The summary repetition of the polity appears, indeed, as Socrates now says, to have been made for the sake of the discussion of the contests in war of a rightly constituted city. Both the concise comprehension, however, of the polity, and the Atlantie war, refer us to the one fabrication of the world. For, as we have before observed, it is better, prior to the whole fabrication, and all the form of the production of the world, to make a survey from parts and images. Socrates, there- fore, resuming the polity in certain forms, and, first, through this imitating the universe, very properly establishes himself, as it were, in essence; but excites others to the discussion, who celebrate the power of such a city, and imitate those who arrange the universe according to the middle demiurgic form, and uniformly comprehend the contrarieties and multiform motions which it contains. As, therefore, Jupiter, in Homer, being seated in his citadel on the summit of Olym- pus, and abiding in his own accustomed unity, sends the Gods who preside over the mundane contrariety to the Grecian war; thus also Socrates, being purely established in the intelligible form of a polity, prepares those after him that are able, to celebrate the motion and power of this polity, calling forth, indeed, the science of Timezus, to the survey of wholes totally, but preparing the others to the total and concise comprehension of partial natures. For as he had discussed the polity totally, after this manner also, he wishes that the power of it should be cele- brated by the rest. Since, however, all these discourses bring with them an image of demiurgic works, and the whole conference adumbrates the fabrication of the
02 PROCLUS ON THE [βοοκ 1.
world, Socrates very properly says, ‘ that he stands prepared, in a decorous manner; to receive the promised feast,” his words being invested with modesty, as a form adapted to virtue.
“ FTerm. But we, O Socrates, as Timeus just now signified, shall cheerfully engage in the execution of your desire; for we cannot offer any excuse sufficient to justify neglect in this affair. Yor yesterday, when we departed from hence, and went to the lodging of Critias, where we are accustomed to reside, both in his apartment and in the way thither, we
discoursed on this very particular.”
It was requisite that Hermocrates should say something, and not be silently present, like the unemployed persons ina comedy. Hence also he ts represented speaking to Socrates. And this indeed is logographic for pertaining to the art of writing); but it is hkewise adapted to what has been before said. For it repre- sents to us, asin an image, that the last parts, of the fabrication of things, follow the one father of wholes, and, through similitude to him, converge to the one providence of the world. For Hermocrates, following Socrates, says, that no- thing shall be wanting, either of alacrity or power, to the accomplishment of the narrations investigated by Socrates. For these two things become especially im- pediments to us in our mutual energies, viz. our indolence, and any external im- pediment. Removing, therefore, both these, he says, that there cannot be any ex- cuse sufficient to justify their neglect, or prevent them from accomplishing the mandate of Socrates. Very properly, therefore, does he call upon Critias for the narration respecting the city of the ancient Athenians, in which the mandate of Socrates terminates ; just as Socrates calls on Timwus, and makes himself a par- taker of his discourse. For on the preceding day, Hermocrates says, they dis- coursed on this very particular together with Critias, just as the third Demiurgus in the universe communicates with the production of the second. For the whole of generation is entirely in want of returns from the subterranean world. If, how- ever, these things subsist after this manner, the Atlantic Iistory will appear to have had the third narration. But those numbers, the duad and the triad, are said to be adapted to the middle fabrication, the former through power, and the latter through its demiurgic providence, and which is also perfective of mundane natures. So that whether you assign to this history a double or a triple narration
MP 5 SNS ANE Sa SA I BE DLN OLE LILES ES
nas a
Book 1.] Timeus of Plato. 63
you will, from either of the numbers, be able to recur to the conception of the in- tervening medium.
“He therefore narrated to us the following particulars from ancient rumour, which I wish, O Critias, you would now repeat to Socrates, that he may judge whether it any way conduces to the fulfilment of his re- quest.
“Cri. Itis requisite to comply, if agreeable to Timaus, the third as- sociate of our undertaking.
“Trim. I assent to your compliance.”
You will find in these words an admirable indication, as in images, of divine natures. For, as in them, such as are secondary call forth the prolific powers of such as are primary, and produce them to the providential inspection of the sub- jects of their government; thus also here Hermocrates calls on Critias to speak, and gives completion to what was promised to Socrates. And as, among divine natures, effects convert themselves to the reception of their causes, thus also here, Hermocrates is extended to Critias, but Critias looks to the mandate of Socrates. As likewise all demiurgic causes are suspended from the one father of the uni- verse, and govern all things conformably to his will; after the same manner here also all the persons tly to Timeus, and to his nod, or consent, or will, in order that, being impelled from that as from a root, they may dispose their narration agreeably to his desire. For thus what is going to be said will contribute to the discourse about the whole fabrication of the world. Moreover, the words “ from ancient rumour,” if the narration is historicel, signify ancient according to time. But if they are an indication of what takes place in the universe, they will ob- scurcly signify the reasons or productive powers which are from eternity inherent insouls. And if, likewise, they bring with them an image of divine causes, they show that these demiurgic causes, being supernally filled from more ancient Gods, impart also to secondary natures their own providential energies.
“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.”
64 PROCLUS ON THE [βοοκ !.
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 Exyp- tians this history about the Athenians and Atlanties, and to believe that the Athe- nians 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 cir- culation, but that the fixed stars vanquish the planets on account of the one con- volution 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 interpreta- tion 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
Book 1.} Timaus of Plato. 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 par- tial 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 con- trariety and opposition are not introduced for the purpose of rejecting the narra- tion, 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 ge- nera ;—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 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 ]
66 PROCLUS ON THE [Book 1,