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

“Cri. Hear, then, O Socrates, a narration surprising indeed in the extreme, yet in every respect true, which was once delivered by Solon, the wisest of the seven wise men.”

p. 64

With respect τὸ the whole of this narration about the Atlantics, some say, that it is a mere history, which was the opinion of Crantor, the first interpreter of Plato, who says, that Plato was derided by those of his time, as not being the inventor of the Republic, but transcribing what the Exyptians had written on this subject; and that he so far regards what is said by these deriders as to refer to the Exyptians this history about the Athenians and Atlanties, and to believe that the Athenians once lived conformably to this polity. Crantor adds, that this is testified by the prophets of the Exyptians, who assert that these particulars (which are narrated by Plato} are written on pillars which are still preserved. Others again, say, that this narration Is a fable, and a fictitious account of things, which by no means had an existence, but which bring with them an indication of natures which are perpetual, or are cenerated in the world 5 not attending to Plato, who exclaims, “ that the narration is surprising in the extreme, yet ts in every respect true.” For that which is in every respect true, is not partly true, and partly not true, nor is it false according to the apparent, but true according to the inward meaning; since a thing of this kind would not be perfectly trac. Others do not deny that these transactions took place after this manner, but think that they are now assumed as images of the contrarictics that pre-cxist in’ the universe, lor war, say they, Is the father of all things, as Heraclitus also asserted. And of these, some refer the analysis to the fixed stars and planets τ so that they assume the Athenians as analogous to the fixed: stars, but the Athantics to the planets. They Ekewise say, that these stars fight on account of the opposition in their circulation, but that the fixed stars vanquish the planets on account of the one convolution of the world. ΟΥ̓ this opinion, therefore, is the illustrious Ameliis, who vehemently contends that this must be the case, because it is clearly said in the Critias, that the Atlantic island was divided into seven circles. But I do not know of any other who is of the same cGpimion., Others, again, as Origen, refer the analysis to the opposit on of certain dwmons, some of them being more, but others less, excellent. And some of them being superior in mulutude, but others in power: some of them vanquishing, but others being vanquished. But others refer it to the discord of souls, the more excellent being the pupils of Minerva, but the inferior kind being subservient to generation; who also pertain to the God that presides over generation [i, e.to Neptune]. And this is the interpretation of Numenius. Others, mingling, as they fancy, the opinions of Origen and Numenius together, say, that the narration refers to the opposition of souls to damons, the latter drawing down, but the former being drawn down. And

And this is the interpretation of Numenius. Others, mingling, as they fancy, the opinions of Origen and Numenius together, say, that the narration refers to the opposition of souls to damons, the latter drawing down, but the former being drawn down. And

“......5....ὕ..ὄp. 65 with these men, demon has a triple subsistence. For they say, that one kind is that of divine dwmons ; another, of diemons according to habitude, to which partial sonls give completion, when they obtain a damoniacal allotment; and another is that of depraved diemons, who are also noxious to sonls, Daemons, therefore, of this last kind, wage this war against souls, in their descent into generation, And that, say they, which ancient theologists refer to Osiris and Typhon, or to Bacchus and the Titans, this, Plato, from motives of piety, refers to the Athenians and Atlantics. Before, however, souls descend into solid bodies, those theologists and Plato, deliver the war of them with material daemons who are adapted to the west; since the west, as the Egyptians say, is the place of noxious demons.’ Of this opinion is the philosopher Porphyry, respecting whom, it would be wonderful, if he asserted any thing different from the doctrine of Numenius. These [philosophers] however, are in my opinion, very * excellently corrected by the most divine Tamblichus.

According to him, therefore, and also to our preceptor Syrianus, this contrariety and opposition are not introduced for the purpose of rejecting the narration, since on the contrary, this is to be admitted as an account of transactions that actnally happened; but, as we are accustomed to do, we must refer that which precedes the subject of the dialogue, to the scope itself of the dialogue. Hence, they are of opinion, that this contrariety which is derived from human affairs, should, according to a similar form, be extended through the whole world, and especially through the realms of generation, That in consequence of this, we should survey every where how things participate of contrariety, according to the variety of powers. For since all things are from the one, and from the duad after the one, are in a certain respect united to each other, and have an opposite nature; as in the genera of being, there is a certain: opposition of sameness to difference, and of motion to permanency, but all things participate of these genera ;—this being the case, we must survey after what manner mundane natures possess the contrariety which pervades through all things.

Moreover, if we consider the polity of Plato as analogous in every respect to the world, it is necessary that we should survey this war as existing in every nature. For the polity is analogous to existence and essences, but war, to the powers of these essences, and as Plato says, to their motions, We must, like-

For the polity is analogous to existence and essences, but war, to the powers of these essences, and as Plato says, to their motions, We must, like-

' For exc καὶ ἡ dusts, here it is necessary to read ἐπεὶ καὶ Svors, and for caswricor, κακωτίκων, 3. Instead of κομηδει in this place, it is requisite to read κομεδῃ.

Tim. Plat. Vo a ]

p. 66

wise, refer the polity, by making it common to all things, to the whole union of things ; but it must be said, that war is to be assimilated to the mundane division, and’ to the empire of victory, Whether, therefore, you give a twofold division tu the universe, by separating it into the Incorporeal and the corporeal; and again divide the incorporeal into the more intellectual and the more material natures, and the corporeal into heaven and generation ; and heaven, into contrary periods, but generation into opposite powers; or in whatever way you assume this opposite life, whether in the mundane Gods, or in daemons, in souls, or in bodies,—you may every where transter the analogies from men to things. For of the Gods themselves, the divine Homer makes oppositions 3 representing Apollo as hostilely opposed to Neptune, Mars to: Minerva, the river Nanthus to Vulcan, Hermes to Latona, and Juno to Diana, For it is requisite to survey generauion in incorporeal natures, in bodies, and in both. ΖἴἜΤ is likewise necessary to consider Neptune and Apollo as the fabricators of the whole of generation, the one totally, but the other partially, But Juno and Diana, as the suppliers of vivipication, the former rationally, but the latter physically. Minerva and Mars, as the causes of the contrariety which pervades through both evistence and life; the former, of that which ts defined accurding to intellect; but the latter, of that which is more material and passive. Hermes and Latona, as presiding over the twofold perfection of suuls; the former, indeed, over the perfection which is obtained through the gnostic powers,* and the evolution into light of productive principles ; but the latter, over the sn.ooth, spontancous, and voluntary elevation which is acquired through the vital powers, Vulcan and Nanthus, as the primary leaders of the whole of a corporcal con- Sttiution, and of the powers it contains , the former, of those that are more cficacious but the latter of those that are more passive, and as there more material. But he leaves Venus by herself, in order that she may tlluminate all things with union and harmony, and represents her as fighting on the worse side, because THE ONE. in those that belovy to us sule, ts less eaceltent than multitude. Vor all contraricty is surveyed ina becoming manner in conjunction with a unity, whieh is either prior to it, Or Connascent with, or isin a certain respect an adjunct posterior to it. And Plato, as well as theologists, rightly perceiving that this is the case, have delivered