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

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,

Who thunder, and the lightning formed for Jove.
Vulcan and Pallas the first artists, taught

Jove all the dadal arts, the world contains.

Plato therefore following what the theologist here asserts, continually uses the words τέχτὴνάμενος and erexryvara, Which signify fabricative energy, when speaking of the demiurgic production, But the words, “ according to that which sub sists with invartable sameness,” indicate the eternal paradigm of the universe, which is the first of eternal natures, and is established at the end of the first intelligibles. And again, “ that which was generated” signities, that which was moved in a confused and disorderly manner. For this is a composite, is much mingled, and alter-motive, or moved by another; all which are the clements of a generated nature. Tle does not therefore say that this disorderly nature is unbegotten and incorruptible, and that the world is generated and corruptible; but that the former of these was generated, as being alter-motive and co-mingled. For Plato clearly says, that prior to the generation of the universe there were these threep. 276 things, place, generation, and being. And it is evident that by generation he means the confused and disorderly nature. Generation therefore is this; and the world is unbegotten according to temporal generation. Hence these things are more concordant with Plato, and with our unperverted cpinions about the universe.

Indeed, if this world is beautiful, and the Demiurgus of it 1s good, it is evident that he looked to an eternal paradigin; but if he is not good, which it is not lawful for any one to assert, he looked to that which was generated.”

In the first place, it is requisite that we should understand the logical method of Plato, in order that we may see how demonstratively it proceeds. For from the hypotheses he had these twofold axioms, that what is generated according to an eternal paradigm is beautiful; but that what is generated according to a generated paradigin ts not beautiful. The converse however to these are, that what is beautiful was generated according to an eternal paradigm, but what is not beautiful was not generated according to an eternal paradigm. Por τὸ the opposite of

The converse however to these are, that what is beautiful was generated according to an eternal paradigm, but what is not beautiful was not generated according to an eternal paradigm. Por τὸ the opposite of that which precedes, the opposite of that which is consequent follows, then these reciprocate with cach other, and that which was proposed from the beginning is demonstrated, through a deduction to an impossibility. Por if that whieh is beautiful was generated according to a generated paradigin, but that which is so generated is not beautiful, through one of the axioms, then it will follow that what is not beautiful is beautiful, Why therefore, did not Plato immediately in the hypotheses assume these axioms, viz. that what is beautiful was generated according to an eternal paradigm, what is not beautiful was not so generated ; but those to which these are the converse, though he intended to use the former, and not the latter in his demonstration? In answer to this, it must be said, that the latter which commence from causes, are more adapted to hypotheses, but the former which are derived from things caused, are more allied τὸ things posterior to hypotheses. For when he says, “ That which was generated according toaneternal paradigm ts beautiful,” he begins froin causes, but ends in that which is caused. But when vice versa, le says, Zhat is beautiful which was generated according toan eternal paradigm,” he makes the beautiful to be precedancous, but the cause consequent. He employs therefore, the former of these, in order that

ΣΝ με. «ὦ δ. κ᾿.

p. 277he may assume things adapted to principles and causes in the hypotheses, but he employs the latter, which is the converse of the former, in the demonstrations, selecting that whieh is appropriate to: the things demonstrated. Hence laying down these four axioms, he very properly enquires concerning the universe, Whether itis beautiful, or is not beautiful. Brat if indeed the world is beautiful, it was generated according to an eternal paradigin; bat if it is not beautiful, according to a generated paradigm. That the world however is beautiful, is evident from sense, ΠῚ was therefore generated according to an eternal paradigm.

Brat if indeed the world is beautiful, it was generated according to an eternal paradigin; bat if it is not beautiful, according to a generated paradigm. That the world however is beautiful, is evident from sense, ΠῚ was therefore generated according to an eternal paradigm.

Since however beanty is imparted to the world from_ the paradigm, through the demiurgie cause as a medium, in the proposition which precedes, for the purpose of showing that the world is beautiful, he assumes that the Demiurgus is good. For every artificer, who is a good artist, has dominion over his proper matter, and superinduces the form which he wishes, on the subjects of his art. And this is accomplished in a much greater degree by the whole Demiurgus, who also gives subsistence to nature, the (universal) subject of things, as other assertions evince; and who produced i, thatit might co-operate‘ with him, in receiving the world and fabrication from him. Since however, he had added this in the second proposition, he passes over the opposite in silence. ΕῸΓ the defamation of the world is atrocious. since it is most beautiful, and a blessed God, but the defamation of the Demiurgus is still more so. Hence Plato employs Themis* as a guard to what he says, who collects the Gods themselves to the Demiurzus, and does not sufler them to be divulsed from the goodness of the father. And he does this, in order that through Themis, he may not ascribe any thing disorderly or defamatory to the Demiurgus. The propositions therefore, being such, and receiving their beginning from the dividing art, let us see what

Plato afterwards adds.

“It is however, manifest to every one, that he looked to an eternal paradigm; for the world indeed is the most beautitul of generated natures, and the Demiurgus is the best of causes. But being thus gene- ‘rated, it is fabricated according to that which may be apprehended by reason and intelligence, and which subsists invariably the same.”

* Instead of aepyos here, it is requisite to read ovrepyos. ? For Plato uses the word Oeyss, or ἐσμ μέ, in this place.

p. 278