he　Intellectual…Principle　taken　separately；　perhaps？　　　　　No：　an　Intellect　is　always　inseparable　from　an　intelligible　object；　eliminate　the　intelligible；　and　the　Intellectual…Principle　disappears　with　it。　If；　then；　what　we　are　seeking　cannot　be　the　Intellectual…Principle　but　must　be　something　that　rejects　the　duality　there　present；　then　the　Prior　demanded　by　that　duality　must　be　something　on　the　further　side　of　the　Intellectual…Principle。　　　　　But　might　it　not　be　the　Intelligible　object　itself？　　　　　No：　for　the　Intelligible　makes　an　equally　inseparable　duality　with　the　Intellectual…Principle。　　　　　If；　then；　neither　the　Intellectual…Principle　nor　the　Intelligible　Object　can　be　the　First　Existent；　what　is？　　　　　Our　answer　can　only　be：　　　　　The　source　of　both。　　　　　What　will　This　be；　under　what　character　can　we　picture　It？　　　　　It　must　be　either　Intellective　or　without　Intellection：　if　Intellective　it　is　the　Intellectual…Principle；　if　not；　it　will　be　without　even　knowledge　of　itself…　so　that；　either　way；　what　is　there　so　august　about　it？　　　　　If　we　define　it　as　The　Good　and　the　wholly　simplex；　we　will；　no　doubt；　be　telling　the　truth；　but　we　will　not　be　giving　any　certain　and　lucid　account　of　it　as　long　as　we　have　in　mind　no　entity　in　which　to　lodge　the　conception　by　which　we　define　it。　　　　　Yet：　our　knowledge　of　everything　else　comes　by　way　of　our　intelligence；　our　power　is　that　of　knowing　the　intelligible　by　means　of　the　intelligence：　but　this　Entity　transcends　all　of　the　intellectual　nature；　by　what　direct　intuition；　then；　can　it　be　brought　within　our　grasp？　　　　　To　this　question　the　answer　is　that　we　can　know　it　only　in　the　degree　of　human　faculty：　we　indicate　it　by　virtue　of　what　in　ourselves　is　like　it。　　　　　For　in　us；　also；　there　is　something　of　that　Being；　nay；　nothing；　ripe　for　that　participation；　can　be　void　of　it。　　　　　Wherever　you　be；　you　have　only　to　range　over　against　this　omnipresent　Being　that　in　you　which　is　capable　of　drawing　from　It；　and　you　have　your　share　in　it：　imagine　a　voice　sounding　over　a　vast　waste　of　land；　and　not　only　over　the　emptiness　alone　but　over　human　beings；　wherever　you　be　in　that　great　space　you　have　but　to　listen　and　you　take　the　voice　entire…　entire　though　yet　with　a　difference。　　　　　And　what　do　we　take　when　we　thus　point　the　Intelligence？　　　　　The　Intellectual…Principle　in　us　must　mount　to　its　origins：　essentially　a　thing　facing　two　ways；　it　must　deliver　itself　over　to　those　powers　within　it　which　tend　upward；　if　it　seeks　the　vision　of　that　Being；　it　must　become　something　more　than　Intellect。　　　　　For　the　Intellectual…Principle　is　the　earliest　form　of　Life：　it　is　the　Activity　presiding　over　the　outflowing　of　the　universal　Order…　the　outflow；　that　is；　of　the　first　moment；　not　that　of　the　continuous　process。　　　　　In　its　character　as　Life；　as　emanation；　as　containing　all　things　in　their　precise　forms　and　not　merely　in　the　agglomerate　mass…　for　this　would　be　to　contain　them　imperfectly　and　inarticulately…　it　must　of　necessity　derive　from　some　other　Being；　from　one　that　does　not　emanate　but　is　the　Principle　of　Emanation；　of　Life；　of　Intellect　and　of　the　Universe。　　　　　For　the　Universe　is　not　a　Principle　and　Source：　it　springs　from　a　source；　and　that　source　cannot　be　the　All　or　anything　belonging　to　the　All；　since　it　is　to　generate　the　All；　and　must　be　not　a　plurality　but　the　Source　of　plurality；　since　universally　a　begetting　power　is　less　complex　than　the　begotten。　Thus　the　Being　that　has　engendered　the　Intellectual…Principle　must　be　more　simplex　than　the　Intellectual…Principle。　　　　　We　may　be　told　that　this　engendering　Principle　is　the　One…and…All。　　　　　But；　at　that；　it　must　be　either　each　separate　entity　from　among　all　or　it　will　be　all　things　in　the　one　mass。　　　　　Now　if　it　were　the　massed　total　of　all；　it　must　be　of　later　origin　than　any　of　the　things　of　which　it　is　the　sum；　if　it　precedes　the　total；　it　differs　from　the　things　that　make　up　the　total　and　they　from　it：　if　it　and　the　total　of　things　constitute　a　co…existence；　it　is　not　a　Source。　But　what　we　are　probing　for　must　be　a　Source；　it　must　exist　before　all；　that　all　may　be　fashioned　as　sequel　to　it。　　　　　As　for　the　notion　that　it　may　be　each　separate　entity　of　the　All；　this　would　make　a　self…Identity　into　a　what　you　like；　where　you　like；　indifferently；　and　would；　besides；　abolish　all　distinction　in　things　themselves。　　　　　Once　more　we　see　that　this　can　be　no　thing　among　things　but　must　be　prior　to　all　things。　　　　　10。　And　what　will　such　a　Principle　essentially　be？　　　　　The　potentiality　of　the　Universe：　the　potentiality　whose　non…existence　would　mean　the　non…existence　of　all　the　Universe　and　even　of　the　Intellectual…Principle　which　is　the　primal　Life　and　all　Life。　　　　　This　Principle　on　the　thither　side　of　Life　is　the　cause　of　Life…　for　that　Manifestation　of　Life　which　is　the　Universe　of　things　is　not　the　First　Activity；　it　is　itself　poured　forth；　so　to　speak；　like　water　from　a　spring。　　　　　Imagine　a　spring　that　has　no　source　outside　itself；　it　gives　itself　to　all　the　rivers；　yet　is　never　exhausted　by　what　they　take；　but　remains　always　integrally　as　it　was；　the　tides　that　proceed　from　it　are　at　one　within　it　before　they　run　their　several　ways；　yet　all；　in　some　sense；　know　beforehand　down　what　channels　they　will　pour　their　streams。　　　　　Or：　think　of　the　Life　coursing　throughout　some　mighty　tree　while　yet　it　is　the　stationary　Principle　of　the　whole；　in　no　sense　scattered　over　all　that　extent　but；　as　it　were；　vested　in　the　root：　it　is　the　giver　of　the　entire　and　manifold　life　of　the　tree；　but　remains　unmoved　itself；　not　manifold　but　the　Principle　of　that　manifold　life。　　　　　And　this　surprises　no　one：　though　it　is　in　fact　astonishing　how　all　that　varied　vitality　springs　from　the　unvarying；　and　how　that　very　manifoldness　could　not　be　unless　before　the　multiplicity　there　were　something　all　singleness；　for；　the　Principle　is　not　broken　into　parts　to　make　the　total；　on　the　contrary；　such　partition　would　destroy　both；　nothing　would　come　into　being　if　its　cause；　thus　broken　up；　changed　character。　　　　　Thus　we　are　always　brought　back　to　The　One。　　　　　Every　particular　thing　has　a　One　of　its　own　to　which　it　may　be　traced；　the　All　has　its　One；　its　Prior　but　not　yet　the　Absolute　One；　through　this　we　reach　that　Absolute　One；　where　all　such　reference　comes　to　an　end。　　　　　Now　when　we　reach　a　One…　the　stationary　Principle…　in　the　tree；　in　the　animal；　in　Soul；　in　the　All…　we　have　in　every　case　the　most　powerful；　the　precious　element：　when　we　come　to　the　One　in　the　Authentically　Existent　Beings…　their　Principle　and　source　and　potentiality…　shall　we　lose　confidence　and　suspect　it　of　being…nothing？　　　　　Certainly　this　Absolute　is　none　of　the　things　of　which　it　is　the　source…　its　nature　is　that　nothing　can　be　affirmed　of　it…　not　existence；　not　essence；　not　life…　since　it　is　That　which　transcends　all　these。　But　possess　yourself　of　it　by　the　very　elimination　of　Being　and　you　hold　a　marvel。　Thrusting　forward　to　This；　attaining；　and　resting　in　its　content；　seek　to　grasp　it　more　and　more…　understanding　it　by　that　intuitive　thrust　alone；　but　knowing　its　greatness　by　the　Beings　that　follow　upon　it　and　exist　by　its　power。　　　　　Another　approach：　　　　　The　Intellectual…Principle　is　a　Seeing；　and　a　Seeing　which　itself　sees；　therefore　it　is　a　potentiality　which　has　become　effective。　　　　　This　implies　the　distinction　of　Matter　and　Form　in　it…　as　there　must　be　in　all　actual　seeing…　the　Matter　in　this　case　being　the　Intelligibles　which　the　Intellectual…Principle　contains　and　sees。　All　actual　seeing　implies　duality；　before　the　seeing　takes　place　there　is　the　pure　unity　＇of　the　power　of　seeing＇。　That　unity　＇of　principle＇　acquires　duality　＇in　the　act　of　seeing＇；　and　the　duality　is　＇always　to　be　traced　back　to＇　a　unity。　　　　　Now　as　our　sight　requires　the　world　of　sense　for　its　satisfaction　and　realization；　so　the　vision　in　the　Intellectual…Principle　demands；　for　its　completion；　The　Good。　　　　　It　cannot　be；　itself；　The　Good；　since　then　it　would　not　need　to　see　or　to　perform　any　other　Act；　for　The　Good　is　the　centre　of　all　else；　and　it　is　by　means　of　The　Good　that　every　thing　has　Act；　while　the　Good　is　in　need　of　nothing　and　therefore　possesses　nothing　beyond　itself。　　　　　Once　you　have　uttered　〃The　Good；〃　add　no　further　thought：　by　any　addition；　and　in　proportion　to　that　addition；　you　introduce　a　deficiency。　　　　　Do　not　even　say　that　it　has　Intellection；　you　would　be　dividing　it；　it　would　become　a　duality；　Intellect　and　the　Good。　The　Good　has　no　need　of　the　Intellectual…Principle　which；　on　the　contrary；　needs　it；　and；　attaining　it；　is　shaped　into　Goodness　and　becomes　perfect　by　it：　the　Form　thus　received；　sprung　from　the　Good；　brings　it　to　likeness　with　the　Good。　　　　　Thus　the　traces　of　the　Good　discerned　upon　it　must　be　taken　as　indication　of　the　nature　of　that　Archetype：　we　form　a　conception　of　its　Authentic　Being　from　its　image　playing　upon　the　Intellectual…Principle。　This　image　of　itself；　it　has　communicated　to　the　Intellect　that　contemplates　it：　thus　all　the　striving　is　on　the　side　of　the　Intellect；　which　is　the　eternal　striver　and　eternally　the　attainer。　The　Being　beyond　neither　strives；　since　it　feels　no　lack；　nor　attains；　since　it　has　no　striving。　And　this　marks　it　off　from　the　Intellectual…Principle；　to　which　characteristica