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

p. 299

names. For it must be observed that these names had great ambiguity with the ancients; some of them calling the sublunary region alone the world, but the region above it, heaven ; but others denominating heaven a part of the world. And some defined it to extend as far as to the moon; but others called the summits of generation heaven :

The wide-spread heav'n in wther and the clouds
Fell to the lot of Jove."

Hence Plato very properly determines concerning these names, prior to the whole theory, calling the universe heaven and the world, and saying all heaven, that you may not fancy he says, ὦ divine body alone is denominated by us the world, or by whatever other name it may rejoice to be called. And it seems, indeed, that he calls the universe Aeaven, conformably to the opinion of all men, but the world, according to his own opinion. Tor he says, let it be called by us heaven and the world. For the name of world is adapted to it as a certain fabrication ; though itis also possible to call it both heaven and the world : Acaven, indeed, as beholding the things above,* as surveying the intelligible, and as_ participating of an intellectual essence ς but dhe world, as being always tilled and adorned by truly existing beings. It may also be called /eaven, as being converted [to its prinple], but he world as proceeding from it. For it is generated by, and is converted to real being. But as of statues established by the telestic art, some things pertaining to them are manifest,’ but others are inwardly concealed, being symbolical 4 of the presence of the Gods, and which are only known to the mystic artists themselves ; after the same manner, the world being a statue of the intelligible, and perfected by the father, has indeed some things which are visible indications of its divinity ; but others, which are the invisible impressions of the participation of being § received by it from the father who gave it perfection, in order that ° through these it may be eternally rooted in real being. Heaven, indced,

"Thad. xv. vs. 102.

* This is asserted in the Cratylus.

} For apavn here, it is necessary to read ἐμφανη.

* Instead of cuppoduns των θεων παρουσίας in this place, it is necessary to read, σνμβολικα της των θεων rapovacas. -

> Instead of της τὸν οντως μετοχῆς in this place, it is necessary to read rns τὸν ovros peroyns.

5 In the words wn μὴ δὲ ἀντων ἐρριϑωμενον ῃ διαιωνίω: ev τῷ οντι, it is obvious that μη ought to be expunged,p. 240 and the world, are names significant of the powers in the universe; the latter so far as it proceeds from the intelligible, but the former so far as it is converted to it.

and the world, are names significant of the powers in the universe; the latter so far as it proceeds from the intelligible, but the former so far as it is converted to it.

It is however necessary to know that the divine name of its abiding power, and which ia a symbol of the impression of the Demiurgus, according to which it does not proceed out of being, is ineffable and arcane, and known only to the Gods themselves. For there are names adapted to every order of things ; those indeed that are adapted to divine natures being divine, to the objects: of diangia, being dianoetic, and to the objects of opinion, doxastic. This also Plato says in the Cratylus, where he embraces what ig asserted by Homer on this subject, who adwits that names of the same things with the Gods, are different from those that subsist in the opinions of men,

Xanthus by Gods, by men Scamander σα} ὦ,"

And,
Which the Gods Chalcis, men Cymindis call. *

And in asimilar manner in many other names. For as the knowledge of the Gods is different from that of partial souls, thus also the names of the one are different from those of the other; since divine names unfold the whole essence of the things named, but those of men only partially come into contact with them. Plato therefore knowing that this pre-eaists in the world, omits the divine and ineffable name itself, which is diflerent from the apparent name, and with the greatest caution introduces it as a symLol of the divine impression which the world contains. For the words, “ or whatever other appellation,” and “it may receive,” are alatent hymn of the mundane name, as ineffable, and allotted a divine essence ; in order that it may be co-ordinate to what is signified by it. Hence, also, divine mundane names are delivered by Theurgists ; some of which are called by them ineffable, but others effible ; aud some being significant of the invisible powers in the world, but others of the visible elements from which it derives its completion. Through these things, therefore, as hypotheses, the mundane form, the demiurgie cause and paradigm, and the apparent and unapparent name of the world, are delivered. And the former name indeed is duadic, but the latter monadic. For the words “ whatever other” are significant of oneness. You may also consider the ineffable name of the universe, [as significant’) of its abiding in

‘liad xax.vs. 74 * Nliad xiv. vs, 291.

> In the original in this place, σημαντικον is omitted.

nook Oh] ἍΜ ΟΝ OF PLATO, 931

the father; but the name world, as indicative of its progression ; and heaven, of its conversion, But through the three, you have the final cause, on account of which itis full of good; abiding ineflably, proceeding perfectly, and converting itself to the good as the antecedent object of desire. It is fit, however, to engage in the discussion of the rest of the theory, terminating what follows by the principles,

It is fit, however, to engage in the discussion of the rest of the theory, terminating what follows by the principles,

“ Tn the first place, therefore, that as an hypothesis, must be considered respecting it, which oughtin the beginning to be surveyed about every

᾽ν thing.

After the prayer, the exhortation to the auditors, and the delivery of the hypotheses, nothing else remains than to dispose the whole discussion conformaly to the hypotheses themselves. Of this, however, that head is the leader, whether the world was generated, or is unbegotten, having no beginning of generation. Por in what was asserted prior to the hypotheses, Timiavus said, “7? is necessary thatwe who are about to speak concerning the universe, whether it was generated or ἐκ μη οποίον, should invoke the Gods and Goddesses,” as from hence commencing the theory. And in the hypotheses, “ [hat that is which is akecays being, but is without gencration, and what that is which is generated, but is never [real] being,” were the things which were first assumed. This therefore must first be considered, as it was the first thing supposed in the principles. It is necessary, however, as Socrates savs in the Phiedrus, respecting every thing, to consider in the first place what itis. But this is the form of the object of investigation, And the generated and the unbegotten give distinction to the mundane form, So that this is very properly thought to be the first thing that deserves an appropriate consideration, to which also Timieus immediately after this directs his attention. But since most of the Platonists understand by the words περὶ πάντοὸς, that Plato means about erery thing, conformably to what is said inthe Phiedrus, but Porphyry understands the words as signifying about the universe, it being fit to speak first concerning the universe, and to show whether itis naturally unbegotten or generated,—it is requisite to Know that the former interpretation has in a greater degree the spontancous. For to assume τὸ παντὸς for τὸ πῆι tov πάντος, is a forced assumption.

That, however, these things are simply to be investigated concerning every thing, we may previously assuine from common conceptions, and the first hypotheses. The addition also of whether the universe aleays was, having no beginning of generation, or whether it was generated,” shows that what is said is asserted more generally of ihe universe. For with reference to the world, it is demonstrated that it has a

p. 228