Commentary on the Timaeus of Plato

‘ ἡ ὁ “ean dhile ey" i * εἰ τὸ πὶ a τ 8 af : Ye. Lee 4 tad rch ile {7 -ὁ THE er ee / | 5001 PYTHAGORIC AND PLATONIC PHYSIOLOGY. TRANSLATED FROM THE GREEK, BY THOMAS TAYLOR. Epos wpos ptAogopous ἐστι φιλια" προς μεντοι σοζιστας, ἡ γραμματιστας, ἢ Υϑιονῆο yeros εἐτέρον ανθρωπὼων κακοδαιμονων, οντε νυν core φιλια, μητε νστερον wore γένοιτο. . Apollonius Ty aneus. TWO VOLUMES. se VOL. i. ες London: PRINTED FOR AND SOLD BY THE AUTHOR, NO. 9, MANOR PLACE, 5 fhe WALWORTH, SURREY, BY A. J. VALPY, RED LION COURT, FLEET STREET. Reproduced by DUOPAGE PROCESS inthe Micro Photo Division Bell & Howell Company Cleveland 12, Ohio OF that golden chain of philosophers, who, having themselves happily penetrated, luminously unfolded to others the profundities of the philosophy of Plato, Proclus ts indisputably the largest and most refulgent link. Born with a genius transcendently ereat, and accompanied throuch life with a fortune sincularl δ δ tad good, he exhibited in his own person a union of the rarest kind, in which power concurred with will, the benetit resulting from genuine philosophy with the ability of imparting it, and in which Wisdom was inseparable from Prosperity. The eulogium therefore of Ammonius Hermeas, “ that Proclus possessed the power of unfolding the opinions of the ancients, and a scientific judgment of the nature of things,in the highest perfection posstale tohumanity,”' will be immediately assented to by every one, who is an adept in the writings of this incomparable man.

I rejoice therefore, in the opportunity which is now afforded me of presenting to the English reader a translation of one of the greatest productions of this Coryphean philosopher ; though unfortunately like most of his other works, it has been transmitted to us in a mutilated state. For these Commentaries scarcely explain a third part of the Timeus ; and from a passage in Olympiodorus On the Meteors of Anstotle,” there is every reason to believe that Proclus left nu part of the * Fa δὲ τι και ἡμεῖς δυνηθειημεν εισένεγκειν περι τὴν τὸν βιβλίον σαφηνειαν, απονημονένσαντες των εζηγησεων row θειον ἡμων διδάσκαλον LpoxXov τον πλατωνίκον διαδοχον, Tov εἰς axpoy τῆς αγθρωπινηε φυσεωε τὴν τε εξηγητικὴν τῶν δοκουντῶν τοῖς παλαιοις δνναμιν, καὶ τὴν ἐπιστημονίκην rns φυσεως τῶν Ὄντων κρισιν ἀσκησαντος, πολλὴν av τῷ λογιῳ Dew χαριν ομολογησαιμεν- Ammon, de luterpret. p. 1. For important particularsrespecting this extraordinary man, see my translation of his Commentary en the first book of Euclid. He was born about the year 412 of Christ. * See this passage in the notes to my translation of the Meteors of Aristotle. Timzus without his masterly elucidations. This is likewise more than probable, from what Marinus says in his life of him, ‘that he was a man laborious to a miracle ;” for it cannot be supposed that such a man would leave the greater part of one of the most important dialogues of Plato unelucidated, and particuJarly as these Commentaries were written by him (as the same Marinus informs us) in the flower of his age, and that he preferred them beyond all his other works." Fortunately however, the most important part of this work is preserved ;

or that part in which the demiurgic, paradigmatic, and final causes of the universe areunfolded ; the corporeal nature of it is represented as fabricated with forms and demiurgic sections, and distributed with divine numbers ; and soul is produced from the Demiurgus, and is filied with harmonic ratios, and divine and fabrieative symbols. The whole mandane animal too, is here shown to be connected, according to the united comprehension which subsists in the intelligible world ; and the parts which it contains are so disposed as to harmonize with the wiole, both such as are corporeal, and such as are vital. For partial souls such as ours, are introduced into its spacious receptacle, are placed about the mundane Gods, and hecome mundane through the luciform vehicles with which they are connected. The progression of the cloments likewise from their first incorporeal subsistence to their subterranean termination, and the mature of the heavens and heavenly bodies, are beautifully developed. And as the result of the most scientific reathat the fixed stars have periodic revolutions on their axes, though the length of their duration is

soning, it is shown that every planet is surrounded with satellites, tous unknown; and that the stars, which at times disappear and again: become visible, are the satellites of other fixed stars of amore primary dignity, behind the splendors of which they are occasionally concealed.’ These and many other Inost interesting particulars, are unfolded in’ these Commentaries, with an accuracy and perspicuity which have seldom been equalled, and have never been excelled. ' The late Dr. Charles Burney, on being once asked by me, whether he had ever read these Commentaries, candidly replied, ‘that they were too much for hin; atthe same time eaclaiming, ‘‘ What a giant was Proclus compared to Longinus!” ‘This confession, as the Doctor had never studied the philosophy of Plato, displayed a degree of good serse, which is seldom to be met with in a grammarian and philologist, om such an occasion; aud his cundour is still more remarkable, when it is considered that he had been a Reviewer. * See p. 270. Vol. 2. in which itis saia, “ that in each of the planetary spheres, a number analogous to the choir of the fixed stars, subsists with appropriate circulations.” Sce also p. 2650 and 281, of the same volume, in which this is more fully asserted.

3 See p. 299. Vol. 2. When T speak however, of the perspicuity with which these particulars are developed, Ido not mean that they are delivered in such a way, as to be obvious to every one, or that they may be apprehended as soon as read ς for this pertains only to the fungous and frivolous productions of the present day ; but my meaning is, that they are written with all the clearness, which they are naturally capable of admitting, or Which a genuine student of the philosophy! of Plato can desire. And this leads me to make some remarks on the iniquitous opinion which, since the revival of letters, has been generally entertained of the writtigs of Proclus and other philosophers, who are distinguished by the appellation of the latter Platonists, and to show the cause from which it origmated, The opinion to which T allude is this, that Plotinus and his followers, or in other words, all the Platonists that existed from his time to the fall of the Roman empire, and the destruction of the schools of the philosophers by Justinian, corrupted the philosophy of Plato, by filling it with jargon and revery, and by ascribing dogmas to him, which are not to be found in his writings, and which are perfectly absurd. It might naturally be supposed that the authors of this calumny were men deeply skilled in the philosophy, the corruptors of which they profess to have detected ;

and that they had studied the writings of the men whom they so grossly defame. This however is very far from being the case. For since the philosophy of Plato, as 1 have elsewhere shown, is the offspring of the most consummate science, all the dogmas of it being deduced by a series of geometrical reasoning, some of them ranking as prior, and others as posterior, and the latter depending on the former, like the propositions in’ Eucla, certain preparatory disciplines are requisite to the perfect comprehension of these doctrines. Hence a legitimate student of this philosophy must be skilled in mathematics, have been exercised in all the logical methods, and not be unacquainted with physics. [16 must also be an adept in the writings of Aristotle, as preparatory to the more sublime speculations of Plato. And in addition to all this, he must possess those qualifications enumerated by Plato in the 7th book of his Republic; viz. he must have naturally a good memory, learn with facility, be magnificent and orderly, and the friend and ally of justice, truth, fortitude, and temperance. Since the revival of letters however, this philosophy has not been studied by men, who have had the smallest conception that these requisites were indispensably

1 Itis well said by Petwin, alluding to this philosuphy, ‘that there are certain truths acquired by a long exercise of reason, both in particular, and likewise in those subjects that are most general, as much, perhaps, out of the reach of the greatest mathematician, as the speculations of Newton are above the capacity of some that are now called matbematicians.” necessary, or who have attempted the acquisition of it, in this regular and scientific method. Hence, they have presumed to decide on the excellence of works, with the true ments of which, as they were thus unqualified, they were wholly unacquainted, and to calumniate what they could not understand, They appear likewise to have been ignorant, that Plato, conformably to all the other great philosophers of antiquity, wrote in such a way as to conceal the sublimest of his doctrines from the vulgar, as well knowing, that they would only be profaned by them without being understood; the eye of the multitude, as he says, not being sufficiently strong to bear the Jight of truth. Hence, as Proclus well observes, ! “it is needless to mention, that it is unbecoming to speak of the most divine of dogmas before the multitude, Plato himself asserting that all these are ridiculous to the many, butin an admirable manner are esteemed by the wise. Thus also, the Pythagoreans said, that of discourses some are mystical, but others adapted to be delivered openly.

With the Peripatetics likewise, some are esoteric, and others exoteric; and Parmenides himself, wrete some things co.formable to truth, but others to opinion; and Zeno calls some assertions true, but others adapted to the necessary purposes of life.” The men therefore, who have defamed the latter Platonists, being thus unqualified, and thus ignorant of the mode of writing adupted by the great ancients, finding from a superficial perusal of the most genuine disciples of Plato many dogmas which were not immediately obvious in his writings, and which were to them incomprehensible, confidently asserted that these dogmas were spurious, that the authors of them were delirious, and that they had completely corrupted and polluted the philosophy of their master. It may also be added, as Olympiodorus justly observes, that the writings of Plato like those of Homer, are to be considered physically, ethically, theologically, and in short, multifariously; and that he who does not thus consider them, will in vain attempt to unfold the latent meaning they contain. By the latter Platonists however, they have been explored in this way, and he who is capable of availing himself of the clucidations of these most benevolent and most sagacious men, will find the arduous sublimities of Plato accessible, his mystic narrations conformable to scientific deductions, and his apparent obscurity, the veil of conceptions, truly

* Ore de azxpern ra Oewrara των Soyparwy ἐστιν, εἰς ἀκοὰς φερομέναᾳ τῶν woAwY, οὐδὲν dec λεγειν, avrov WAarwios εἰπονῦτον, ws παντα ravra καταγέλαστα μεν ἐστι τοις πολλοῖς, θαυμαστως δὲ alia τοις ovgus. ovrw be και οι luda yope (ut τῶν λυγων TOUS μεν εφασκον εἰναι μυστικους, TOUS δε νπαιθριονς, καὶ οἱ ex τὸν Tlepexarov, τοὺς μεν ἐσωτερικονς, τους δε εξωτερικους, και avtos Παρμενίδης, τα per xpos αληθειαν : E eypaye, ta be xpos Solar, καὶ o Zyvwy ke rovs μεν adnfers exader των λόγων, τοὺς δε χρειωξεις. Procl. MS. Comment. in Parmenid, luminous and divine. And thus much as to the cause of the prevailing iniquitous opinion, respecting the writings of the latter Platonists; for the authors of jt, I have not been able to discover. But of this I am certain, and posterity will confirm the decision, that whoever they were, they were no less ignorant than arrogant, no less contemptible than obscure. With respect to the following translation, 1 have only to observe, that [have endeavoured to the utmost of my ability to unite in it faithfulness with perspicuity, and to preserve the manner as well as the matter of the original, Independent of the difliculties snseparable from such an undertaking, and which arise from the abstruseness of the subjects that are discussed in this work, the original abounds with errors, not of a trifling, but of the most important nature; errors, which so materially affect the sense, that no one can read these Commentaries, unless he corrects them, and yet no one can correct the greater part of them, unless he is well acquainted with the philosophy of Plato.

Of this the reader may be convinced by perusing the notes which accompany this translation, in which he will find upwards of eleven hundred necessary emendations. I call them necessary, because they are not the offspring of conjecture, but such as the sense indubitably demands, Of translations too, of this work, I could not avail myself; for ofthe whole of it there are none; and a Latin translation of a part of the 3d book. by Nicholwus Leonicus Thomeus," is the only aid that has been afforded me in this arduous undertaking, From this translation I have been able, as the learned reader will perceive, to give many important emendations of the printed original, and not unfrequently to add to it, not only particular words, but entire sentences that were wanting.

And now 1 shall conclude with observing, that though like most others who have laboured greatly for the good, not merely of their country, but of all mankind, I have only met with ingratitude from the public for those labours ; and that though on this account Iam not much indebted, yet I sincerely wish well to my native Jand, and to every individual in it. That 1 have neither been influenced by the expectation of sordid emolument, nor of the honours of the multitude, in the prosecution of these labours, must be evident from the nature of them, to the most careiess observer. The most perfect conviction indeed, that a greater. good than the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle was never imparted by divinity * This translation forms the last part of the Opuscula of Thomzus, printed at Venice in the year 1525 ; which work is so scarce, that Fabricius in his account of the Life and Writings of Proclus, (Biblioth. Grec. Tom, 8.) says, he never sav it. * According to Plato in the 7th Book of his Republic, “that which springs up spontaneously, should not be forward to pay any one for its nurture.” to man, and the consequent persuasion, that 1 could not confer a more real bene- ‘fiton the present age and posterity than by a dissemination of it in my native tongue, as they induced me to engage in such a difficult undertaking, have also been attended with the purest delight, froma conviction that 1 was acting rightly, and therefore ina way pleasing to divinity. Hence in accomplishing this Herculean task, I have been satisfied with exploring myself, and imparting to others, the treasures of ancient wisdom ; and with endeavouring to deserve the favourable regard of that ineffable principle, whose approbation is not only the highest honour that either mortals or immortals can obtain, but the most durable and substan-

NAMES OF THE PHILOSOPHERS QUOTED BY PROCLUS IN THESE COMMENTARIES. Aprastus APHRUDISIENSIS, one of the genuine Peripatetics, according to Simplicius On the Categories of Aristotle. AGLAOPHEMUS, one who initiated Pythagoras in the mysteries of Orpheus. Αὐδιν 5, a Platonic philosopher, who flourished about the time of Galen. ALEXANDER APHRODISIENSIS, ἃ Peripatetic philosopher, who flourished under the Empero™ Severus. Ametivs, a Platonic philosopher, and a disciple of Plotinus. AmMonius Saccas, the preceptor of Plotinus. ANAXAGORAS, the Clazomenian, flourished about the 70th Olympiad. ANTONINUS, a disciple of Ammonius Saccas. ArIsToTLF, the disciple of Plato, was born in the first year of the 99th Olympiad. Atticus, a Platonic philosopher, who flourished under Marcus Antoninus. Curysiprus, a celebrated Stoic philosopher, died in the 145rd Olympiad. Crantor SoOtensis, the first interpreter of Plato, also a fellow disciple with Nenocrates of Plato, and an auditor of Polemo. Democritvs, the celebrated philosopher of Abdera, flourished about the 80th Olympiad. Empenoc.es, the celebrated Pythagorean philosopher, was an auditor when a young man of Pythagoras. Ericurvs, was born in the 109th Olympiad. Evpemus, the Rhodian, a disciple of Aristotle, and to whom Aristotle inscribed his Eudemian Ethics. Ga en, the physician, who was also a Platonist. Ele wrote 200 Volumes, most of which were burnt in the temple of Peace, and flourished under the Emperor Adr-an.

HarpvocratTion, the Platonist, an Argive, and the familiar of Augustus Cesar. Hrraciipes Ponticus, a disciple of Plato and Speusippus. Heracuitvus Ernesivs, surnamed the obscure, flourished about the 70th. Olympiad. Juan, the Theurgist, who flourished under Marcus Antoninus. IamBticnus, a Platonic philosopher, surnamed the ditine, flourished under the Emperor Constantine. Tim. Plat. Vou. i. h Nicomacnes, the Pythagorean, was, according to Fabricius, somewhat posterior to the age of Antoninus Pius. Numentus, a Pythagoric and Platonic philosopher, flourished prior to Plotinus. Oce ius Lucanvs, an auditor of Pythagoras, and one of his most eminent disciples, OriGen, (not a father of the Church,) a disciple of Plotinus. ParmeENtpES, the Elean, a Pythagoric philosopher, flourished about the 70th Olympiad. Puerecybes, the Syrian, the preceptor of Pythagoras. Puiroravs, of Tarentum, an eminent Pythagorean philosopher, and ai auditor of Pythagoras. Pato, was born in the 4th year of the 88th Olympiad, and died in the 108th Olympiad. Protinus, one of the most eminent of the Platonic philosophers, flourished under the [Emperors Gordian and Galieuus. Piurancn, of Charonea, in Baotia, the preceptor of Trajan, and the celebrated biographer. Porruyry, a disciple of Plotinus, aud distinguished by the appellation of the pAilosopher, Posivonivus, a Stoic philosopher, flourished under the reign of Julius Cxsar. PRAXIPHANES, adisciple of TPheophrastus. Procius MaLtores, is mentioned by our Proclus as one of the ancient philosophers, Pytnacoras, the father of philosophy, flourished about the Goth Olympiad, Severus, a Platonist, but the time in which be flourished is not known, Socrates, the celebrated preceptor of Plato, was born in the 4th year of the 77th Olympiad.

Socrates, the Platonist, was posterior in time to Amelius. Soton, the Legislator, fluurished about the 46ch Olympiad. Srrato LaAMPSACENUS, an auditor and successor of ‘Mheophirastus. Synianus, the preceptor of Proclus, See the notes to this work, Tuaces, was bom in the firt year of the 35th Olympiad, and died in the 58th Olympiad. Tneoponus, Asin evs, a disciple of Plotinus, and surnamed the great. Turornrastus, the celebrated disciple and successor of Aristotle, Xexanenes, ἃ Peripatetic philosopher, and the frend of Augustus Cusar. Xenocrates, a disciple, and successor of Plato. Xexopnanes, the Colophonian, author of the Eleatic method of reasoning, flourshed in the Goth Olempiad. For an account of this method, see the additional notes on this work, Zeno ELeares was an auditor of Parmenides, and flourished about the 86th Olympiad. N. B. The Olympic games were restored by Iphicus, 442 years after their first institution, and about 777 years before Christ. From this last institution the Greeks began to reckon by Olyimpiads, cach vf which contained the space of a years. Aud this continued even to the reign of Constantine,

she eR PRE I ας στον ain nite aaa Accs ts AN EXPLANATION OF CERTAIN TERMS USED BY PROCLUS IN THIS WORK. το ανχγωγιχον. Tur Anacocic. That which elevates the soul from sensibles to intelligibles. αλλοιωσις:. ALLIATION. Change in quality. axoxaractasi;. APOCATASTASIS. Lestitution to a pristine form, or condition of being. τὸ γενεσιουργικον. Tne Grnesiurcic. ‘That which is effective of generation. ο δαιμόνιος Δριστοτέλης. THe Damoniacat AristotLe. This philosophez was thus denominated by the ancients, from his transcendent physiological knowledge; nature being proximately governed by demons, or those powers that subsist between Gods and men. γένεσις. GENERATION. A flowing condition of being, or a subsistence in becoming to be. Hence, ro yryverdas signifies am extension in subsistence, or a tendency to being. δημιουργὸς τῶν ode. THe Desmiturcus or Wuores. The maker of the universe is thus denominated, because he produces the universe, so far as itis a whole, and likewise all the wholes it contains, by his uwn immediate energy, other subordinate powers co-operating with him in the production of parts. Llence be produces the universe totally and at once. διανοια. Ditanosa. ‘Vhe discursive energy of reason; or it is that power which reasons scientificall, deriving the principles of its reasoning from inteliect.

Sofa. Opinion. Is the last of the gnostic powers of the rational soul; and knows that a thing is, but is ignorant of the cause of it, or why it is. For the knowledge of the és, or why a thing 1s, belongs to διάνοια, τὸ ἐπιθυμητικὸν μέρος τῆ; ψυχης. ‘Tue Epituymetic Part oF THE Sout, or that part of the soul which is the principle of all-various desires. But desire is well defined, by the Pythagoreans, to be a certain tendency, impulse, and appetite of the soul, in order to be filled with something, or to enjoy something present, or to be disposed according to some seusitive energy. They add, that there is also a desire of the contraries to these, and this 1s a desire of the evacuation and absence, and of having no sensible perception of certain things. εἰκονιχως. IcCoNICALLY. Δ thing is said to subsist iconically, when it subsists after the manner. of an image. εἐνδιαστικω;. ENTHEASTICALLY. In adivinely-inspired manner. ἐνιαιω;. Unicanry. In away conformable to the nature of (he one. ro ἐτερηχιγήτον. THE ALTER-MOTIVR. ‘That which is moved by another thing, and not by. itself, ὄυμος. ANGER. An appetite of the soul directed to the avengement of incidental molestations..

doy. Reasons. Productive principles or powers; aud they also signify forms. μορῷη. Morerne. Pertains to the colour, figure, and magnitude of superficies.. ΧΗ πολυδυναμος. MULTIPOTENT. Possessing much power, vorpa επιβολη. INTELLECTUAL Prosecrion. The immediate energy of intellect is thus denominated, because it is an intujtive perception, or an immediate darting forth, as it were, to its proper object, the intelligible. νους. Interteer. In the human soul is the summit of dianoia, and is that power by the hght proceeding from which, we perceive the truth of axioms. But in divine natures itis a self - subsistent, impartible, eternal essence, perceiving all things at once. chorrs, Wuobrness. A whole which has a perpetual subsistence, and which comprehends in itself all the multitude of which it 15 the cause. πλήρωμα. PLENITUDE, OR Compreteness. Is a whole which gives completion to the universe. : τὸ vonroy, % wees, ᾿ ψυχικὸν αἀλατο;. THE [yTrLLIGIBLE, oR INTELLECTUAL, OR Psycuicar Breaptu; i.e. the extent of the progression of the istelligible, of intellect and of soul, and of each of these according to its own order, and not according to a progression into an inferior order. τὸ cuvgercy. Tur Composite. L have used the word composite instead of compounded, because the latter rather denotes the mingling, than the contiguous union of one thing with another, which the former through its derivation from the Latin word compositus, solely denotes.

τελεστικη τέχνη. ΤῊΣ Trvestic Ant. Is the art pertaiming to mystic operations. φιλυπολεμικός. Puitorotemic. An epithet of Minerva, signifying that she 1s a dover of war ; just as she is also called philosophic, as being a lover of wisdom, νπαρξις- ΠΥΡΑΆΧΙΒ. The first principle, or :.undation, a3 it were, of the essence of a thing. Hence also, it is the summit of essence. ] i | 1 THAT the desizn of the Platonic Timeus embraces the whole of physiology, and that it pertains to the theory of the universe, discussing this trom the beginning to the end, appears to me to be clearly evident to. those who are not entirely illiterate, For this very treatise of the Pythagoric Timawus Concerning Nature, is written after the Pythagoric manner; and Plato being thence impelled, applied himself to write the Timwus, according to Sillographus." On this account we have pretixed the treatise of Timaus to these Commentaries, in order that we may know what the Timeus of Plato says that is the same with what is asserted in the treatise of Tinzeus (the Loecrian], what it adds, and in what it dissents. And that we may investizate not in a careless manner the cause of this disagreement. All this dialogue, likewise, through the whole of itself, has physiology tor its scope, surveying the same things in images and in’ paradigms, in wholes and in parts. For it is filled with all the most beautifal boundaries * of physiology, assuming things simple for the sake of such as are composite, parts for the sake of wholes, and images for the sake of paradigms, leaving none of the principal causes of nature uninvestigated.

* Viz. Timon, who was so called from writing scurrilous comic poems. * J. ε. Final intentions. Tim. Plat. Vou. 1. ' A But that the dialogue deservedly embraces a design of this kind, and that Plato alone preserving the Pythagoric mode in the theory concerning nature, has prosecuted with great subtilty the proposed doctrine,—ought to be considered by those who are more sagacious and acute. Por since, in short, physiology receives a threefold division, and one part of it is conversant with matter and material causes, but another part also adds the investigation of form, and evinces that this is the more principal cause; and again, since a third part demonstrates that these have not the relation of causes, but of concauses, and admits that there are other causes, Which are properly so called, of things generated by nature, viz. the eflective, paradigmatic and final cause ;—this being the case, among the multitude of physiologists prior to Plato, that directed their attention to matter, there was ἃ diversity of Opinion respecting the subject of things, For Anaxagoras, who appears to have seen, while the rest were asleep, that intellect is the first cause of generated natures, made no use of intellect in his explaination of things, but rather employed certain airs and iethers as the causes of things that are generated, as Soerates says in the Phiedo. But of those posterior to) Plato, who were the patrons of a sect, not all, but such of them as were more accurate than the rest, thought fit to survey physical form in conjunction with matter, referring the principles of bodies to matter and form.

Porif they any where mention the producing cause, as when they say that nature is a principle of motion, they rather take away its efficacious and properly effective power (than allow the existence of it] by not granting that it contains the reasons [or productive principles} of the things effected by it, but admitting that many things are generated casually. To which we may add, that they do not acnnowledge that there is a pre-existing producing cause of, in short, all physical things, but of those only that are borne along in generation. Por of eternal natures they clearly say, that there is no effective cause; im asserting whieh they are ignorant that they must either give subsistence to the whole of heaven from chance, or evince Chat whats casual is Itself productive of itsell.

Plato however alone, following the Pythagoreans, delivers indeed, as the cons causes of natural things, a tiiversal reeipient, and material form, which are subservient to causes properly so called, ino the generation of things. Bat prior to these, he investigates principal causes, viz. the producing cause, the paradigm, and the final cause. ‘Through these also, he places a demiurgic intellect over Viz. Anstotle, and his followers, ποοκ 1. TIMZEUS OF PLATO. 3 the universe, and an intelligible cause in which the universe primarily subsists, and the good, which is established prior to the producing cause, in the order of the desirable. Tor since that which is moved by another thing, is suspended from the power of that which moves, as it is evidently not adapted either to produce, or perfect, or save itself, in all these it is in want of a producing cause, and ix conducted by it. Tt is 1+ therefore, that the concauses of natural things, should be suspended from true causes, from which they are produced, with a view to which they were fabricated by the father of all things, and for the sake of which they were generated. Justly, therefore, are all these delivered, and investigated with accuracy by Plato; and the remaining two, form and the subject-matter, suspended from these. For this world is not the same with the intellizible or intellectual worlds, which, according to some, subsist in pure forms ; but one thing in it has the relation of reason and form, and another, of a subject.

But that Plato very properly delivers all these causes of the fabrication of the world, viz. the good, the intelligible paradigm, the maker, form, and the subject nature, is evident from the following considerations. Vor if he had spoken concerning the intelligible Gods, he would have evinced that the good alone is the cause of these ; for the intelligible number is from this cause. But if concerning the intellectual Gods, he would have shown that he good and the intellizible are the causes‘ of these. For the intellectual multitude proceeds from the intelligible unities, and the one fountain of beings. And if he had spoken concerning the supermundane Gods, he would have produced them from the intellectual and total fabrication, from the intelligible Gods, and from the cause of all things, For this cause gives subsistence to all things of which secondary natures are generative, but ina primary, ineflable, and inconceivable manner. But since he discusses mundaie affairs and the whole world, he gives to it matter and form, descending into it from the supermundane Gods, suspends it from the total * fabrication, assimilates it to intelligible animal, and demonstrates it to be a God by the participation of the good; and thus he renders the whole world an inte!- lectual, animated God, This, therefore, and such as this, is, as we have said, the scope of the Timienus,

This however being the case, the order of the universe is appropriately indicated in the beginning of the dialogue, through images; but in the middle of it, * Tustead of ἀντι τουτων in this place, it is necessary to read αἰτίας rourwy. > For wAns bere, it is necessary to read ολην.- 4 PROCLUS ON THE [nook & the whole fabrication of the world. is delivered ; and in the end, partial natures, and the extremities of fabrication, are woven together with wholes. For the resumption of the discourse about a polity, and the narration respecting the Atlantic island, unfold through images the theory of the world, For if we direct our attention to the union and multitude of mundane natures, we must say that the polity which Socrates summarily discusses, is an image of their union, estaHlishing as its end the communion which pervades through all things; but that the war ofthe Atlantics with the Athenians, whieh Critias narrates, is an image of the division of mundane natures, and especially of the opposition according to the two co-ordinations of thirgs. Bat if we divide the universe into the celestial and sublunary regions, we Ν᾽ say that the [Socratic] polity, ts assimilated to the celestial order ; for Socrates savs, that the paradigms of it is established in the heavens; but the warof the Athintics, to eeneration, which subsists through contrariety and mutation. “Phese things therefore, for the reasons we lave mentioned, precede the whole of physiology.

Butatter this, the demiursie, paradigmatic and final causes of the universe are unfolded, in consequence of the pre existence of whieh, the universe is fabricated both according to the whole and the parts of it. Por the corporeal nature of it iN fashioned with forms, and divided by divine numbers; soul also ts produced from the Demiurgus, and is filled with harmonic reasons, and divine and demiurgic syinbols ; and the whole animal is woven together conformably to the united comprehension of it inthe intelfeible world. “Phe parts likewise of at, are arranged ina becoming manner in the whole, both such as are corporeal and such as are vital For partial souls being introduced into. the world, are arranged about their leading Gods, and through their vehicles become mundane, toitating their presiding deities, Mortal animals likewise, are fabricated and vivitied by the eclestial Gods: where also mau is surveyed, and the mode of his subsistence, and throuh what causes he was constituted, Man indecd ts considered prior to other things, cither because the theory respecting him pertains to us who make him the subject of discussion, and are ourselves men; or because man is ἃ microcosin, and all sueh things subsist in him partially, its the world contains divinely and totally. For there isan intellect ino us which is in energy, and a rational

non! procoeding from the same® father, and Che sane Vivifie Goddess, as the soul ' Vor arribeaes here, itis obviously requisite to re ad αὐ τιῆε σέων, Vor αὐτὴν rarpos here, 1 ᾿ν neeessary to read aurov marpos, nook 1.) TIMAEUS OF PLATO. 5 of the universe ; also an etherial vehicle analogous to the heavens, and a terrestrial boay derived from the four elements, and with which likewise it- is co-ordtnate. Tf therefore, it is necessary that the universe should) be surveved multifaviously, in the intelligible, and in the sensible world, paradigmatically, iconically, totally and partially, it will be well, if the nature of man is perfectly discussed in the theory of the universe, You may also say that conformably to the Pythazoric custom, it is necessary to connect the discussion of that which surveys with that which is surveyed. For since we are informed what the world is, it is requisite T think to add also, whiat that is which considers these things, and makes them the subject of rational animadversion. But that Plato directs his attention likewise to this, is evident froin what he says near the end of the dialogue, that it is necessary that the intellect of him who intends to obtain a happy life, should be assimilated to the object of his intelleetion. For the universe is always happy; and our soul will likewise be happy, When itis assimilated to the universes for thus it will be led) back to its cause, Foras the sensible man is to the universe, so is) the intelligible man_ to animal itself, But there secondary natures always adhere to such as are first, and parts subsist in unproceeding union with their wholes, and are established in them.

Hence, when the sensible man is assimilated to the universe, he also imitates: his paradigm after an appropriate manner, becoming a world through similitude to the world, and happy through resemblance to that blessed) god [the universe. } The ends also of fabrication are subtilely elaborated by Plato, according to genus and species, and also what pertains to meteors, together with productions in the earth, and in animals. such things as are preternataral, and such as are according tonature; in which part of the Timawus, likewise, the principles of medicine are unfelded. For the physiologist ends αἱ these; since he is a surveyor of nature. Fora subsistence aceordiig to nature, exists together with nature; but the preternatural is a departure trom nature, It is the business, therefore, of the physiologist to understand in how many modes this aberration subsists, and how it becomes terminated in moderation and a natural condition. But itis the province of the medical art to unfold) such particulars as are consequent to these. Aud in these things especially, Plato has something in common with other physiologists, For they were conversant with the most material, and the ultimate works of nature, neglecting the whole heaven, aud the orders of the mundane Gods, in consequence of directing their attention to matter; but they bade farewell to forms and primary causes.

6 PROCLUS ON THE (Book 1, It also appears to me that the demoniacal Aristotle, emulating as much as possible the doctrine of Plato, thus arranges the whole of his discussion concerning nature, perceiving that the things which are common to every thing that has a natural subsistence are, form and a subject, that from whence the principle of motion is derived, motion, time, and place; al! which are delivered by Plato in this dialogue, viz. interval, and time which is the image of eternity, and is consubsistent with the universe; the various species of motion; and the concauscs of things which have a natural subsistence. But with respect to the things peculiar to substances according to an essential division, of these Aristotle discusses in the first place such as pertain to the heavens, ina way conformably to Plato; 50 far as he calls the heaven unbegotten, and a fifth essence. Lor what diflerence is there between calling it a fifth clement, or a fifth world, and ἃ fifth figure, as Plato denominates it?) But in the seeond place, he discusses such things as are commoy to every thing that has a generated: subsistence, And) with respect to things of this hind, Plato deserves to be admired, for having surveyed with much accuracy the essence and powers of them, and for having rightly preserved their harmony and cgntrarieties. And of these, such indeed as pertain to meteors, Plato has delivered the principles, but Aristotle has extended the doctrine respecting them beyond what is fit. But such as pertain to the theory of aumals, are distinguished by Plato according te all final causes and concauses, but by Aristotle are scarcely, and bat in few Instances, surveyed according to form. For his discussion for the most part stops at matter; and making bis exposition of things that have ao natural subsistence from this, he shows to us that he deserts the doctrine of lis preceptor, gand thus much concerning these particulars.

In the next place it is requisite to speak of the form and character of the dialogue, and to show what they are. It is universally acknowledged, then, that Plato receiving the treatise of the Pythagoric Timiwus, which was composed by him after the Pythagoric manner, began to write his Timwus. Again, it is - also acknowledged by those who are in the smallest degree conversant with the writings of Plato, that his manner is Socratic, philanthropic, and demonstrative. 10, therefore, he has any where mingled the Pythagoric and Socratic peculiarity, he appears to have done this in the present dialogue. For there are in it from the Pythayorie custom, elevation of conception, the intellectual, the divinely inspired, the suspending every thing from intetligibles, the bounding wholes in numbers, the indicating things mystically and symbolically, the anagogic, the transcending nooK 1. TIMAUS OF PLATO. 7 partial conceptions, and the enunciative or unfolding into light. But from the Socratic philanthropy, the sociable, the mild, the demonstrative, the contemplating beings through images, the ethical, and every thing of this kind. Hence it is a venerable dialogue ; forms its conceptions supernally from the first principles ; and mingles the demonstrative with the enunciative. It also prepares us to understand physies, not only physically, but likewise theologically. For Nature herself who is the leader of the universe, being suspended from, and inspired by the Gods, governs the corporeal-formed essence. And she neither ranks as a Goddess, nor is without a divine peculiarity, but is illuminated by the truly-existing Gods.

If, likewise, it be requisite that discourses should be assimilated to the things of which they are the interpreters, as Timeus himself says, it will be fit that this dialogue also should have the physical, and should also have the theological ς imitating nature, which is the object of its contemplation, Fartier still, acvording to the Pythagoric doctrine, things receive a threefold division into intelligibles, ἢ things physical, and such as are the media between these, and which are usually called mathematical, But all things may be appropriately surveyed in all. For/ such things as are media, and such as are last! presubsist in intelligibles after a primordial manner, and both these subsist in the mathematical cenera ; first natures indeed iconically, but such as rank as the third, peradigmatically, In physical entities, also, there are images of the essences prior to them. This, therefore, being the case, Timieus, when he constitute? the soul, very properly indicates its powers, its productive principles, and its elements through mathematical names. But Plato defines its peculiarities by geomc.tical figures, and leaves the causes of all these primordially pre-existing in the intelligible and demiurgic intellect. And thus much concerning these things ; since when we descend to particulars, we shall be able to know more perfectly the manner of the dialogue. But the hypothesis of it ix as follows :

Socrates having come to the Pirwus for the sake of the Bendidian festival and solemn procession, discoursed there concerning a polity with Polemarchus, the son of Cephalus, Glanco and Adimantus, and likewise Thrasymachus the sophist. But on the day after this, he narrates the conference in the Pirwus, as it is laid down in the Republic, in the city, to Timaus, Hermocrates and Criteas, and to another fourth anonymous person. Having, however, made this narration, he calls upon the other associates, to feast him in return on the day after this, with the banquet of discourse. The auditors therefore and speakers assembled together 8 PROCLUS ON THE [Rook 1. on this day, which was the third from the conference in the Pireus. For in the Republic it is said, “* T went down yesterday to the Pirwus 37 but in this dialogue, “ Of those who were received by me yesterday at a banquet of discourse, but who ought now in their turn to repay me with a similar repast.” Not all of them however, Were present at this audition, but the fourth was wanting through indisposttion, What, therefore, you will say, are these three auditors of a discussion about the whole world? Treply, that itis fit the father of the discussion should be considered as analogous to [the Demiurgus, or] the father of works. For the fabrication of the world in words, is the image of the fabrication of it according to intellect.

Bat the triad of those that receive the discussion of Timieus, is analozous to the demiurgic triad which receives the one and total motion of the father; of which triad Socrates is the summit, through an alliance of life immediately conJolming himself to Tinieus, just as the first of the paradigmatic triad is united to the fatter, who is prior to the tuiad, These things, however, if the Gods please, we shall render more manifest through what follows. As we have therefore spoken concerning the scope and management of the dialogue, have shown low admirable the character of itis, and what is the whole of the hypothesis, and have indicated the adaptation of the persons to the present discussion, twill be proper that, betaking ourselves to the words of απ, we should investigate every parHieular to the utinost of our power,

Since, however, the word nature, being diflerently understood by different: persons, disturbs those who love to contemplate the conceptions of Plato, let us in the first place show what it appeared to him: to he, and what his opinion was of Its essence. For the hnowledge of what nature is, whence it proceeds, and how far itextends to productions, will be adapted) τὸ the dialogue, which bas for its object the physical theory. For of the ancients, some indeed, as Antipho, called iatter nature; but others form, as Aristotle, in many places. Others again called the whole of things nature, as some prior to Plato, of whom he speaks ino the Laws. Others’ denominated nature things which subsist by nature. But others gave the appellation of nature to physical powers, such as gravity and levity, rarity and density, as some of the Peripatetics, and still more ancient: pliysiolovists. Others called things which have a natural subsistence the art of God 5 others soul; and others something else of this kind. Plato, however, does not think fit to give the appellation of nature primarily, either to matter, or material ' For ore δὴ here, it is necessary to read οἱ dy,

form, or body, or physical powers, but is averse to call it immediately soul. Placing, however, the essence of it in the middle of beth, I mean, between soul and corporeal powers, the latter being inferior to it, in consequence of being divided about bodies, and incapable of being converted to themselves, but nature surpassing things posterior to if, through containing the reasons or productive principles of all of them, and generating and vivifving all things, he has delivered to us the most accurate theory concerning it. For, according to common conceptions, nature is one thing, and that which subsists according to, and by nature, another, For that which is artificial, is something diflerent from art, and the intellectual soul is one thing, and nature another. For nature, indeed, verges to bodies, and is inseparable from them, But the intellectual soul is separate from bodics, is established in herself, and at one and the same time belongs to herselfand to another. She belongs to another, indeed, in consequence of being participated, but to herself, through not verging to the participant; just as the father of soul is of himself being imparticipable, and, if yon are willing, prior to him the intelligible paradigm itself of the whole world. For these follow each other, viz. itse/; of itself; of’ itself and of another ; of another ; another. And with respect to the last of these, it is evident that it is every thing sensible, in which there is interval and all-various division.

But of the next to this, (viz. that which is of another,] it is nature which is inseparable from bodies, That which immediately precedes this [viz. that which is both of itself and of another,] is soul which subsists in herself, and imparts by illumination a secondary life to another thing. The next to this [or that which is of itself.) is the demiurgie intellect who abides Cas Plato says] in himself in his own accustomed manner. And the next to this Cor itself] is the intelligible cause of all things, which is the paradigm of the productions of the Demiurgus, and which Plato on this account thinks fit to call animal itself. Nature, therefore, is the last of the causes which fabricate this corporeal-formed and sensible essence. She is also the boundary of the extent of ineorporeal essences, and is full of reasons and powers through which she directs and governs mundane beings. And she is a Goddess indeed, in consequence of being deified, but she has not immediately the subsistence of a deity. For we call divine bodies Gods, as being tle statues of Gods. But she governs the whole world by her powers, containing the heavens indeed in the summit of herself, but ruling. 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. Bb

10 PROCLUS ON TIE [Book 1. 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. 12 PROCLUS ON THE- {nook τ. 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

ποῦκ 1 TIM.EUS OF PLATO. 13 him, he only knew through number that he was wanting, and manifests to us that so many were present. All these observations, therefore, are elegant, and such others of the like kind as may be devised by some in subserviency to the theory of the words before us. But it is necessary to remember that the dialogue is Pythagorean, and that it is requisite interpretations should be made in a way adapted to the philosophers of that sect. Such ethical Pythagoric dogmas therefore, as the following, may be denved from the present text: Those men established friendship and a concordant life, as the scope of all their philosophy. Hence Socrates prior to every thing else adduces this, by giving Timeus the appellation of friend. In the second place, they thought that the compacts which they made with each other, should be stably preserved by them; and for the fulfillment of these, Socrates desires the presence of the fourth person. In the third place, they embraced communion in the invention of dogmas, and the writings of one, were common to all of them. This also Socrates establishes, calling on them to become both guests and hosts, those that fill, and those that are filled, those that teach, and those that learn, Others, therefore, have written arts concerning disciplines through which they think they shall improve the manners of those that are instructed by them; but Plato delineates the forms of appropriate manners, through the imitation of the most eveellent men, which have much greater efficacy than those which are deposited in mere rules alone.

For imitation disposes the lives of the auditors, conformably to its own peculiarity. Hence, through these things it is evident what that is about which the philosopher is especially abundant, that it is about the hearing of discussions, and what he conceived to be a true feast; that it is not such as the multitude fancy it to be; for this is of an animal and brutal nature ; but that which banquets in us the [true] man. Hence too, there is much in Plato about the feast of discourse. ‘These therefore, and such particulars as these, are ethical.

But the physical Pythagorie dogmas are as follow: They said that every physical production was held together by numbers, and that all the fabrications of nature subsisted conformably to numbers. These numbers however are participated, just as all mundane forms are participable. Very properly, therefore, does the dialogue at its commencement proceed through numbers, and use numbers as things numbered, and not those very things themselves of which they participate. For the monad, duad, and triad are one thing, and one, two, three, another. For the former are simple, and each of these subsists itself by itself; 14 PROCLUS ON THE [Βοοκ |. but the latter participate of the former. Aristotle therefore, is not right in asserting, that these men considered numbers as subsisting in sensibles, For how could this be admitted by those who celebrate number as the father of Gods and men, and the tetractys, as the fountain of ever-flowing nature? But since the dialogue iy physical, it makes ity commencement from participated numbers, such as are ΑἸ γα {πὰ} αὐτὸ physical PBarther stl, these men venerated physical communion, both that whieh isin generation, wecording to whieh all Chines are rendered effable and commensurate with each other, and that whichis in celestial natures. For these impart to each other their proper powers, Rightly therefore, and in away acapted to the thing proposed, does Socrates think fit, that the same persons should become both hosts and guests.

From these things also, you may survey such theological conceptions as the following: These men generated all things through the first numbers, and which also rank as rulers and leaders; and from three Gods, gave subsistence to all mundane natures, Of these three, the monad, duad and triad, are indicative; so that it is requisite to begin from these, and that be why surveys nature inwardly should look to these, Farther still, the concauses of mataral Chings were also contemplated) by other philosophers, as by Anaxagoras and Zeno; bat the final, the paradigmatic, and the producing ' cause, were peculiarly investigated by Plato, These causes therefore are manifested through the above numbers, Phe final, indeed, through the monad ; for it presides over numbers in the order of the good. But the paradigmatic through the duad; for the difference of beings separates the primary causes of wholes. And besides this, the duad is the principle of the tetractys of intelligible paradigms. But the producing cause is signified through the triad. For intellect is adapted to the triad, since itis the third from being through life as the medium, or from the father through power, or from the intelligible through intelligence. Por as the monad is to the duad, so is being to life, father to power, and the intelligible to intelligence. Βα ἀν the duad is to the triad, so is life, and also power and intelligence, to intellect. Again, all divine natures are 'nall, and are united to each other, so that all of them are in one, and each is in all, and they are connected together through divine friendship, The sphere also which is there, comprehends the one union of Gods. Hence Socrates who looks to divinity, very properly begins from) communion and concord, and likewise calls the other persons of the dialogue to this. Moreover, the words

* Por warpoaow here, it is necessary to read ποιητίκον. Jeasting and banguet, are words adapted to the Gods, and especially to the mundane Gods. For they proceed together with the liberated Gods to the banquet and delicate food, as Socrates says in the Phadrus: and the feasting on the nati- - vity of Venus, was in conjunction with the great Jupiter. These things therefore, Socrates thinks should subsist analogously with them, in their mutual participations of divine conceptions, And itis not at all wonderful that Timaus should feast others, and be feasted by them. Farther still, communications and participations of powers are celebrated by theologists, divine natures filling and being filled by each other, For thus we hear from poets inspired by Phabus, that the Gods communicate with each other in intellectual or providential energies in the works which they effect in the universe. In golden cups the Gods each other pledge, And while they drink their eyes are fix’d on Troy. * They also know and intellectually perceive each other. For Gods are to each other not unknown. * But the intelligible according to the Chaldzan oracle is nutriment to that which is intellective. From all which it is evident, that a reciprocation of banqueting, subsists primarily in the Gods. And of men, those that are more wise, imitating in this respect the Gods, impart to each other in unenvying abundance, their own proper intellectual conceptions.

“Tim. A certain infirmity has befallen him, Socrates: for he would not willingly be absent from such an association as the present.” The philosopher Porphyry says, that what is apposite is delineated in these words: that this is the one cause with wise men of relinquishing such like associalions, viz, infirmity of body; and that it is requisite to think that every thing of this kind depends on circumstances and is involuntary. Another thing also is delineated, that friends should make fit apologies for friends, when they appear to have done any thing rightly, which is contrary to common opinion. The present ᾿ liad Iv. 2 seq. " Οὐγ95. Υ, 79. 16 PROCLUS ON THE [Book 1. words therefore, comprehend both these, indicating the manners of Timiwus, and the necessity of one being absent; exhibiting the former as mild and friendly to truth, but the latter, as an impediment to the life of a lover of learning. But the divine Tamblichus speaking lottily on. these words, says that those who are exer- cised in the survey of intelligibles, are unadapted to the discussion of sensibles ; as also Socrates himself says in the Republic, + that those who are nurtured in pure splendor, have their eyes darkened when they descend into the cavert through the obscurity which is there; Just as it likewise happens to those who ascend from the cavern, through their Inability to look directly τὸ the hieht.” Through this cause therefore, the fourth person is wanting, as being adapted to another contemplation, that of intelligibles.

1 is also necessary: that this his infirmity, should be a transcendeney of power, aecording to which he surpasses the present theory, Lor as the power of the wicked, is rather impoteney thane power, thus also imbecillity with respect to things of a sccondary mature, Is tran scendency of power. According to famblichus therefore, the person who is wanting, is absent in consequence of betng incommensurate to physical discussions; but he would have been willingly present, if intelligibles were to have been considered, And nearly with respect to every thing [in this dialogue} prior te physiology, one of these, i.e. Porphyry, interprets every thing in amore political inanner, referring what is said to the virtues, but the other, Tamblichus, ina more physical way. Por itis necessary, that every thing should accord with the proposed scope : but the dialowue is physical, and not ethical, Such therefore, are the conclusions of the philosophers about these particulars. Por TP omit to mention those who labour to evince, that this fourth person was "Thewtetus, because he was known to those who came out of the Eleatic* school, and because we are informed felsewhere} that be was all Pence he is said to have been now absent on necount of iiness, Por this Aristocles: infers, that the absent: person wits Theatetus, who a little before the death of Socrates, beewme hnown to Socrates, and to the Elean stranger, Bat admitting that he had been Leng before known to the latter, What is there in common between Timwus and hin?

‘Phe Platonic Prolomy however, thinks that the absent person was Clitophon: for in the dialogue which bears hiv name, he is not thought deserving of an answer by Socrates, But Dereyilides is of opinion that it was Plato: for he was absent through illness, * See the beginning of the 7th book of the Republic. > Por eXeyaruov here, it eppears to me to be pecessary to read EXearjauv.

when Socrates died. These, therefore, as I have said, I omit; since it is well observed by those prior to us, that these men neither investigate what is worthy of investigation, nor assert any thing that can be depended on. All of them, likewise, attempt a thing which is of a slippery nature, and which is nothing to the purpose, even if we should discover that which is the object of their search. For to say that it was either Theaxtetus or Plato, on account of illness, does not accord with the times. For of these, the former is said to have been ill when Socrates was judged, but the latter when Socrates was dead. But to say it was Clitophon is perfectly absurd. For he was not present on the preceding day, when Socrates narrates what Clitophon said the day before, during the conference in the Pirewus; except that thus much is rightly signified by Atticus, that the absent person appears to have been one of those strangers [or guests] that were with Timeus. Hence Socrates asks Timzus where that fourth person was; and Timezus apologizes for him, as a friend, and shows that his absence was necessary, and contrary to his will. And thus much for what is said by the more ancient interpreters,

What, however, our preceptor [Syrianus] has decided on this subject, must be narrated by us, since it is remarkably conformable to the mind of Plato. He says, therefo-e, that in proportion as the auditions are about things of a more venerable and elevated nature, in such proportion the multitude of hearers is diminished. But the discussion in the Timeus becomes, as it proceeds, more mystic and arcane. TLence in the former discussion of a polity during the conference in the Pirwus, the hearers were many, and those who had names were six. But in the second conference, which is narrated by Socrates, those who receive the nar ration are four in number, And in the present conference, the fourth person is wanting; but the auditors are three. And by how much the discussion is more pure, and more intellectual, by so much the more is the number of auditors contracted. For every where that which is discussed is a monad.—But at one time, it is accompanied with contention; on which account also, the auditors have the indefinite, and the definite is extended into multitude, in which the odd is complicated with the even. At another time, however, the discussion is narrative, yet is not liberated from opposition, and dialectic contests. Hence also, the auditors are four in number; the tetrad through its tetragonic nature, and alliance to the monad, possessing similitude and sameness ; but through the nature of the even, possessing difference and multitude. And at another time' the discussion

* It is necessary to supply in this place, the words owov δε. Tim. Plat. Vou. I. Cc 18 PROCLUS ON THE [poox 1. is exempt from all agonistic doctrine, the theory being unfolded enunciatively, and narrafively. Hence, the triad is adapted to the recipients of it, since this number is in every respect connascent with the monad, is the first odd number, and is perfect. For as of the virtues, some of them subsist in souls the parts of which are in a state of hostility to each other, and measure the hostility of these parts ; but others separate indeed from this hostility, yet are not perfectly liberated from it; and others are entirely separated from it;—thus also ‘of discussions, some indeed are agonistic, others are enunciative, and others are in a certain respect media between both. Some, indeed, being adapted to intellectual tranquillity, and to the intellectual energy of the soul; but others to doxastic energies; and others to the lives that subsist between these. Moreover, of auditors likewise, some are commensurate to more elevated auditions, but others to such as are of a more groveling nature. And the auditors indeed of grander subjects, are also capable of attending to such as are subordinate; but those who are naturally adapted to subjects of less importance, are unable to understand such as are more venerable. Thus also with respeet to the virtues, he who has the greater possesses likewise the less; but he who is adorned with the inferior, is not entirely a partaker also of the more perfect virtues,

Why, therefore, is it any longer wonderful, if an auditor of discussions about a polity, should not be admitted to hear the discussion about the universe? Or rather, is it not necessary that in more profound disquisitions, the auditors should be fewer in number? Is it not likewise Pythagoric, to define different: measures of auditions? For of those who caine to the homacoion (or common auditory of the Pythagoreans] some were partakers of more profound, but others of more superticial dogmas. Does not this also accord with Plato, who assigns infirmity as the cause of the absence of this fourth person? For the imbecility of the soul with respect to more divine conceptions, separates us from more elevated conferences, in which case the involuntary also takes place. For every thing which benefits us in a less degree, is not conformable to our will. But the falling off from more perfect good is involuntary; or rather it is itself not voluntary. But the falling off which not only separates us from greater goods, but leads us to the infinity of vice, is involuntary. Hence also Timwus says, that this fourth person was absent not willingly from this conference. For he was not absent in such a way as to be perfectly abhorrent from the theory, but as unable to be initiated in evreater speculations. It is possible, therefore, for an auditor of disquisitions about the fabrication of the world, to be also an auditor of discussions about a

polity. But it is among the number of things impossible, that one who is adapted to receive political discourses, should through transcendency of power, omit to be present at auditions about the universe. This fourth person, therefore, was absent through indigence, and not as some say, through transcendency of power. And it must be said, that the imbecility was not the incommensuration of the others fo him, but the inferiority of him to the others. For let there be an imbe- _cility both of those that descend from the intelligible, and of those that ascend from the speculation of sensibles, such as Socrates relates in the Republic; yet he who becomes an auditor of political discussions, cannot through a transcendency unknown to those that are present, be absent from the theory of physics. It likewise appears to me, that the words “ has befallen him,” sufficiently represent to us the diflerence between him and those that were present, with respect to discussions, and not with respect to transcendency. His being anonymous also, scems to signify, not his being exempt from and circumscribed by those that were present, but the indefiniteness and inferiority of his habit. Plato, therefore, is accustomed to do this in many places. Thus in the Phado, he does not think him deserving of a name, who in that dialogue answered badly. He also mentions indetinitely,' the father of Critobulus, who was absent from the discussion of the subjects that were then considered ; and likewise very many others. An auditor therefore of this kind would in vain* have been present at these discussions; since of those that were present, Critias indeed himself says something; but Hermocrates is silently present, differing only from him who is absent in a greater aptitude to hear, but being inferior to all the rest, through his inability to speak.

“Soc. It is your business, therefore, O Timus, and that of the company present, to fill up the part of this absent person.” This also accords with what we have said. For in natures which are more causal and divine, quantity is always contracted, and multitude diminished, but power transcends. And this also is a dogma of the Pythagoreans, with whom the triad is more venerable than the tetrad, the tetrad than the decad, and all the numbers within, than those posterior to the decad: And in short, that which is * For ἀρίστως here, it is necessary to read αοριστως. * Instead of o bn rotovros axpoarns, ov parny ay παρεγένετο ros Aoyous, it appears to me to be necessary to read ὁ δὴ rovovros ἀκροατὴς ovy, parny κ.λ. 20 PROCLUS ON THE [Βοοκ 1. nearer to the principle, has a more primordial nature. But that which is more primordial is more powerful; since all power is antecedently comprehended in the principle, and from the principle is imparted to other things, If, therefore, the principle of things was multitude, it would be requisite that what is more multitudinous, should be more primordial and powerful than what is less so. Since, however, the principle is a monad, that which is more monadic, is more excellent and more powerful than things which are more separated from their cause. Hence Socrates very properly makes a diminution of number to bea symbol of superior perfection, which antecedently comprehends according to power all secondary natures, and fills up their deficiency.

But since, as we have before observed, Socrates is the summit of this triad of auditors, and he conjoins himself to the monad that disposes the conference, conformably to the image of demiurgic Gods, it is worth while to observe, how he exempts Timwus from the rest, and how he is extended to him, as to the dispensator of the whole discussion. He conjoins, however, the other auditors to himself, as being inferior to him in desert. For these things may be referred to divine causes, in which the first of the [demiurgic] triad is united to the primary monad, and extends the other parts of the triad to it. Tt also calls forth, indeed, the productive energy of the monad, but excites the energies of the rest to fabrication. These things, therefore, are conformable to what has been before said. But according to Porphyry, the ethical doctrine contained in these words is this, that friends ought to endure all things for each other, both in words and deeds, and to supply their wants, and cause them to be unindigent, by filling up their deficiency.’ For these are the peculiarities of pure and genuine friendship. Tamblichus, however, having supposed that the anonymous person was superior to those that were present, and was a lover of the contemplation of intelligibles, says, that Socrates indicates by these words, that though generated fall short of the nature of trulyexisting beings, yet a certain sinulitude is divulsed from these beings. And conformably to this, the theory which is conversant with nature, participates ina certain respect of the science of intelligibles, and this the filling up the part of the

“Tim. Entirely so, Socrates. And we shall endeavour to the utmost of our ability, to leave nothing belonging to such an employment * For τὸ ἐκείνων here, it is necessary to read ro e\Aciwor. unaccomplished. For it would not be just, that we, who were yesterday entertained by you, in such a manner as guests ought to be received, should not return the hospitality with readiness and delight.” The manners of Timeus are indicated by these words; for they are shown to be superb and modest, elevated and elegant, friendly and philanthropic. For the words “ Entirely so,” indicate his promptitude respecting the absent person, and the perfection of the science according to which he is readily disposed to fill up what is wanting in others; and they also indicate his genuine sincerity. But the words, “ We shall endeavour to the utmost of our ability, to leave nothing belonging to such an employment unaccomplished,” sufficiently present to our view, his firmness in the fulfilment of his promises, and his modesty in speaking of himself. Such, therefore, are the ethical indications that may be surveyed in these words. But the physical indications are these, that the remuneration of discussion, conveys an image of tiie communion and compensation of powers, through which all things are co-ordinated, and contribute to the one harmony of the universe. Likewise, that the energies of nature are changed according to time, different energies operating at different times on different subjects.

For to these indications the words, “return the hospitality to you, by whom we were yesterday entertained in such a manner as guests ought to be received,” are similar. That which is theologically indicated is this, that the demiurgic cause proceeds through, and fills all things, aad cuts off every deficiency through his own power, and his prolific abundance, according to which he leaves nothing destitute of himself. For he is characterised by the super-plenary, the sufficient, and the all-perfect. Moreover, the expression, return the hospitality, is derived from the banqueting in divine fables, according to which the Gods pledge each other:

In golden goblets they each other pledge. Iliad IV. v. 2. being filled with nectar from the mighty Jupiter. Nor is it simply said, to feast, but fo return the hospitality (or to feast in return). For a reciprocation of feasting," comprehends the entire, and completely perfect plenitude of banqueting. But this also is scen in wholes. For the visible orders of things call forth invisible powers, through their own consummate aptitude; and the latter through transcendency of goodness perfect the former. All these likewise, are conjoined with each other, and the communication of perfection, becomes the retnbution of * For αφεστιασις here, it is necessary to read αγταφεστιασιε. 22 PROCLUS ON THE (Book 1. calling forth. Farther still, to do all these things, accompanied with justice, conveys an image of the Justice which arranges all things in conjunction with Jupiter. But the becoming {or in such ἃ manner as guests ought to be received] is an image of the cause which illuminates wholes with demiurgic beauty. And the term guests, is an image of the variety which is defined according to divine peculiarities. For each of the divine natures possesses appropriate powers and energies. As therefore Socrates feasted Timeus with the discourses of his own philosophy, thus also each of the Gods, energizing conformably to his proper powers, contributes to the one and transcendent providential attention of the Demiurgus to the whole of things. And_ these particulars are exhibited as an exercise to the theory of things, which presents itself to the view! after the manner of an image, in the introduction to the dialogue,

From these things likewise, the times of the dialogues, the Republic, and the Timwus, are manifest; since the one Is supposed to have taken place during the Bendidian festival in the Pirwus, but the other on the following day of the fesἀνα]. For that the Bendidian festival was celebrated in the Pirwus on the 19th of April, is acknowledged by those who have written concerning festivals, so that the Timwus must be supposed to have taken place on the 20th of the same month, But if, as will be observed in what follows, this dialogue is supposed to have taken place during the Vanathenwan festival, it is evident that this was the less Panathenwa. For the greater were celebrated on the 28th of June, according to the narration of those whom we have just mentioned, “Soc. Do you remember, therefore, the magnitude and quality of the things which I proposed to you to explain £” In the first place, it is requisite to attend to the order of the heads of what is said, of which, that concerning the multitude of those that form the conference, is the leader. The next to this pertains to the filling up the part of him who ts absent. And the third is that which is now added, and respects the explication of the things proposed to be discussed. But these are in continuity with each other. And with reference to the order, it is requisite to understand the accuracy of the words. For the words “ Do you remember,” exhibit distributed knowledge in the participations of discourse, Lor in the Demiurgus the recollection of all

' For eugawopeva in this place, I read engancuerns. things, is a separate, exempt, and uniform knowledge, according to the Mnemosyne which he contains, and which is the firm establishment of divine intelligence. And this in the secondary Gods, is a subordinate intellection; of both which the present persons are images. Through this memory likewise, which pre-exists in the universe, whole souls are established in intelligibles, and the demiurgic reasons, [or productive principles} possess an imrautable and an immoveable nature ; so that such" beings as are deprived of it, as is the case with partial souls, and the natures of things that are generated, fall off from their proper causes. But the terms “ such things,” and “about which,” are indicative of the quantity and quality of the productive principles, which proceed indeed from the total fabrication, and also proceed trom more partial Gods. And with respect to the words “which 2 proposed to you to caplain,” if they were addressed to Critias and Hermocrates, it is evident how they are to be referred to things, and to the principles of the fabrication of the world; but if also to Timeus, they are not a symbol of transcendency [in Socrates}, but of an evocation of the intellectual conceptions of Timzus. Besides these things, however, let us survey the answer of Timaus.

“Tim. Some things indeed, I recollect ; but such as I have forgotten, do you recall into my memory.” That which is ethical in these words, you will find to be this, as Porphyry says, that they are amedium between irony and arrogance. For Timus does not say that he recollects every thing, nor that he recollects nothing; but that he recollects some things, and not others. That which is logical in them is, that they afford a pretext for the summary repetition of the problems: for to do this is the province of dialectic. The physical indication of the words is this, that physical productive principles always remain, and are always refluxive, just as the present remembrance [of Timius] is partly preserved, and partly lost. For what is said by the man must be transferred to the whole of nature. And the theological indication is, that the one fabrication [which is that of the Demiurgus] possesses indeed from itself, the immutable and undefiled in its generations ; but through secondary and third powers, is sustained as it proceeds, and is in itself separate ; these powers attending it as guards, and running as it were before it repress the tumult of generated natures. Or rather, that this fabrication is such,

* For oens here, it is necessary to read oea. 24 PROCLUS ON THE [Boom t. through placing secondary powers over the subjects ofits government. Farther still, the recalling into the memory, brings with it an image of the renovation of the productive principles in the universe. For that which is effluxive in them, is circularly recalled to the same, and the similar. And the order of generation remains never-failing, through the circular motion of the heavens. But this motion subsists always after the same manner through intellect which connectedly contains and adorns all its circulation, by intellectual powers. It is very properly, therefore, Socrates that recalls into the memory the discussions, who is the nar- -rator of the polity, of which the celestial is the paradigm. “ Orrather, if it be not too much trouble, run over the whole in a cursory manner from the beginning, that it may be more firmly establish- ed in our memory.” The polity [of Socrates] being triple, the first description of it was truly dithcult on account of sophistical contests; the second was easier than that which preceded it; but the third was [perfectly] easy ; containing in itself contractedly every species of a polity. The recapitulation however of it pertains to physical things, through the regeneration which jis in them, and the circular return to the same form; from which also, forms permanently remain in the world, revolution recalling their efllux and their destruction, Through this cause likewise, the heavens are perpetually moved, and evolving many periods, return to the same life.

What, however, is the reason that in the [first] narration of a polity, Socrates nelther makes mention of the persons, nor the promises, but here adds both these? It is because in wholes, paradigms indeed comprehend all the productive principles of images, but the things which proceed from them, have not strength sufhicient to comprehend all the power of theircauses, As, therefore, in the second description of a polity, mention is made of the persons that were in the first conference in the Pirsus, thus also in the third, he commemorates those that were passed over in silence in the first. For effects may be surveyed more perfectly in their more superior causes. You may also say theologically, that Timeus, as being established analogous to the total fabrication, comprehends all the persons, the promises, and the discussions themselves. But Socrates in the Republic, heing arranged analogous to the summit' of the triple fabrication, fashions only

* For axAornri here, it is necessary to read ἀκροτητι. ποοκ 1.) TIM.EUS OF PLATO. 25 the form of a polity, tis form being celestial. Here, therefore, as in one all-perfect animal, all things are comprehended, viz. things tirst, middle, and last, and all the evolution of wholes, But how, and through what cause is a polity narrated the third time? Is it because the life also ' of the soul is triple? The first indeed, being that which represses and adorns the irrational * part by justice, and governs it ina becoming manner. But the second being that which is converted to itself, and desires to perceive itself intellectually, in consequence of subsisting according to its own justice. And the third ascending to its causes, and establishing in them its proper energies. To which may be added, thai “to speak “in a cursory manner,” brings with it an image of a life conspiring to one intellect, which comprehends all things through an intelligible essence. The words also “ run over the whole” afford an admirable indication of an elevation to the highest end, of perfection, and if you are willing s0 to speak, of a more eternal intelligence. For this signifies to be more established, and to possess that which is more firm and more eternal about the same things.

“Soc. Let it be so. And to begin: the sum of what was said by me yesterday is this, What kind of polity appeared to me to be the best, and of what sort of men sucha polity ought to consist.” Some, considering the resumption of a polity ina more ethical point of view, say thatit indicates to us, that those who apply themselves to the theory of wholes, ought to be adorned in their manners. But others think that it is placed before us as an image of the orderly distribution of the universe. And others, as an indication' of the whole of theology. Zor id τοῖς usual with the Pythagoreans, prior to scientific doctrine, to render manifest the proposed objects of enquiry, through similitudes and images ; and after this, to introduce through symbols the arcane indication respecting them. For thus, after the excitation of the intellection of the soul, and the purification of its eye, it is requisite to introduce the whole science of the things which are the subjects of discussion. Here, therefore, the concise narra- For ac rns ψνχη»ν, it is requisite to read καὶ τὴς Lunes. > For τὸν Aoyor here, we must read τὸν adoyor.

2 Inthe original oc δὲ αζιουσιν ws εἰκονα τῆς Του παντὸς διακοσμήσεως προκέεισϑθαι THs συμπασης BeoXoyias. But this, in the latter part, is evidently defective. Aficr προκεῖσθαι therefore, it appears to ine to be necessary to add the words, οἱ δὲ ws ἐγξειξιν, agreeably to the above translation. Tim. Plat. VoL. I. D 25 PROCLUS ON THE [Boox ft. tion of a polity, prior to physiology, iconically places us in the fabrication of the universe ; but the history of the Atlantics accomplishes this symbolically. For it is usual with fables to indicate many things through symbo!s. So that the physiologic character pervades through the whole of the dialogue ; but differently in different places, according to the different modes of the doctrine which is delivered. And thus much concerning the scope of the proposed words. That in the present discussion, however, the summary repetition of a polity very properly takes place, may be multifariously inferred. For the political seience subsists primarily in the Demiurgus of the universe, as we may learn in the Protagoras. And true virtue shines forth in this sensible world. Hence also ‘Timeus says, that the * world is known and js friendly to itself through virtue. Farther still, the polity of Socrates being triple, and the first being referred to the total fabrication, as we have elsewhere shown, the form of this is very properly delivered here contractedly, where it is proposed to survey the whole Demiurgus, generaung and adorning the universe.

These things, therefore, are capable of being still farther discussed. Let us however return to the teat, and the words of Socrates. But in these, there is mach contention among the interpreters, who oppose each other about a certain punctuation, and with reference to this differently explain the scope of the discussion. For some, making a stop at the word polity, define the scope of it to be conformable to the inscription, and adduce Plato as a witness that it is concerning a polity. Others again, making a stop at the words what was said, evince that the scope of itis about justice ; and that Soerates has given a certain summary of what was said about justice, which is concerning a polity. If, however, itis requisite not to trifle in asserting and contradicting, it must be said that both concur with each other, For the discourse concerning Justice, Is a disquisition of the polity whichis within the soul. Por it rightly disposes the communion of the powers that we contain. The discourse, likewise, about a polity, is a discussion of the justice which subsists in multitude. — Both, therefore, pertain to the same thing, And the same thing ts indeed justice in’ the soul, a polity na city, and gracefulness in the world. Nor is it fit to separate from each other, things which are conjoined by nature, And thas much for this particular.

* By an unaccountable mistake the original has Σωκρατὴν instead of coopoy in this place, which lat- tcr is evidently the teue reading. noox 11] ΤΙΜ ΖΚ OF PLATO. .7 Longinus however and Origen contend with each other from another principle, about what kind of polity Socrates speaks, in these words; whether about the first, orthe middle polity. For in the latter, the polity is seen living physically, politically, and intellectually. Longinus therefore thinks, that what is here said pertains to the middle polity, because Socrates calls the assistants guardians, and says that the guardians are warriors. But Origen is of opinion that what is said respects the first polity. For in this Soerates delivers disciplines to the guardians. We however say in answer to such-like assertions, that it is not proper to divulse the one polity ; nor to separate the continuity of life from itself. For the polity is one, perfecting itself, and co-augmenting itself by more perfect additions. But the whole polity possesses the physical in the mercenaries, the warlike in the ausiliaries, and the intellectual in the guardians. So that the discussion is about the whole polity. And itis not proper to contend about these things, but rather to consider this, how the polity may very properly be said to be both subordinate to, and superior to physiology." For so faras it has for its matter human concerns, and is desirous of adorning these, it has an order secondary to, and more partial than physiology.

But so far as it subsists in universal reasonings, and is arranged incorporeally, and immatenally, it is superior to, and more total than physiology. The world also is a certain polity, and a partial polity [with reference to the imelligible world], because every body is partial. In short, the polity preexists indeed in the intelligible, but exists in the heavens, and subsists in the Jast place in human lives. So that if it is superior to physical fabrication, it was very properly discussed prior to the Timieus; but ifit is inferior to it, because it is an ethical world, but the other is mundane and all-perfect, we are very properly required to recur from things subordinate to such as are of a more venerable nature. Aud both are true, through the above-mentioned causes. Since, however, as we have said, the form of the polity is universal, and is impressed in a partial matter, hence also Socrates employs the words what kind for the sake of the form, but the words of what sort of men on account of the matter.

— ©Try. And what was said, Socrates, was in the opinion of all of us very conformable to intellect.” A narration conformable to intellect, but neither conformable to pleasure, nor * Here also the original has erroneously θεολογίας instead of φυσιολογιαι. the decision of the vulgar, indicates the admirable perfection and intellectual nature of the discussion [contained in it), And prior to this, it obscurely signifies the concordant congress of all secondary causes about one intellect, and one united fabrication. The word very too, which is added, unfolds the transcendent union, through which all demiurgic causes converge as to one centre, and one paternal cause of all things. “Soc. Did we not then, in the first place, separate husbandmen and other artificers from the belligerent genus?” The discourse about a polity, and the conglomerated and concise repetition, in asummary Way, of the genera contained in it, contributes to the whole narration of the mundane fabrication, For itis possible from these as images to recur to wholes. This very thing also was ina remarkable degree adopted by the Pytharoreans, Who investigated the similitades of beings from analogies, and betook themsclves from images to paradigms ; which likewise is now in a prefatory manner eflected by Plato, who points out to us, and gives us to survey in human lives those things which take place in the universe. Por the polities of worthy men are assimilated to the celestial order. Ttis necessary, therefore, that we also should refer the images which are now mentioned (to their paradigms), and in the first place, what is said about the division of the genera.

For this section of genera, imitates the demiurgic division in the world, according to which incorporeal nas tures are not able to pass into the nature of bodies, nor mortal bodies to leave their own essence, and migrate into an incorporeal hypostasis. According to which, also, mortal natures remain mortal; immortal natures eternally continue τὸ. be never-failing ; and the diferent orders of them have paradigmatic causes pre-subsisting in wholes. For if you are willing to arrange the whole city analogous to the whole world ; since itmust not be said that man is ἃ microcosin, and a city not; and to divide it into two parts, the upper city and the lower, and to assimilate the former to the heavens, and the latter to generation, vou will find that the analogy is perfectly appropriate. Likewise, according to a division of it into three parts, you may assume in the city, the mercenary, the military, and the guardian : butin the soul, the epithymetic part, which procures the necessities of the body ; the irascible part, whose office is to expel whatever is injurious to the animal, and is also ministrant to our ruling power; and the rational part, which os essentially philosophic and has a regal authority over the whole of our life. In every multi-

ὩΣ τοι Oe PRI πὰς Ὁ κ SEER OE 9 Be τον pooK 1] TIMGEUS OF PLATO. 29 tude of souls, however, there are, that whieh performs the partof a mercenary about generation, that whoech is ministrant to the mundane providence of the Gods, and that which is elevated to the intelligible. But in all mundane natures, ‘ and the order of there are, in short, the tribe of mortals, the tribe of damons, the celestial Gods ς for they are truly the guardians and saviours of the whole of things. And again, damons precede as in asolemn procession the fabrication of the celestial Gods, and suppress all the confusion and disorder in the world. There ts likewise a certain physical providence of mortal natures, which generates and comprehends them contormably to a divine intellect. Farther sal, according to another division, the agricultural tribe of the city is analogous to the Moon, which comprehends the sacred laws of nature, the cause of generation. But the inspective guardian of the common marriages, is analosous to Venus, who is the cause of all harmony, and of the union of the male with the female, and of form with matter, That which providentially attends to clegant allotinents, is analocous to Termes, on account of the lots of which the God is the guardian, and also on account of the fraud which they contain, But that which is disciplinative and judicial in the city,

is analogous to the Sun, with whom, according to theologists, the mundane Dice, the elevator and the seven-fold reside, And that whieh is belligerent, is analogous to the order proceeding from Mars,* which governs all the coutraricuics of the world, and the diversity of the mniverse. That which is royal, is analogous to Jupiter, who is the supplier of ruling prudence, and of the practical and adorning intellect. But that which is philosophic, is analogous to Saturn, so far as he is an intellectual God, and ascends as far as to the first cause. These things, therefore, may thus be

cassumed through analogies. Plato, however, appears to have divided the city into two parts, and to have established as one genus, that which is agricultural and that which pertains to the arts, which is called demiurgic τ but that which is belligerent, as another; not that he now recapitulates the military polity, as Longinus says, but because through the word dedligerent, he comprehends the auxiliaries and the guardians. For of these, the former war with their hands, but the latter by their counsels. Just as also among the Greeks, Ajax indeed fights, as being the barrier of the Greeks, and Nestor likewise fights, who is the guardian of the Greeks ; the latter as a defender, repelling the enemy by his counsels ; but the former, by employing his hands. Unless it should be said, that Plato now ' For ro δαιμὸν φυλον in this place, it is necessary to read τὸ δαιμονὼν φυλον. * For yewpyuy, which occurs here by a strange mistake, it is obviously necessary to read ἀρηΐκῃ. 30 PROCLUS ON THE {nook t. peculiarly makes mention of the military tribe, because he wishes to narrate the warlike actions of a polity of this kind. “Soc. And when we had assigned to every one that which is accommodated to his nature, and had prescribed one employment only to each of the arts,’ we likewise assigned to the military tribe one province only.”

In the first place, there is a two-fold reading of these words. For it either is “And when we had prescribed one employment conformable to nature to each of the citizens, in order that each might perform his proper work,” or, “ When we had presenbed to each to pursue an employment conformable to nature, which: is adapted to each according to the present aptitude of his nature.” In the next place, it must be enquired through what cause Socrates makes such a division, or on what account he says, “that each employmentis rightly pursued by hin who ts naturally adapted to it, and who ina becoming manner engages init.” For neither is diligent attention, when deprived of aptitude, able to accomplish with rectitude any thing perfect, nor can dexterity without diligent attention proceed into energy. The end, therefore, is from both. Tf, however, this be the case, it is not possible for him who engages in many works, to be similarly adapted to all of them, or to pay attention similarly to all; in consequence of his ardor being divided about a multitude of things. Hence in this case, the pursuits of the citizens must necessarily appear to be of a viler nature. But if this is not right, one employment should be assigned to each of the citizens, to which he to whom it is distributed is adapted, and he should be ordered to extend all his care and attention to one thing.

For he who is properly adapted to this particular life, and pursues it in a becoming manner conformably to nature, will, itis likely, perform in the best way his proper work. In human polities, therefore, it is easy to survey a division of this kind ; for our nature is partible. But how is this true with respect to the Gods?) For a divine nature ts all-powerful and all-perfect. Or may we not say that with the Gods all things are in all of them, but that each is all things according to the peculiarity of himself, and possesses the cause of all things, one after a Solar, but another after a Mercurial manner? For peculiarity originating from the divine unities, proceeds through intellectual essences,

through divine souls, and through the bodies of these souls. Hence of these, * The words exaory τέχνῃ are omitted in the text of Proclus. PE ASW ee ασα PER A ARS EE aI ROOK 1. TIMMUs OF PLATO. 31 some participate of demiurgic, others of prolific, others of connective, and others ofa dividing power. And after this manner they energize about generation, In divine natures themselves therefore peculiarity pre-exists, defining the unities according to the infinity which is there, and the divine duad. But in intellects, difference is pre-existent, which separates wholes) and parts, and = distributes intellectual powers, imparting a different peculiar order to a diflerent intellect, through which the purity of intellects is not confounded. In souls progression and division pre-subsist, according to a different life in different souls, some of them being allotted a divine, others an angelic, others a damoniacal, and others adiflerenthyparxis. But in bodies, interval pre-exists, producing diferent powers in different bodies, For in these, there are ultimate representations of intelligibles, according to which this particular body is effective of this thing, but another ofthat. And this body has a sympathy with this thing, but another sympathizes with something else. As, therefore, in this universe, each thing acts according to nature upon that which it was arranged by the fabrication of things to act upon; thus also in the city, the employments of the citizens are divided, and each is arranged to perform that for which he is naturally adapted. What, therefore, the works are of the military tribe, ‘Timaus clearly shows in what follows :

“Ἱ mean that they ought to be only guardians of the city, so as to protect it from the hostile incursions both of external and internal enemies ; but yet in such a manner as to administer justice mildly to the subjects of their government, as being naturally friends, and to behave with warlike fierceness towards their enemies in battle.” In these words Plato is willing that the euardians and auxiliaries should be judges of those that act ill within the city, but contenders against those that are out of it; in one way the auxiliaries, and in another the guardians, as we have before observed. To be only guardians, however, is not a diminution of power. For when we assert of the first cause that he is one alone, we do not by this diminish him, and entirely enclose him within narrow bounds; since neither is that which is only the most excellent, diminished by being so. But on the contrary, every addition to a thing of this kind is a diminution ; so that by asserting not only of athing which was such from the beginning, you diminish its excellence. And thus much for such-like particulars. Again, however, it is requisite to consider how we may survey what is now

/ bal 4 «. γ᾽ 42 PROCLUs ON THE [nook 1. said in wholes. For what is that which is external in the universe?) And how can it be said that the universe does not comprehend all things? May we not reply, that evil has a two-fold subsistence in the world, viz. in souls and i bodies? And it is necessary that those who exterminate confusion and ses from the universe, should extend justice and measure to souls, but should be antagonists to the unstable nature of matter. For some souls, indeed, are naturally adapted to the intelligible, on which account, also, they may be said to be internal, and to belong to the extent of the intelligible umverse ; but others, being material and remote from the Gods, are in a Certain: respect aliens, strangers, and external. Hence, those who are the accomplishers of justice, use the former mildly, as being naturally friends ; but are severe to those that are borne along in bodies in a confused and disorderly manner, as being incommensurate towards them, and as entirely abolishing their privation of order, and amputating the inexhaustible avidity of matter, For some things, indeed, cannot sustain ornament of this kind, but immediately vanish into non-entitv. But

others whieh are moved confusedly and disorderly, are repressed by the justice which prevails in the universe, and by the invincible’ strength of the order of euardian powers. Ifence he now says, that they are severe to those who are hostile to the city. For they are such as cannot endure to behold them. [ἢ short, there are elevating and cathartic powers about souls, and also inspective euardians of judgment and justice. And itis evident, that some of these are analogous to guardians, but others to auailiaries. About bodies, tuo, some are connective, but others dissolving powers : and it is manifest that some of these are analogous to guardians, but others to those that are belligerent. Por these powers expand into the universe, things which are no longer able to remain in their proper series, in order that all things may have an arrangement, and that nothing may be indefinite or confused. If, likewise, you direct your attention to the Demiurgus himself of wholes,.and to the mmmutable and invariable nature of the intellects, which divine poetry calls the guards of Jupiter, you will also have in the father (of the universe] the pre-existent cause of these two-fold) genera. For through the demiurgic being which he contains, he adorns all things ; but through the immutable guard which is established in himself, every eternal order remains, all disorder being entirely abolished. You may also see there Justice governing all things in conjunction with Jupiter. For Jastice follows him, being

* For ανταγωνίστεν here, it is necessary to read avavraywrtorov, noox 1.) TIM.EUS OF PLATO. 33 the avenger of the divine Jaw. At the same time too, you may perceive the armed order with which he arranges the universe, as those assert who have written the wars of the Titans and Giants. These things, however, we shall hereafter discuss, The words, however, external and internal, may be understood as follows : The confused and disordered tlux of bodies, at one time arises from the impotence of the reasons, [or productive principles participated by bodies,] and at another, from the inexhaustible avidity of matter. Reasons, however, are familiar and allied to producing causes ; but matter, through the indefiniteness of itself, and the remoteness of its diminution, is a stranger to its adorning causes. Hence, the invincible strength of the Gods, and the immutable guard of fabrication, all-variously subverting its confusion, renovates the reasons of matter, and remedies their imbecility; but vanquishes the avarice of matter. Not that matter resists the Gods who produced it, but that because on account of its indefiniteness it flies from ornament, it is vanquished by forms through the demiurgie guard, against which nothing is able to prevail. But itis necessary that all things in the world should be obedient to it, in order that they may perpetually remain, and that the Demiurgus may be the father of eternal natures.

“Soc. For we asserted, I think, that the souls of the guardians should be of sucha nature, as at the same time to be both irascible and philosophic in a remarkable degree; so that they might be mild to their friends, and severe to their enemies.” The philosophic and the irascible comprehend both the genera, viz. the auxiliary, and that which is peculiarly called the guardian genus, just as the epithymetic accords with the third genus, which is called the mercenary. For because Socrates distinguishes the upper from the lower city, he manifests by these two-fold names the differences of the orders contained in the city ; just as if some one having divided the world into heaven and generation, should say that in the former there are dwmoniacal and divine orders, and should call both of them the guardians of generation and the universe. For the universe is suarded by the Gods, and it is also guarded by daemons. By the former indeed totally, unically, and exemptly ; but by the latter partially, multitudinously, and in a Manner more proximate to the natures that are guarded by them. For about every God a multitude of demons is arranged, which divides his one and total

Tim. Plat. Vou. I. Ὁ 54 PROCLUS ON THE ο΄ [RooK 1. providence. The term philosophic, therefore, pertains to the Gods, so far as they are united to the intelligible, and so far as they are filled with being. But the irascible pertains to diemons, so far as they exterminate all confusion from the universe, and so far as they are the saviours of the divine laws, and of the sacred institutions of Adrastia. Through these causes, however, they are mild to their familiars, aptly applying a remedy to their imbecility, as being allied to them by nature, but severe to those that are external fi. e. to those that are strangers to them} as abolishing the indefiniteness of their nature, in an exempt manner, and according to supreme transcendency. “Soc. But what did we assert concerning their education ? Was it not that they should be instructed in gymnastic exercises, in music, and all other becoming disciplines?” The assertions that have been already made, are certain common types, extending to all things, according to the denuurgic allotment, and. divine ditference, defining employments adapted to every one, and distributing powers appropriately τὸ the recipients. But in the present words, the lite of the citizens is unfolded, through education, employments, communion, and the procreation of children, proceeding in a becoming manner from the beginning to the end. What then is education, and how is it assimilated to the universe? For in’ the [Socratic] city, it is the discipline of the soul, rightly adorning the irrational part

through music and gymnastic, the former giving remission to the streneth of anger, but the latter exciting desire, and rendering it) as it were elegant and commensurate with anger, in consequence of its being vehemently remiss, and through its descent to a material nature, filled from thence with a privation of life. But this discipline adorns reason through the mathematical sciences, which have something of an attractive mature, are capable of exciting ἢ αν the recollection of true being, and elevate our intellectial part) to that which is itself the most splendid of being. All which is evident to those who are not entirely forgetful of the arrangements in the Socratic republic. It is now, however, our business to investigate, what education, eyminastic and music are in the universe, and what the disciplines are of the guardians of the universe. Perhaps, therefore, we shall speak rightly if we say, that education is the perfection which fills each thing with the good pertaining to it, and causes it to be sufficient to itself, according to intellectual perceptions and providential i ans WOE. eit Rae σῶς δὶ ποοκ 1. TIM.LUS OF PLATO. 30 energies. But with respeet to music and gymnastic, that the former canses the lives in the universe to be harmonious, and the latter renders divine motion rythmical and elegant, so as always to preserve the same form, and the same immutable habit of the divine vehicles. For through these things Plato elsewhere calls divine souls Sirens, and shows that the celestial motion is harmoniously elegant ;

for gymnastic is indeed in them. But medicine is in things sublunary in’ consequence of their receiving that which is preternatural. If, therefore, we assert these things, we shall, as I have betore observed, perhaps speak rightly. For powers proceed supernally from intelligibles to all heaven, and impart to the celestial lives by illumination the most excellent harmony, and to their vehicles undecaying strengih. But the disciplines which are in the universe, are the intellectual perceptions of souls, and of celestial natures, according to which they run back to the intelligible, following the mighty Jupiter, and) surveying number characterized by unity, the truly-existing heaven, and intellectual figure. Hence you may say, that the most trae arithmetic, astronomy and geometry are in them. Por they behold swifthess itself) and slowness itself, which are the paradigms of the celestial periods. And, in short, they survey the primordial and intellectual circulation, divine number, and intellectual figures. You may likewise say, that prior to these, they contain dialectic, according to which they intellectually perceive the whole of an intelligible essence, and are united to the one cause of all the unities. And if it is necessary to speak by making a division, we may say, that through such like disciplines they energize about first natures; but through gymnastic, preside over things secondary with undefiled purity; and through music, harmonically contain the colligation of wholes. ἢ

“δος. We likewise established, that those who were so educated, should neither consider gold, nor silver, nor any other possessions of a similar kind, as their own private property.” Those things which are to be ordained in a city governed by the most equitable laws, have an evident cause, and were mentioned by Socrates in the Republic. Bat how ean we transfer them to the heavens?) Must it not be by. surveying through what cause men pursue the acquisition of gold and silver, and from what conceptions they are induced to cherish this infinite love? It is evident that it is because they wish to supply their wants, and desire to procure such things as may administer to their pleasures. For on this account, they are stupidly astonished 36 PROCLUS ON THE {Book 1. about much-beloved wealth. They say, therefore, conformably to Cephalus, that the rich have many consolations. If, however, these things thus subsist, the perfection of the celestial Gods, since it is sufficient to itself, and is converted to the beautiful and the good, is not at all in want of this adventitious and apparent self-sufliciency, nor docs it look to convenience, or regard as its scope vulgar utility; but being established remote from all indigence and material necessity, and replete with good, it has a leading and ruling order in the universe, —Moreover, it does not admit partible and divided good. But it pursues that which is common and impartible, and extends to wholes, and is especially characterized according to this. Hence it harmonizes with what is now said, “that those who are so educated should neither consider gold, nor silver, nor any other possessions of a similar hind, as their own private properly.”

If you are willing also, it may be said, that gold and silver, and each of the metals, as likewise other things, grow in the earth, from the celestial Gods, and from an εἰ μα τον thence derived. Ut is said therefore that gold pertains to the Sun, silver to the Moon, lead to Saturn, and iron to Mars, Hence these are generated from thence. But they subsist in the earth, and not in the celestial Gods who emit the effuxions. For they do not receive any thing from material natures, And all things there, are indecd from all, but at the same time a different peculiarity has dominion in’ a different divinity,—here, ina Saturnian, bat there, inva solar manner; to which those who love to contemplate these things directing their attention, refer one material substance to this, but another to a different power. These things, therefore, are not the private, but the common property of the Gods ; for they are the progeny of all of them, Nor do they subsist in them, For as they produced them, they are not in want of them; but the metals which are here, derive their concretion from the efflurions of the celestial Gods. Why, therefore, are these things earnestly pursued by men ina partible manner? [tis because they have a material life, and are extended to a partial nature, upostatizing from the whole. For on this account there is much among them of mime and not mine. But they abandon the union and communion of lite.

“ But that rather, after the manner of auxiliaries, they should receive the wages of guardianship from those whom they defend and_ preserve ; and that their recompense should be as much as is sufficient for temperate men. ‘hat besides this, they should spend their stipend in com- Βοοκ 1] TIM.EUS OF PLATO. 37 mon, and live cohabiting with each other, and neglecting other pursuits should pay attention to virtue alone.” It is not at all wonderful that in human lives there should be donation and retribution, and a reward of beneficence. For it is well said by Socrates in the Republic, that the mark at which he aims is to render the whole city happy, but not one particular genus of it, such as the guardian. If, however, this be right, it will be requisite that some persons in the city should be the saviours of it by their providential care and prudence, but that others by ministrant aid and servitude, should supply the saviours of the polity with the necessaries of life; just as the nature which is in us, by fashioning and preserving the organ, prepares milk for the energies adapted to it. But in the world, what retribution can there be, or what recompense can be made by mortals to the celestial Gods? For may we not say that these are the peculiarities of human imbecility, in consequence of not possessing self-sufliciency, but that every God is suflicient to himself, and in conJunction with the self suflicient is superfull?" Pence through the union of superplenitude with selfsufliciency, he fills all secondary natures with good, but re-

-ceives nothing from them. Or it may be said, that though divinity receives ‘nothing, as being sutlicient and unindigent, yet at the same time he requires cer- tain remunerations from us, retributions of beneticence, the acknowledgment of thanks, and equity, through which we are converted to him, and are filled) with greater good. For being good,’ he is desirous that all things should look to him, -and should remember that all things are from him and on account of him. For the preservation of the natures posterior to him, is for each of them to be suspended froma divine cause. If, however, we interpret these things after this manner, referring remunerations to conversions, and the acknowledgment of thanks, how can it still further be inferred, that the Gods cohabit with us in common, and spend a remuneration of this hind? It is better, therefore, to understand remuneration ina more physical way. For since efluaions proceed from the heavens to the mortal place, but exhalations ascend thither, and through these the fabrication of the Gods about mortal natures receives its completion, hence Socrates calls suchlike mutations and tronsitions of terrestrial natures, remunerations or wages from sublunary matter,’ which are perfected by the heavens, in order that generation

* It is necessary afler ry avrapver here to supply the word ureprAnpes. * For ayadwy yap or, it is obviously requisite to read ἀγαθὸν, «. A. 1 Instead of απο rns oAns in this place, I read ἀπὸ τὴν wAns τὴν νποσεληνῆν, 48 PROCLUS ON THE [poox 1. may never fail. But it must be said, that the cohabiting in common, is the one conspiration of divine fabrication, and the concordant providence of the celestial Gods, through which every thing that undergoes a mutation from the earth is consumed, and generation is variously changed through the harmonious dance of the celestial divinities ; to which also Timawus looking says, “ that the whole world is friendly and known to itself through virtue, and that its corruption ts the source of its nutriment, in consequence of effecting all things in, and suffering all things from itself” What then is the end of this one and common life of the citizens? Socrates says virtue, viz. divine virtue. Por virtue subsists first with the Gods; afterwards from them, in the genera superior 10. man ; and a certain portion of it descends also to us. The guardians of the world, therefore, living contormably to. this, are also unoccupied by other pursuits. Por they do not look to convenience, nor to externals ; for all things are within’ themsclyes. They likewise are the saviours of all things, and fill them with whatis beautiful and wood, being ministrant to, and co-operating with the one father and Demiurgus of wholes.

Since, however, they give measure to the mutations of the earth, notin so doing departing from, but being converted to themselves, and subsisting in themselves, on this account Socrates says, “ a@ recompense such as ty sufficient for temperate men. For beme temperate and pradent in what relates to themselves, they measure secondary nae tures, comprehending their all-various mutations in the simplicity ot their own life. Thus therefore what is said may be explained in this way. Butin another way we may say, that piety and a conversion to the Gods, especially coutain a measure, and are occupied by the good. This measure, however, is defined by the Gods themselves according to divine prudence, since the Gods are able

both to save themselves and others. “ Soc. Of women too we asserted, that they should be educated in such a manner that their natures might be aptly conformed so as to be similar to those of men; with whom they should perform im common both the duties of war, and whatever else belongs to the business of life.” Plato very properly thought that the virtues of men and women are common, since he evinces that both have one human form, but not the male one, and the female another. For things which have a different perfection according to form, are also different in species. But things which are the same in species, have like- wise one and the same perfection. This, however, is denied by others, who assert that there is a diflercnce according to form between men and women, though Plato has shown that itis both possible and advantageous for women to have the same virtues as men. It is possible, indeed, because this, history contirms. For there have been found well-educated women, who have been far superior to men. But itis advantageous, because it is better to live double than half the number of those who exhibit virtue in their works. As therefore we form the male guardians from such a particular education, and from such particular disciplines, thus also we form the female guardians from the same: and in a similar manner, the female warriors from the same institutes as the male.

In order, however, that we may admire in a greater degree the conceptions of Plato, we must betake ourselves to wholes, and to the order of the universe, where we may survey a wonderful conspiration of the male and female nature. For in the Gods, indeed, these are so connascent with each other, that the same divinity is called both male and female, as is the case with the Sun and Mercury, and certain other Gods. Where also they are distinguished from each other, the works of the male and female that are of the same order, are common, so as that they primarily proceed from the male, but in an inferior degree from the female. Hence, likewise, in mortals, nature evinces that the female is more imbecile in all things than the male. Whatever, therefore, proceeds from the male, this the female also can produce ina diminished degree. Hence Juno proceeds together with Jupiter, generating all things in conjunction with the father. TTence, too, she is said to be equal in rank with Jupiter, as is likewise Rhea with Saturn. For this Goddess is the bosom of all the Saturnian power. Earth also is equal in dignity with Heaven. For Earth is the mother of all things, of which Heaven is the father. Δ prior to these clements, if we direct our attention to bound and infinity, Which rank in the order of principles, we shall find that all things whatever, which proceed into existence, are generated from both these.

You have therefore, in the intelhiible, in the intellectual, and in the supermundane Gods, the harmonious conjunction of the male with the female. You may also see the same in the heavens. For the whole of generation is governed by the Sun and Moon 3 in a greater and paternal degree by the former; but secondarily, by the latter. Hfence also, the Moon is denominated by some, a lesser Sun. And among the male divinities in the Sun, there are likewise lunar Gods, and analogous orders. But if you direct your attention to demons, you will every where see the providence of these two-fold genera conjoined. For divine female dwmons, unitedly effect all

40 . PROCLUS ON THE [BooK 1. things in a secondary degree, which are accomplished by divine male damons primarily, Female psychical likewise, and female corporeal demons, have to the. males the relation of mothers to fathers, and of duads to monads. For they generate all things with diminution, which the males produce paternally and unitedly. If therefore we before rightly assimilated the guardians to the celestial Gods, but the auxiliaries to dwmons their attendants, and who are ministrant to their providential energies, Plato very properly embraces in these genera, a similar conjunction of the mate with the female, and imparts to both common virtue, and common employments ; just as Nature binds these genera to, and causes them to procreate the same things in conjunction with each other, But she does not divide the one from the other, since whatever is generated from both is unprolitic, when either of them is separated ; though there is a greater difference in the physical organs than in the lives of these; yet at the same time in these also, Nature makes the work of them to be common. Much more, therefore, does the communion of them in their employments, and the whole of their life, deserve to be

“Soc. But what did we establish concerning the procreation of children? Though perhaps you easily remember this on account of its novel- ty. For we ordered that the marriages and children should be common; as we were particularly carcful that none might be able to distinguish their own children, but that all might consider all as their kindred. ‘That hence those of an equal age might regard themselves as brothers and sisters; but that the younger might reverence the elder as their parents and grandfathers, and the elder might esteem the younger as their children and grandsons. “Tia. These things indeed, as you say, are easily remembered.” Ifsome one should inquire why that which is unusual is easily remembered, it is not difficult to reply, that it excites our phantasy inse ereater degree as being unexpected ; and inserts in us a clearer impression of itself. Moreover, it is easy conformably to Plato, to show how what is here said of marriages and children being common, applies to: women. For he wished, according to the intention of * In the text of Proclus, αληθείαν is erroneously printe 1 for anfecay. BOOK 1.] TIMZUS OF PLATO. 4l the rulers, that their connexion with men should take place in definite times, accompanied with sacnifices and prayers; and that the woman that had connexion with a man, should not be the property of any one man, but should be separated after connexion, and dwell apart, and again at other times should be copulated with that man whom the guardians might approve. But. these things are thus indicated in what is said in the Republic.