Ofsuch a nature as this are all divine causes : for they call forth more divine powers, and through this evocation, are filled from them with more divine and total intellections ; such as is now also effected by Solon. For extending to the Egyptian priests the most ancient transactions of the Greeks, he ina certain respect leads them to the narration of their antiyuities ; of which the Egyptians participate in a remarkable degree, as they survey without impediment the celestial bodies, through the purity of the air, and preserve ancient memorials, in consequcnce of not being destroyed ether by water or fire. But the Assyrians, says Iamblichus, have not only preserved the memorials of seven and twenty myriads of years, as LHipparchus says they have, but likexcise of the whole apocatastases and periods of the seven rulers of the world, So that this being admitted, there is stll less reason to compare with these memorials the much-celebrated archwology of the Greeks > from which
" The words ws εξηρτημενὴ appear to me to be wanting in this place in the original.
Kouk 4.) Timaus of Plato. 85
likewise it is evident, that the present narration does not look to that which is small, but to the whole and the universe. :
Farther still, the archwology of the Greeks is different with different [Grecian cities}. For with the Athenians it proceeds as far as to Erichthonius, who was a native of Athens: but with the Argives, as far as to Phoroneus and Niobe. For these two are with the Greeks the most ancient. For Argos descended from Niobe; but from him Tasos and Pelasgos, from whom Argos was denominated Pelasgic. The particulars, however, respecting Denecalion and Pyrrha, that a deluge taking place, they were preserved in Parnassus, and how migrating from thence, they restored the human race, are manifest, and also that antiquity with the Thessalians is as far as to these. But according to some, the Argolie race begins from Inachus, but that of the Athenians from Cecrops, each of whom was prior to Deucalion. Solon, therefore, relating these and such-like particulars, causes the Egyptian priests to narrate their antiquities. We shall however see, what one of the ancient priests said respecting the narration of Solon. And these things, indeed, will be evident through what follows. Solon, however, met at Sais with a priest called Pateneit ; but at Heliopolis, witha priest called Ochlapi ; and at Sebennytus, with one whose name was Ethimon, as we learn from the histories of the Egyptians. And perhaps it was the priest of Sais, who says as follows to Solon :
“ But upon this, one of those more ancient priests exclaimed, O Solon, Solon, you Grecks are always children, nor is there an aged Greck among you.”
The Egyptian priest is ancient, in order that while he reproves he may not be intolerable, and may have a probable reason for teaching about archeology. But he employs a repetition of the name of Solon, not only as striving beyond measure in what he is about to say, but also for the purpose of indicating the circulation of things from the same to the same, which the more total causes of things cene- rated in the universe, comprehend stably and intellectually, through indelible knowledge ; to which causes the priest is analogous. IIe accuses, however, the Greeks as being always children, because they have not acquired the all-various wisdom of the Egyptians, but bear servile hairs in their soul. Juvenility, there-
fore, indicates their want of wisdom. © Or this privation of wisdom arises from
the frequent destructions of them, so that before they become truly ancient, they
80 PROCLUS ON THE [ΒοοΚ 1,
become again juvenile through destruction. Or it is because ancient deeds are not preserved by them ; but their knowledge ts always confined to present events, and such as sense apprehends. But with the Egyptians, past transactions are always present through memory, as if they were recent. And the remembrance is through history. But the history is fiom pillars, in which things paradoxical and worthy of admiration, whether in actions or inventions, are inscribed. Why, however, it may be said, does this priest accuse the Greeks with such sey erity ? For what is there admirable in his narration, since, asthe noble Heraclitus says, avery learned knowledge of past transactions does not produce intellect? But if that which Eudoxus says is true, that the Egyptians calla month a year, the enumeration of many of these vears, will not be attended with any thing won- derful. Tt was idle, therefore, in the Egyptian priest to think highly of himself for the knowledge of transactions in these. Or, though, as Aristotle Says, it ts IMposst- ble that memory and sense should be effective of science, yet at the same time it must be admitted, that they contribute to the reminiscence of wholes. Por by relating in many things many similar ciretinstances, we produce one form of them, and finding frequently from history concordant apocatastases of many things, we recur to the one cause of them. Por thus the observations of the aflections of the air were framed by Calippus, and the Knowledge from astrology of the celestial motions. And thus much inanswer to the doubt.
Again, however, let us recur to the theory of wholes, and there survey the junior Sobrication, held together by Minerva, and titled fiom more ancient and primoge- nial causes. For from: thence this fabrication possessing stability. proceeds,’ on account of an exempt cause, and contributes to the mundane contrariety. Por every thing in the demiureie progression which is distributed inte parts and mal- tiphied, proceeds on account of that principle, As, therefore, there are causes in the world, some of which are eflective of the regencration of things, bat others are guardians of the coherence of productive powers, the priest, indeed, must be assumed as analogous to these latter causes, but: Solon to the former, Tlence, the one exhibits a transcendent remembrance of antiquity, but the other is said to have related various mutations, eencrations, and corruptions. It hKewise appears to me, that the arrangement of the elder prior to the younger person, is assumed ina way adapted to the orderly distribution of the universe. For in the fabrica- tion of Jupiter, they have this order with reference to each other ; Just as the
‘ ; : Tustead of Wpus τὸ ἐφζφηρημένον here, I read, καὶ TPOKLAL διὰ ro «ςηρημέενον αἰΤιο}.
ὑσιωυττε Ble ee σνεατασος στ
Book 1. Tim.Eus of Plato. 87
Klean guest {in Plato] says, that those who live in the Saturnian period, proceed from being older to being younger; but those that live in the period of Jupiter, proceed ina contrary direction, And _ in this dialogue, Timieus says, respecting the soul, that the Demiurgus produced it more ancient than the body, and on this account constituted it of amore principal nature. Now, therefore, the priest, who is the guardian of divine institutions, excels through antiquity, though that which is Junior proceeds from a higher order; just as Solon comes from a city, which per- tains ina greater degree to Minerva. In mundane works, however, that which is more ancient possesses a great dignity.
“To whom the priest :-—Because all your souls are juvenile ; neither containing any ancient opinion derived from remote tradition, nor any discipline hoary from its existence in former periods of time.”
Sucenility of soul, in what is here said, is analogous to renovation of life, and to more partial causes; but remote tradition, to stable intelligence, and to more an- cient principles. And hoary discipline is analogous to the comprehension, which is united and always the same, of the nature and composition of all that the world contains; through which, indeed, the first and most divine of mundane natures comprehend totally and exemptly the causes of all generated beings, and eternal- ly and antecedently contain in themselves temporal natures ; but comprehend things more proximate to the universe partially and subordinately, as falling short of the unical intelligence of wholes. Hence to some of the Gods hoariness is adapted, but to others juvenility. For hoariness is a symbol of intelligence and an undefiled life, and which is remote from generation; but juvenility of more partial knowledge, and which now comes into contact with generated natures.
** But the reason of this is the multitude and variety of destructions of the human race, which formerly have been, and. again will be: the great-
est of these, indeed, arising from fire and water ; but the lesser from ten thousand other contingencies.”
In what is here said, an inquiry is made, why the Greeks are always children, but there is no discipline with them hoary from its existence in former periods of time? Or, if you wish to survey the paradigms of these things, the enquiry is,
88 PROCLUS ON THE {Book 1.
through what cause the junior fabrication presides over variety, generated natures always rising into existence, and such as are ancient becoming renovated? Be- fore, however, he discovers the cause of such-like doubts, he first discusses the periods in the universe, and pots out the variety ef them; of which the first principles of the Gods, indeed, have an antecedent Knowledge, stably and uni- tedly ; but the second principles partially, and in such a way as to come into contact with the nature of the things which they govern; for this it is always to know what is present. But to retain in the memory things that are absent, is analogous to the perception of wholes separately and stably. Phere are, there- fore, certain various periods of things in the world ; but it must be admitted, that there is always generation and always corruption in the universe. For that which is sensible is rising into existence, and tending to corruption, but never (rudy is. This generation, however, and destruction, must he surveyed im one way in the heavens, and in another in material natures. Por, in the former, a mutation of fizures, and the motion of perpetually generated: bodies, pre-exist. But) genera- tion, being governed through the mutations of these bodies, evolves its own circle, In this cirele, however, different Clements have dominion at different times, And wholes, indecd, always preserve the same and a similar order according to na- ture; but the different parts of these wholes subsist at different times, either con. formably to nature, or preternaturally, ina becoming manner, Por ὁ either the wholes and the parts always subsist according to nature; or both, on a certain time, have a preternatural subsistence; or the one has a preternatural, but the other a natural subsistence, and this ina twofold respect. If, therefore, all things [perpetually] existed according to nature, the variecy of generation would be dis- sipated, perpetual natures would be the extremities of beings, and the first es- sences would be the last of all things. But if all things were disposed preternatu- rally, there would be nothing stable; from which an invariable sameness of sub- sistence might be present with mutable natures; nor would the circle of genera- tion be preserved. And it is impossible that wholes should have a preternatural, but parts a natural, subsistence ; for parts follow wholes, and wholes are compre- hensive of parts. Hence it is impossible that the former should, at a certain time, exist preternaturally, but the latter remain in a condition conformable to nature. For neither is it possible, when the whole of our animal nature is moved, and its order destroyed, that any one of its parts should still exist according to nature.
* Tap is omitted here in the original,
arene ESD ANEURIN κα σκάρος ον «μα:
satan esr