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

* 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.

Very properly, therefore, does Plato now say that the Demiurgus looked to the paradigm, in order that becoming all things through the intellectual perception of it, he may give subsistence to the sensible world. For the paradigm was the universe intelligibly, but the Demiurgus intellectually, and the world sensibly. Ilence also the theologist says:

For in his sacred heart he these conceal’d,
And into joyful light again reveal'’d.

That the world therefore, was generated according to a paradigm, what this paradigm is, after what manner it is above, and how it is in, the demiurgic intellect, is manifest thronch what has been said.

Some however doubt why Plato inquires whether the world was fabricated according to that which is generated, or according to that which is intelligible ; for there is not any other generated nature in order that the universe might be fabricated with relation to it. If therefore the inquiry had been concerning Socrates, or any other partial nature, the question, say they, would have been reasonable. But as the inquiry is concerning the universe, is it not impossible it should have been constituted with relation to that which is generated? For what other generated nature is there besides the universe?) We may dissolve this doubt however, by recollecting what has been frequently said, that Plato calls soul generated, so far as it participates of time. But the inquiry here is, what is the paradizm of the universe, whether itis soul, or intellect, or the intelligible? For these are the only things that are eternal. And on this account he asks, whether the world was generated with relation to a generated or to an eternal nature. After this manner, as it has appeared to some, the doubt may be solved. May it not, however be possible to solve it, by another more perfect method, through which it will also be evident that the confused and disorderly nature prior to the

* In the original τῶν xarrwr Se Sepas, the word Seas or body obviously signifying whole. Tn this sense also, the word σώμα, which ts likewise body, is used by Aristotle in Lib. 2, Cap. 2. of his Meteors. For he there says, that the sea is the principle and body of all water, ἀρχὴν εἰναι καὶ σωμα του παντὸς vdaros ηδ᾽ ἐστι. This principle tov, he afterwards calls nOpocoperos oyxos, a collected bulk or mass. So that ὅεμας with Orpheus, and wa with Aristotle, have in these places the same meaning as odorms οὐ wholeness with the Platonists.

Tim. Plat. Vou. I. . 2M

p. 474

This principle tov, he afterwards calls nOpocoperos oyxos, a collected bulk or mass. So that ὅεμας with Orpheus, and wa with Aristotle, have in these places the same meaning as odorms οὐ wholeness with the Platonists.

Tim. Plat. Vou. I. . 2M

p. 474

world, must not be said, as Atticus and Plutarch thought it must, to be unbegotten? For if nothing was generated prior to the universe, it was ridiculous to inquire whether the world was generated with relation to perpetual being, or to that which is generated. This however, is now investigated. Prior to the world therefore, there was a certain generated nature. And since it was neither perpetual being, nor place ; for three things (as Plato says] were prior to the generation of the universe, viz. being, place, and generation; it is evident that the so-much celebrated confused and disorderly nature was a thing of this kind, Hence not the universe only, but that which was moved ina confused and disorderly manner, Was generated, as we have said, and had a prior subsistence. The world therefore, possessing this confused nature as matter, but the intelligible pre-existing as more excellent, whether was the universe assimilated to the material nature which it contains, or to that which is essentially more divine? For being a medium between the two, it 15 necessarily assimilated to one of the extremes. For it is supposed that the Demiurgus assumed that disorderly nature, and perceives animal itself; so that Plato very properly inquires to which of these the Demiurgus assimilates the universe, whether to that which he assumes, orto that which he sees. To these things therefore, that which follows Is conformable ; viz. that the world being beautiful, it was assimilated to the intelligible, and not to that which was moved ina confused and disorderly manner. For that which is assimilated to this is deformed.

To these things therefore, that which follows Is conformable ; viz. that the world being beautiful, it was assimilated to the intelligible, and not to that which was moved ina confused and disorderly manner. For that which is assimilated to this is deformed.

Some of the interpreters however say, that Plato does not inquire concerning the Demiurgus, according to which of the paradigms he made the world, but that he asks as with reference to us who know that there are twofold paradigms, with relation to which of these the universe was generated. And this assertion 15 after a certain manner reasonable. For we are those who look to both these paradigins, and not the Demiurgus. For it is not lawful for him to look to that which is less excellent; bat) we perceiving the natures Which are prior, and also those which are posterior to him, interrogate ourselves, in which of them it is. tit to place the paradigm. But others say that Plato adduces that which is generated, forthe sake of a perfect division, in order that he may not appear to prevent the object of investigation, whether the mundane paradigm js eternal. For supposing the paradigm to be venerated, he shows that a certain absurdity will fullow. Others again say, that since of sensibles, some are preternatural, but others according to nature ; and of these, some have the images of certain venerated natures, but others are the similitudes of them ;—hence Plato wishingp. 275 to demonstrate that the world was generated with relation to an eternal paradigm, makes a subversion of the others, on account of the universe being most beautiful. For that which is most beautiful, is neither preternatural, nor is derived from a generated paradigmatic essence 3 since that which is derived from this is not most beautiful. But because, in short, the universe is beautiful, it is not preternatural. Such therefore, is the solution of the doubt.

It is worth while however concisely to survey the accuracy of the words. For the words “ again,” and “ must be considered,” indicate the order of the problem ; viz. that it is in continuity with the things which precede it, and that this immediately follows those speculations. But the words, “ respecting him,” collect all the investizations, and refer them to the one theory about the world. For what is said about the Demiurgus and the paradigm, is assumed for the sake of the theory of the universe, The words, “ according to which of the paradigms,” separate as extremes, and as different from each other, the intelligible, and that which is generated ; the former existing among the first, but the latter among the last of beings. But the word artificer exhibits the production of form by its cause, and demiurgic art proceeding into the world. For as the theologist says, the first manual artificers gave to Jupiter the demiurgic powers of all the mundane production. And,