“ In consequence of this, as soon as it was day, I repeated the narra- tion to my friends, that together with myself they might be better pre- pared for the purposes of the present association, But now with respect to that for which this narration was undertaken, IT am prepared, O Socra- tes, to speak not only summarily, but so as to descend to the particulars of every thing which 1 heard. We shall transfer, however, to reality the citizens and city which you fashioned yesterday as ina fable ; consider- ing that city which you established as no other than’ this Athenian city, and the citizens which you conceived, as no other than those ances- tors of ours described by the Egyptian priest. And indeed the aair will harmonize in every respect ; nor will it be forergn from the purpose to assert, that your citizens are those very people who existed at that time. Ilfence, distributing the affair in) common among us, we will en- deavour, to the utmost of our ability, to accomplish ina becoming man- ner the employment which you have assigned us. It is requisite there- fore to consider, O Socrates, whether this discourse 15 reasonable, or whe- ther we should lay it aside, and seck after another.”
Before, Critias made his associates partakers of his narration ; but now, he calls on them to accomplish in conjunction with him, the employment assigned them. Because in the paradigms all things indeed are united on high, and fill each other with intellectual powers; but in the demturgie world for in’ the world
in the intelleet of the Demiurgas,} they subsist with each other, according to
a certain divine and total conspiration ; conformably to which, and through
partes πον 5 ν
Book ν.} τιν ό5 of Plato. 162
which, all things are every where appropriately in each. Hence ἴῃ the heavens the paradigms of generated natures pre-exist, and in generation there are images of celestial natures. Since, however, wholeness every where pre- cedes parts, this also may be seen in the second fabrication. On this account Critias first summarily discusses the war; but afterwards he endeavours to explain more copiously every particular, narrating all the polity of the At- lantics, and the principle of their generation; how they turned to injustice, how the Athenians proceeded to war; from what apparatus, from what le- gations, through what ways, with whom they were co-arranged, and such things as are consequent to these. The genuine polity, therefore, (of Socrates] is an imitation of the first fabrication. Hence indicating the mystic nature of it, and its pre-existence in pure reason, he says, that it was fashioned as it were ina fable. But the hypothesis of the Athenians has an indication, as in images,’ of the second fabrication; in which that) which is more partial presents itself to the view; and what remains consists of contrariety and motion, and that which is circumscribed in’ place. Since, however, the second is suspended from the first fabrication, and is in continuity with it, hence he says, “ that the affair will harmonize in cwery respect, and that it will not be foreign to the purpose to assert, that the citizens in the Re- public of Socrates are the very people who existed at that time.”
“Socrates. But what other, O Critias, should we reccive in _ prefers ence to this? Por your discourse, through a certain affinity, is particularly adapted to the present sacrifice to the Goddess. And besides this, we should consider, as a thing of the greatest moment, ¢hat your rela- fion is not a mere fable, but a true history of transcendent magnitude. It is impossible, therefore, to say how and from whence, neglecting your narration, we should find another more convenient.”
Socrates approves the narration of Critias, in the first place as adapted to the festival of the Athenians; for the [Atlantic] war is an image of mundane
wars; and as a hymn accommodated to the sacrifice to Minerva. For if
speech is of any advantage to men, it should be employed in hymns. And besides this, since the Goddess is the cause of both theory and action; through
* For ws exeiswy ostwy in this place, it is necessary to read ws εἰκογων orrwr.
166 PROCLUS ON THE {[poox ἣν
sacrifice, indeed, we imitate her practical energy, but through the hymn her theoretic energy. But, in the second place, Socrates approves the narration as bearing witness to the possibility of his polity. For this, in his discourse about it, he thought worthy of demonstration. For it was sufficient for him that this scheme of a polity existed in the heavens, and in one man; since all things that have an external, have an internal subsistence, and that) which is truly law, begins from the internal life itself. If also he shows, that this polity once prevailed among the Athenians, he certainly demonstrates the possibility of it. This, therefore, has such-like causes as these, Again how- ever it may be assumed from these things, that the narration about the At- lantics is not a fiction, as some have supposed it to be; but a history indeed, yet having an affinity to the whole fabrication of the world. So that such things as Plato discusses about the magnitude of the Atlantic island, 1uust not be rejected as fabulous and _ fictitious on account of those who en- close the earth in a very narrow space.
“ Hence it is requisite that you should speak with good Fortune, but that I on account of my discourse yesterday, should now rest from speaking, and be attentive to what you have to say.”
Plato does not, like the Stoics, assert, that the worthy man has no need of Fortune; but he is of opinion that our dianoetic energies, since they are com- plicated with corporeal energies, according to external progression, should be inspired by good Fortune, in order that they may proceed fortunately, and that their effect upon others may be friendly to divinity. And as Nemesis is the inspector of light words, thus also good Fortune directs the words both of those that receive and of him that utters them, to a good purpose, in order that the former may receive benevolently and sympathetically, but the latter may impart ina divinely inspired manner, that which is adapted to every one. Thus, therefore, in partial natures. But in wholes, good Fortune signities a divine allotment, according to which each thing 15 allotted an order adapted to it, from the one father, and the whole fabrication. Moreover, for So- crates to rest from speaking, and to be attentive to what may be said, has indeed an appropriate retribution. For the other persous of the dialogue did this, when he narrated his polity. But this shows from analogy, how all demiurgic causes being united to each other, have at the same time separate
rasa
βοοκ 1. Timaus of Plato. 167
productions. Jor to hear is indicative of receiving through each other. And for the others to rest, when one speaks, signifies the unmingled purity ac- cording to which each demiurgic cause produces and generates secondary natures from its own peculiarity.
“ Crit. But now consider, Socrates, the manner of our disposing the mutual banquet of discussion. Tor it seems proper to us that ‘Timeus, who is the most astronomical of us all, and is eminently knowing in the nature of the universe, should speak the first; commencing his discourse from the generation of the world, and ending in the nature of men. But that I after him, receiving the men which he has mentally produced, but which have been excellently educated by you, and introducing them to you according to the narration and law of Solon, as to proper judges, should render them members of this city; as being in reality no other than those Athenians which were described as unknown to us, in the report of the sacred writings. And that in future we shall discourse concerning them, as about citizens and Athenians,”
The intention of this arrangement is to make Timaus a summit, and at the same time a middle. Forhespeaks after Socrates and Critias, and prior to Critias and Her- mocrates. And thus,indeed, heis amiddle; but in another respect,he is a summit, according to science, and because he generates the men, whom Socrates indeed edu- cates, but Critias arms. This, however, is also a manifest symbol of total fabrication, which is at one and the same time a summit and a middle. For it is exempt from all mundane natures, and is equally present to all. The summits likewise, and the middle of the universe, belong to the Demiurgus, according to the doctrine of the Pythagoreans. For the tower of Jupiter is, as they say, situated there. But Critias, who spoke as the middle after Socrates, now again summarily speaks prior to Hermocrates. For the duadic pertains to the middle fabrication, and also the whole in conjunction with parts ; just as the whole [prior to parts] belongs to the first, but parts to the last fabrication, Wence Socrates summarily delivered his polity, and Hermocrates contributed to the parts of the history which was about to be narrated by Critias. And thus much concerning the whole arrangement.
Some one, however, may doubt, what will be left for Ilermocrates to accomplish after Timeus has delivered the generation of the men, Socrates their education,
108 PROCLUS ΟΝ THE [Boox 1.
and Critias their actions. For to these things there is nothing successive. May it not be said that Hermocrates is the adjutor of Critias in his narration ; for the relation of the history was a mixture of deeds and words. And Critias himself promised to make a discussion of the actions, but calls on Hermocrates to assist him in the words. For the imitation of these is difficult, as was before observed. Hence in the Atlanticus, Critias having assembled the Gods, as consulting about the punishment of the Atanties, he says ‘ Jupiler thus addressed them.” And he thus terminates the dialuzue, as delivering to Hermocrates the imitation of the words. But there is no absurdity in his not discussing (in the Athanticus] the remainder of the deeds. For, in short, having assembled the Gods, for the purpose of chastising the insolence of the Atlanties, he has every thing consequent to this comprehended in the Gods being thus collected, viz. the preparation of the Athenians, their egress, and their victory. Timwus, therefore, generates the men, Socrates educates them, Critias leads them forth to actions, and Hermocrates to words ; the first of these, imitating the paternal cause; the second, the suppher of stable intelligence; the third, the supplier of motion and progression to secondary natures; and the fourth, imitating the cause which converts the last of things to their principles through the imitation of reasons (i. e. of productive powers]. Thus, therefore, these particulars may be symbolically understood, and, perhaps, in no very supertluous manner,
Some one, also, may doubt why the Timzus had not an arrangeinent prior to the Republic, since in the former dialogue the generation of the world, and also of the human race, is delivered. For it is necessary, as Timwus says, that men should be generated; and also, that they should be educated, which Socrates effects in the Republic ; and that they should energize in ἃ manner worthy of their education, which in a certain respect the Atlanticus exhibits. And if, indeed, Plato beginning from the end proceeded to the ‘Timeus, which is first by nature, it will be asserting, what is usual to say, that for the sake of doctrine, things that are first to us, though posterior by nature, are first’ delivered ; but that now he appears to have arranged the middle as the first, and the first as the middle. And if, indeed, this arrangement had been adopted by those who are studious of ornament, it would have been less wonderful; but now Plato himselfappears to have acted in this manner, Προ, therefore, there is a recapitulation of the polity, as having been already summarily narrated in the shortest: manner, In answer tu this doubt it must be said, that if all hypotheses were assumed from the nature of things now in existence, or which were formerly, it would be necessary that the.