The Commentaries on the Timaeus of Plato — trans. Thomas Taylor
The text is shown on its own: no facing layer is held for this issue.
over generation through the heavens; and every where weaving together partial natures with wholes. Being however such, she proceeds from the vivific Goddess [Rhea.} [For according to the Chaldwan oracle] “ Immense Nature is suspended from the Tim. Plat. Vou. I. Bbp. 10 back of the Goddess ;” from whom all life is derived, both that which is intelleetual, and that which is inseparable from the subjects of its government. Hence, being suspended from thence, she pervades without impediment through, and inspires all things; so that through her, the most inanimate beings participate of a certain soul, and such things as are corraptible, remain perpetually in the world, being held together by the causes of forms which she contains. For again the Oracle says, “ Unwearied Nature rules over the worlds and works, and draws downward, that Heaven may run an eternal course,” kc. So that if some one of those who assert that there are three demiurgi, is willing to refer them to these principles, viz. to the demiurgic intellect, to soul, and to total nature Lor to nature considered as a ἡ 016,7 he will speak rightly, through the causes which have been already enumerated. But he will speak erroneously, if he supposes that there are three other demiurgi of the universe, beyond soul. For the Demiurgus of wholes is one, but more partial powers, distribute his whole fabrication into parts. We must not therefore admit such an assertion, whether ibe Amelius or ‘Theodorus (Asinwus} who wishes to make this arrangement; but we must be careful to remain in Platonic and Orplic hypotheses.
Moreover, those who call nature demiurgic art, if indeed they mean the nature which abides in the Demiurgus, they do not speak rightly; but their assertion. is right, if they mean the nature which proceeds from him, Jor we must conceive that artis triple, one kind subsisting in the artist, in unproceeding union ; another, proceeding indeed, but being converted to him; and a third being that which has now proceeded from the artist, and subsists in another thing. The art therefore, which is in the Demiurgus, abides in him, and is himself, according to which the sensible world ' is denominated the work of the artificer, and the work of the artificer of the fiery world. But the intellectual soul is art indeed, yet art which at the same time both abides and proceeds. And nature is art which proceeds alone; on which account also it Is said to be the organ of the Gods, not destitute of life, nor alone alter-motive, but having in a certain respeet the selfmotive, through the ability of energizing from itself, Por the organs of the Gods are essentialized in eflicacious reasons, are vital, and concur with the energies of the Gods.
As we have therefore shown what nature is according to Plato, that it is an incorporeal essence, inseparable from bodies, containing the reasons or productive principles of them, and incapable of perceiving itself, and as it is evident from
* It appears to me, that the words roy αἰσθητὸν κόσμον, are wanting bere in the origival.
BOOK 1 TIMA:US OF PLATO. ii
these things that the dialogue is physical, which teaches us conceraing the whole mundane fabrication,—it remains that we should connect what is consequent with what has been said. For since the whole of philosophy is divided into the theory concerning intelligible and mundane natures, and this very properly, because there is also a twofold world, the intelligible and the sensible, as Plato himself says in the course of the dialogue,—this being the case, the Parmenides comprehends the discussion of intellizgibles, but the Timaus that of mundane natures. For the former delivers to us all the divine orders, but the latter all the progressions of mundane essences. Bat neither does the former entirely omit the theory of the natures contained in the universe, nor the latter the theory of intelligibles ; because sensibles are in intelligibles paradigmatically, and intelligibles in sensibles iconically. But the one is exuberant about that which is physical, and the other about that which is theological, ina manner appropriate to the men from whom the dialogues are denominated: to Timeus, for he wrote a treatise of this kind about the universe; and to Parmenides, for he wrote about truly-existing beings. The divine Iamblichus, therefore, says rightly, that the whole theory of Plato is comprehended in these two dialogues, the Timieus and Parmenides. For every thing pertaining to mundane and supermundane natures, obtains its most excellent end in these, and no order of beings is left uninvestigated. To those also who do not carelessly inspect these dialogues, the similitude of discussion in the Timeus to that in the Parmenides, will be apparent. For as Timius refers the cause of every thing in the world to the first Demiurgus, so Parmenides suspends the progression of all beings from the one. And this is effected by the former, so far as all things participate of the demiurgic providence; but by the latter, so far as beings participate of a uniform hyparxis, [or of an hyparxis which has the form of the one.) Farther still, as Timus, prior to physiology, extends through images the theory of mundane natures, so Parmenides excites the investigation of immaterial forms, prior to theology. For it is requisite after having been exercised in discussions about the best polity, to be !ed to the knowledge of the universe; and after having contended with strenuous doubts about forms, to be sent to the mystic theory of the unities (of beings.) Tlaving however, said thus much, it is now time to consider the words of Plato, and investigate their meaning to the utmost of our ability. “TI see] One, two, three, but where, fricnd Timieus,’ is the fourth
* In all the editions of the Timzus, ἡμῖν follows after gure Τίμαιε, but is wanting in these Commentaries of Proclus.
p. 12
person of those who having been received by me yesterday at a banquet of discussion, ought now to repay me with a similar repast δ᾽
Plato here, together with the grace and beauty of the words, raises and exalts the whole period. Praxiphanes however, the disciple of Theophrastus, blames Plato, first because he makes an enumeration of one, two, three, ina thing which is Manifest to sense and known to Socrates. For what occasion had Socrates to numerate, in order that he might know the multitude of those that assembled to this conference? In the second place he blames him, because he makes a change in using the word foxrth, and in su doing, does not accord with what had been sald before. For the word four, is consequent to one, two, three; but to the
Jourth, the frst, second, and third are consequent. These, therefore, are the objections of Praxiphanes. The philosopher Porphyry however directly replies to him, and in answer to his second objection observes, that this is the Grecian custom, for the purpose of producing beauty in the diction, Homer! therefore has said many things of this kind:
Full of the brass descending from above,
Through six bull hides the furious weapon drove,
Till in the secenté it fix’d.
And in ἃ similar manner in many other places. Here also the mutation has a cause. For to numerate the persons that were present, was to point them out. For to say one, two, three, is indicative; but he signifies the person that was absent (since it Was Impossible to point him out) through the fourth. For we use the term the fourth, of one that is absent. But to the former objection Porphyry replies, thataif as imany had been present as was requisite, it would have been superfluous to nunerate them, but one of them being absent, of whos? name we are ignorant, the enumeration of those that are present contains a representation of the one that is wanting, as desiring that which rema‘nas, and as being in want of a part of the whole number, Plato therefore indicating this, represents Socrates “enumerating the persons that were present, and requiring him who was wanting, For it he had known him, and had been able to manifest him by name, he would perhaps have said, J see Critias, and Timeus, and Hlermocrates, but that man I do not see. Since however, he who was absent was a stranger, and unknown to
ε Vil. 247:
p. 13
No commentary for this page under the selected tracks.
There is commentary on page 1.