Proclus prop 180 · creuzer page 270

Πᾶς νοῦς ὅλος ἐστίν, ὡς ἐκ μερῶν ὑποστὰς ἕκαστος, καὶ ἥνωται τοῖς ἄλλοις, καὶ διακέκριται ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν. Ἀλλ᾽ ὁ μὲν ἀμέθεκτος νοῦς ἁπλῶς ὅλος, ὡς τὰ μέρη πάντα ὁλικῶς ἔχων ἐν ἑαυτῷ, τῶν δὲ μερικῶν ἕκαστος, ὡς ἐν μέρει τὸ ὅλον ἔχει. Καὶ οὕτω πάντα ἐστὶ μερικῶς· εἰ γὰρ καθ᾽ ἓν πάντα, τὸ δὲ καθ᾽ ἓν οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἐστίν, ἢ μερικῶς, τὸ ἄρα ὅλον οὕτως ἐστὶν ἐν ἑκάστῳ τούτων μερικῶς, καθ᾽ ἕν τι τῶν μερικῶν, ἐπικρατοῦν ἐν τοῖς πᾶσιν, ἀφοριζόμενον.

Every intellect is a whole, in that each has its hypostasis out of parts, and is unified with the others, and is distinguished from them. But the unparticipated intellect is a whole without qualification, since it holds all the parts in itself in the manner of a whole; whereas each of the particular intellects holds the whole in a part. And in this way it is all things particularly. For if it is all things singly, and to be singly is nothing other than to be particularly, then the whole is present in each of these in that way, particularly — according to some one of the particular characters, which prevails among them all and marks it off.

Bardenhewer cites this for the closing sentences of LdC 8: 'Zu den Schluss-Sätzen vergleiche man These 180.' LdC 8 has no direct source in the Elements (see el.12), so 180 and 12 are comparanda rather than ancestors — the LdC 8 crux must say so on its face rather than present either as the source. Phase 3 translation note. καθ᾽ ἕν in the second movement is ambiguous between 'in a single respect' and 'one by one'; the English takes it as 'singly', which is what the equation with μερικῶς ('in a particular way') requires. ἀμέθεκτος is 'unparticipated' per the glossary.

creuzer_numeral=ρπ΄

In the crux Liber de causis, proposition 8