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

But whichever of these we admit, there is a paradigmatic cause prior to the world. Farther still, since the Demiurgus is intellect, if he produces by his very being,p. 470 he produces that which is most similar to himself. But this is to produce an image of himself. If, however, he produces from deliberation, this is entirely and in every respect unworthy of the demiurgic cause. And if some one should admit this to be the case, yet it will follow that the form of the demiurgic work pre-exists in him. For every one who deliberates and consults, antecedently assumes in himself the paradigm of that about which he deliberates. “This therefore, may be demonstrated through many other arguments, that it is necessary the paradigm of the world should have an existence prior to the w orld, and especially when the demiurgic cause is pre-supposed. For it is necessary that the Demiurgus being intellectual, should either be ignorant of the order of what is fabricated, or that he should know it. But if he isignorant of this, how can he providentially attend to it?) And how can he give arrangement to the universe? If, therefore, he knows it, how is it possible he should not comprehend that which is generated by the intellection of it, according to one cause?

In the next place, it must be considered what this paradigm is, and in what order of beings itranks. For there is a difference of opinion respecting this among the more ancient interpreters. Thus according to the divine lamblichus, that which is being itself, and which is comprehended by intelligence in conjunction with reason, is the paradigm of the universe. For he admits that ¢he one is beyond the paradigm, but shows that what is being itself concurs with it, and denominates each that which is comprehended by intelligence. But the philosopher Porphyry supposes, as we have before observed, that imparticipable soul is the Demiurgus, but that intellect is the paradigm, thus beholding in subordinate, natures which exist in more ancient and venerable orders. For Plato having said that the Demiurgus is intellect, denominates the paradigm intelligible. But this interpreter assuming soul for the Demiurgus, calls the paradigm intellect. In the third place, the admirable Theodorus dividing the demiurgic triad, and perceiving that in each monad of it there 1s a first, middle and last, calls the last’ in each animal itself, and thus says that intellect looks to animal itself; for according to him, intellect is proximately suspended from essential animal. Hence, either the essential Demiurgus does not fabricate looking to animal itself, or the paradigmatic causes are not many, or not every Demuurgus effects his proper production according to a certain paradigm, lest the maker should make looking to things posterior to himself, and thus should ignorantly sustain the passion of a partial soul,

* For ἕκαστον here, it is necessary to read ἐσχατον.

BOOK 11.} TIM/EUS OF PLATO, 271

Our preceptor, however, according to his divine intellectual conceptions, has thought fit to give this subject an appropriate examination. For of the ancients, some have made the Demiurgus himsclf to possess the paradigms of wholes, as Plotinus ; others, not the Demiurgus, but have asserted that the paradigm is prior to him, as Porphyry ; and others, as Longinus, that it is posterior to him, whom our preceptor asks, whether the Demiurgus is immediately posterior to the one, or there are also other intelligible orders, between the Demiurgus and the one. For if the Demiurgus subsists immediately after the one, it is absurd that all the multitude of intelligibles should be immediately posterior to that which is without multitude. For through numbers proximate to the one, the progression is to the whole of number, and the whole of multitude. But if there are other orders between the one and the Demiurgus, it must be investigated whether the paradigm of the universe is in the Demiurgus primarily, or posterior to, or prior to him. For if itis primarily in him, we must admit that he contains every intelligible multitude. Lor the paradigm is the most beautiful of intelligibles, so that again he will be intelligible, and not what we a little before demonstrated him to be, intellectual, though the paradigm has four ideas alone, but the Demiurgus has those which are more partial than these, viz. the ideas of the sun and moon, and each of the natures that have a perpetual subsistence. But if the paradigm is posterior to him, he will be converted to that which is less excellent, and less honorable, which it is not lawful to admit of any divine nature. So that the paradigm is prior to the Demiurgus. If, however, it is prior to the Demiurgus, whether is it seen by him, or not seen by him? To say, therefore, that it is not seen by him, does not accord with Plato and the nature of things. For it is absurd that our soul should see it, and speak about it, but that it should not be seen by intellect, and by a total intellect. But if the Demiurgus sees the intelligible, whether being converted tv himself does he see it, or does he alone perceive it external to himself? If, however, he alone sees it external to himself, he sees the image of being, and possesses sense instead of intelligence. But if converted to himself, the object of his intellectual perception will be in himself. So that the paradigm is prior to, and in the Demiurgus; intelligibly indeed prior to him, but intellectually in him,

The words of Plato also appear at one time to make the paradigm different from, and at another the same with the Demiurgus. For when he says, “ Such and so many ideas therefore, as intellect saw in that which is animal itself, so many he conceived by a dianoetic energy this universe also should possess,” he asserts that

p. 272

For when he says, “ Such and so many ideas therefore, as intellect saw in that which is animal itself, so many he conceived by a dianoetic energy this universe also should possess,” he asserts thatp. 272 the Demiurgus, as being different from the paradigm, is extended to animal itself. And again, when he says, ‘ Let us consider after the similitude of what animal the composing artificer constituted the world. Indeed, we must by no means think that he fushtoned it similar to such animals as subsist in the form of a part ; but we must admit that ut is the most similar of all things to that animal, of which other animals, both considered individually, and according to their genera, are nothing more than parts 7°—in these words also he separates him who constituted the universe from the paradigm. But when again he clearly says, "776 was good ; but in that which is good, envy can never be inherent about any thing whatever: being therefore void of this, he was willing that all things should be as much as possible similar to himself ;” here, the sameness of the Demiargus with the paradigm, appears to be manifest. So that in some places Plato says that the Demnurgus is the same, and in others, that he is differentfrom the paradigm, and very properly makes each of these assertions. For the ideas, or four monads of ideas, prior to the fabrication of things subsist intelligibly ; but the order of forms proceeds into the Demiurgus; aud the whole number of ideas ts one of the monads which he contains. Orpheus also indicating these things says, that the intelligible God [Phanes] was absorbed by the Demiurgus of wholes. And Plato asserts that the Demiurgus looks to the paradigm, indicating through sight intellectual perception. According to the theolovist, however, the Demiurgus leaps as it were to the intelligible God, and as the fable says, absorbs him. For if it be requisite clearly to unfold the doctrine of our preceptor, the God who ts called Protogonus by Orpheus, and who is established at the end of intelligibles, is animal itself,’ with Plato. Hence it is eternal, and the most beautiful of intelligibles, and is in intelligibles that which Jupiter is in intellectuals. Each however is the boundary of these orders.*| And the former indeed, is the first of paradigmatic causes; but the latter is the most monadic of demiurgic causes. Hence Jupiter is united to the paradigm through Night as the medium, and being filled from thence, becomes an intelligible world, as in intellectuals.

Then of Protogonus the mighty strength
Was seen; for in his belly he contain’d

* For τῳ αὐτοθωψ here, read τὸ avrozwoy.

* 1. @, Protogonus is the boundary of the intelligible, and Jupiter of the intellectual order,

p. 273

The whole ἡ of things, and mingled where ’twas fit,
The force and powerful vigour of the God.
Hence, with the universe great Jove contains, &c.