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

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

Sopi2et ene rows πράγμασιν, rns ἀντείχετο Ocwpias των νοηματων.

28. PROCLUS ON THE ἐν ἐς

tion, that it is requisite the world should be generated, he necessarily detines what the nature of the discussion about: sensible things ought tg be, but not prior to this, the nature of the universe being unknown, But when he calls the world an image, an image of sucha kind is not ἡ to be assumed, as we conceive that of inanimate * natures to) be, as neither is the paradigm unprolitic and ineflicactous, but an assimilation must be given to this world to the intelligible. Inthe first place indeed, according to the prolific power ot the paradizin 5 for by its very being it produces the image trom itself. In the second place, according to the demiurgic cause, Which renders the universe most similar to the intelligible, by the energies extended to it. And in the third place, according to. the conversion of the world itself to the forming power and participation of intelligibles. Por “itassimilates itself, as the Oracle says, hastening to be invested with the impression of the images which the intelligible Gods extend to it.”

“ As words therefore are allied to the things themsclves of whica they are the interpreters.’

As the progression of beings is from the one which is prior’ to the many, and mundane natures proceed from a monad to their proper number, thus also. the.

discourse of Timieus, beme assimilated, as he says, to beings, commences from one axiom, and the universal, and thus afterwards introduces division to his words. What therefore is the one common axiom, in the words before us?) That itis necessary language should be allied to the things, of which itis the interpreter. And it seems that the Platonists Albinus and Gaius, and their followers, took occasion from hence to define in how many ways Plato dogmatizes ; and that he does this in a twofold respect, either scientifically, ov from probability, and not according to one mode, nor as if all discussions had one accuracy, whether they are concerning beings, or things which subsist through generation ; but such as is the nature of things, such also is that of the words which are divided) in con- Janction with things. Hence they subsist in such a way with respect to accuracy and clearness about the things which are their subjects, that some words assert the accuracy of the dogmas, but others their probability. For it is necessary that

1 Ou is omitted in the original, >For ῴνχὼν here, itis necessary to read αψυχων,

2 ΤΙρο is omitted in the original.

DIR Te ee

p. 237

BOOK 11.}

For it is necessary that

1 Ou is omitted in the original, >For ῴνχὼν here, itis necessary to read αψυχων,

2 ΤΙρο is omitted in the original.

DIR Te ee

p. 237

BOOK 11.}

language should be similar to things ; since it could not otherwise interpret their nature, than by being allied to them, Por it is requisite that what the thing is contractedly, that language should be evolvedly ; in order that it may unfold the thing into Jight, and may be subordinate to the nature of it. Hence, the divine causes of language unfold after this manner the essences of the natures prior to them, and are connascent with them. J the Gods therefore, the angel or messenger of Jupiter (i.e. Hermes), who has the relation of logos to the intellect of his father, announces the will of Jupiter to secondary natures. But in essences, soul which is the logos of intelligibles, unfolds the united cause of wholes which ts in them, she receiving from them her hypostasis."| And in the genera superior to us, the angelic order has the relation of logos to the Gods. Very properly therefore, is it here said, that language is allied to the things of which it is the interpreter. This therefore, must be said to be the one* common axiom, prior to the divided particulars. And Timwus in what follows, distributes different modes of words in conjunction with the quality of the things.

- “ TIence, respecting that which is permanent and stable, and intellectually apparent, it is requisite that the words should be as much as possible permanent, without lapse, irreprehensible and immutable. But in this [stability] the paradigm is in no respect deficient.”

Prior to this, Timeus called the paradigm perpetual being, subsisting invariably the same, and apprehended by intelligence ; but now he calls it permanent and stable; the former indeed, instead of perpetual being, and which is apparent in conjunction with intellect, but the latter, instead of that which is apprehended by intelligence. Tle also denominates: the words respecting it permanent, indeed, in order that through the sameness of the name, he may indicate the similitude of them to things; but wethout lapse, in order that they might adumbrate the firmness of the thing. And irreprehensible, in order that they may imitate that which is comprehended by intelligence, and may scientifically accede. For it 15 necessary that words, in order that they may be adapted to intelligibles, should have accuracy and firmness, as being employed about things of this kind. For as the knowledge of eternal natures is without lapse, so likewise is the discourse

* For τὴν υποθεσιν here, it is necessary to read τὴν νποστασιν-. > Ἐν is omitted in the original, but evidently ought to be inserted.

p. 288

For as the knowledge of eternal natures is without lapse, so likewise is the discourse

* For τὴν υποθεσιν here, it is necessary to read τὴν νποστασιν-. > Ἐν is omitted in the original, but evidently ought to be inserted.

p. 288

about them. For it is an evolved knowledge. Since, however, it proceeds into multitude, and is allotted a composite nature, and on this account falls short of the union and impartibility of the thing, he densminates the thing itself in’ the singular number permanent and stable, cad intellectually apparent; but the discourse about it in the plural number, calling it stable words, which are without a lapse, and are irreprehensible. And since in language there is a certain: similitude to the paradigm, but there is also a certain dissimilitude, and this abundant, he assumes one word in common ¢he permanent, but the others different. Since also a scientific discourse is irreprehensible, as with reference to our knowledge 3 for there is not any thing ἴῃ ἂς better than science; but is confated by the thing. itself, as not being able to comprehend the nature of it, such as it really is, and. as falling off! from its impartibility,—on this account he adds, δ as much as possible” For science itself, as subsisting in souls, is indeed irreprehepsible, but is reprehended by intellect, for evolving that which is iinpartble, and apprehending that which is simple ina composite manner, For the phantasy also reprehends sense, because its knowledge is in conjunction with passion, according to a commixture, from which the phantasy is purified. But opinion reprehends the phantasy because its knowledge is attended with type and morphe, from Which opinion is. free. Science reprehends opinion, because its Knowledge Is without the explanation of cause, by which science is especially bound. And intellect. as we have said, reprehends science, because it transitively divides the object of knowledge, but intellect’ Knows at once the whole in conjunction with essence. Hence intellect is alone unconquerable, but science, and scientific discourse, are vanquished by intellect, according to the knowledge of being.

“It is necessary however, that words respecting that which 1S assiMllated tothe permanent and stable, but which is the image of being should possess probability [alone).”

That the discussion of generated * natures, is a discussion about an image, and" that on this account it is to be called probable, is evident. Perhaps however, some one may inquire what words remain to be assigned to things which are not assimilated to the intelligible, but yet at the same time exist in the universe, such

* For axopevos here, 1 read axoornoapevos.

> For πρὸ των γενήτων in this place, it is obviously necessary to read πέρι τῶν YORT wr.

BOOK 11} ΤΙΜΊΕῦΘ OF PLATO, 249