Problems Concerning First Principles

we walk upon emptiness, reaching toward the nothingness. For that which is not even "One" is, in the truest sense, "no thing." For where original: "πόθεν γάρ ὅ τι"...

6) Regarding "not even" oude neither/nor, the Venetian and Monacensis manuscripts more correctly provide "nothing" ouden nothing. Regarding "of another" allou g. of another for, the Monacensis manuscript has "but not" all’ ou g. but not for. The specimen of the Venetian books ends here; I wish it were my fortune to compare them further! I shall append the translation of this chapter by way of a commentary:

Therefore, our soul presages that the principle of those things—which we conceive in any way as "All" and as the sum of things—exists beyond "All," and is not held to be joined with "All." Thus, it should not be named a principle or a cause; nor, furthermore, should it be called the First, nor that which precedes all, nor that which is further than all. Finally, it can scarcely even be predicated as "All" itself, since it cannot be predicated at all, nor formed by the mind, nor touched by suspicion. For whatever we think of, or shape by reason (abstraction), is either a part of "All"—and this approach nears the truth—or, when purified (conceived as a mere and sincere form), it is the entirety of things itself. By this path (let him who wishes read k’an ei eis even if into), through dissolving and being dissolved (that is, purifying the species presented to the mind, and being purified by the mind itself), although we ascend to the simplest, which, being the most comprehensive of all, holds all things—such as the final circumference, not only of those things which are, but even of those which are not (such as the to ti the something, the highest genus of the Stoics, and others). For of those things that are, the Unified and the fundamentally Indiscrete is proclaimed as the limit and summit. For whatever is, consists of a mixture of elements. But the limit of the many is, simply, the One; a thing than which we have nothing simpler to form in our minds, that is, the One, which is the root, pure and simple. Although we may name this the principle, the cause, the first, and the simplest, it holds these and all other things uniquely there (in the inaccessible, impenetrable, and unassailable fortress of its nature) by the fact that it is One. Since we cannot conceive this with our minds, we are distracted about it while we predicate of it things that are divided in our own minds. Indeed, we dishonor it to the degree that we deny the many to be present to the One. Therefore, it can neither be known nor named; for in this way, it would also be many. Or are these things also present in the One according to its nature? For the nature of the One holds all, produces all, and there is nothing that is not one. For this reason, all things evolve from it. That is properly called the cause and the first; that is the end and the limit; that is the pinnacle and the crown original: "pinna fastigiumque" toward the unity of all; that is the unique nature (progenitor) of the many—not that nature which departed from the One into these (the many), but that which precedes them and produces their power and nature. That is the marvel, how individual a summit it is of those things which are called "All" in whatever way they may be; that is the greatest circumference of those things which are called "wholes" and "solids" in whatever way they may be. But if the One makes and contains all things, how do we reach beyond it? So that we do not run into the void, contending toward "Nothing" itself. For what is not even one, this, strictly speaking, is not at all. How could it be that there is anything beyond the one? For the many need nothing else but the One; for this reason, only the One is the cause of the many; and therefore, the One is surely the cause, because the cause of the many falls only into the One. Certainly, "Nothing" itself is not a cause, since it produces nothing. Nor are the many themselves the cause; for as they are many, they are not held together; furthermore, the many would not stand out as a single cause.