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 ma- terial 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 sur- veyed 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
a multitudinous contrariety prior to the one fabrication of the world, and parts
* cae is omitted in the original, aud the omission of it, reuders the latter part of the sentence very ambiguous.
* For δυνάμεως here, it is requisite to read dur ἀμεων.
ne cacao EE
Hook 4.) Tim.Eus of Plato. 67
prior to wholes, Finding, likewise, these things in images prior to paradigms, he
surveys this contrariety ino men, which also has an analogous subsistence in wholes, neither being in want of Titannic or Gizantic wars. For how could he narrate such wars to Socrates, who on the preceding day had blamed the poets for devising things of this kind?) Reeeiving, therefore, ransactions from history, in order that he might not assert of the Gods that they fight with each other, he ascribes these battles to men, but throneh a cautious and pious analogy, transfers them also to the Gods, For such like wars are delivered by divinely-inspired poets, prior to the one order of things. Their mode, however, of narrating them, is adapted to them, but the present mode to Plato; the latter, in conjunction with the political science, being more moderate, but the former, in conjunction with the telestic art, being more replete with divine inspiration, And thus much concerning the whole of the text.
In what is said by Critias, however, the word “hear” is proverbial, and is employed in those things to which we wish to call the attention of the hearer. The word hear, therefore, is equivalent to receive what is worthy of attention. But the word “ surprizing” (aroxov) manifests that which happens contrary to expec- tation, as in the Gorgias, “ [tis surprizing, O Socrates,” (arora ys w Σωκρατηςνὶ or that which is paradoxical, as in the Crito, What a surprising dream, So- crates ; (wg ατόπον ενυπνίὴν ὦ Σωκχρατης); or the wouderfal, as in the Theatetus, © And itis not at all surprising, but it would be much more wonderful, if it were not a thing of this kind.” (και οὐδὲν γε ατοπον, κλλὰ πολυ Savuarroresoy εἰ μη τοιουτῆς TY.) But here it is assumed as that which deserves admiration. This, however, is evi- dent irom what follows, in which it is said, “ that the decas of this city were great and admirable” Moreover, the word © narration” (Asyos), Manilests the truth of what is going to be related. For thus it is said in the Gorgias, that a fable differs from Asya; [because the latteris true, but the former is ποῖ. ΤΕ is also very properly said, that “ Solon was the wisest of the seven wise men ;~ as being asserted of one who was related to Plato; as being said to another Athenian, and in the Panathenaie 5 and as indicating that the ensuing narration extends to all wisdom. Nor is it requisite to wonder how Solon is said to be the wisest of all the seven wise men, nor to be anxious to know, how he can be said to be the wisest of other men, but one of the wise men, when all of them were most wise. For what ab- surdity is there, mecalling a man the wisest of those that are of the same order with himself? But his legislation, his pretended insanity at Salamis, his armed attack of Pisistratus the tyrant, who said he was more prudent than those that
68 PROCLUS ON THE {Book 5.
were absent, and more brave than those that were present, his conference also with Croesus, and his answer to one who said, that he had established most beautiful laws; for he replied, that he had not established the most beautiful, but) powerful laws, and that he knew laws that were more excellent than these ;—all these par- ticulars bear testimony to his wisdom. There is, likewise, a story told of a tripod that was dragged up in’ a net by certain young men, though it is not related by all historians, and that the oracle (of Apollo} being consulted on the oceasion, the God answered, that it should be given: to the wisest: man, That im conse- quence of this, it) was offered to Thales, but he sent it to another of the seven wise men, this again to another, and so on, till at last it came to Solon, all of them yielding it to him, Solon, however, sent it to the God, saying, that he was the wisest of beings. Solon, also, is said to have found, that the lunar month does not consist of thirty days, and on this account he was the first that called it ἐν vey "ὦ new one, and ysag niew. And, in short, the discovery, that the numbers of the days revert frum the twenticth day, is ascribed) to him. Some, also, assert, that pricr to Anaxagoras, Solon showed that intellect presided over the whole of things. From all which it is evident, that he was a paruicipant of a certain
wisdom.
“ Solon, then, was the familiar and intimate friend of our great-grand- father Dropides, as he himself frequently? relates in his poems. But he once declared to our grandfather Critias (as the old man himself informed us) that great and admirable actions had once been achieved by this city, which nevertheless were buried in oblivion through length of time, and the destruction of mankind.”
The history of the race of Solon, and of the alliance of Plato to him, is as fol- lows: The children of Execestides were, Solon and Dropides, and of Dropides Critias was the son, who is mentioned by Solon in his poems, where he sings,
Bid Critias with the yellow locks, Attention to his father pay,
* The same story is also told of Solon, by Diogenes Laertius, in his life of Thales. 2 In the original ἐνυν, which I conceive to be erroneously transcribed for ev veer. 3 πολλαχὸν is omitted in the text of Proclus.
Book 1.] Tim.Eus of Plato. 69
Por by revering what he says, No faulty Jeader he'll obey. Bat Callescrus and Glauco were the sons of Critias: and again the Critias of the present dialogue was the son of Calliescrus. This, however, is evident from Cri- tias in the Charmides, calling the father of Charmides, his uncle. But Charmides and Perictione were the offspring of Glauco: and Perictione was the mother of Plato. So that Glauco was the uncle of Critias, but the father of Charmides. And Charmides was the uncle of Plato, but Solon was the brother of the great- grandfather of Critias. Such, therefore, is the truth (respecting the race of Solon.} The divine Tamblichus, however, gives a different account of the succession of his race. Vor he immediately makes Glauco to be the son of Dropides. But others, as the Platonic Theon, assert, that Critias and Glauco were the sons of Callwserus; though in the Charmides, Critias says, that “ Charmides ts the son of Glauco our uncle, but is my couzin” Uence Glauco is not the son of Dropides, nor the brother of the younger Critias. To a man, however, who pays attention to things, itis of no consequence in whatever manner these particulars may sub- sist. Passing on, therefore, to things, you may assume from these particulars as Images, that all the discord of the world, and the twofold co-ordinations that are Init, are suspended from: proximate demiurgie causes, and are referred to other more Intellectual and anetent causes; that the causes of this motion are conti- nuous and united, and suspended from one cause; that the superior causes: are More ancient in intellection ; and that secondary receive the production of primary natures, difler from and yet have a connascent communion with them, [ἢ addi- tion to these things also, you may assume, that a twofold oblivion ix produced in souls of the theory of great and admirable wholes, arising either frem having abandoned for along tinea life of that hind, or through having fallen immodcrately into gene- tion. Tor ths is for the real man to be truly corrupted. But souls that have been recently perfected, and retain the memory of things ino the intelligible world, in consequence of not falling into matter, easily acquire a reminiscence of the trath. And thus much for these particalars. We must not, however, wonder, if Critias calls Solon simply a λων αν. For we not only call those with whom we asso- ciate, but also our kindred, favulars. But by likewise adding, ‘ and an intimate Jricnd,” he indicates, that there was not merely a communion of race, but a same- ness and similitude of lite, in the ancestors of Plato. The prior Critias, also, is called an old man, which signilies his possession of prudence and intellect, and his being adapted to many disciplines.
70 PROCLUS ON THE (Boox 1.
“Jn particular, he informed me of one undertaking surpassing in magnitude all the rest, which I now think proper to relate to you, both that I may repay my obligations, and that by such a relation I may offer my tribute of praise to the Goddess in the present solemnity, by cele- brating her divinity, as it were, with hymns, justly, and in a manner agreeable to truth.”