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

We have however, been thus prolix, for the purpose of giving complt tion to the parturitions of our soul, though Flafo should not speak of the super¬ mundane soul.

Hut if some one should doubt, why Plato does not mention other souls, the di\ ine, and t lie da iiiouiacnl, it must he said to him in reply, that Plato assumes the same mixture in tiie>e. I'or though ihenioniacal diller from divine souls, yet he survevsas one, ail the until filed genus of souls, w hen compared w ith the genesiur- L \c sold. At the same time also, 11 ir*»ii"h making mention ot the souls that exists as extremes, and asserting that they derive their suhsistenre from the Crater, he manifests that the form of all the middle -amis i> from thence, lint I mean hv the extremes, the soul of the universe, and partial souls. For that he gives peculiar souls to the stars, and to the sublunary Cods, is evident Ironi what is said in tiie Laws. For he there says, that we do not see the soul, hut we siv* the body of them; and he inquires, how the soul itself moves the body? It is likewise ev ident from what has been l>efore said by him in tins dialogue. For lie calls the stars div ine animals. Whence therefore, do they possess the divine nature, and whence their peculiar motion ? For if some one should say, that a divine animal does not at all diller according to the partible life, from the vilest animals on the. earth, it would alone receive an entcltcficia Irom the universe. Shall we not however, give souls to the sublunary Gods, who are the progeny of

p. 382

PROCIX'S ON THE

[noon v.

Hi >aven anil Earth, anil of Ocean anil Tethys? Hut in this case, how will they any longer be («ods ? For they will either lie more excellent than souls, or they will have souls. But if they are mundane ( Hods, divine souls will !*e susi>ended from them. Anil the same reasoning applies to ihemons. If however, as we ha\e said, Plato does not now mention these, it is not wonderful, l or the mode of subsistence in them, is not similar to that of partial souls. For to all their souls, the immutable, the uninelining, and the not proceeding out of inti lligibles, are common; but propensity to the realms of generation, audacity and a dcfluxlon of the wings, originate from the souls that are now produced.

For to all their souls, the immutable, the uninelining, and the not proceeding out of inti lligibles, are common; but propensity to the realms of generation, audacity and a dcfluxlon of the wings, originate from the souls that are now produced.

It'also, we should again impure, in what divine, da-moniacal, and partial souls, differ from the mundane soul, according to the psychogonic diagram ; tor it i- not possible that secondary souls 1 should entirely consist of the same things as those that are prior to tin m 1 We must .-ay, in answer to this inquiry, that the same ratios an- in all of them. For Plato makes mention of the same as existing likewise in partial souls, such fur instance, as se-quioetaves, sesquitertian, and sesquialter ratios, llut the terms or boundari* s, m which the ratios are contained, are difft r« lit. For the terms wliii l» are assumed, in all the psyehogouie diagram of the nniiulane soul, are primary ratios. Nothing therefore hinders then* being duple ratios in divine souls, and that there should l*e an increase of these, if it should so happen in d emoniacal soul-, after another inanm-r. For progression increases multitude. There will cither therefore he a dillm-nre in the terms, or in the* ratios. But this is impossible ill the latter. For, as we have already ob¬ served, lie mentions these, as also existing in partial souls. 1 lenee, a difference must I»e assumed in the terms; just as there is a difference in partial souls with reference- to these, not only in the terms, but also in the divisions of certain ratios; so that the ratios are common, but the terms dilh-rent. Impartiality therefore, or an exemption from the distribution into parts of partial souls, will be common to all da tnoniaeal souls. But an increase of the number of the ratios in partial souls, causes them to be in a greater degree partible than ihemons, and to descend, instead of abiding on high. And such as arc the decisions of my oracle concern¬ ing these particulars.

What however, is the meaning of the words, "mingling he tempered?" Shall we say, that the union in those lives ha- an arrangement more ancii lit and vene¬ rable than division ? And how is it possible we should not assert this to be the case } For mixture is in things which are divided, and separation is consequent

‘ Instead of ran hvTtpau in this place, ll is necessary to read, rat ttirffiut.

hook v.]

TIM.TXS or PLATO.

p. 383

And how is it possible we should not assert this to be the case } For mixture is in things which are divided, and separation is consequent

‘ Instead of ran hvTtpau in this place, ll is necessary to read, rat ttirffiut.

hook v.]

TIM.TXS or PLATO.

p. 383

to mixture. 1 In partial souls, on the contrary, Plato gives a precedaneous order to mingling, hor he says, "mingling he pound out because in these, division i» more abundant. And Socrates in the Phu*drus says, that the horses and charioteers of other souls are mingled. The expression likewise, he poured out, •s Mgniln ant of a downward progression and an indefinite * elfusion. Hut if you understand the pouring out in such a way, as if spoken of liquid substances, per¬ haps you will see that this also is adapted to the soul. For moisture is a symbol of life. Hence both Plato, and prior to Plato the Hods, call the soul at one time a drop ot the total vilification, but at another a certain fountain. Moreover, in the words, “ the remainder nf the former things," we must suppose by the former the middle genera are meant. For Plato cannot speak of the mixture which is there, lieciiusc the w hole of this was consumed, in the generation, distribution into parts, and harmony ot the soul of the universe, as he there says. Of the middle genera however, it is eviih lit that some of the natures are supreme, and intellectual, but othc rs media, and others last. Hut analogy makes some to he lir-d, others media, and others to subsist at the extremity. For the extremes being different, between which there are media, it is necessary that the media likewise should analogously differ. II i nee, we before observed that the impartible in each soul is one thing, and that which is divisible about bodies another; just as a different body is sus¬ pended from a different soul. The extremes then fore lieuig ililli rent, the media also will be necessarily different. And through things indeed, which rank as the first, the Demiurgiis constitutes divine souls, but through media, da-moniacal souls, and through such as rank in the last place, partial souls. These last there¬ fore, are now called, “ the remainder of the former; because in a certain respect they arc similar, and subordinate to them. For the remainder is entirely assimi¬ lated to the whole of w hich it is a part, and is inferior to that which is more per¬ fect, and has a precedaneous order. Hence, we must admit both those who say that these partial souls are the remains of the middle genera, and the divine Iamhhchus, who attributes an exempt transcendency to the genera which give completion to divine souls, and at the same time preserves the similitude and variety of all the middle genera.

“And these after a certain manner indeed were the same, yet were

1 InMea<t of r>jt ptv jj tai tr itpptjfuron ov<nj» rtft harpinvi, ,011 Tijt (uifm >, 111 tlli»