A COMMENTARY ON PLATO’S TIMAEUS By A. E, TAYLOR Pos of Mol Pip in the Unneniy of Eaibarg allow ofthe Behish Academy | ' oxFoRD i AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 1928 tPREFACE, Jovicrovs readers of the following pages will assuredly not take log to discover, what the writer knows only too well, that they are marred by errors of many kinds. The problems which confront an expositor of the Timaews are such that they might well demand for adequate treatment the combined attention of ‘experts’ in metaphysics, the pure mathematis, astronomy, medicine, psychology, and theolagia naturals, 0 ‘say nothing of palzcography and Greck grammar. The ‘experts’ in these branches of knowledge being naturally too much occupied with their own work to annotate a Platonic dialogue, either the Timacus must be left uncommented or fone who is not an ‘expert must do what he can to elucidate it at the risk of making plenty of bad mistakes due to his expertness. I have taken this risk with my eyes open; if, with all my shortcomings I have been able, on some points, to contribute to a better understanding of Plato's dialogue or of the history of early Hellenic science, I shall feel amply. repaid for a rather severe labour. The model I have had before me, if I may say so with becoming modesty, has all through been the one thoroughly worthy modern edition of the dialogue, T. H. Martin's Aéudss sur le Timée de Platon It is no derogation from the achievement of Martin to say that, magnificent as it was in its day, it is necessarily not fully adequate either to the present state of knowledge about cerly Greek science or to the present condition of textual ‘scholarship. Were Martin alive atthe present day, he would, no doubt, be able to produce a commentary immeasurably ‘superior to anything I can offer; in the absence of a Martin T venture to attempt such 2 Seérepor mods as my abilities permit, would take the opportunity to say something. as briefly 1s I can about the principles which have determined the formvith PREFACE, fof my work, Primarily this book is intended as a commen tary on the text contained in Professor Burnet’ edition of Plato. I have therefore attempted no reexamination of manu- scripts, though T have alloyed myself to cite, on the authority fof M. Rivaud’s more recent edition of the dialogue, the readings of W where they seem to be of interest, As my main object has been all through to throw light on the matter of the dialogue, I have not discussed small textual and gram ‘matical questions where their interest is merely textual ot ‘grammatical, At the same time I have tried, as best I can, to form a judgement for myself on the available evidence about the stages by which Plato’s text has been transmitted to us, and to consider every important variant on its merits. That Thave not gone very far wrong in principle is, I think, sug- gested by the fact that the publication of the readings of W. by M. Rivaud has several times strongly confirmed and, I believe, never reversed, the conclusions I had already reached. Thave also thought it my duty, wherever there seemed to be a real grammatical difficulty, to explain, and if necessary to Justify, my view of the construction. I may, no doubt, often have been wrong, but I shall, at least, have given others the ‘opportunity to show just how Lhave gone wrong. 1 could have wished to prefix a translation to my commentary, but this has been impossible in view of the already grievous bulle of the book. With regard to my treatment of the philosophy and science of the dialogue there is just one point on which something must be said here. It has too long been the tendency of ‘expositors to treat the theories of Timacus as if they were so ‘many speculations put forward by Plato as original discoveries of his own and expressive of his personal convictions. Ihave long felt that such procedure is, at least, highly question- able. For one thing, it isa singular feature of the dialogue that it gives us 50 many emphatic warnings of the tentative ‘and provisional character of its special theories. For another, PREFACE i | had remarked, more than twenty years ago, thatthe physical science of Timaeus owes a very special debt to two fifth century thinkers in particular, Empedocles and Diogenes of Apollonia, and that this curious fact requires explanation. For a third thing; ever since the publication of Burnet’s text, ‘gain nearly twenty years ago, called my attention to the correct reading at 401 it has been clear to me that Timaeus intends to ascribe a motion to the earth which is not the motion in which Plato himself can be shown, if we combine the hints of the Laws with the explicit statement of Theo- Phrastus, to have believed. These considerations long ago suggested to me the necessity of attempting to correlate the Timacus with all that ean be learned about the Pythagorean science of the fifth century. It seems probable that careful scrutiny would show that the science of Timaeus is, in the ‘main, pretty much what might be expected from a progres- sive Pythagorean contemporary of Socrates, and that Plato has, atleast, originated very little of it, (This would be quite consistent with the supposition that he would have been ready to accept most of it as provisionally the ‘most likely story") The necessity of testing this hypothesis in detail must be my excuse for the length to which my commentary has been allowed to run. IF it can establish itself, the Timacus must become a document of firstrate importance for the history of Pythagorean science. For different reasons it seemed to me that many students ‘would be glad to see the utterances of Timaeus on scientific questions carefully and systematically compared with Ari stotle’s treatment of the same problems, and this comparison have tried to carry out to the best of my power. T hope T shall not be thought to have been too presumptuous in my attempts to make the ‘metaphysie of nature’ which runs through the dialogue and that of Professor Whitchead and others among our contemporaries throw light on one another. T have felt the challenge on me to explain, if T can, why.x PREFACE, Dr. Whitehead finds 2 kindred spirit in Plato's Pythagorean. It is only too possible that a layman in physics may have made some blunders in his attempts to interpret Professors Whitehead and Eddington to bis fellow outsiders, but Lam. sure these eminent Professors will be the first to pardon such, sins of inadvertence. For the benefit of students I have freely given references throughout to standard works like Diels's Dasagraphi Gracct and Fragmente der Vorsobratiter, as also to the last edition of Ritter and Preller. But I may be allowed to say that it, is not my habit to take my quotations second-hand, With ‘one oF tio exceptions of an obvious kind, I have made a point of reading through for myself every book cited, Ithas been impossible for me to make any but very small changes since early in 192g, when my manuseript passed out of my ‘own hands. This will explain why I have not made the use should have wished to make of such works as Professor Joachim’s edition of Aristotle de Gencratione,Mr, Ross's edition, ‘of the Metaphysics, Professor W. Jacger's Aristoteles, Professor Whitehead’s Science and the Modern World, and others. I only remains for me to acknowledge some of my many debts of gratitude. To my friend and old colleague Professor Burnet I owe even more than my Index can express. I owe ‘much also for help in some troublesome and obscure matters to another old friend and colleague, Mr. W. L. Lorimer, of St. Andrews University. I have to thank the Delegates of the University Press for their readiness to undertake the work of publication, and the Press reader for his unfailing and invaluable assistance in the correction of errors and the verification of references. Whatever faults of the press ‘remain must be ascribed to my own ineuriousness or defective ision. To the University Court of St. Andrews, and especially to one gentleman whose name is an open secret, Tam deeply grateful for the generosity which provided a considerable contribution towards the cost of publication. PREFACE a Not for the first time I have also to thank the Society of Merton College, Oxford, who, by re-lecting me to a Fellow: ship in the year 1ger, made it possible for me to undertake in earnest a study at once so delightful and so unremunera tive as that of Plato, Finally, T should like to take this ‘opportunity of expressing to the Society of New College, Oxford, where T began my acquaintance with Greek philo- sophy, the gratitude I have always felt for all [learned during, my four years asa Scholar ofthat College. ABET. Epixnuneut, OcroseR 1927,