A Much Misread Passage of the Timaeus (Timaeus 49 C 7-50 B 5)
Harold Cherniss
The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 75, No. 2. (1954), pp. 113-130.
Stable URL
http: flinks.jstor-org/sici?sici=0002-9475% 281954%2975%3A2%3C113%3A AMMPOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9
The American Journal of Philology is currently published by The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
bhupulwww.jstororg/about/terms.hunl. JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you
have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of « journal or multiple copies of articles, and
you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial us.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
butpy/www jstor.org/journaljhup html.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or
printed page of such transmission,
JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to ereating and preserving a digital archive of
scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @jstor.org,
hupsvwwjstororg/
‘Sun Nov 19 07:52:40 2006AMERICAN
JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY
Vou. LXXV, 2 Waouz No. 298
A MUCH MISREAD PASSAGE OF THE TIMAEUS
(TIMABUS 490 1-50B 5).
In 1906 Fraccaroli declared that this passage of the Timaeus
hhad been misunderstood in whole or in part by all earlier com-
mentators. In 1928 A. E, Taylor in his Commentary on Plato's
‘Timacus agreed with this judgment but included in the con-
demnation Fraccarol’s own interpretation as well. Despite the
appearance of Taylor's commentary, Bury’s translation, Corn
ford’s translation and commentary, the careful translation by
Robin, and a special note by Hackforth on part of the passage,
it remains true in my opinion that the passage has not been
correctly translated and explained. Since in consequence it is
often cited as evidence for a doctrine that it does not espouse, 1
hhave here undertaken to set down first what I hold to be the
correct translation of 49 0 7-50 A 4, followed by a detailed com-
‘mentary to defend and explain this translation point by point,
‘hen the tranclation with commentary of the illustrative passage,
50.A4-B5, and finally some supplementary remarks upon the
significance of the whole paseage in its context.
In Timacus 48E ff. Plato has said that his account of the
universe now requires the introduction of a third factor besides
the two that he has hitherto been employing. In an attempt to
explain this third factor he speaks of the fact that phenomenal
fire, air, water, and earth seem to be constantly changing and
giving rise one to another. It is to these phenomena that roirey
in 49 D 1, the second word of the translation, refers,
usua HAROLD CHBRNISS,
Timacus 49 07-50 A4
‘Traxsuarios
49C7-DI_ Since these thus never appear as severally identical, eoncern-
495
onl
40E5
war
ing which of them could one without shame firmly assert that
this is any particular thing and not another? * It is not possible,
Dut by far the safest way is to speak of them on this basis:—
What we ever’ see coming to be at different times in different
places, for example fire, not to say “this is fire” but “what on
any occasion is such and such ig fire” nor “ this is water” but
“what is always such and such is water ”® nor ever *
Marx and Jewish Emancipation Author(s) : Shlomo Avineri Source: Journal of The History of Ideas, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1964), Pp. 445-450 Published By: Stable URL: Accessed: 20/06/2014 19:19