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

For every demiurgic cause is exempt from the things ge¬ nerated In it; hnt that which is mingled with and tilled from them is imbecile an 1 inetlicacious, and is unable to adorn and fabricate them. And thus much in common r< ■.pectmg the whole of the spec* h.

i> t us th< n, in the first place, consult r what we are to understand by “ (Iods of (iods,” and what power it possesses; for that this invocation is collective and convertiie of multitude to its monad, that it calls upwards the natures which lime proceeded to the one fabrication of them, and inserts a houndarv and divine measure in them, is chair to those who art.* not entirely imaeipiainted with is 111 h-hke discourses. Ihit how those that are allotted the world by their father are called (iods of (iods, and according to what conception, can¬ not easily he indieailed to the main ; for there is an unfolding of one divine intelligence in these naim s. Hi nee through this cause, some conjoin the words “ of dvds” with what follows, erroneously making the whole to he, “ <,f the (iods of uhom I am the Demiurgus.” For it is not proper to represent the l)t •miurgus as the fabricator of some things hut tin* father ot others, anil these latter less honorable natures. For they sav, lli it Plato In calling the Demiurgic* the fabricator ot (iods, l»ut the father of works, separates the 1 «11« r from the former, as different, and less honora' !e. [They do not however speak rightly ;] for the paternal is more venerable than the tlemiurgic characteristic. Neither is it right to introduce these repetitions where the diction is continued. For when the intermediate words are many, then there i- occasion for this parenthesis, hut otherwise, the thing is siijH-rtluous. Others sav, that the mundane (iods are of the intelligible (iods, as Ix-ing the images of them, just e the whole world is the statue of the eternal (iods, according to Tuna its. Aieilher however, do these speak rightly; because they do not assert any thing peculiarly illustrii - of the (iods. For in a similar manner what Plato savs would be adapted to every mortal nature. For all these, are vj the (iods, as images ot ini* lligihh s. \nd if it were requisite to refer to them the w ords “ of Gods, [ should think it would be

It ) O K v ]

TIM/El s or PLATO.

.130

For in a similar manner what Plato savs would be adapted to every mortal nature. For all these, are vj the (iods, as images ot ini* lligihh s. \nd if it were requisite to refer to them the w ords “ of Gods, [ should think it would be

It ) O K v ]

TIM/El s or PLATO.

.130 s ;ither proper to rail them Gods of the God , as bring alone produced by the one Demiurgus, mortal natures not being produced by him ; since In* who speaks is the Demiurgus himself. Hence it would l»e more proper to speak in the singular, than m the plural number lint others say that the most total unities of the mun¬ dane (bids, are called by the father, “ Gods of Gods," leaders of leaders, and kings of kilims, ;is being analogous to the father himself; because he also, accord¬ ing; to the poets, is the father of fathers, and supreme of rulers. To these however, it is easy to reply, that Plato delivers the Demiurgus speaking to all tiie mundane Hods, or attendants of the (bids, and not to some of them alone. For if both such (»ods as visibly revolve, and such as become visible when they please, collect themselves about the one Demiurgus, and the Demiurgus says these things, to all these Gods themselves it is not proper to understand the words “ Gods of Gods' partially, as applicable to the leaders alone.

If therefore, none of the above mentioned assertions are conformable to the conception of Plato, we must show vvliat his conception is. It will here however be better to recur to the explanation of these words by our preceptor. lie says therefore, that nil the mundane (bnls are not simply (bids, but that they are wholly (bnls which participate. For there is in them that which is separate, invisible, and supermundane, and also that which is the visible statue of them, and which has an orderly establishment m the world. Ami the invisible nature of them indeed, is primarily a God; for this must now he understood, as that which is indivisible and one. lbit this vehicle which is suspended from their invisible essence, is secondarily a (Jod. For if w ith respect to us, man is two¬ fold, one inward, according to the .soul, the other apparent, which wc see, much more must both these be asserted of the mundane (bnls; divinity in them being two-fold, one unapparent, and the other apparent. This being the case, we must say, th it “ Gods of God ," is addressed to all the mundane divinities, in whom there is a connection of nnapparenl with apparent Gods; for they are (iods that participate. In shun, since two-fold orders arc produced by the Demiurgus, some being supermundane, and others mundane, and some I icing without, and others with participation [ot body], it the Demiurgus now addressed the super¬ mundane orders, lie would h we alone said to them “ Gods;" for they are without participation {i. e. without the p-rticipation of body,] arc separate and unapparent;—luu since the speech is to the* mundane (iods, he calls them (iods of (iods, as hi ing participated by other apparent divinities. In these also da mens are comprehended; for they <i-■» are (iods, as to their order with resjiect to the Gods, whose pecul j thev imlivisibly participate. Thus also INato, m the l'hadrus, when hi calls the twelve (iods the leaders of damons, at the same time

p. 340

PKOCI.US ON THE

[book V.

denominates all the atlnulants of the divinities finds, adding, “ and this is the life of the Gods.' All these, therefore, ari* foods' offiods, aspossessing tin* apparent connected with tin* uuapparenf, and tin- mundane \iit!i tin* siq>emmndant*. And thus much concerning tin* whole meaning of tin* words.