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

Hermocrates, are analogous. But of these, the first is praised in an admirable manner, Socrates also adding, “in my opinion;” but the second, in a middle way, conformably to his order; and the third, in the last degree, te. according to the testimony of others. |

“ For J will illustrate the affair by a similitude. Suppose then that some one, on beholding beautiful animals, whether represented in ἃ picture or really alive, but in ἃ state of rest, should desire to behold them in motion, and engaging in some one of those contests which perp. 8tain to bodies.

Longinus says, that Plato here decorates and beautifies his diction, through similitudes and the gracefulness of the words. But Longinus says this in answer to certain Platonists, who contend, that this mode of expression is spontaneous, and not the result of art. For Plato, he observes, pays attention to the selection of words, and does not employ them casually. It may, however, be said, that Plato made choice of this form of words from a mode of diction which was at that time common and usual, and that he was very attentive to what was customary. For the atoms of Epicurns would more rapidly by their concurrence produce the world, than nouns and verbs would form a correct sentence by a casual composition. Bat some blame Plato for employing metaphors in’ the use of words 5 though with respect to composition, all admire him, At the same time, however, it may be inferred, not from this cireumstance alone, but from such care and industry as are exhibited in the present words, that he paid great attention to diction. For Socrates does not simply say, that he desires to see this accoms plished by those that were with Pinwus; but he speaks like one decorating his words and alluring the hearer, when he says: ‘Lor 7 will dlustrate the affair by a δἰ μος. Suppose that some one on beholling beautiful animals, whether repres sented ina picture, or really alive,” &e. And thus much for Longinus.

Origen, however, grants indeed, that Plato is attentive to the grace of diction, not as regarding that which is pleasing, as the end of it, but that he employs this. image for the sake of exhibiting the manner in which he was himse!faflected.

' The text of Proclus haus, erroneously, καὶ rot των row σωμάσι δυκουντῶν ἀνήκειν Kara τὴν ἀγωνίαν

αθλενν Tw, instead of καὶ re γὼν τοῖς σωμασι δοκυνντων προσήκειν κατὰ Τὴν αγωγια) αθλονντα.

ROOK 1 TIMAEUS OF PLATO. δ]

' The text of Proclus haus, erroneously, καὶ rot των row σωμάσι δυκουντῶν ἀνήκειν Kara τὴν ἀγωνίαν

αθλενν Tw, instead of καὶ re γὼν τοῖς σωμασι δοκυνντων προσήκειν κατὰ Τὴν αγωγια) αθλονντα.

ROOK 1 TIMAEUS OF PLATO. δ]

And we say, that this similitnde was written for the sake of the imitation of divine natures; that the grace of the words presents to us an image of the grace imparted by the Deminurgus to celestial natures; and that the artitice of the diction, Which is mingled with the spontaneous, adumbrates divine production, which has indeed a boundary from itself, and also a progression from being and essence. Tf, likewise, you direct your attention to the image itself, beautiful animals manifest those natures that are resplendent with [divine] beanty ; but those represented in a picture, or really alive, indicate corporal images, and true lives prior to these imitations, For the figures of the Gods are resemblances of the animals that are in them, But those that are ina state of rest exhibit to us the natures that are fall of intellectual arrangement, and of an equable and continued life; those that are in motion such as proceed into another order, and a second fabrication ; and those which engage in some one of the contests pertaining to bodies, are images of those that impart to more imperfect natures their own proper eflluxions and powers, and operate by their own powers on other things. And thus much respecting the image. But the words whcther represented in a picture or really alive, ave rightly asserted in both respects of divine bodies. For they are depicted by the dodecahedron, and they possess eflicacious and demiurgic lives. If, however, you consider the words separately, they will signify that the beforementioned polity is indeed fashioned in words, and is assimilated to the heavens, but evists, tf not in human, yet in true or demoniacal lives. Farther still, ἐὸ desire ta see the city in motion, is analogous to the words {in another part of this dialogue] “as soon as the father saw the universe moving, he was delighted, and wished to assimilate it ina still greater degree to its paradigm.” For thus also the adorner of the heavens wished to see them in motion, and through motion governing the war of generation, But the words “engaging in some one of the contests pertaining to bodies,” are employed, because of contests some belong to souls, but others to bodies ; and the latter are such as running, wrestling, and gymnastic.

Ta such a manner am I also affected towards the city which we have discussed. For I should gladly hear any one relating the contests of our city with other cities, when it engages in a becoming manner in war, and acts during such an engagement in a way worthy of its education and discipline, both with respect to practical. achievements, and verbal negociations.”

52 _PROCLUS ON THE [RooK 1.

achievements, and verbal negociations.”

52 _PROCLUS ON THE [RooK 1.

We have before shown through what cause, and with reference to what paradigm, Socrates wished to see his republic contending in war. Because cities, however, employ against their enemies both works and words; words indeed in embassies, in compacts, in exhortations to battle, and inevery thing of this kind ; but works in the pitching of camps, in spears, and the hurling of missive weapons; on this account Socrates wishes that a city of this kind should be celebrated according to both these. In words indeed, as prudent, cautions, magnanimous, and strenuous; but in deeds, as brave, vehement, and well exercised. For thus, according to both, it will imitate its paradigm, who, shining with physical and intellectual productions, adorns all the war of generation,

“ For, indeed, O Critias and Hermocrates, I am conscious of my own inability to praise such men and such a city according to their desert.”

This is the second of the proposed heads, of which we have before assigned the cause, and shall now again explore it according to another method. For now some of the more ancient [interpreters] have said, that the encomiastic form of writing is robust, superb, and magnificent; but the Socratic character of diction is slender, accurate, and dialectic. The latter, therefore, is contrary to the former. Hence (say they} Socrates avoids panegyric, as knowing the power he possessed, and the subjects to which it was naturally adapted. Those, however, who assert this, in addition to their being directly refuted by the Menexenus, appear to me not to have perceived the magnificence of the diction of Socrates in the Phiedrus. There are also those who say it is fit that the artificer of such-like encomiums, should be skilled in warlike affairs. Hence many historians err in their disposition of armies, through ignorance of tactics. But Socrates having fought at Delos and Potidiwa, was not unskilled in all such-like particulars. Others avain assert, that Socrates speaks ironically, Just as he said with respect to other things, that he was ignorant of them, so here he says, that he did not know how to praise this city according to its desert. The irony, however, of Socrates was employed against sophists and young men, and not against wise and scientific men. It is better, therefore, instead of these things to say, that he guards against becoming the third from the truth. For the works of a rightly instituted city, are the third from the paradigm of truth fi. e. of the true or intelligible polity}. Hence, wishing to remain in the second from the truth, he says, he is not able to bear the

p. 53