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

Orit may be said, that through the extremes he also comprehends the media. For as the universe is defined through fire and earth, and the media which are comprehended in these, thus also through the visible and the tangible he comprehends all the variety of sensible natures.

This however, he employs as anaxiom. For it is usual with him prior to each of the subjects of discussion, to assume an axiom from which he demonstrates the thing investigated. Thus for instance he assumes axiomatically the sentence, “ Jn him who is good envy ts never ingenerated about any thing,” in order that he may demonstrate that the Demiurgus imparts good to all things. And again, in this way he assumes the words, “ Jt neither was, nor will be lawful for the most excellent nature to effect any thing else than that which is most beautiful ἢ in order to show that the uniyerse is an animal endued with intellect and animated. This too, is the case with the words, “ That which is assimilated to an imperfect thing can never become beautiful ;” in order that he may survey what the nature of the paradigm is, according to which the Demiurgus constituted the world. After the same manner therefore here, previously assuming as an axiom, that what is generated ts visible and tangible, he demonstrates from this, how the elements contribute to the composition of the world, md how they are arranged in the universe. For if itis necessary that the world should be visible and tangible, fire and earth are necessary to it: for that which is primarily visible is fire. In the first place, indeed, because visible natures themselves are luminous substances: for all colours are the progeny of light. In the next place, because (he sight itself is light proceeding from an etherial-formed essence. And in the third place, because sight, and that which is visible, require the congregating power of light, in order to their existence in energy. ΕῸΓ what else Is it than light that collects both these together? So that the world will be in want of fire, in order to be visible. To which also may be added, that Pythagoras in what he says to Abaris, demonstrates that the eye is analogous to fire. For it ts the most elevated of the instruments of sense, just as fire is of the elements, and employs as well as fire acute energies. The conical emission also of its rays, has no

ποὺ κ 211.} TIMAUS OF PLATO. 393

For it ts the most elevated of the instruments of sense, just as fire is of the elements, and employs as well as fire acute energies. The conical emission also of its rays, has noποὺ κ 211.} TIMAUS OF PLATO. 393 small similitude to the pyramidal form of fire. Plato however, does not say that fire alone is vistble: for this is false in a twofold respect. For fire itself by itself, unmingled with the other elements, is by no means externally) visible, but is ouly visible in mental conception, And farther still, none of the other elements will be visible af tire alone is visible. It is) one thing therefore, to be visible through fire, and together with fire, and another for fire itself to be the only thing visible, Henee, he does not assert the latter, which may be confuted in a twofold respect, but the former, because nothing is visible separated from fire; from which also you may assume, that all bodies part'cipate of fire. But in different bodies there is a diflurent fire. For light, flame, and a burnins coal, are not the same thing. But fromon high there isa diminution as far as to the earth of fire which proceeds from a more immaterial, pure and incorporcal naturc as far as to the most matcrial and gross bodies. Vor there are streams of fire under the earth, as Empedocles somewhere says ;

Beneath the earth buro num‘rous fiery streams.

Nor ought we to wonder how fire, though in water, is not extinguished. For all things proceed through each other, and that which predominates is different in diferent things. Light also is fire pervading through all things. Numenius therefore, being of opinion that all things are mingled, thought that nothing is simple. But Plato knew the mixture of things, and separately delivered the nature of each, fashioning the elements from figures,

Perhaps however, the wonderful Aristotle will object to what is said, not admitting that every thing visible is such through the participation of fire; because the choir of the stars, and the great sun itself, though they do not consist of fire, yet at the same time are visible. But if some one should say to him, that with respect to fire, one kind is material, but another immaterial, as with reference to sublunary fire which is material; that one kind is corruptible, but another incorrupuble; that one is mingled with air, but another is pure; and in short, that there are many species of fire, perhaps he will assent to the assertion, and also to the theologists' who cals the suna fire which is the channel of pire, and the dispensator of fire, and all such-like appellations. For to what else can he ascribe visibility, than to that which is generative of light? But what except fire is a thing of this

"viz. The Chaldean Theurgists. See my collection of the Chaldean Oracles.

Tim. Plat. | Vou. I. 3D

p. 494

For to what else can he ascribe visibility, than to that which is generative of light? But what except fire is a thing of this

"viz. The Chaldean Theurgists. See my collection of the Chaldean Oracles.

Tim. Plat. | Vou. I. 3D

p. 494

kind? For earth’ is effective of that which is entirely contrary to light: for it is the cause of darkness. And that which is more terrestrial participates in a less degree of light; but air and water are diaphanous, and are not of themselves visible. Hence each of these is a medium between that which is primarily visible, and that which obumbrates visible natures; cach being the cause of visibility to other things, but not to itself, so far as each of these is diaphanous, but other things are transparent through these. It remains therefore, that fire alone illuminates the things with which itis present, and makes them to be visible.

If however, some one should say, that the celestial element which is visible and iluminative, is not fire, we ask him, whence does the fire which is here, become such as itis? Por if each of these is generative of sensible light, Why may not each of them be fire, though the one is immaterial, but the oiher material ? When, however, I say that the one 15 immaterial, [ mean as was before observed, that itis so when compared with the grossest* matter, which is not able to sustain forms, so as to prevent them from gliding away, and which is distinguished from the matter that mvariably remains im its Own proper form, For we learn that matter pervades through the whole world, as the Gods also say.

Hence
Plato, as he proceeds, calls matter the receptacle of the universe.

Such therefore, as are the kinds of light, such also are the kinds of fire; and analogy shows that the hight which is from the celestial element is from fire. Hence, it must be said, that Plato does not characterize fire by heat, nor by being, moved upward ; for these things are the peculiarities of the fire which is here, and which is not in its proper place; but that he characterizes it by visibility. For through this he comprehends all fire, the divine, the mortal, the caustic, and the vehement. Farther sull, the same things must likewise be said concerning earth, that earth is that which is primarily solid. For it must not be said that earth derives its sohhuity from some other place; but in sensibles, that which is especially solid, has this pecularity, prior to such things as are less solid; since also that which is especially hot, is hot prior to things which have less heat, and from this things which have Jess heat, participate of this quality. If therefore, earth is more solid than the other elements, but that which is most solid is the cause of things which are less solid being solid, and things which are less such are not the causes of: sulidity to those which especially and particularly have this power; —if this be