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

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,

Why, therefore, is it any longer wonderful, if an auditor of discussions about a polity, should not be admitted to hear the discussion about the universe? Or rather, is it not necessary that in more profound disquisitions, the auditors should be fewer in number? Is it not likewise Pythagoric, to define different: measures of auditions? For of those who caine to the homacoion (or common auditory of the Pythagoreans] some were partakers of more profound, but others of more superticial dogmas. Does not this also accord with Plato, who assigns infirmity as the cause of the absence of this fourth person? For the imbecility of the soul with respect to more divine conceptions, separates us from more elevated conferences, in which case the involuntary also takes place. For every thing which benefits us in a less degree, is not conformable to our will. But the falling off from more perfect good is involuntary; or rather it is itself not voluntary. But the falling off which not only separates us from greater goods, but leads us to the infinity of vice, is involuntary. Hence also Timwus says, that this fourth person was absent not willingly from this conference. For he was not absent in such a way as to be perfectly abhorrent from the theory, but as unable to be initiated in evreater speculations. It is possible, therefore, for an auditor of disquisitions about the fabrication of the world, to be also an auditor of discussions about ap. 19 polity. But it is among the number of things impossible, that one who is adapted to receive political discourses, should through transcendency of power, omit to be present at auditions about the universe. This fourth person, therefore, was absent through indigence, and not as some say, through transcendency of power. And it must be said, that the imbecility was not the incommensuration of the others fo him, but the inferiority of him to the others. For let there be an imbe-

_cility both of those that descend from the intelligible, and of those that ascend

And it must be said, that the imbecility was not the incommensuration of the others fo him, but the inferiority of him to the others. For let there be an imbe-

_cility both of those that descend from the intelligible, and of those that ascend from the speculation of sensibles, such as Socrates relates in the Republic; yet he who becomes an auditor of political discussions, cannot through a transcendency unknown to those that are present, be absent from the theory of physics. It likewise appears to me, that the words “ has befallen him,” sufficiently represent to us the diflerence between him and those that were present, with respect to discussions, and not with respect to transcendency. His being anonymous also, scems to signify, not his being exempt from and circumscribed by those that were present, but the indefiniteness and inferiority of his habit. Plato, therefore, is accustomed to do this in many places. Thus in the Phado, he does not think him deserving of a name, who in that dialogue answered badly. He also mentions indetinitely,' the father of Critobulus, who was absent from the discussion of the subjects that were then considered ; and likewise very many others. An auditor therefore of this kind would in vain* have been present at these discussions; since of those that were present, Critias indeed himself says something; but Hermocrates is silently present, differing only from him who is absent in a greater aptitude to hear, but being inferior to all the rest, through his inability to speak.

“Soc. It is your business, therefore, O Timus, and that of the company present, to fill up the part of this absent person.”

This also accords with what we have said. For in natures which are more causal and divine, quantity is always contracted, and multitude diminished, but power transcends. And this also is a dogma of the Pythagoreans, with whom the triad is more venerable than the tetrad, the tetrad than the decad, and all the numbers within, than those posterior to the decad: And in short, that which is

* For ἀρίστως here, it is necessary to read αοριστως.

* Instead of o bn rotovros axpoarns, ov parny ay παρεγένετο ros Aoyous, it appears to me to be necessary to read ὁ δὴ rovovros ἀκροατὴς ovy, parny κ.λ.

p. 20

p. 20

nearer to the principle, has a more primordial nature. But that which is more primordial is more powerful; since all power is antecedently comprehended in the principle, and from the principle is imparted to other things, If, therefore, the principle of things was multitude, it would be requisite that what is more multitudinous, should be more primordial and powerful than what is less so. Since, however, the principle is a monad, that which is more monadic, is more excellent and more powerful than things which are more separated from their cause. Hence Socrates very properly makes a diminution of number to bea symbol of superior perfection, which antecedently comprehends according to power all secondary natures, and fills up their deficiency. But since, as we have before observed, Socrates is the summit of this triad of auditors, and he conjoins himself to the monad that disposes the conference, conformably to the image of demiurgic Gods, it is worth while to observe, how he exempts Timwus from the rest, and how he is extended to him, as to the dispensator of the whole discussion. He conjoins, however, the other auditors to himself, as being inferior to him in desert. For these things may be referred to divine causes, in which the first of the [demiurgic] triad is united to the primary monad, and extends the other parts of the triad to it. Tt also calls forth, indeed, the productive energy of the monad, but excites the energies of the rest to fabrication. These things, therefore, are conformable to what has been before said. But according to Porphyry, the ethical doctrine contained in these words is this, that friends ought to endure all things for each other, both in words and deeds, and to supply their wants, and cause them to be unindigent, by filling up their deficiency.’ For these are the peculiarities of pure and genuine friendship. Tamblichus, however, having supposed that the anonymous person was superior to those that were present, and was a lover of the contemplation of intelligibles, says, that Socrates indicates by these words, that though generated fall short of the nature of trulyexisting beings, yet a certain sinulitude is divulsed from these beings. And conformably to this, the theory which is conversant with nature, participates ina certain respect of the science of intelligibles, and this the filling up the part of the absent person manifests.

* Instead of o bn rotovros axpoarns, ov parny ay παρεγένετο ros Aoyous, it appears to me to be necessary to read ὁ δὴ rovovros ἀκροατὴς ovy, parny κ.λ.

“Tim. Entirely so, Socrates. And we shall endeavour to the utmost of our ability, to leave nothing belonging to such an employment

* For τὸ ἐκείνων here, it is necessary to read ro e\Aciwor.

p. 21