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

For he

Pluck’d the shorn flower of Night.’

According to this theologist therefore, all-perfect animal is not the second with another, but fills the orders of Night, and also fills the celestial orders with the

> For θεὸν κλυτὸν here, it is necessary to read θεων κλυτων.

τ, οὶ The intellectual Earth brought forth the sensible Heaven and Earth.

2 In the original avros yap ens παιδὸς ἀφείλετο covpipoy arfos, But for ens waséos, it appears from Eschenbach to be necessary to read τῆς Nu«res.

Book 11} TIMUs OF PLATO, 381

allness of himself; in imitation of whom, Jupiter likewise, produces twofold orders, the super-celestial and the mundane. Phanes, however, gives subsistence to twofold triads, but Jupiter to twofold duodecads. For on this account bis sceptre is said to consist of four-and-twenty measures. Hence, the demiurgic is always assimilated to the paradigmatic cause, but proceeds into multitude from intelligible union. These things, however, are also elsewhere discussed.

But that animal itself rejoices in onlyness, is also manifested through the Orphic theologies. For as Phanes is the offspring of an egg, it is evident that he isan animal, At the same time also, he is called by Orpheus the happy aad venerable Metis, bearing the seed of the illustrious Gods; to whom Jupiter being analogous, is likewise denominated by Orpheus Metis and a demon.

One power, one demon, the great lord of all.

Thus too, the Oracles call this mighty God (i.e. animal itself] the fountain of fountains, and say that he alone generated all things. “ For from thence the gene ration of abundantly-various matter entirely’ leaps forth. Thence a fiery whirlwind sweeping along, obscures the flower of fire, leaping at the same time into the cavities of the worlds. For all things thence begin to extend their admirable rays downwards.”

“For again, another animal would be required about these two, of which they would be parts; and it might be more rightly said, that the universe is assimilated to this comprehending third, rather than to the other two.”

This which is now asserted by Platu, may be easily demonstrated from the demiurgic goodness. For ifthe Demiurgus is good, he fabricated the universe with reference to all-perfect aniinal. Buthe is good and the best of causes, and therefore he assimilated the world to all-perfectanimal. Forit is necessary that the first Demiurgus should be intellective of the first paradigm ; and that being intellective of it, he should be the maker of that which is in every respect most similar to it. Forif there is nothing which is intellective of it, it will no longer have the order of a paradigm, with respect to that which is fabricated by the first Demiurgus. If, however, you should say, that it is necessary there should be other secondary causes, which produce with reference to more partial paradigms, you say well

* For Oey aby here, read ενθεν apdny. And for apvépow, αμνδροι.

Γ.

If, however, you should say, that it is necessary there should be other secondary causes, which produce with reference to more partial paradigms, you say well

* For Oey aby here, read ενθεν apdny. And for apvépow, αμνδροι.

Γ.

p. 382

indeed, but at the same time you should preserve the universe one, For the fabrications of these partial paradigms are parts of the universe, in the same manner as the paradigms, and vice versa. As therefore paradigms are parts of paradigms, demiurgic’ are parts of demiurgic causes, and fabrications of fabrications, it is necessary that the wholeness of the universe should be the image of all-perfect animal; and that a!l-perfect animal should be the paradigm of the universe. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that animal itself is one, and alone, as being monadic. The world therefore is one and monadic, in order that it may perfectly imitate its paradigm. For as it primarily receives a simuar idea of it, how is it possible it should not adumbrate all the nature of it, im consequence of having been generated intellectual, perpetual, and monadic?

“Tn order, therefore, that the world from its onlyness or being alone, might be similar to all-perfect animal, on this account the artificer neither made infinite, nor two worlds.”

Again, Plato reminds us of the Demiurgic cause, in order that we may understand also from this, that every thing which is generated by the whole fabrication, 15 monadic, perpetual, and intellectual; and that the Demiurgus is the cause of all things, in consequence of producing the monnds of them; but that he delivered the multitndinous and partial fabrication to the yunior Gods. | Farther still, he also latently teaches us who this all-perfeet intellect is, the name of which is so celebrated by the more modern philosophers ; viz. that it is intelligible intellect, in which the universe primarily subsists. Before, therefore, he called it distributedly “ according to all things perfect,” because he then celebrated its all-ness; but now speaking of it collectively, he calls it “ a/-perfect,” since his discourse is about the only-begotten.

The infinite, however, in a certain respect is, and ina certain respect is not. Buta thing is said to be infinite ina three-fold manner ; either according to power, or according to multitude, or according to magnitude. The infinite therefore according to power isin divine natures, and in the world. For thenever-failing, and the perpetual, are the peculiarities of the infinite according to power. But the injinite according to multitude partly is, and partly ts not, Lor it has not an at-once collected subsistence, but exists according to a part. And the infinite according ta

Ἰ Instead of δημιονρ npura here, itis neccessary to read δημιονργικα,

BOOK 11 TIM.ZEUS OF PLATO. 383

But the injinite according to multitude partly is, and partly ts not, Lor it has not an at-once collected subsistence, but exists according to a part. And the infinite according ta

Ἰ Instead of δημιονρ npura here, itis neccessary to read δημιονργικα,

BOOK 11 TIM.ZEUS OF PLATO. 383

magnitude, neither erists according to a part,’ nor has any existence whatever Hence the infinite according to multitude, if it exists in the worlds, in the first place, will be without arrangement with reference to itself. For what order can there be in the intinite of things first and second, where there is no first? Jn the nevl place, it will not hace one producing cause. Lor if ithad, that cause would produce the one prior to multitude, and the whole prior to parts. For being itself one it would first assimilate to itself the things posterior to itself. For every cause which is effective of things according to nature, produces things similar to itself. But there is no first in those worlds, since they are infinite. And if they suppose other worlds consisting of others, either the causes of them will be unco-ordinate or co-ordinate. And if co-ordinate, it is necessary that the worlds should have one co-arrangement. But in the infinite there is no order. To which we may add, that the intervention of a vacuum in the middle, will separate the worlds. Bat if the causes are unco-ordinate, we must admit that there is a divided and unsympathetic multitude in the principles. This, however, will entirely abolish both all the causes themselves, and the things posterior to them. For the causes will be corruptive of each other, not being able to subsist in conjunction with, in consequence of being perfectly foreign from each other. But the things which proceed from them, collapsing, will stop, and will not have any thing from whence again they can be generated, the principles being destroyed.

Perhaps, however, some one may say that there is neither one world, nor infinite worlds, but many and finite. For we have heard of a certain Barbaric opinion, which the Cheronean Plutarch relates,’ placing in one equilateral. triangle the intelligible world according to the middle of it, in each of the sides sixty worlds, about the intelligible, and in each angle one world; all of them (except the intelligible) being such worlds as that in which we are comprehended,

So that there are three leaders, and thrice sixty others, under them. For the angular are of a more ruling nature than the lateral worlds. "This opinion, therefore, introduces a multitude of finite worlds, and makes the intelligible to be one of them. Unless, indeed, you arrange the intelligible world in the middle, as the

' The words, ovée xara μέρος are omitted in the original; but, as it. appears to me, ought to be inverted.