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

In short therefore, being impelled by these observations, we say, it is evident that the Crater is difli rent from the Demiurgus. For every when*, lit? who min¬ gles, the Crater, and the things that .are mingled, are distinguished from each other. For it is also evident, that the ( 'rater is ditl'ereut from the Demiurgus, because it is psychogenic, or generative ot soul. For neither in the production of intellect, nor in the fabrication of bodies, is the f i lter assumed, but alone in giv mg subsist¬ ence to souls; because mixture is adapted to these, as being of a middle nature. But if the Crater is psychogenic, it is doubtless peculiarly* the cause of souls. And it it is co-ordinate w ith the Demiurgus, lest it should be in want of things posterior to itself, or should haw* smm thing more total than itself, and thus should not bo entirely the cause of all the things, of which the Demiurgus is the cause, but he is an intellectual (hid, and the best of causes;—if this be the case, the Crater likewise is intellectual ; and if the former is fontal, the latter also is fontal. And why is it necessary to observe, that the Barbarians likewise, call the partial causes'[of soul] fontal Craters ? This Crater therefore, is a fontal ('rater ; since it is the cause of souls so far as they are souls, and not of all life. For it is neither the cause of intellectual, nor of physical life. Plato likewise elsewhere calls soul itself the fountain of prudence; and in the Pha-drus, he th nominates it the foun¬ tain and principle of motion. Much more therefore, should we call according to him, the lirst soul fontal, and the Crab r fontal, if there is a Crater established with the Demiurgus of w holes ; since other Craters aFo are delivered both by Orpheus

1 i. e. Vesta. for, according to llic Chalda*ans, ns " e learn from Proclus on the Cratylu« p Rhea contain* Juno, 1 lie fountain ol soul*, hi her right- hand parts, nod Vesta, the fountaiu of virtue, to her lefthand parts.

1 Tor i^i we here, it is necessary to read itiui.

1 Die word mnai is omitted here iu the original.

Tim. Plat. Vol. II. 3 B

p. 378

1MIOCLUS ON THE

[rook t.

and Plato. For Plato in the Philebus mentions two Craters, the one Vuleanian, but the other Dionysiaeal. And Oifdieus knm united of the Crater of Bacchus , but he also establishes many others about the solar table. Ami with respect to Homer, does lie not represent IIebe as pouring out wine, and Ynlcan drinking from a bowl, and distributing nectar to all the Cods 1 These things however, require a more abundant discussion. But what has been said will be sutlicient for the pre¬ sent purpose, since in another work, we shall inv« stigate a more perfect devclopeineiil of each particular, if it pleases the Cods.

But what has been said will be sutlicient for the pre¬ sent purpose, since in another work, we shall inv« stigate a more perfect devclopeineiil of each particular, if it pleases the Cods.

Some one however, may doubt, through what cause Plato, wlien generating the soul ot the univi rse, makes no mi ntion ot the Crater, but only of the mixture and commixture ; but in the gent lation ot partial souls, he at the same tune mentions it, and reminds us of the mixture ot the soul of the universe 9 In answer to this, it must lie said, that in the first place divine souls in proceeding, abide in the ( rater, ami do not depart from their fountain ; but partial souls are separated from, and frequently proceed out of it, through verging to generation. In the former then-fore, is lieing vehemently uniti d, he does not separate the Crater from the mixture. I lence some appreht ml that the soul of the universe is the first sou! ; and others denominate it .Itmo, not being able to diviih it from its proper foun¬ tain. But in these [i. e. in partial souls], as being separated from the Crabr, Plato disjoins the cause [i e, the Crater] from the things posterior to it. In the se< olid place, it must be said, that the w hole of the ps\ eliii al ordi r is constituted by both, v i/. by the miugler and the (’rater ; but since one part of this order abides, but the other proceeds, and one rejoices in union, but the other is a friend to division, hence, the Ih-iuiurgiis in a greater degree constitutes tin* former, than the Crater; but the latter as being more material, is more allied to the prolific cause [i. e. to the Ciati-r]. On this account, in the former, the whole is attributed to the I)< imiirgus ; but in the generation of partial souls, the (.'rater is assumed. I he tables ot the Creeks also assert things of tins kind. I or they say that Julio is the cause of insanity, lint Jupiter of temperaiici ; and the former, of labours about generation ; but the latti r, of an eh-valiou from it. Fur Juno excites all things to progression, multiplies them, and causes them by h< r illuminations, to be prolific. And thus much m answer to the doubt.

But 1 think it fit that the divine Iatnblicus should look to these words of Plato, and assume from them, that Plato constitutes the soul of the world, and not the siijierceh stial soul, from tin* mixture of the middle genera. For how, as his design was to constitute the universe, could lie opportunely make mention of the .supermundanc Mud, since w heu he mentions time, which is allotted a supermundane order, he at the sain< time co-arranges it with the universe * For lie says that

BOOK T.]

TIM/FA’S OF PLATO

p. 379

For how, as his design was to constitute the universe, could lie opportunely make mention of the .supermundanc Mud, since w heu he mentions time, which is allotted a supermundane order, he at the sain< time co-arranges it with the universe * For lie says that

BOOK T.]

TIM/FA’S OF PLATO

p. 379

lime was generated together with the heaven. And Unis nnirii for this admonition. Hut whether Plato know, or did not know that there are supermundane sord", is to he investigated. Tor it is worthy of inquiry, since lie nowhere clearly says that lh< re is a soul of this kind. And to those w ho do not admit that then* are supermundane souls, it must he said, that it is requisite there should he souls of this kind, which are impartiripahle, hut understand transitively, and in this difi« r from intellect ; and which likewise intellectually perceive more than one tiling at a time, and m this transcend mundane souls. For the progression is not col¬ lectively, from imderstandin" all things at once, to the intellectual perception of one tiling at a time ; hut is through the perception of more things than one, vet not of all things at once. It follows therefore, that those w ho through these reasons admit, that there are souls prior to the world, should show how these souls are media between the impartible and partible essence, and if they are partible, what this partibility is, and if they are distributed into parts, and similar!v fashioned with mundane souls, by what contrivance they are prior to these, when they do not at all dither trom them according to livposlasis ?