει κατ’ οὐσίαν ψυχή τις ἄλλης, ἢ κατ’ εἶδος ἂν διαφέροι· ὃ γάρ ἐστι διοίσει μόνον, ἔστι δὲ εἶδος μόνον. ὅθεν δῆλον ὡς πᾶσα ψυχή κἂν τῶν αὐτῶν ᾖ λόγων πλήρης, ἀλλ’ ἓν εἶδος ἔλαχεν ἀφοριστικὸν τῶν ἄλλων, ὥσπερ τὸ ἡλιακὸν εἶδος χαρακτηρίζει τὴν ἡλιακὴν ψυχήν, ἄλλο ἄλλην.⟩

/ {ὅτι πᾶσα ψυχὴ πάσης κατ’ εἶδος διέστηκεν. εἰ γὰρ τὸ εἶναι τῆς ψυχῆς λόγος εστὶ καὶ εἶδος ἁπλοῦν, ἢ οὐδὲν διοίσει κατ’ οὐσίαν ψυχή τις ἄλλης, ἢ κατ’ εἶδος ἂν διαφέρῃ. Καὶ ἔστιν ἐν ἑκάστῃ πάντα καθ’ ἕν, οἵ τε νοεροὶ λόγοι καὶ τὰ συνθήματα· τὸ γὰρ καθ’ ἓν εἶδος πολλῶν εἶναι ἀτόμων ὑπόστασιν ὁμοειδῶν περί τὴν ὕλην ἐστὶ καὶ τὰ σύνθετα τῶν ὄντων, τῆς ὑποκειμένης φύσεως ποικίλως τοῦ αὐτοῦ μετεχούσης εἴδους.}