Timaeus — Plato

(3) tJic imitation of a bed. 309 all the other things of which we were just now speaking, in Republic x. the mirror. Socrates, Yes, he said ; but they would be appearances only. Glaucon. Very good, I said, you are coming to the point now. And ^"* '^'^ ''^ ^" the painter too is, as I conceive, just such another — a creator only: and the of appearances, is he not? painter too is ^ ^ a" maker of (jl course. appearances. But then I suppose you will say that what he creates is untrue. And yet there is a sense in which the painter also creates a bed? Yes, he said, but not a real bed. And what of the maker of the bed? were you not saying that he too makes, not the idea which, according to our view, is the essence of the bed, but only a particular bed? Yes, I did. Then if he does not make that which exists he cannot make true existence, but only some semblance of existence ; and if any one were to say that the work of the maker of the bed, or of any other workman, has real existence, he could hardly be supposed to be speaking the truth. At any rate, he replied, philosophers would say that he was not speaking the truth. No wonder, then, that his work too is an indistinct expression of truth. No wonder. Suppose now that by the light of the examples just offered we enquire who this imitator is? If you please. Well then, here are three beds: one existing in nature, Threebeds which is made by God, as I think that we may say — for ^"'J three •^ ■' •' makers of no one else can be the maker? beds. No. There is another which is the work of the carpenter? Yes. And the work of the painter is a third? Yes. Beds, then, are of three kinds, and there are three artists who superintend them : God, the maker of the bed, and the painter? Yes, there are three of them.

3IO

God^ the carpenter^

Republic X. Socrates, Glaucon. (i) The creator. God could only make - one bed ; if he made two, a third would still appear behind them.

(2) The human maker.

(3) The imitator, i.e. the painter or poet,

God, whether from choice or from necessity, made one bed in nature and one only ; two or more such ideal beds neither ever have been nor ever will be made by God. Why is that? Because even if He had made but two, a third would still appear behind them which both of them would have for their idea, and that would be the ideal bed and not the two others. Very true, he said.

God knew this, and He desired to be the real maker of a real bed, not a particular maker of a particular bed, and therefore He created a bed which is essentially and by nature one only. So we believe. Shall we, then, speak of Him as the natural author or maker of the bed? Yes, he replied ; inasmuch as by the natural process of creation He is the author of this and of all other things.

And what shall we say of the carpenter — is not he also the maker of the bed? Yes. But would you call the painter a creator and maker? Certainly not. Yet if he is not the maker, what is he in relation to the bed? I think, he said, that we may fairly designate him as the imitator of that which the others make. Good, I said ; then you call him who is third in the descent from nature an imitator? Certainly, he said.

And the tragic poet is an imitator, and therefore, like all other imitators, he is thrice removed from the king and from the truth? That appears to be so. Then about the imitator we are agreed. And what about the painter? — I would like to know whether he may be 598 thought to imitate that which originally exists in nature, or only the creations of artists? The latter. As they are or as they appear? you have still to determine this.