The Commentaries on the Timaeus of Plato — trans. Thomas Taylor
The text is shown on its own: no facing layer is held for this issue.
For (he peculiarity of he paradigm ww to make by is very being ; but of the Demiurgus, to make by cnergismg. Vor itis wot the same thing tumake by existing, and to hnow and energize through knowledges siice soul also produces life by evisting, but makes artificially through knowledge. And it
* For ovros here, read ovrws.
* For ra αἰσθητὰ here, it is necessary to read ra sonra,p. 283 possesses indeed, the former essentially, but the latter according to energy. And Why is it requisite to lengthen these observations philosophically ? For the theologist lone before, celebrates the demiurgic cause in Phanes. 10)" there, ds he SAYS, the gre.t Bromius, or ali-sceing Jupiter, was, and antecedently existed y in order that he micht have as it were the fountains of the twofold fabrication of things. He also celebrates the paradigmatic eause in Jupiter, For again, he likewise is, as hosayvs, Metis the first ccnerator, and much-pleasing Love. He is also continually denominaied by him, Dionysius, aud Phanes, and Ericapwus. All the causes thereiore participate ofeach other, and are in each other; so that he who Says as the εν το Tamblehus, that the Deminrgus comprehends in himself the paradigm, and he who evinces, as the dlustrious Amehus, that the paradicm is the Demiurgus, a eertain respeet speak rightly, For the latter saw the demiurgic peculiarity pre-existing Inthe paradigm; for there the first Jupiter exists, and on this account he makes Phanes to be the Demiurgus ; but the former saw the paradigm in the Demiturcns, For Metis also was in the Demiurgus, being absorbed by him, And on this account he considered the paradigmatic to be the same with the deminraic eause. And thus much concerning these particulars,
We ought not however, to wonder if Plato calls the world an image. For though itis most beautiful, vet itis the image of intelligible beauty. Through this similitude also, aoexhibits such things as adorn! and beautify. generation, and receives as a whole the form of the paradigm. ‘Thus the philosopher calls the world the image of the intelligible, as being assimilated to its paradigm. The addition likewise of vecessity, shows that the similitade of the former to the latter is admirable and metlable. Afterwards also, le testifies this by a demonstration indubitable and firm. For it proceeds trom the hypotheses themselves,
But in every thing, to begin from a principle according to nature, is the greatest of undertakings.”
Some read what is here said by stopping at the word ravros, every thing, according to whom the words indicate, that it is the greatest of all things, to make that bezinning. of the discussion which is according to nature. But others, stopping at the word μέγιστον, ereaiest, conjoin the word rayrog with what follows; so that with them the colon signifies that it is the greatest undertaking, to begin
* For exirpowevorra here, I rcad eximpexovra, of the discussion which is according to nature. But others, stopping at the word μέγιστον, ereaiest, conjoin the word rayrog with what follows; so that with them the colon signifies that it is the greatest undertaking, to begin
* For exirpowevorra here, I rcad eximpexovra,p. 504 the discussion of tho universe, from a principle which is according to nature, Others again say that these words are introduced for the sake of the things previously assumed, these being rightly concluded through) the hypotheses which were necessary. But according to others, they are introduced for the sake of what is directly after asserted, it being requisite, if we intend to make a proper beginning, to define previously what hind of discourses ought to be adopted concerning sensibles, And others say, they are introduced for the sake of what will afterwards be delivered concerning the tinal cause, Por this is the greatest principle, and according to nature, which it is requisite especially to survey, and from which commencing it is fit to discuss what follows. But that previous to the disquisition of this, he informs us what the mode will be gf physical discussions.
To me however, this axiom appears to be rightly asserted of all things. Vor it is universal, and is adapted to what has been before said, to what immediately follows, and to what will be again said. Or rather, it is not adapted to these alone, but to all fabrication. Por beginning from a principle according to nature as from a root, Plato delivers afterwards explanations of cause homologous to this principle. And science itself, from) proper hypotheses, collects appropriate conclusions. Science therefore follows the order of things ; but doctrinal disquisition follows science. And this is the greatest undertaking. Ino the first place, because it imitates wholes, and the progression of beings. In the next place, because if the smallest particular Is overlooked in’ the principle, it becomes multiplied as we proceed. And in the third place, the principle or beginning, Is said to be the half of the whole. If however, this be the case, it possesses the createst power, ΠῚ, too, as some say, the principle is something more than’ the whole, it is in an admirable manner said to be the greatest thing. The truth ag this is also. testified by poets who say, ‘that every thine which reecives a good beginning usually ends well.” And moreover, on this account the Athenian euest calls the principle a God, if it obtains that which is fit. For he says, * Principle being established in men as a God, produces all things rightly of it obtains acongruous portion{or the part which ts adapted to "1
For he says, * Principle being established in men as a God, produces all things rightly of it obtains acongruous portion{or the part which ts adapted to "1
But what is the meaning of the words “ according to nature? Is it the receiving every thing which ought to be received, or is it that which first proceeds from things which subsist essentially? Por that which ts last is a principle as with reference to us, but not with reference to nature. The principle therefore
p. 285
4d according to nature, of the universe indeed, is the final cause, but of demonstrations the hypotheses, and of discussions the definition respecting the form of the doctrine, whether itis to be received as firm, immutable and accurate, or as that which is merely probable, and is not indeed truth, but credible, and assimi- Jated to truth.
“After this manner therefore, we must decide about the image, and the paradigm of it.”
These three particulars are connascently consequent to each other, the things, the conceptions, and the words, According to the things and the conceptions therefore, Plato assumes the first hypothesis; but according to the words he makes this definition, Por when he separates that which is generated from being, he adheres to the theory of the things. But when he defines our knowledge according to the objects of it, he adheres to the theory of the conceptions.” And now distributing the words according to the diversity in the knowledge of them, he demonstrates to us their definite nature. Tlence, these are consentaneous to each other; viz. twofold things, being and that which is generated ; twofold knowledges, intelligence and opinion; and twofold words, the stable and the probable, For whence are knowledges derived, except from the objects of knowledge? And whence ts the difference of words derived, except from knowledges ? Some therefore say, that it is the logographic art to define previously what. the mode is of the diction, and what kind of person the auditor of it ought to be; and that Aristotle emulated this, and also many others more recent.
L however should say that the disenssion imitates the fabrication itself of things, [ν᾽ αὐ thatunfolds into lightthe invisible lives of the world, but gives subsistence to that which is apparent, and imparts a boundary to it prior to the whole world, thus also Timwus adheres indeed to the theory of the things ; bat also makes the form of the words to be adapted to the things; and antecedently assumes, and previously defines the mode of the whole theory ofthe discussion, in order that he may dispose the whole ofthe doctrine conformably to this definition, Why therefore does he do this now and not before? Because, after the demonstra-
' In the original, ore ες ras nperepas γνώσεις διοριθει, exe ros πραγμασιν τοιε τῶν νοημάτων, Which is evidently defective, but may be restored to its genuine meaning by reading, ore δε ras ἡμετέρας γνωσεις
No commentary for this page under the selected tracks.
There is commentary on page 1.