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