ciple for each of the offspring： one of the parents… the male let us say… is the source； and the offspring is determined not by Reason…Principles differing from child to child but by one only； the father's or that of the father's father。 No： a distinct Reason…Principle may be the determinant for the child since the parent contains all： they would become effective at different times。 And so of the differences among children of the same parents： it is a matter of varying dominance： either the offspring… whether it so appears or not… has been mainly determined by； now； the male； now； the female or； while each principle has given itself entire and lies there within； yet it effectively moulds one portion of the bodily substance rather than another。 And how ＇by the theory of a divine archetype of each individual＇ are the differences caused by place to be explained？ Is the differentiating element to be found in the varying resistance of the material of the body？ No： if this were so； all men with the exception of one only would be untrue to nature。 Difference everywhere is a good； and so there must be differing archetypes； though only to evil could be attribute any power in Matter to thwart nature by overmastering the perfect Reason…Principles； hidden but given； all。 Still； admitting the diversity of the Reason…principles； why need there by as many as there are men born in each Period； once it is granted that different beings may take external manifestation under the presence of the same principles？ Under the presence of all； agreed： but with the dominance of the very same？ That is still open to question。 May we not take it that there may be identical reproduction from one Period to another but not in the same Period？ 3。 In the case of twin birth among human beings how can we make out the Reason…Principles to be different； and still more when we turn to the animals and especially those with litters？ Where the young are precisely alike； there is one Reason…Principle。 But this would mean that after all there are not as many Reason Principles as separate beings？ As many as there are of differing beings； differing by something more than a mere failure in complete reproduction of their Idea。 And why may not this ＇sharing of archetype＇ occur also in beings untouched by differentiation； if indeed there be any such？ A craftsman even in constructing an object identical with a model must envisage that identity in a mental differentiation enabling him to make a second thing by bringing in some difference side by side with the identity： similarly in nature； where the thing comes about not by reasoning but in sole virtue of Reason…Principles； that differentiation must be included in the archetypal idea； though it is not in our power to perceive the difference。 The consideration of Quantity brings the same result： If production is undetermined in regard to Quantity； each thing has its distinct Reason…Principle： if there is a measured system the Quantity has been determined by the unrolling and unfolding of the Reason…Principles of all the existences。 Thus when the universe has reached its term； there will be a fresh beginning； since the entire Quantity which the Kosmos is to exhibit； every item that is to emerge in its course； all is laid up from the first in the Being that contains the Reason…Principles。 Are we； then； looking to the brute realm； to hold that there are as many Reason…Principles as distinct creatures born in a litter？ Why not？ There is nothing alarming about such limitlessness in generative forces and in Reason…Principles； when Soul is there to sustain all。 As in Soul ＇principle of Life＇ so in Divine Mind ＇principle of Idea＇ there is this infinitude of recurring generative powers； the Beings there are unfailing。 EIGHTH TRACTATE。
ON THE INTELLECTUAL BEAUTY。
1。 It is a principle with us that one who has attained to the vision of the Intellectual Beauty and grasped the beauty of the Authentic Intellect will be able also to come to understand the Father and Transcendent of that Divine Being。 It concerns us； then； to try to see and say； for ourselves and as far as such matters may be told； how the Beauty of the divine Intellect and of the Intellectual Kosmos may be revealed to contemplation。 Let us go to the realm of magnitudes： Suppose two blocks of stone lying side by side： one is unpatterned； quite untouched by art； the other has been minutely wrought by the craftsman's hands into some statue of god or man； a Grace or a Muse； or if a human being； not a portrait but a creation in which the sculptor's art has concentrated all loveliness。 Now it must be seen that the stone thus brought under the artist's hand to the beauty of form is beautiful not as stone… for so the crude block would be as pleasant… but in virtue of the form or idea introduced by the art。 This form is not in the material； it is in the designer before ever it enters the stone； and the artificer holds it not by his equipment of eyes and hands but by his participation in his art。 The beauty； therefore； exists in a far higher state in the art； for it does not come over integrally into the work； that original beauty is not transferred； what comes over is a derivative and a minor： and even that shows itself upon the statue not integrally and with entire realization of intention but only in so far as it has subdued the resistance of the material。 Art； then； creating in the image of its own nature and content； and working by the Idea or Reason…Principle of the beautiful object it is to produce； must itself be beautiful in a far higher and purer degree since it is the seat and source of that beauty； indwelling in the art； which must naturally be more complete than any comeliness of the external。 In the degree in which the beauty is diffused by entering into matter； it is so much the weaker than that concentrated in unity； everything that reaches outwards is the less for it； strength less strong； heat less hot； every power less potent； and so beauty less beautiful。 Then again every prime cause must be； within itself； more powerful than its effect can be： the musical does not derive from an unmusical source but from music； and so the art exhibited in the material work derives from an art yet higher。 Still the arts are not to be slighted on the ground that they create by imitation of natural objects； for； to begin with； these natural objects are themselves imitations； then； we must recognise that they give no bare reproduction of the thing seen but go back to the Ideas from which Nature itself derives； and； furthermore； that much of their work is all their own； they are holders of beauty and add where nature is lacking。 Thus Pheidias wrought the Zeus upon no model among things of sense but by apprehending what form Zeus must take if he chose to become manifest to sight。 2。 But let us leave the arts and consider those works produced by Nature and admitted to be naturally beautiful which the creations of art are charged with imitating； all reasoning life and unreasoning things alike； but especially the consummate among them； where the moulder and maker has subdued the material and given the form he desired。 Now what is the beauty here？ It has nothing to do with the blood or the menstrual process： either there is also a colour and form apart from all this； or there is nothing unless sheer ugliness or a bare recipient； as it were the mere Matter of beauty。 Whence shone forth the beauty of Helen； battle…sought； or of all those women like in loveliness to Aphrodite； or of Aphrodite herself； or of any human being that has been perfect in beauty； or of any of these gods manifest to sight； or unseen but carrying what would be beauty if we saw？ In all these is it not the Idea； something of that realm but communicated to the produced from within the producer just as in works of art； we held； it is communicated from the arts to their creations？ Now we can surely not believe that； while the made thing and the Idea thus impressed upon Matter are beautiful； yet the Idea not so alloyed but resting still with the creator… the Idea primal； immaterial； firmly a unity… is not Beauty。 If material extension were in itself the ground of beauty； then the creating principle； being without extension； could not be beautiful： but beauty cannot be made to depend upon magnitude since； whether in a large object or a small； the one Idea equally moves and forms the mind by its inherent power。 A further indication is that as long as the object remains outside us we know nothing of it； it affects us by entry； but only as an Idea can it enter through the eyes which are not of scope to take an extended mass： we are； no doubt； simultaneously possessed of the magnitude which； however； we take in not as mass but by an elaboration upon the presented form。 Then again the principle producing the beauty must be； itself； ugly； neutral or beautiful： ugly； it could not produce the opposite； neutral； why should its product be the one rather than the other？ The Nature； then； which creates things so lovely must be itself of a far earlier beauty； we； undisciplined in d