Mention, however, is made of the poems of Solon, not as of a poct in the popu- lar sense of the word, but as of one who mingled philosophy with poetry. For of mundane works likewise, and whole productions, a royal intellect is the leader. And the praise is related as being mentioned to another person, i.e. to Amynan- der, because, as we learn in the Phadrus, that which judges diflers from that which makes and generates. Referring, however, all that has been said, to the universe, we may infer as from images, that partial souls, partial natures, and partible forms, and of these, those especially that are always new and efficacious, contribute to the mundase war. But all these are connected together by the Gods, who are the inspective guardians of fabrication, and are co-arranged with one world, one harmony, and one kindred life.
ee
ut then one of our tribe, whether he was willing to gratify Critias, or whether it was his real opinion, affirmed that Solon appeared to him to be most wise in other concerns, and in things respecting poetry, the most ingenuous and free of all poets. Upon hearing this, the old man (for I very well remember) was vehemently delighted ; and said, laughing —If Solon, O Amynander, had not engaged in poetry as a casual affair, but had made it as others do a serious employment ; and if through sedi- tions and other fluctuations of the state in which he found his country involved, he had not been compelled to neglect the completion of the history which he brought from Egypt, I do not think that cither [Hesiod or Homer, or any other poet, would have acquired greater glory and renown.” ° /
Here again, the lovers of diction may indicate to their admirers, that Plato
* The word Aoyovs is, | conceive, omitted in the original in this place.
78 PROCLUS ON THE . [βΒοοκ 1.
cautiously praises the poetry of Solon, since he represents the praise as bestowed by a private individual, and for the sake of others, and not as given by one who spoke conformably to intellect and reason. For Plato, if any one, was a most excellent judge of pocts, as Longinus also admits. Heraclides Ponticus there- fore says, that Cheerilus and Antimachus being at that time most renowned, Plato preferred the poems of the latter to those of the former, and that he per- suaded Heraclides at Colophon, to collect the poems of Antimachus. Tn vain, therefore, is it futilely observed by Callimachus and Duris, that Plato was nota sufficient judge of poets. Hence, what is here said manifests the judgment of the philosopher, and it may be considered in a more historical point of view. The investigator, however, of things, will think it requisite to show how all the causes of the orderly distribution of the universe, and also the causes that are connective of contrariety, are extended to one principle, and how the last adhere through media to the first of things. For thus those who receive the narration of the ancient Critias, are extended to him, but he looks to Solon. And he, indeed, admires the poctic power of Solon ; but they, through Critias as a medium, are referred to the poetry of Solon. For gratifying the former [1. e. Critias], they praise the poctry of the latter. But what is it that Critias says respecting Solon? That he was subordinate to divinely-inspired pocts, from these two causes; because he engaged in poetry as a casual affair; and because when he came from Egypt, he found the city of the Athenians in a state of sedi- tion, and that he was not able, his country being involved in difficulties, to com- plete the history, which he brought from thence hither. What the history there- fore was, he informs us as he proceeds.
From these things, however, as images, Plato manifests, that what is primanly demiurgic, and every thing effective, have other primary energies ; but that their secondary energy is the production of secondary things. Likewise, that the con- fused, disorderly, and unstable nature of matter, frequently does not receive ornament from more divine causes, but subsists without symmetry’ to the gift which proceeds from them. Hence, second and third powers are unfolded into light, which proximately adorn its formless nature. Solon, therefore, being most ingenuous, and imitating exempt causes, did not deliver through poetry the Atlantic war. But Critias, and those posterior to him, transmit the account of this war to others, imitating second and third causes, who produce the variety of
‘ For ἀλλα ovpperpws in this place, it is necessary to read, αλλ᾽ aovpperpes.
200k 1.) Timeus of Plato. 77
effective principles, and the orderly distribution of things, which is harmonized from contraries into a visible subsistence. Moreover, the assertion that Solon was the wisest of the seven wise men, exhibits his analogy to the first principles. And his being most free, adumbrates the power which is exempt, and established in itself, and which fills all things in a hberated manner. A thing of this kind likewise concurs with the wise man, as being immaterial, without a master, and of itself. The ancient Critias, also, being said to be old, indicates a cause which is intellectual, and remote from generation. For “ wisdom,” says Plato, “ and true opinions are most desirable things to himwho has arrived at old age.” Again, the assertion of Critias, that he very well remembers, exhibits to our view the salvation of eternal productive powers, and the stable energy of secondary causes, about such as are first. But Solon engaging in poetry asa casual affair, represents to us that productions into secondary natures, have only a secondary rank among first causes. For their first energies are intellectual, according to which they are united to the beings prior to themselces.
If, however, some one omiiting the survey of things, should consider through what cause Plato introduced’ these particulars, according to their apparent’ meaning, he will very properly find that they contributed to the thing proposed. For the design of Plato was to narrate the Atlantic war. But it was requisite that the messenger of this history should neither deceive nor be deceived. Hence also, Solon is said to have been most wise, and intimately acquainted with those about Critias. For as a wise man, he was not déceived, and as being an intimate acquaintance, he would not deceive. It was likewise requisite, that the receiver of this history should neither have been aged, in order that the narra- tion may appear to be ancient, nor yet so young, as to be forgetful. Hence, Cri- tias is supposed to have been a youth, but sufficiently able to remember, and in consequence of this, to have contended with others in rhapsody, in which much memory is necessary.
Farther still, it was requisite, that the ancient Critias should not commit such- like narrations to very young men, lest they should appear to them to be con- temptible. Ience, it is very properly said, that some one of the tribes, by enquiry of Solon, heard the history. But it was requisite that he also should, in a certain respect, have been familiar with Solon, in order that the old man might oppor- tunely relate all the history to him. Hence, likewise, the praises of the poetry of
* For παρεισκεκληκεν read παρεισκνκλ yeer.
78 PROCLUS ON THE [Boox 1.
Solon precede the history 5 the praise being given by Amynander in order to gra- tify Critias. And thus much concerning the disposition of what is said in the text.
That Solon, however, went to Egypt, not only for the purpose of obtaining the Atlantic history, but likewise that the Athenians, during his absence, obeyed his laws, which he had bound them by an oath not to violate, is evident. Por during this time, also, he associated with Crarsus, and sailed to Egypt; but on his return, he became master of the city, which was ina tumultuous condition through the Pisistratida. And thus much we have derived from history. Origen, how- ever, doubts how Plato calls Solon most free: for this is not an encomium adapt ed toa poet. And he dissolves the doubt by saying, that he is so called, either because he spent his money (ideral/y, or because he used the greatest freedom of speceh; and that on this account he was free, without any timidity in his poetical compositions. Or he was 50 denominated, as being in lis poetry remiss and un- compelled. But Tamblichus says, that no one of these solutions is true, but that through this appellation, the Uderated condition of the intellect of Solon, the τις servile nature of his virtue, and that which was venerable in his character, and which transcended all other things, are signified. The same interpreter also says, that the daughter of Critias manifests a generative progression from causes, perfect, and rejoicing inits progeny. But the remembering well, indicates the salvation of effective principles in the world. Why, therefore, was Solon anxious to deliver the Atlantic war in verse?) Because, says he, all natural works and the mundane contrariety subsist through imitation, Por this is analogous to its effective and primary Causes; just as Critias is analogous to proximate and secondary causes. But why was he prevented by sedition? Because material motions and material tumult become an impediment, as we have before observed, to the productive
powers of mundane Causes.
“Tn consequence of this, Amynander enquired of Critias what that history was. ‘To which he answered, that it was concerning an athair, which ought most justly to be the greatest and most renowned which this city ever accomplished ; though through length of time, and the destrac- tion of those by whom it was undertaken, the fame of its execution has not reached the present age.”
Longinus says, that something is wanting here to render the sense complete
Rook 1. Timeus of Plato. 79
For the word considered is wanting to the words most justly to he, because these are required in what follows, but not the word overs, being. Porphyry, however, says, that Longinus did not perceive, that, in consequence of the undertaking being the greatest, but not yet celebrated, Plato adds, “ ought most justly to be most renowned.” But we, directing our attention to things, say, that Plato calls it the greatest undertaking, as bringing with it an image of all contrariety, extending itself every where. And that he denominates it most renowned, as contributing to the visible fabrication of things. For thus, also, the works of nature are called by
Orpheus renowned.
Boundless eternity, and nature’s works Ἧ Renown'd, remain.
“Relate this affair, O Critias, says Amynander, from the beginning, and inform us what that transaction was, how it was accomplished, and from whom Solon having heard it, narrated it asa fact.’
Joe. Relate what this admirable deed was, how, or after what manner. it was performed, how it became Known to, and by whom being preserved, it reach- ed the hearing of Solon. Plato appears, through this, to investigate the whole forin of contraricty, how it was effected, or may be known, and from what causes, tous invisible, itis suspended, Before, therefore, he recurred through relatives to the narration of Solon; but now he investigates the superior histories of it, or, that ITmay speak clearer, the principles of the fabrication of this contrariety. And by directing your attention to this narration, you may survey, as in images, through certain symbols, all the principles of this fabrication, as far as to the first causes of it.
“ There is, then, says he, a certain region of M.gypt, called Delta, about the summit of which the streams of the Nile are divided, and i in which there is a province called Saitical.”
In the first place, itis worth while to observe how the narration always delivers
things comprehended, proceeding from such as are more comprehensive ; from
Egypt, indeed, the river, from this Delta, from this the Saitic province, and from this Sais, sacred to Minerva. In the next place, having observed this, it will be
80 PROCLUS ON THE {poo τ.