The Commentaries on the Timaeus of Plato — trans. Thomas Taylor

But the

divine Tamblichus speaking lottily on. these words, says that those who are exercised in the survey of intelligibles, are unadapted to the discussion of sensibles ; as also Socrates himself says in the Republic, + that those who are nurtured in pure splendor, have their eyes darkened when they descend into the cavert through the obscurity which is there; Just as it likewise happens to those who ascend from the cavern, through their Inability to look directly τὸ the hieht.” Through this cause therefore, the fourth person is wanting, as being adapted to another contemplation, that of intelligibles. 1 is also necessary: that this his infirmity, should be a transcendeney of power, aecording to which he surpasses the present theory, Lor as the power of the wicked, is rather impoteney thane power, thus also imbecillity with respect to things of a sccondary mature, Is tran scendency of power. According to famblichus therefore, the person who is wanting, is absent in consequence of betng incommensurate to physical discussions; but he would have been willingly present, if intelligibles were to have been considered, And nearly with respect to every thing [in this dialogue} prior te physiology, one of these, i.e. Porphyry, interprets every thing in amore political inanner, referring what is said to the virtues, but the other, Tamblichus, ina more physical way. Por itis necessary, that every thing should accord with the proposed scope : but the dialowue is physical, and not ethical, Such therefore, are the conclusions of the philosophers about these particulars. Por TP omit to mention those who labour to evince, that this fourth person was "Thewtetus, because he was known to those who came out of the Eleatic* school, and because we are informed felsewhere} that be was all Pence he is said to have been now absent on necount of iiness, Por this Aristocles: infers, that the absent: person wits Theatetus, who a little before the death of Socrates, beewme hnown to Socrates, and to the Elean stranger, Bat admitting that he had been Leng before known to the latter, What is there in common between Timwus and hin? ‘Phe Platonic Prolomy however, thinks that the absent person was Clitophon: for in the dialogue which bears hiv name, he is not thought deserving of an answer by Socrates, But Dereyilides is of opinion that it was Plato: for he was absent through illness, * See the beginning of the 7th book of the Republic. > Por eXeyaruov here, it eppears to me to be pecessary to read EXearjauv.

p. 17

> Por eXeyaruov here, it eppears to me to be pecessary to read EXearjauv.

p. 17

when Socrates died. These, therefore, as I have said, I omit; since it is well observed by those prior to us, that these men neither investigate what is worthy of investigation, nor assert any thing that can be depended on. All of them, likewise, attempt a thing which is of a slippery nature, and which is nothing to the purpose, even if we should discover that which is the object of their search. For to say that it was either Theaxtetus or Plato, on account of illness, does not accord with the times. For of these, the former is said to have been ill when Socrates was judged, but the latter when Socrates was dead. But to say it was Clitophon is perfectly absurd. For he was not present on the preceding day, when Socrates narrates what Clitophon said the day before, during the conference in the Pirewus; except that thus much is rightly signified by Atticus, that the absent person appears to have been one of those strangers [or guests] that were with Timeus. Hence Socrates asks Timzus where that fourth person was; and Timezus apologizes for him, as a friend, and shows that his absence was necessary, and contrary to his will. And thus much for what is said by the more ancient interpreters,

What, however, our preceptor [Syrianus] has decided on this subject, must be narrated by us, since it is remarkably conformable to the mind of Plato. He says, therefo-e, that in proportion as the auditions are about things of a more venerable and elevated nature, in such proportion the multitude of hearers is diminished. But the discussion in the Timeus becomes, as it proceeds, more mystic and arcane. TLence in the former discussion of a polity during the conference in the Pirwus, the hearers were many, and those who had names were six. But in the second conference, which is narrated by Socrates, those who receive the nar ration are four in number, And in the present conference, the fourth person is wanting; but the auditors are three. And by how much the discussion is more pure, and more intellectual, by so much the more is the number of auditors contracted. For every where that which is discussed is a monad.—But at one time, it is accompanied with contention; on which account also, the auditors have the indefinite, and the definite is extended into multitude, in which the odd is complicated with the even. At another time, however, the discussion is narrative, yet is not liberated from opposition, and dialectic contests. Hence also, the auditors are four in number; the tetrad through its tetragonic nature, and alliance to the monad, possessing similitude and sameness ; but through the nature of the even, possessing difference and multitude. And at another time' the discussion

* It is necessary to supply in this place, the words owov δε. Tim. Plat. Vou. I. Cc

p. 18

And at another time' the discussion

* It is necessary to supply in this place, the words owov δε. Tim. Plat. Vou. I. Ccp. 18 is exempt from all agonistic doctrine, the theory being unfolded enunciatively, and narrafively. Hence, the triad is adapted to the recipients of it, since this number is in every respect connascent with the monad, is the first odd number, and is perfect. For as of the virtues, some of them subsist in souls the parts of which are in a state of hostility to each other, and measure the hostility of these parts ; but others separate indeed from this hostility, yet are not perfectly liberated from it; and others are entirely separated from it;—thus also ‘of discussions, some indeed are agonistic, others are enunciative, and others are in a certain respect media between both. Some, indeed, being adapted to intellectual tranquillity, and to the intellectual energy of the soul; but others to doxastic energies; and others to the lives that subsist between these. Moreover, of auditors likewise, some are commensurate to more elevated auditions, but others to such as are of a more groveling nature. And the auditors indeed of grander subjects, are also capable of attending to such as are subordinate; but those who are naturally adapted to subjects of less importance, are unable to understand such as are more venerable. Thus also with respeet to the virtues, he who has the greater possesses likewise the less; but he who is adorned with the inferior, is not entirely a partaker also of the more perfect virtues,