Henadolo_ in the T_o _eoloeies of _rocl4sU

T_omo ____il_ O
UN_v_Rs_Tr a_ H_LsTNKI

I_RoDucnoM
_e aim of_is paper is Ta _scuss _e relationship beNveen the _lemenn o_
__o__ and ___nic _eo__ hom _e perspective of the theo_ ofhenads.
I refer To These works as che Two _eologies of _rocIus and begin mth some
remarks for comparative purposes. _e focus is the reI4tion of_roclw pr_
tolo_, the doccrine of rhe primordial principIes, npa_ and ánE_pav, Limi_
_nd UnIimited, wi_ his doctrine ofhenads.
I cIaim ch_ _rocI4s resolves, ac teast formdly, che ambiguiy aF_is re-
l_tionship prevaiIing in the _lemenn o_JJKo/o_ when he giv_ proTologi-_
items the n_us of henads in __tonjr JJ_o/ogy. _en I brieAy surv_ _e
vin4s af the scholars who have earIier discussed the possibIe men_ af _is
_roclean sol_ion. Ne_ I will argue chac even a_er che cruciaI pasage a _r-
cain _ension penis_ in __nii _eolo_ beNreen a re_ppearing ambiguiy
and the reæ_atian af the soIution o_e_d, and that che problem co4ld
not be resolved wi_ouT ___ T recaurse beyond the nnro _eologies, ta the
evidence of_raclw _om1nm__ on _armenid_e_.

GENE_ Co____soN o_ TH_ _;__Nrs AND __roNrc _H_oLoçy

On che one hand we have _e __en_, _ concise, systematic work, ob-
viousIy inspired by _e Eu_d__ modeI buf deding with theolo_, and as
such 4nique in G_k philosophicd_ li_er_ture. On _e 0ther, vye have ___tonic
Meolo_, a giant wark, immediately r__i_le as che _um opm of iEs
author and the culmination ofhis lifis wor_. It is aJ5o a novel 4chievement
in philosophy _r i_ design, aiming to _a' 0 0 __ _e __ _n_ing _he cI_
of the gods on the basis ofa NeopIatonic inte_re_tian of__enid_ and
ca_ng comprehensive account of alI _Iar_s wn_n_ in order dso co demon-
strate the totd agreement of_l_to m_h _e wmole _ aFHelIenic traditionaI
theoIogr _d the revelation of the C___ _n ___.
As we consider these works we coWd gec me id__ mat the reIa_ionship
berw_n _em may be that of a more or Iess complete drafc with a main opus
mat was never pro_rly _n ished (approximately the same relation, as, For ex-
_pIe, _l Marxs G_ndr_e h_ wi_h D__ _pit___. _e cheor_ical scope of

D1o___Jm, Vol. _Ill, Dec. 2010, G3-7_.

_q ' Tuomo I_AN_LA

_roclus TheoIogi_ is more or Iess che same, ch_ ofthe _lement_ being slighcly
larger. _y begin wich _he cranscendent One, but che _/ement_ arrives at the
hy_scasis of che Soul, __to_ic _eo__ ac rhe supercosmic-encosmic gods.
On cIoser ins_ccion, chis di_erence in terms of scope indic_es- iss4es
more compIicaced _h_ degrees ofcompteteness. _eir appToach co che subject
ma_cer-expIicicly decIared co be che same by _e cicles of che works-and
mode of _gumencacion are di_erenc. The _(ements seems to be interested
mainIy in causdiy _plaining how di_erent m_aphysicaI Ievets proceed in
an ordered fashion From che primal source, ___tonic _eolo_, on The oTher
hand, is in Eerested in _e speci_c procession of the gods. _is is a procession
in che sense ofdecIension ' inside che s_e hyposcasis, dbej caking iMo ac-
count the _cc that for _roclus the opposition be_n _e pro_ion in _e
stricf sense and procession as decIension is vdid only on _e onric lev_ and
could be applied fo che orders oF gads only by and_.
Jhe di_ecence in cerms ofapproach al5o can_r_ _e mode afæumen_-
tion and the de_nition afreferences in which _ppon _r _e _enrs is _a
be searched for. In his commenta_ on __menid_ _raI_ __ _ree __
where truth, or, to put it better, che _nuasion _ac some_i_g is _e, _
be soughc. _ese __nd the order is signi___ t-_e hwnan mind wi_
ics disc4rsive and intuicive _ulties, _- mejs cansensus afopinion, 0d,
lastly, divine revelation received thro_ oncIes.2 __t0n% JKeo__a draws
abundan_y on aIl ofthese sources. _e _m_, on che o_er hand, remins
only ac the _rsc tevel. Ics pcoposicions rep_nT inna_ Tru_ of_e human
mind, che confent ofour intuitive reason, wmich is a plenirud_ afcopi_ and
images of the inteIligible hrms. _e demo_tians __ mp_ _e dd_ic
e_orc of che human mind, showing how _oejc r__ on convinces i_lf.'
Thus, the theolo_ of the _/eme__ rer__ i__f to be of a Icind at wmich
rationaIIy chinking human intelligen_ n__ily _v_. _is is w_y _e
_m_ do_ noT ned any _fe_nce to some speci_c p_cheon or even
any speinc philosophy, no_ even app_entIy to that of _Iaco. Its s_cematic
__l_ is _laconic anly inasmuch as this theo1o_ is adequately expressed
in the phiIo5ophy of_lato. _T i_ was _lato who thou Bht fhrou_ the true
__lo__ is, of_une, no _incidence far _roclus, but resuIts from the fact

l. __ o__ _ m__ _ear_uc aJc dis0nccion bemeen ''pracessia_' and _raccssIon by

_on la J_ P_ _, J45.4_74G.20.
2. I% P__ I_ 80l .2_26. _e __c quescion de_Ic in chis pass_ge is why we sho4ld bc
_nv1nccd ofche __ ofPIa_s _oy ofid__, l7ut we c_n dssume chac che view on che so4rces
of_' n __ twe _plia _y _r _cucIus.
3. See dsa Domini- i J O'__, _La sa_ce mtrdphysique (ou fh_ologie7 de _roclus corn-
_ __ ra_ _inru_" _ __ _r _ _0__ plAtoMJcJeMMe, ed. A. _h. Segonds _nd C. SceeI
__ 20OO), l9_227
H_NADo_o Gy IN THE Two TiEaLoGIEs oF _RocLus 6 5

_aE__4to,s h__oso h __diwnel _n, _,gd,4andth_s_s _4,tthecasewh;,h

__tonic Meo/o_ tries ta demons_re.
_iIe che __men_ is a pre%ntatian of_l_conic Theolo_ in its ve_ own
rerms, a philosophicd dis_une ___ ing _e epistemic struccure composed
a_ ra_ionil and inre_eccwd concep_, _/dtonic _eolo_ represents a system
where _roclus cdces account aF all The modes of _lats Eheolo__ides
scign_i_c, aIso symboIic, icanic, and en_usiascic mod_wmi_ were dI,
4ccording to _roclus, used by _la€o.'

D_sc__ANcI_s _TH_N THE BAsIc Com_nT_B_LlTy oF THE HEN_Do_Gy _N

TH_ Two TH_o_oG_Es
_ere are rwo __en__ id_ in _roclus henadologr in rel_ion ca
w_ich ocher issu_ are _con_. _e _nt is che notion of che henads as a
sphere of _he participaTed One.6 A persistent misunders€anding inherited
From che timg when _e _eoy of_e henads was _plained in schaI_ship by
_e beIief in CrocIw _ to pile up __ cessi_e met_ph_icd Iayers or his urge
to defend _l_heisuc pie_, r_ed as some_ing externd ro phiIosaphy,
is Thg notion oF the henads as _ specid metaphysicd hypos_is bctw_n _e
One and the Being. Chriscian Gurard dedica_ed an _ci_e ro rhe __tion
oFThis vinnr in l_82, which is one ofthe besr pieces ofmadern scholanhip
concerning henadology.' _ere is a henadic hypostasis in _e _nse rh4t _e
One, ,elf-perfect henads and irTadiations oF chem Form a Neoplatonic seri-
di2ed multipIici__ but che he_ads _emselves and alone coWd no_ farm a
hypos_asis jwE because _9 _e _e participated One. CaIling rhe henads a
hyposEasis would be cam_ble to _viding the imparticipable Intellen and
_rticipa Eed intelleco inta __e_nt hypostases. _e idea, th_ henads-gods
as _If-perfecc uniri_ are a 5p_ere ofparcicipacion in the One, and Th_ rheir
na_ure as a series on rhe su__ntid Ievel i, anaIogous ro the antic series
ofBeing, life, and Intetlect, is the basic _mman _m for Ehe __mmt_ and
_Irto%jc _eolo_."

4. _e pre_ces of__w_xic _e____ and che _m__ _ P_eM_ Ieave no doubt _hat
Croclus wss con_n%d af che divine inspiration of___s _o_.
5 For __crenc modes and syIes of cheo1o_ _ _l __t I 2 _.2_ l O. l O; l.4, l 7._-23 I l,
In__rm G4_.I_47.24.
G. _lP_ I_0apcen3and 4, l l.l7-l7.12.
7. __ r__- Gu__ ''_ Lhrie da hmdes ec l_ myscique de _roclos;' Dinn__iw _ ( I _B2):
7.__ _Wy 7G. _a_ com_ _o _he reIa_ion becveen che One _nd che henads ic couId noc
be a_r_ _ G___ rrIacion ofp__icipacion, buc on_y procession, 78. _e _rsc proposition
of__ cho_ __bIish a _his kind or reI_cions, which v_ specid nacure w reveded in
che Com_m__ y of_enides. See also _A Me Ijer, ''__cicipacion ic1 Henads and Mona__ in
_ra_us _D_P___ III._s, I_; in O%_oc__n%d_ _i_J%If__ci J_Mi_ey_l__i___pm,
ed. E._ Bos and _.A. Mei)ec (l_id_n, l__2), _p. 70; Mije_, JO; and E._. _u___, _o Iy_heism
and IndivIdu_II_ In _e Hrnad_c Manih1d;' _nmm 23 (2OO5): 8_IU4, rs_iJIy I02.
8. __acIus Incroduces his vimd on s_f-pcr_ (ar in_dent ol compIe__) hena4 in
__ TuaMo Lgw_Ln

_e second basic rener ofhenadoIo_ is _tle nacion chaf che henad ec_ ceeds
any onEoIogicd fo_ ba_ in uniy and individ4aliy. Henads are, dI in aII
and each in dl, in a way thaE is much more unit_y than the self-identi_
of Focms and communi_, based on the mur4al relations of The participa-
tions beNreen them. B_ henads also have absoluce individwW_ in a way
to which fhe di_erence which separat_ on_c forms on the _ound of cheir
dis_inccive cha_crers cannot compare. _is nojon is, oFco4_, aJso presenc
in rhe _Irmr__ and is re_a_edIy referrd in _IK_t0_ic _eol_ ho_er, ir
i5 not expr_sed in __e works as cIearly as in che _ArmetJid_es CommeMta_
wki_ has concencn_ed p_ages comparing The nacures af henads with
ontologicaI forms.'
Among the ocher henadological tene_ __d bemreen _e MAm_1_ and
__toMic _eolo_ are Ehe equation of aneness, goodness _d godne_;'
caus_tive principtes according ta which _e proce_ion is aampl_ed by
_e likeness_ ofThe ca_ and e_eccs, that every mon_d prad4ces a 5eries
appropriaEe Eo i4 cha_ an enciy nearer co Ehe primordial causes produces
more e_eccs and go_ __er in che chain ofe_ects _han causes which come
inca pIay la_er in che proce4ion ecc.

_Tproposicion_ 2. _, _4 _d _e fhird boo_ ofP___ _o/o_. He clari__ rhc _ncrIon

berw_n mo mrs ofb_ds _n _e hnd_m_nEd p__'age ofJi1 _Arm. 1 06 l .3 l_1O_3 5 where he
asaibcd Lhr _eoy of_e h_ Eo his reachec Syrianw. Accarding co I._ SheIdon-WilIiams,
__Js andAngels: P__adch__.-D_on_iw;' Smdin_4__c_ l l (l_72). G5-7l, _raclus
_0 hrrr Ehree lev_ oFhenads, un__ric__red _uconamow (seIf-s4b6i6cenT) hen_ds, series of
hen_d_ whlch are _t on% independenc and pam4__ed k_p_o__, uE_x_Eva, a com_4nd
ofwords which _rocIus acc4dly _oes nof use in _is I_ __ pa_ge, bur _ in JET8l), and
henads which are ''priniples of uniy In chose _n_ w__ _ 4nIrs on a_un_ of_em:' If
chis re_ding _s carrecc, _en che p_ssæe oF_Arm__ __r4_ In cons_deraon woWd Aa_y
_n Era_c_ Pb_w Ja_m _rh in _r_d _Taccoc_lng co whIch aII hena4 _ dw__ parric_-
paEed. H_, _ere _s a wdy o4l of_. Amdly _coclus s_ys chac ye_ cawr produces rva
m4IEip___, one separared and _miIar _o _e cawe, se_nd which is x_p_o_ov __v __T_x
u_4v (_td _rom in parEii__) Andogously co che IncelIecc _n_ pclmd Soul, which
escabIish some _ncelIect separaTed fram soul dnd _me _uls _ced kom bMn and wme
which are insep_rable, the One also eswb__shn a mulripIlciy afyelf-__ ficE_d henads whi_
c_6cend rheIr parcIcipancs, and ochers which acr _ uJi___n ofo_ enrir__. Thl4 _
ue onty Nvo di_erenc sorcs oFhrhads, self_perfecE and hena_ _ 1___ons oronen% in _c
enr_Eies. Bo_ __d _T ar_ in _enl wi_ _is discincrion. _ac henad is a se1f-perfecc
does nol m__ __ 1E is independenc of_ii_clon, bLlt thac Ic is nac immediacely pucicIp_ced
by _e dI ___ ben oF each on_ic _a. In __ ecc, onty rooc members of __ onc_c 6eries, cheir
inlparuw_blc mo_ds. p_c_cipa_ d_y 1n a henad which pre_concins che dlscincc chanc_
ceriscic ofchar onc_c series. _w, seIf-pc_ecr henads are hen_ds __pa_d by Imparrii_ble
Incc1lrcc, Sou_ and so on, other hel_ads _e derlved on_, radiai_ or iU__narIons oFon__
chrough rhe parcIcipaced mo11ad of che respecrive _ries.
_. Ji2 __wrm. VI l04J.2_l04_J.3J.
y g gu p p y __t _pt

HENADoLo Gy IN THE Two TiEaLoG__s o_ _Roc_us _7

Hawerer, ir seems to me _c _e theo_ of the classes oF the gads in

__tomic J2eolo_ is not only an extended version af_e henadoIo_ of_e
__mcn_ o__eolo__ , but brings forch some cheore_i__ madi_cations+ Some
ofthese aTe imponant, such as che probIem ofdouble or 4invene panicipa-
cion,'0 _e in_duction of _e can_pt of s4per_uni_,'' the more decailed
Ereacment ofthe probIem of_e henadic mode of_owledge, '' the cl_i_ca-
cion of _e _eory of providen_, the richer creacmenc of the relacion of the
seIf-_rt& henads to the benadic iUumin_tion_ The more precise account
afthe supressentiaIi_ of the henads and che relauvi_of_is concepc'' ec_
Buf, in addition ta all these imporcant maccers, we 6nd wues chat aTe so
substantial Thac one must describe chem _ major rcnM__ tions oF lheoy.
In ___nic M1Ko__ _r_us __ ounds Nro innovations chat are signi_cant
for the __y of henads. The Mc is the introduccion of fhe intelligibIe-
inteIIemvc gD_. _e second is _e exact saIution of rhe probIem of che
reIacian aF _he primordid pnncipl_the Limit and Unlimited-wiTh _e
henads, an explan_tion which dispels the ambigui_ pr_enc in che _/__0
o__colo_. In che _llowing Treacmen_ T wiII con_nware onIy on _is qu_-
tion, which dso sheds some lighc on Ehe i4ues of_e hen_ds' seIf-perfe__s
and super_entidi_.

RELA_oNsHI_s BE_EN __0ToIDG_cnL _RINcI_LEs AND H_NADs IN THE

_o THEoLoGTEs
_e posr-_lotini_n NeopIatonisTs had di_erent meaM co _Il the famo_
__ aw,in If,,_4 in fhei, ,edecesso,s, meca h si_, l _ chac is _he
or break bennreen henaIo__ and ontolo_. IambIich_ me_s was a recoune
to che poarly-_own th_y of the _a Ones. Syrianus piched up a coupIe

IO. _l __ III l 5._- I4. _Iac_s words focce _rocIw co admic chac fhe One is noc onIy
p_c_cipaced in by Bing buc a1so particip_tes In 1_. He __ _ns away chis ano_y _o _ general
mec_physIcd rW_ of meopIaconism, saying tha_ _ii_' n d_ noc m_ _c _ Thing
in chese cases. BeIng gecs ics exiscence by p_rEic1__ng i_ _ One. b4c che O__s _pacion
inro Being means chac ic is nor parcicIp_cing i_ i_ qua a pnmal, cran%enden_ One, buc as a
One iltumin_Iing Biæ-
lI. S4_runi_ ____os4} is pr_nc in J72 __rm _I l l81 3_ and _eo/. __c V 28,
I03.l7. Whac d_ _ __ _- supruniy mean! Is Is I_ _h_ same as che ''uniy ofhen_'
mennoned Ji1 _ArTn _ IO48.l l-l4 and "4ni_a_ manI_ld'' __J __t tlI 3, I 2. l! _is conc_pc
woWd be worchy oF_ mdp
12. Far _e I7enadic mode ofknm1edg_ _p_ _l P__. I _7. I I-_8.l2, wh_e _rocIus
_ccrib4ces To divine rruch knowledg_ concerning _hing.. even cuncin_n4 and ma_cer, _
opposed To fhe IntelIecc and InceI1igibl_ Bods, who _aw only univ_rsds.
13. Alfhough many tImcs _racI4s caIIs aII gods _dh__ supresenci_ i_ _e ___ on For
_e _urch _apc_r _f _l P_ III he swt_ J1ac onJy rhe _cimd One is reaIIy supercs_encial,
_l__t III I I3.
14_ E.R Dod4' __ion in h_ commen_q seccion: J9bclm. __ _Iem___ oJ _eo(_gy,
2_ _ (ox Fo_, I__3), 25_.
__ TuaMo LnNKlLA

ofprinciples from _lac_s __i_6__ and identi_ed them wiTh €he rnonad and
ind__ ni_ dyad, prin_pl_ af_agore_ origin. Furthermore, as Anne Shep-
pard sa_, _yrianw distinguishes berween on the one hand che avTomovc
and the auTo6uc which are Forms and belong co _he inteIli_bleworId, and
on the other The px_y_ Kj _ovc and 6u_ which are a6oy_ _e in€elIigible
world _dare in fact idencical wich npac and n_ lp ia .^' 5 Syrianuisolution
vs the way which _rocIw foIIowed. But Syrianus mosc pTobably dso had
a _aEwe _eory of henads. We do noc have enou_ of Syrianus to decide
whac The nature of his answer to the quesi-on of che relawon bemeen che
hena4 and pcotologicd principles was. On the contray, we have a Ioc of
_roclus on these issues, buc nevertheless s_alan have been pu_ed by where
_rocl_ __ c_ly situa_ __ primordial causarive principIes. Do rhy precede
che henads or do cher _llow afier _hem and _ist before Being_ Are these
prinipIes classi_ing rW_ far henads, some Wnd of formd laws co-existing
with the henads, or do we have to _dmic _at _ere are Ma dterna_ives, even
concrasting, s_emes ofcransition berw_n h_oJ_ and oncol_ in _rocIw!
Amb_uiy in the Erea_ent of the reIa_ian of henads and principles
is _n_ced in che sErumrc of €he _/eme%c_ o_ _eol_gy. _e core group of
pro_siuans deaIing wi_ _e primordid principIes (87-_2) , is intraduced
before the Ugeneraln _eo_ ofhena_ tl l3-S_); chere ace some pre1imina_
propositians of henads Thac appear earIier (G,G2,_). Haw_er, discussion
of Eterniy also concerns the UnIimited _ Innniy. Croposi_ons 8_ and _O
cl__ ly s_ce €he exiscence ofa primd Limit and Unlimited and the principles
pimay over Being+ _ro_siuon l 5_ sr_es Th_ ''eve_ order ofgods is derived
From _e _o inicid principles;' Limi€ and UnIimited. _is wouId signi_ the
primacy ofLimit and UnIimited aver dl henads coo, unl_ _is proposition
were the last ofThe ''generd'' henadoIo_ and Iocaced jun ac che poin_ where
superessenfiaI procession rurns into onralo__ __ l one.
ln €he _ird book oF__ronj _eoID_, on the _her hand, general prin-
cipI_ of henadalo_ are eKpl_ed in _e _rst six chapters and the rheory
ofprimordid pjnciples in reIatian co the priMd Being is incroduced dcer
These in the following three ch_prers (7-lO). _is __ posi€ion gives prim_
to a couple of principles, buc ac che same €ime _n6_s henads as _e anIy
mediacing eItiries bemreen the primd One and che pri_I Being. _is _€,
which ac _nc gIdun_ appears paradojcal, is possibIe because _roc1us resoIves
the ques€ion by declaring _he pwr afprincipIes co be hena4.
In ___tonic JJeo Jo_, boo_ th_, chapter nine (3_. lO-I_) _roclw says:

I 5. Anne Sh_p_4 Sm__ on _5_ and__ _i_d__ o_J4oc/w _omme_t__ o_ c_e Rrpw6__'c
(Go___ngen_ l_80}, 52.
H_NADoLoGy IN TH_ Two TH_oLoGJEt oF _Rocws 6g

al 6ri _ai _w_pamc v6___vumEv_ 'n_ 4€_Ma_Ta_ _ no_vmo' _cK _n_

jni _E Tv 6u_iv px_u cai Tov m__Toû, T _iv m__ _ai _ dn____ 6_i€ai _o_ T_
0Ev_v6Ec yp ___v n Tovv vno_âoa_ _ai oiov__wE_c n _ y__' _ai
np_Tio__' 4, T 6j u__' noi_iv cai oum_pavvuval 6_ Tv np___u px_v.

Tha_ is wmy 5owa_, wjhing _ _ow how the mode of generacian is di_erenc _n che
we of rwa p__' l_ and _e __ e of mjed sa_ _hac God __ ryeded'' che Lim_c
and UnI_mi_ed (__ i__ aIe _ _ict1 come into exLetencr _om _e One as che
maniFes__jons of_ ____ble _nd _rsc unIy), where_ God "mdce_' che mixed
9nd pr___ i_ _ _- 'ng __ 6nT pnncipIes (cransIafion mIne)

As far as I knaw, only a fir _e __0_ __tes of _roclw have paid _reMion to
rhis mosc rem__ble innavation, _anB, them, ofcourse, Damascius'G and,
among modern scholars, 7oseph Combs, Cristina D'Ancona, Gerd van
RieI and Edward _. BurIer. Wh_ is surprising is _rhaps thac S_ and
Westerink indicare in rheir nore only _he _Iaconic phrase from __i_6_ (23,
_-lO) where _roclus _nds grounds for his specuIa_ion, bur do not ca_menT
on _roc1us view. '' S_rey and Wenerink do noE ded wi_ chis sp_inc issu' e
ei_er in their iMroduccion to chird pan of__to_ic JJeo/o_, o_ermse- a
Mndamentd essay to the study af henadoI_.
Among _he scholars who have denied the protoIogicd principles hawng
the status of _e henad, I w_IJ mention here only The positian af _du_rd
ZeIler. He deds wi_ _e qu_uan __ plicitly, representinB henadoIo_ as a
s_ci_c _rocl__ _eoy to aaun- t _r the procession ofredi_ fiom the One
and dedicates to _e WmiE and U_limit onIy one, but learned and lengThy
footno Ee. _ _w_ng of the evidence bemreen main t__ t and the note is
_mp_oma_c. In _ he _- _ _e impression that _roclus has mro comp__
ing Eheories in _e issue and _e mode of discussion seems to imply that the
proEoIogicd stWrshauId be _en as 5econda_. _e reader is Ieh wondering
how _ey are an_y inregcated to henado1ogy. 2elIec comes ve_ close to
concluding that we must _sume that rhe WmiT and Unlimited are henads,
b4t ultimately he rejecfs this intecprec_tion. _at _ im__t is J1a_ _nc, he
does nor ded with the _rocIean passage whi_ is anonda_ to anyone who
wants co reject the henadologicd statw ofthe Wmic and U_IimiE, _ond,
he overIooks the fact that Limit is introduced Iacer __ pIici_Iy as a henad in
_rocIus creatmenc of che articulations af_e mads _mpoiing _e _rsE in_eI-
ligible rriad, thirdly he thinks that because LimiT and UnIimited are taIhed

lG. Damasclus wondrrs why _rc_nc ph_osop_w (i vE_npo_ __h_o_, meaning

S_- w and _roJw _nd rheir FoIIowen, Damasc. De__%c. 3 lO_. l7 Comh.s = I 28S R4elIe)
i_ _ _ of rhe _nc in_ell igibIe criad Lhoughc che lImic and Lhe UnIimiced _o be henads,
b__ _j_ed _his scanJs in che ca_ oF_e th_rd cr _ad (6_ Ti T ujv npac vc, _ai T än__pov
_m_ v_ Tpa T 6 Tpi Tov na Tp___, voûc ouxi cai __ vc TpiT_, 3 l I O._7.
I7. H.D. Sa_ryand L.G _a_rI_nk. __. _jo_giepI4to%7c_e%%R, L_vre III (__is, l_78),
l23, no_2. Eduard __lIer, __IIo_op_7ed0 Cr_Rc_%2 III.2 (Leipzig, 1_23), 85_55.
mod_ for aw m g _ p

Jo Tuomo _

abou_ an _e level oF Ehe inte_igible gads rhey c_nnot be henads. _is ca4Id
not be a saund refVtation, because for Praclw, henads _ dways ~henads of
something;' caextensive with red entiues and _e _rst hena_ necessarily _
brou&E for_ in his discourse deding with r_e _rsc noeic beings.

BRl_f R6v_oF THE O_IN1oNs Ex__ssED IN TH_ MoD_RN ScHolARsH__

_GA_ING _Roc_u_ SoL__oN _N ____Mc rH_ol_y (ITI g 3_)
Let us review brieAy wh_ the schaIan who have been mosE sensiuve _a
chis i_ue have co say+
Comb_ wTi Ees:

c Ilac according co _roclus, L imiT and Unlmiied aIe nNo pri_ _ Mncriu_ of
che imparcicip_ble One, _.e., primordid h__ which, prod4_ by _e _u_ of _e
mi_d (che One), are principles af be_ng, w__ 1s rhe _nc _ (uI__v) _nd r_e
__Ki_n s I8

_nd _ IinIe later chac dl henads

_ce, in f_cr, wichin che One impli4tly, bu_ _e M_ _ manLFnc __Ives are Limicd
d__d Unlimi_, ancicipa_- _e whole procession, as che o_er henads (and chere _re
_ m_y oF _e1n 4 J1_ce æ _erenc %ries and _ncc_ons7 m_1fesc chen1se Ives anly
wi_h _e 6nc ord_r oF _n_bIe-inceIIeccives, when the _rsc ocherness came co _pllc
che One_BeIng 111to the d4aIiy of_e One _d _e s4bsc4n%.

_is is a concise and clear descriptio_ _a which l _IIy subscribe. 0mbs

does noc tr__t che cheme Mnher or prablem_tize it, because he is deding
wiEh _cocIw onIy brie_ywi_in Ehe Iimjs ofhis introduction to Damascius
critique af _raclus.
c,_stina D'AnconaI9 is of the o inion rhaT _n _,ocIus_e 6nd Mo in_m_
p_uble cheories __ plaining how Being eme_ from Ehe One. In _he _nt case
henads _e inde_ndenc ofrhe caupIe ofthe Limic _d UnlimiTed, since thy
trans_nd any son oF ocherness, being produced fro_ the One "according
ro The mode of uni_c_tion'' (_a0 _u___u). _is theo_ makes henads uniEies
''outside'' the One, which forms the _rea ofsupe_entiaI go_. _e second
chea_ subordinaEes henads Eo che cauple and eh_ a_ derived _om ic, being
che _ghesc Ie_el of inceIIigibIe it_. In e_en, _raclus uses, according to
D'Ancona, rhe ward _enad'' m_ nnro m4tudly exclusive meanings.

I8. Jo%ph Com_ _I_us er _us;' in J9bc__ e_ _D12 _M__mc_, ed. G. Boss and G.
S_l (NeuchârrI, I98_, 22b27. My _in.
l_ Criscina D'Ancona, Y_uc-Iu, En_d_ nell'ordine wv_ibile:' Rr_' w _ s_r_A deIJA
J_soJd 2 (l__2). 2_5-_4.
H_NA_oLo Gy IN THE Tw_ TH_oLoG_E5 oF _RocLus J I

D'Ancona not_ and commen_ on _roclu_ _plicit mention of rhe pro-

tologicd principles a5 henads buT she concIudes that They cannot be hena_
(280, _ransIacion mine):

IF _he gods are in_gU__ble hemds, _y _ gener__d and discincc from _c Limic and
UnIimi_ed, dnd _hg Wmi_ a0d UnIimi_ cannoc _gr__re be hen_ds, ac Ieasr noc in
thg _ense af che ince1Iigible. And if che Limit and _he Unlimi_ed _ h_a_, ___ _y
cannac be chem _n J1e same sense as inceltigibIe gods _ha_ depend on __ p_ipI_.

_erhaps one could answer chis in the TrocIean spiri_ chat sin_ _e One and
the intelIigible hena4 are causes ofThe imp__icipabIe Be_g wmat _ __ _e
nrst inte1IigibIe gods be orher ch_ the _nt Limic and Unlimi- -td! me_ is dso
_e _rsc uni_ received hom _e God before the action of rhe Limit, which
dIows _e ocher hena_ __ isting here in che secret, and ine_able _ate ofuniy
To be inceIligible gods befo_ _e pre__ isting chaJacceriscics are manifesred in
a Iater scage ofproc_ion. m_ _e surely dso other inteIligible gods, such
as, (or example, the O_hic _hanes, w_o is manifested in The rhird inte1ligible
cjad and who is che hi_ac god named by m_olo_ in _roclw syscem. But
are _hanes and othec unnamed gods who are Iike him and _i_t papWace
rhe mjtures oF the incelligib1e triad, aIso seIf-perFec_ he_! I _ink not.
And in chis case thy aTe no€ indeed g_ in the same seMe as the s_f-__c
hena_, but thy arc gods as bearers of the divine pro__, _E is, __ by
p_rticipation. Limit is the phiIosophicd name oF god w__ is p_bab Iy _e
same thing as che _nr self-___E henad, and the _rst Unli_ is the pocen_
oF chis god. _rocIus da_ nar _ve _y m_hologicd names (like _h_es) for
_ese gods, because _9 have n_er been celebrated in a cuIt accocding To
_e HeIlen ic praccice as Troclu5 understands it.
Gerd van _eI20 crin to re_n_Iia_e _rocIus pastuIate ofrhe absol_e sim-
pliciy of che henads (_p_ _r_lly in _r l 27) and scacemenr (made
in proposition l 5_) according ta whi_ henads _e camposed by pn_ and
apeiri_w+ Ac lean apparent contradiction berween th_e assercions h_ pu22led
_rocI4s inteTpreters since NichoIaus oFMethone. Van Riel's soIucion is chat
henads are a moddiy oFpe1ar. Re_cri_ to the pas5_ oF ___nir __o__a
where pTotologicd principIes are declared ro be henads Van _eI __:

G1_ _j ev_den_, _he argumenc oF_roJw _ac peras and apeiria are henads musc bg
__ m Ii_ __ is _e _n_ hen_d wh_ch incIud% ir_ icseIfapelria (_ ics gener_t_ve
pow_) m_ou_ ia_u_ng _hus d ifFe_en_a_ion. Ac lower 1eveIs chIs structure i_ repeated:
u is aIw_ a hena_ and _s prc%n _ an _he Er__d as a modaIiy of pecas.''

20. Gerd van Ricl, ^Les hnades de _rocI_ _____ _mpas& dg limiEe et d'itt_m___!'',
_%_e __ _c_R_c__p_i__op_i_e_ et t__log1____ 3 (2001}: 4l7-32.
2 l Van Kiel, 428. My tr_nsl_cion.
pygpgp

72 Tuomo LnNK1LA

_w an _bigui_ in _e Elements of _eology is resolved on the basis

of reading _/_itonic _eolo_. _or Van Riel per_ is a _iipa_ed One, _e
henad, and __pei__ its rel_ion (oxo_c) Ta en_iEies and Ehe 6uvall__ af_e
henad. _ think that Van Riels intcrpretation is basicdIy correcc. _e only
thing I_ mrhouc eKpIanawon is why _roclus calls in The fundamental pas-
sage bath pra_oIogicaI pjncipIes hena4 _d not a henad and ifs potency.
Ifwe think chat a henad is dwa_ a com_sice ching in _e sense ofbeing
combin_ion af _v_ol_ and pre-__ istenr anwc decermi_ian ti6lm_) we
_rhaps _Wd accept _ac _%e _rst henads are principIe5 ofpure ''oneness''
(''one proper in alI ics puriy; 3 l + lO ''toTdIy ane in proper sense;' 3 l. _3-l4)
and pwe poten_ (3 I .l9). _is Wnd ofcompositeness could scanddize only
interpreters like the bishop ofMethonewma are demandingsuch an absolute
simplici_ from henads which in e_ect woWd e_ce Eheir _rence m_ _e
One and thw make v_' h The whoIe possibiIiy ofThe procession ofbeings.
Edwad _. BucIe_2 nances Ehac _raclus equates henads with the proco_
logical pir in _he above mentioncd passa_e, buc seems noc To be wilIing to
re_rd limic and UnIimiced as real henads, characcerizing them as principles
of cIassincacion which do noc precede _e Go4 and _e _e highesr of _e
forms and iMcrumen_ af che divine illumination of Being. He sees These
principl_, as he says _ _ "reIevant for us and co 4s. _ey arise from an
andysi5 of_e nacure of _he Go4 _he gro4nd ofwhich is no red camposi-
tion.,,1_. since Butlef__readin of_,octwem h,izes che_,macive ludism
af self-perfecc henads and cheir radicd indiwdualiy, he is incIined, ifI _ave
undenTood tWm correccly, to render nat only the concept ofthe protoIogicaI
couple afpiincipIes bur dso che One icself as an anal_icd device for The
comprehension of che uni_ of _he Gods. ln _ is view onIy the divine hen_ds
have a real existence; the One exists only as being all of_e henads and eac_
of Them at the same time as each oF the henads is _he One. _us _ere _Wd
not be a hena_c series chac is 5imil_ to the ontic series.
I _ink _hac in his jus_i_ed e_on to resist che monothei2ing Teadings of
TrocIus, which dissolve rhe r_li_ of _he hena_ _ go4 into asp%rs, func-
Tions, and anMbLtes ofThe primal God, he goes Too _ and e___ _e concepc
of the primd God in _roclus. This s4reIy is no_ in agreemenc with _e word
ofp,oclus and ,obabI noc _it_ _cac_us, meanin eithe,._

22. Edward _. Buclcr, 2heMe_p__ic_ o__o/_r__im 1_ ___ d__rT__ion, _ New Sch_I

UnIveniy (Nm Yurk, 2003J.
23. BuTlec, Mc___p___ir_, 3_ I-_2
24.S_. For_le,amongche__0_ _ _0_ _eDl ___. Ill l4.__ BucBuTler is,ofco4n_,
__w_en he s__ _ ca posi_ _he O_e _ God byond che God_ is in no w_y consonanc wich
_e nrucr4re of _e ___ adic mul_ipIia (3_l). B4cIers goal is ''co rescoce _e doc_rIne af che
hen_ds co _cs pcaper pIace ac fhe cencer ofour unden_di_of__ctus me_p_mia." Cri_inwng
e__1er Theories wh_ch m_ke ''che henads v_11shi__g in_o _ Onê (_8), Bu_ perhaps mdc%
y_ _

H_NADo_o Gy _N THE T_o TH_oLoG_Es o_ P_0cLus

T_NsIoNs IN __ToN7c rH_oLo_'r ___EN ____nR_NG _B_Gu__ _ND

___3RMATIoN o_ THE SoLIJT_oN IN III g.36
In hct, _is pasæe (book three, chapter nine _3_. IO-1_IJ is _e onI__
one where _roIw _Iici_ly caIls both of The principles henads. A Ij_le t_er,
and_ing pri_ _e Being as mixed, he sa_ (37.2 l-28):

_e mi_e4 _erefoIe, as we have sa id. proceed from che priIne, and i_ noc only depends
4pon principIes _at come dcer _e One, but _t p___ D__ __ _m chem coo_ and i_ _ ___c
_csc, un_r che accIon of God, ic r_eives by _jpa_a_ che uns_akabIe _N, and
cotWy of ics __ iscen%, from _e Llmit, ic _ i_ __ _ and iEs uniForm s__ _iN,,
whlle from _e Untimiced it recei_s power and _e _ddm inclusion oF dJ __ _n
if (tc_nslacIon mine).

me wor_ not only depends upon'' p Tobably refer ta the moment of Te-
maining (_am) in _e mixed, in che sense of_racIus famou5 triad of_cli_
cau_cion, w__ _ vdid on dl Iyels of his syscem. _roceed_' means thac
The mixed is na Iongec only J1e same as __ __ but has mov_ ou_ide
of them and acquired same di_erence. _e mo5t inferes_ing _hi_ _ noce
here is, how%er, a re Ference to the in_Ie uni_ and _he action of God.
These _ings are inrrod4ad before the Limit. Samehow _roclw is bn_ing
the One its_finta pJayas causing the _nt imaginabJe form ofuni_. I chink
_ha_ for _ra_w in_ble uni_ here is the same thing as the one ca which
he refen _i_ in __Mic JJ_o__ and the Commentay on _armenides
by _he incri_ng te_ su_runi_. _is is The place and scace of rhe henads
considered un_lded _efore and beyond any manifestations an oncic levels.
In the third place _rocIus sam (_2.2_26):

And IfI musc scace my opinion, I wou_d s_y __ _e One IlselF _s _e Limic I_%lfa_ s_e
cime_ irl the same _ner as che _rsc multipIiy_ i_i_ mWciplic_y. Ind_, i_ __
dI of che power of the UnIi_ce_ since ic pIodu_ bo_ aJI henads and aU b_n_, and
ID _ ceases noc to h F_t __ _ong _e most p_nic41ar heings, and _t Ls ch_e_ce
an l___ more coral chan _ _y of__I muItiplI_y and inapprehensiblg In_nj

He_ _e primd One i_seIF_ _p_nted as a _rst Limit, the nrsr Unlimited
as a _rsT m41cipIici_ and rhe pocency producing all the hen_ and bein_+
Instead ofthe action ofGod and the LimiE-seen in the p_iaw p_ag0 as

the One v_nish inca che tlenads. l do n_ say _is as a merely dog_6c crijsm, buc admic_ing
_c Bu__s _cerprenrion coWd _cJ_ _uLh_cic _rocIe_ inuncion whi_ _rocIW cermino-
lo_ _d _ha_ h_s sEiJiing co _ PIaconic _ncept_on oF parcicip_tion made impossible co
_rm__e _ore _earIy. AccudIy, Bu_er _ _ond _cocIean reconstruction com_s positlve
___an of a modem _I__c __ of henads _ superindivid4aIs. _is a__e_menc
j _ i_p_ve piece ofmcema_c ___' i cheoIo_ and ad such c0 conceive _rocIus' in-
tenjon ___ chan _roclw _u Id __ _ it t&eIfwiThln the fi_mework of_latonlst cecep_on
and concepcu_I caoI5 ofhls time.
Jq Tuomo _N_ln

an independenc accar-their functioM _ reduce_ brou__ back, or co use

a re_ once much u_d in _lotinian s_dies in si1niIar s_uations, relescoped,
co _e One itself.
But is this passage a re_ra€ion of the scacus of henads for pracologicd
principles! _erhaps only apparently s0. IF_e Limit is One Itselfhow could
ic be 5omeching other chan a henad, because we are surely treacing here One
in i_ reIacion ca pr_euion ofbeings. _us the henadic condition ofp_r__
is here amrmed and nat rejened. _e _e with che UnIimiced is tricWer.
_roclus idea of rhe speci_c inrernd reIa_on beM_n _e henads, chat _h_
a_ dI in each, caWd jusci_, hawever, a reading that sees implied "other_' in
_roclw wor_ 4_ henads." l_mic gives to all other henads and is in chem
chac by which chey are comparabIe to _e One 0d ro each o_er, chac is
uni_. Unlimited gives and is in the_ _t by w_ch _ey are _mparable
mth each ocher, _a_ is hawng the same divine and 4nitary condition b_
being di_erenc in su_rin_viduaIiy as bearers of che pre-exiscenc, preontic
distinnions. We can wonder what this reaWy means, but some_i_g Iihe _his
swely is the late Neop1atonic view. At leas_ Limic _usc be a henad, _herwi5e
we have mo dæ_nt cheori_ expIaining same thing, procession aF beings
from the One, and chis woWd serio4s1y jeopwdize the monistic structure of
the _rocIean chinWng,
However, rhe mention aFprimordid principles as henads, is nor a casud,
singWar choi_ aFwords. In his d_criprion ofche _r_ ontic tria_ in __tonic
_eolo_ _roclus æain, and €his time _r_aps morc _herencIy, recu_s to the
sol4rion given in _/_to_ic _eo/o_ III _ (3_. IO-l6}. 0mparing the inceI-
Ii_ble Triads wiJl the inceIligibJe and inteIlectud criads in the founh part of
___%jr _eo__ (IV (3) IG.l7-l7. I4), _roclw shows how the incelligible
triads are composed in the following m_ in che _nc triad we have Iimiced,
in_niy, and being (_rst mixed), in the _and criad henad, _Ten_ and in-
_Iligible li_e, and in _e third cjiad hen_d, poten_ and intelligible intel1ect.
Even as _roclus calls _e primd component a henad onty in che second and
chird triads and Iimit in rhe _rst, he is equaj_ Limic and _e henad in each
case, as is proved by €he passages deding wi_ _e same me__ hysicd l_el in
_e __Mm1__ Commm__, wherc he says: "For there is one henad co each
inceIligibIe triad; a mWEipliciy ofhenads is disceEnible _rsc in the _rsc rank
o f the iMeIt i gi bl e-_n d_ in cellec tu_: ' 2 '
On _e who1e, che mutuaI rel__onship beNreen the primordial principles
is more bdanced in __us ma_%m op__ than in the _lements. Only auTa
anEtpia is presenE in che _lemm_.26 _roc1w wys chac _tencies are divided
into g Eoups domin_ted by Limit ar UnIimi_d, buc alI __nci_ derive _am

25. J_ ___. V I , l O_l .2_24. Tr_ns_o_ Morrow and DilIon

2G. _p_p. _2, 82 30.
_pp_p

H_NA_o_o Gy _N THE Two TnEoLoGIES oF _Roc Lus 7_

che _rsc Unlimired. Why does rheTe no_ exis€ €he na€urdly cor__n_ng
pfoposition €ha_ dl limi€edness is from a primd limi€!'' Bu€Ier _Ics rhaT
chis dominance of Unlimi_ed-IMniy in che pEesenTaTion of The _lem__ is
accoun€ed _r by _e wor_ p_Wi_ emphasis on the cluster of cancepts
such as power, poren_, ecemi_ and sa on-in brief, with the concepr which
from €he point ofwew af__nii _eolo_ belangs to the area ofrhe second
inceIIigibIe _ad._ _e __, _'' '' _'' d_ project is the sco_ ofcausdi_; the stocy of
che __Fonj M_o___ is mare _mprehensive and deals with the pracession
o(gods and _e ariiWarion afdiwni_ in the procession ofbeings. lec us
remember that _is anicWawan is __ ressed in the _dysis ofthe iMeIligibIe
criads. In €he __, _'' ' _'' ',a we have, af_wse, criads , as scructural principles, b_
we do not have speci_c concepT of €he in EeIligibIe Eriads as on_c en_tin.
One reason for rhe lack afchem could be _a€ _roclus had noc dev_apd _e
theo_ oF the arcicW_ed criads when he was wricing che _/emc_t_- A feasibIe
and more fascin_ing expIanation, and convincing too, a€ Ieas€ For me, is _T
he did not 4se these concepTs, because thy were au€horized by and derived
from the C__l_e__n Or_cl Rs," and rherefore, as concepts oF reveIation, we_
inappropriare for 4se in discou Tse on pure n€iond and inceIIeccud under-
standing that che __ements represents._
_ altern_tive nptan_uan cauld puE more weight on che diach_nic
dimension in _e dnr_apment of_e cheory. _rocIu_ concept ofthe primoT-
d iaI principl_ in _e _____' _ _ _' _ _ caWd be more aWn to the view of his meMor
s i,nus._I_n_e_lie, hase anoftheunlimited__n_n; msdeveIo ed

2J. _edl P_. III, 3I .__ in__ so and _w seems ro be a more J1oroughIy _aughc
pr%enra_ion of_e _ _pic.
28. Bu_Icr, M__a_, 22O.
2_. _ur r_e __ecc of_e Fa_er d_ ch_t d1 _lng._ be divided in chrees;' che _amous,
Fragmenc 22of_e___ ____'_ aa__whi__oclus cins InPAtm.VI lO_l._ _ndJi2 TïJn. III,
243,2 I TransIanan Mo_ and _Ilon.
30. J2___ment_ avaids same cerms wIdely wed 1n ____ JJNo__ (_d ProcIus commen-
_ries) whi_ ha_e speci_c Chdduan wn_ _e _ p__ of_e _ pnncipI_ is ch rdc -
ceri_ed in _Tas iIlumlnacion (or rdiacian), buc never u__a, __jcd_ _- afca4_. _roJw __
noc %11ling co we nren IEss epapcic cerm symbo Io_, d_u_ in _e _A___ _ o,__' Commmr__ i_
is used aIso for auth_ntic _hiIo_ophicaI _ncep_ of___s __I__ _T_, _B o0_n m1h _rchac no
du_encic form ofhum_n WowIedge, sens__ion, __ __ n _d in_IIenual _ncuJrion, _s
capable co gr_p dlvine _n_, b4c whiIe ßT (and ß__0 ' ' _ _ _ _mmq} t0Ne many reFerenca
co _e hypernoec_c f_cult_es ofthe hum_n _oul, _does noc __ _ou_ __ I_ Lheoy oF_he
po._sibi1iy af knowIedge a_out the thlngs divIne 1s _ on idea ___ _nence oF Lhc h ighes_
priniplcs cauld be in_rred from their e_ects _t _e _ l_ (p_p. l23). _e "Aowcr oF _e
in___ _Wd be a __ ryela_oyconce_ for u_ in _rdue to _e cerms origins in __ C_d_e_n
___, evm iF _alus theo_ of _e h_rn_c_c dAices is based as we1l on _lotlnian viem.
3l. B_ides Sheppard Concecca Luna has _udied _roc1us relac_onship ca Syri_nus
_n_rning _he doccrine oF ch_ procoIogicd principIes, see her ''La Doccrine des _rincit7es:
S_ianw _mme source c_rueUe rr d_crinJc de _rocl_Ls 2e parcIe: andyse dc,_ cec_ ces;' _n
ma_ __ J_oI__p_ro11IcIF11__. rd ACh Segonds and C. S€eeI (Leuven, 2000), l_O-227.
76 Tuomo LAN__

more, becawe the limit of _e superes%ncial lerel was stilI cIosely Eied co
_he One i_I_ _e have seen an echo of chis theo_ in one of the passag%
af _roclus c_ed above. __tonc _eo__, however, Eesti_es ca a shifc from
this older theo_ ro a more precise and noveI view in _e m_ture chou_T of
_rocIw. One oF_e u_ceran_ expressing his growing precision in this area
emerges _m _r_w criciiism ofthe Clatinian concept ofincelligible macter.
"Far Unlimited is not the m_cer ofLimir, but che _er of iT, nor is l_mic
che form ofthe U_ic, buc _e (mode o_ _iscence oric. Buc Being consi5n
ofbo_ ch_e, as nor onIy s_nding in _e ane, buc receiving a muItitude of
henad5 and powers which are mingIed inco one _nce:'J'

CoNcLus_oN
_roclus hen_doIogical _heo_ is e_pressed in somewhac di_erent ways
in the nnro works which have ticles refening to _eolo_. me ambiguiu%
of che shorcer wark are, co so_e extent, solved in the Ionger. _e crucid
mod___jons ofhis views on protologr and the donrine ofhenads couId be
__ plained on the diachronic leveI as _ movement from a th_y dependenT
on Syrianus to a view which is thac ofProcIus in his old age. Nterna_ively,
they __ be explined from rhe poinr of view of the di_erent designs and
aims ofthe nvo _eologies. _e _naI dispelIing ofche ambigwries seems not
ta be possibIe, remaininB inside the a_a ofevidence of che ___c_ and che
___onj JJ_o__, but we are dways compelled to seek further light rrom rhe
Com_, ___' '___ o_ P_1m_ide_. One di_erence bemreen _eotogies versions of
henadology seems ca be undeniabIe: _Th_ not d_nite answer to proble_
ofhenads and proralogicd princip1es, _Thardly could Ieave doubc on che
(act thar at Ieasc Wmit is a he_ according to _rocl4s.
From these works as a whoIe a genecaI represen_ation af procession
emerges, in which the ine_able uni_ ofhenads is 5een as a pool ofpre-ew_g
pro_nies far beings. Unlimited pic_s up all of chem, tri_ering a continu-
ous loop ofproducfion, but Limir m_ures this process, setting dererminate
breahs at cerrain points, and thus che incerpIayaFthe principles forms de_nite
patterns ofexistence+ As limic m__ wes UnIimited chere re__1_E1 ind_ermi-
nace pocenci_ a_er each bredcpoinT and the procession meets chese as its
macrer for _he next loop of fhe unfolding of_inences. mis cycle goa on so
far that dl che pre-exiscing cha_cceriscics are anuaIized in the ontic domin
as a Form ofm_ing, ca_ities of_sences, buc even a_eT the last loop theK
remains ulnmate inde_niren_s, pure macter ar _c Iower end ofdl, wiJ1out
impression or illumination ofany parTicular henad, op_sed co the ine_abIe
uni_-b4c e1ren ic is __ wed by Ehe One.

32 __oI. _/_t. III 40 _8 Bucle_s cr_nsIa_iun madj_ed