Again, therefore, these things embrace wholes and divine causes. For the middle is suspended from the first fabrication, and is assimilated to it. And each indeed pertains to the universe ; but) the latter according to union, and one sameness 3 and the former according to progression and the difference of the things fabricated. Just as the third ‘fabrication subsists according to conversion.* And the first fabrication connects the war in generation celestially ; but) the second subordinately and according to diminution ; just as the third? connects the extremities of the universe. Very properly therefore does Socrates summarily deliver the laws, and the whole life of the Athentans, in the samme manner as the priest. And these things may be assumed from what the priest now says. But he calls images paradigms, because the Saitans participate secondarily of those things, of which the Athenians participate primarily. For though archetypes rank among the first of beings, yetimages have the first: order with reference to our knowledge. As therefore things secondary by nature are said to be first, thus also they are said to be paradigms to the things that are elevated from them, and which know through them the natures prior to them. Hflere also, what pertains to the Athenians, indicates a more total, but what pertains to the Saitans, amore partial order. ‘These things likewise are analogous, both in partial natures and in wholes. So that the polity which is about to be delivered, pertains to the city of the Athenians, or rather to the whole orderly distribution of things ; and the laws extend to the whole world) from Minerva. Por every law is said to be the distribution of intellect, and is rightly said to be so. But the laws of the Athenians, being established conformably to the tutelar Goddess, exhibit the distribution of the Minervalintelleet. But of this kind are the laws in the universe which are defined conformably to one demturgic intellect, and the one providence of Minerva.
‘Por the race of the priests was separated from the rest of the inhabi- tants.”
That in a certain respect all this order of the polity of the priest is more partial and more divided than that of Socrates, imitating the middle fabrication, may be
‘ For xpwrn here, it is necessary to read τρίτη.
* The nature of these three fabrications is uufolded farther on.
Ὁ Here also for xpwrn, it is necessary to read τρίτη,
cove nia Dae
Book 17} Tim.Lus of Plato. 127
learnt from the multitude and quality of the genera in the city. For in the polity of Socrates, there were three genera, the guardian, the auxiliary, and) the merce. nary. Por the triad is allied to the demiurgie monad. But here there are the double of these, the sacerdotal, and the military; the demiurgic, for pertaining to artificers; and = the pastoral; the venatic and the agricultural, For the middle fabrication has at one and the same time the duadic, and the triadie; and both these numbers are adapted to Minerva. But one of these indeed, viz. the triad, is immediately adapted to the Goddess; but the other according to generation, For the hexad is a triangle from the triad.’ By the trigonic therefore, and by the hexad from the triad, the diminution and at the same time alliance to the Goddess are manifested. For though every fabrication participates of Minerva, yet the first and supreme parts of the universe, and the first fabrication, and the first father, are filled from her in a more abundant degree. Thus therefore, if you alone select these genera, you will find) the number adapted to the Goddess, Buotif you add, the presiding over wisdom, you will entirely find the heptad, which is ofa Minerval characteristic. And this is one of the things that are of great notoriety. The feminine nature likewise of the heptad is celebrated, and that itis produced fromthe monad alone. The monad also, the triad, and the hep- tad, are said to be espectally imazes of Minerva; the first, indeed, as being intellectual ; the second, as converting the monad to itself ; and the third, as proceeding from the father alone. After this manner, therefore, you may infer from numbers,
It is necessary however, from the quality of the genera, to survey the diminution and transcendency of these. For the sacerdotal is subordinate to the guardian genus, Which ascends as far as to the first cause. * For Plato himselfin the Politi- cus arranges the priests under the politician, and does not impart to them political power. The military also is subordinate to the auxiliary genus. For the latter arranges ina becoming manner, and sufficiently disciplines the inhabitants of the city. Butthe former pursues war alone, and things pertaining to it, and partici- pates of this study alone. And the mercenary tribe is divided into the remaining genera. The polity of Socrates therefore surpasses that of the priest, as being more comprehensive, and after a manner co-adapted to the genera prior to it. So that both froin number and quality, it becomes evident to us that the polity
' For 6 is a triangular number, and is the double of 3.
* Plato asserts this of the guardians, in bis Republic,
128 PROCLUS ON THE [ΒβΒοοκ 1.
second after it. We establish, however, the analogies of the polity of Socrates to the universe, to be as follows. The genus of guardians we arrange as analo- gous to the celestial Gods. The aunihary genus to those more excellent natures, the attendants on the celestial Gods, and the defenders of the universe. And the mercenary genus, to those powers that connect a material nature with partial souls. The first of these also, ts analogous to the fined stars, the second to the planets, and the third to material natures, We may likewise assume in the celes- tial Gods themselves, all these according to analocy,
Here, however, itis worth while to survey how, and after what manner, these cenera Lenumerated by the priest) are to be assumed in’ the universe, Vor the philosopher Porphyry arranges them as follows: That the priests are analogous to the archangels inthe heavens, who are converted to the Gods, of whom they are the messengers. But the soldiers are analogous to souls descend- ing into bodies. Again, the shepherds are analogous to the powers that are arranged over the herds of animals ; which in arcane narrations are said to be souls that are frustrated of the human intellect, but have a propensity towards animals. Vor there is also a certain curator of the herd of men. And there are likewise certain partial curators; some being the inspectors of nations; others of cities ; and others of individuals. But the hunters are analogous to those powers that hunt after souls, and inclose them in bodies. ‘There are likewise powers who delight in the hunting of animals, such as Diana is said to be, and another mul- titude together with her of venatic demons. And the husbandmen are analogous to those powers that preside over fruits. ΔἸ] this administration therefore of snblunary damons is said by Plato to receive many demiurgic distributions, in consequence of looking to the efleet which now is, or is becoming to be. The divine Tamblichus, however, reprehends these assertions, as neither Platonic nor true. For archangels are not any where mentioned by Plato, uor does the mi- litary genus pertain to souls verging to bodies. For it is not proper to oppose these to gods or diemons. For we should act absurdly, in arranging these in the middle genus, but Gods and demons among the last artificers. Nor must it be admitted, that those are shepherds, who are frustrated of human intellect, but have a certain sympathy to ammals. Por the existence of damons who zovern the mortal nature, is not derived from men; nor are those powers hunters, who inclose the soul in body, as ina nets since the soul is not thus conjoined to Which is now delivered, is subordinate to that of Socrates, and will rank as the
aI LTT OE
800k 1] Tim.Eus of Plato. 129
tothe body. Nor ts this mode of theory philosophic, but full of Barbarie arrogance." Nor are husbandmen to be referred to Ceres: for the Gods are exempt from the proximate causes of nature. Reprehending, therefore, these assertions, he consi- ders the priests as analogous through similitude to all such secondary essences and powers, as honour and worship the causes prior to themselves, But the shep- herds, as analogous to all those mundane powers, that are allotted the government of the life which verges to body, and of the most irrational powers, and who dis- tribute these in an orderly manner. The hunters he places as analogous to those universal powers who adorn secondary natures through the investigation of [real] being. But the husbandmen, as corresponding to the powers that yive efficacy to the seeds that descend from the heavens to the earth. And the soldiers, to the powers that subvert every thing atheistical, and corroborate that which is divine. After this manner, therefore, the divine Tamblichus [interprets what is said by the priest.) But it is common to both these philosophers, that they divide the fabricative genus into the pastoral, the venatic, and the agricultural ; but they do not produce the four genera from one. Forno one, who rightly considers the affair, can place either the pastoral or the venatic under the fabricative genus. Will it not therefore be better to interpret the passage conformably to our preceptor, by admitting that the sacerdotal and military tribes form one duad, but the fabricative and agricultural another, and the pastoral and venatic a third | duad; and assuming an order of this kind, to investigate the paradigms of them. For the sacerdotal genus subsists in the anagogic Gods, the military in’ the guardian, and the fabricative in the Gods who separate all the forms, and the pro- ductive principles of mundane natures, But the agricultural genus subsists in those Gods that supernally excite nature, and disseminate souls about generation. For Plato, likewise, denominates the lapse of the soul into generation, a dissemi- nation, But to sow is most adapted to husbandmen, as is, also, to collect pro- ductions of nature. The pastoral genus subsists in the Gods that govern distinctly all the forms of life that revolve in generation. For Plato, in the Politicus, delivers to us certain divine shepherda. And the venatic subsists in the divinities that give an orderly distribution to all: material spirits. For it is usual with theologists to call these Gods hunters. All these genera likewise pertain to the middle fabrication, viz. the convertive genus, the guardian, that which ad-
"It is somewhat singular, that Porphyry, who called the Christian religion Bapjapor τολμημα, @ barbarously bold wickedness, should have adopted this theory, Tim. Plat. Vou. I. R
130 PROCLUS ON THE [Βοοκ 1,
ministers the psychical allotments, that which governs the genesiurgic forms of life, every thing which fabricates and gives form to material natures, and that which arranges the last order of spirits. ‘That, however, which pays attention to wisdom, and that which is contemplative, must be considered as different from all these genera, and which the Egyptian also celebrates above all the rest, making mention in the first place, as being a priest, of the sacerdotal genus. All the wenera, therefore, are seven, and the monad is exempt from the hexad. And the monad, indeed, is analogous to the one intelleet which connects all the fabri- cation of generated natures ς but the hexad is analogous to the more partial orders ‘under this intellect, viz. to the anagegic, guardian, formalizing, and vivifying orders, and also to those that are the leaders of the herds ofa tame fife, and to those that rule over the brutal nature, which orders in the universe likewise are separated from the fined stars. Moreover, he says, that these orders may be scen among men, in the firstplace, among the Athenians, but ins the second: place, amon the Saitans, according to the division of genera, each accomplishing its proper work ina detinite manner. For he manifests this by saying, separate from others, in order that we may understand the unmingled purity of the genera,
proceeding supernally through dimimution, as far as to the last of things.
“The artificers, also, exercised their arts insuch a manner, that each was engaged in hisown employment without mingling with that of other artists. The same method was likewise adopted by shepherds, hunters,
and husbandmen.”