Timaeus — Plato

legend that Solon went to Egypt, and if he did he could not have conversed with Egyptian priests or have read records in their temples. The truth is that the introduction is a mosaic work of small touches which, partly by their minuteness, and also by their seeming probability, win the confidence of the reader.

Who would desire better cvddence than that of Critias, who had heard the narrative in youth when the memory is strongest (26 B) at the age of ten from his grandfather Critias, an old maji of ninety, who in turn had heard it from Solon himself? Is not the famous expression — ' You Hellenes are ever children and there is no knowledge among you hoary with age,' really a compliment to the Athenians who are described in these words as ' ever young ' ?

And is the thought expressed in them to be attributed to the learning of the Egyptian priest, and not rather to the genius of Plato ? Or when the Egyptian says — ' Hereafter at our leisure we will take up the written documents and examine in detail the exact truth about these things ' — what is this but a literary trick by which Plato sets off his narrative ?

Could any war between Athens and the Island of Atlantis have really coincided with the struggle between the Greeks and Persians, as is sufficiently hinted though not expressly stated in the narrative of Plato ? And whence came the tradition to Egypt ? or in what does the story consist except in the war between the two rival powers and the submersion of both of them ? And how was the tale transferred to the poem of Solon?

'It is not improbable,' says Mr. Grote, ' that Solon did leave an unfinished Egyptian poem ' (Plato, vol. iii. p. 295). But are probabilities for which there is not a tittle of evidence, and which are without any parallell to be deemed worthy of attention by the critic ? How came the poem of Solon to disappear in antiquity? or why did Plato, if the whole narrative was known to him, break off almost at the beginning of it?

While therefore admiring the diligence and erudition of M. Martin, we cannot for a moment suppose that the tale was told to Solon by an Egyptian priest, nor can we believe that Solon wrote a poem upon the theme which was thus suggested to him — a poem which disappeared in antiquity ; or that the Island of Atlantis or the antediluvinn Athens ever had any existence except in the imagination of Plato. Martin is of opinion that Plato would have

TION.

Did the legend itijiuence early voyagers? 433 been terrified if he could have foreseen the endless fancies to Timaeus. which his Island of Atlantis has given occasion. Rather he would Introduchave been infinitely amused if he could have known that his gift of invention would have deceived M. Martin himself into the belief that the tradition was brought from Egypt by Solon and made the subject of a poem by him (Tome i. p. 323). M. Martin may also be gently censured for citing without sufficient discrimination ancient authors having very different degrees of authority and value. ii. It is an interesting and not unimportant question which is touched upon by Martin, whether the Atlantis of Plato in any degree held out a guiding light to the early navigators. He is inclined to think that there is no real connexion between them. But surely the discovery of the New World was preceded by a prophetic anticipation of it, which, like the hope of a Messiah, was entering into the hearts of men ? And this hope was nursed by ancient tradition, which had found expression from time to time in the celebrated lines of Seneca and in many other places. This tradition was sustained by the great authority of Plato, and therefore the legend of the Island of Atlantis, though not closely connected with the voyages of the early navigators, may be truly said to have contributed indirectly to the great discovery.

The Timaeus of Plato, like the Protagoras and several portions of the Phaedrus and Republic, was translated by Cicero into Latin. About a fourth, comprehending with lacunae the first portion of the dialogue, is preserved in several MSS. These generally agree, and therefore may be supposed to be derived from a single original. The version is very faithful, and is a remarkable monument of Cicero's skill in managing the difficult and intractable Greek. In his treatise De Natura Deorum, i. 8. 12, ii. 12, he also refers to the Timaeus, which, speaking in the person of Velleius the Epicurean, he severely criticises. The commentary of Proclus (fl. c. 440 A.D.) on the Timaeus is a wonderful monument of the silliness and prolixity of the Alexandrian Age. It extends to about thirty pages of the book, and is thirty times the length of the original. It is surprising that this VOL. III. — 43

HON.