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

If therefore it was adapted, it was not this nature which prevented the universe from existing. But if it was unadapted, how being unadapted for an infinite time, came it to Le now changed [into an adapted condition]? Whether did it move itself? But it is not

© The words ev δὲ τῳ κοσμῳ Senpnperws, are omitted in the original. y κοσμῳ διηρὴμ gp. 309 self-motive. Was it therefore moved by the Demiurgus? And why was it not moved by him before, if he also was then good, and was willing that afl things should become similar to himself?) The extension therefore of providence is suspended from the goodness of the father; but from this the eternal production of the Demiurgus ; and from this, the perpetuity of the universe, which subsists for an infinite time in becoming to be, and is not a stable perpetuity. And the same assertion subverts the perpetuity of the world, and the goodness of him who made it. For if the Demiurgus was good, he always wished to impart good to all things. For as the sun, as long as it exists, illuminates! all things, and fire heats as long as itis fire; for the one is essentially illuminative, bat the other calefactive; thus likewise, that which is always good, always wishes to impart good, lest being willing indeed, but unable, it should sustain the passion of the vilest natures, For neither does the worthy man wish to effect other things than such as he is able to effect. But if the Demiurgus was always able to impart good, he always imparts it in energy, lest he should have an imperfect power. If however, he always imparts good in energy, he always makes that which is good, But if he always makes it, the world is always generated. Hence the world is perpetual ; for the Demiurgus is always good. The world therefore is perpetual, not being but becoming to be perpetually. lence, as we have said, the perpetuity of the universe is suspended from the goodness of its maker. For the orderly distribution of the universe sufficiently manifests the demiurgic power. — For matter, On account of its privation of form and morphe, has appeared to some to be without God, and the confused and disorderly nature, to be remote from divine providence. Since the universe however, is well-ordered and decorated with beauty, it clearly demonstrates divine production, The visible order of

‘things therefore, being the progeny of the demiurgic cause, is consubsistent: with the goodness of the father,

* He therefore, who especially receives this most principal or proper and powerful principle from prudent men, will receive it with the greatest rectitude.”

Timeus assigns the final cause which extends itself to the goodness of the Demiurgus, according to which uniting himself to the first, and imitating him,

Ὁ For καταλέμπαγει, it is necessary to read καγαλαμπει.

p. 310

p. 310

he generates all things. For the first principle is that which primarily produces all things, and this ‘Timzus denominates the most proper and powerful principle, because it is motive of causes themselves. For the demiurgic principle moves indeed that which is generated, but is moved from thence [i. 6. from the first principle]. And the paradigmatic principle moves the total fabrication, but is moved by goodness ; because the good indeed, ts prior to intelligibles, but the paradigm is intelligible, and the Demiurgus intellectual, About the good also, all intelligible and intellectual natures subsist: but about the intelligible, the order of intellectuals © subsists. The effective cause therefore, is a principal cause, but the paradigmatic is more principal, and the final is most principal. Por it is that for the sake of which all things subsist, from which other things are suspended, and which is truly the end of fabrication, Hence the world is perfected indeed, on becoming animated and inspired with life; but it is most perfect, so far as 10 participates of good, and of the union which extends through wholes. Foras the good is the leader of all things, so the goodness which is in each thing has the first dignity in each, On these accounts therefore, he calls the tinal cause the most principal, or the most proper and powerful principle. For the name of principle comprehends also concauses. But by the addition of mos¢ principal, he indicates that which is truly * cause. For the most principal principles are the causes of generated natures τ but concauses are subservient to other things, and are in the effects themselves. It must be said however, that generation and tne world, ἐδ τὸς have before observed, are the path between matter and the whole arrangement of things, and the perfection itself of the universe. Since also in dogmas concerning the highest causes it is necessary that the speaker should have the intellectual habit, and the auditor a prudent judgment, this is especially requisite in’ discussions concerning the good. For intellect subsists on account of the good, and the intellect which is in us, on account of the good which is in-us. Ilence Plato thinks it is necessary, that those who assert something concerning the most proper and powerful principle, should be prudent men, and that their auditors should receive what they say with the greatest) rectitude. What then, may not any casual person say something concerning God and the — final cause? And do we not every day hear the multitude assertmmg that God is good? But God spoken of without true virtue is but a name, as Plotinus says ; and

® Lustead of πέρι δὲ τὸ γοερον, ἢ τῶν γοήτων διακοσμησις in this place, itis necessary to road πέρι δε ro vonror, ἢ των voepwr διακοσμησις. For the intelligible is superior to the intellectual order.

> Lor τῆν ovros αἰτίαν here, itis requisite to read τῆν οὕτως αἰτίαν.

—— -—-—

For the intelligible is superior to the intellectual order.

> Lor τῆν ovros αἰτίαν here, itis requisite to read τῆν οὕτως αἰτίαν.

—— -—-—

TIMAZUS OF PLATO. 31)

BOOK 11.)

he ts spoken of by the multitude, not according to wisdom, but according to chance. Do not dwmons also know the goodness of the father, who dance [as it were | round him; and demiurgie angels, who precede as ina solemn procession the paternal production of things; and Gods who receive demiurgic powers from the one fabricative cause? Gods however, possess this knowledge uniformly, anzels intellectualiy, damons with undetiled purity, eternally, and ina way allied to the natures prior to thei, but we must be satisfied with having this knowledge prudently and wisely, since we are in a certain respect media between more divine natures and the multitude, between intellectual beings, and those that are deprived of intellect. Vor such is human prudence, proceeding indeed from intellect and intelligence, but ruling over a life destitute of intellect. Hence, when we speak concerning the most proper principle, what we assert must be received as uttered by prudent men, Jor prudence isa medium between intellect and opinion ; sothat aright judgment will be concordant with it. Hence too, Plato adds, “ he who especially.” For the assertion concerning this principle must be especially received from prudent men. But from the natures above man, something better than this assertion must be sought ; and from the multitude, a casual assertion,

“Por the divinity was willing that all things should be good, and that as much as possible nothing should be evil.”

The divine fabrication, and intellectual production proceeds from impartibles to partibles, from things united to such as are multiplied, and from things without interval, to every way extended masses. This also the discourse concerning it adumbrating, in the first place, celebrates the tinal cause apoplithegmatically ; inthe next place, discursively ; and in the third place, it delivers in’ an evolved manner, the whole orderly distribution and progression from it. For the assertion, “he was good,” uniformly comprehends every final and the most divine of causes, But the words, “ Jn him who is good, no envy is ever ingenerated about any thing ; and being entirely void of this, he was willing that all things should become as much as possible similar to himself,” comprehend this cause discursively ;' because, after the one will of intellect, he adds the divided theory of it. And what he now says represents to us intelligence procecding into all multitude, and interval, and evolving all the demiurgic providence, and all the parts of fabrication. The third

* The word διεξοδίκως is omitted in the original,

p. 419