It also appears to me that the demoniacal Aristotle, emulating as much as possible the doctrine of Plato, thus arranges the whole of his discussion concern- ing nature, perceiving that the things which are common to every thing that has a natural subsistence are, form and a subject, that from whence the principle of motion is derived, motion, time, and place; al! which are delivered by Plato in this dialogue, viz. interval, and time which is the image of eternity, and is con- subsistent with the universe; the various species of motion; and the concauscs of things which have a natural subsistence. But with respect to the things peculiar to substances according to an essential division, of these Aristotle discusses in the first place such as pertain to the heavens, ina way conformably to Plato; 50 far as he calls the heaven unbegotten, and a fifth essence. Lor what diflerence is there between calling it a fifth clement, or a fifth world, and ἃ fifth figure, as Plato denominates it?) But in the seeond place, he discusses such things as are commoy to every thing that has a generated: subsistence, And) with respect to things of this hind, Plato deserves to be admired, for having surveyed with much accuracy the essence and powers of them, and for having rightly preserved their harmony and cgntrarieties. And of these, such indeed as pertain to meteors, Plato has delivered the principles, but Aristotle has extended the doctrine respecting them beyond what is fit. But such as pertain to the theory of aumals, are distinguished by Plato according te all final causes and concauses, but by Aristotle are scarcely, and bat in few Instances, surveyed according to form. For his discussion for the most part stops at matter; and making bis exposition of things that have ao natural subsistence from this, he shows to us that he deserts the doctrine of lis preceptor, gand thus much concerning these par- ticulars.
In the next place it is requisite to speak of the form and character of the dia- logue, and to show what they are. It is universally acknowledged, then, that Plato receiving the treatise of the Pythagoric Timiwus, which was composed by him after the Pythagoric manner, began to write his Timwus. Again, it is - also acknowledged by those who are in the smallest degree conversant with the writ- ings of Plato, that his manner is Socratic, philanthropic, and demonstrative. 10, therefore, he has any where mingled the Pythagoric and Socratic peculiarity, he appears to have done this in the present dialogue. For there are in it from the Pythayorie custom, elevation of conception, the intellectual, the divinely inspired, the suspending every thing from intetligibles, the bounding wholes in numbers, the indicating things mystically and symbolically, the anagogic, the transcending
nooK 1. TIMAUS OF PLATO. 7
partial conceptions, and the enunciative or unfolding into light. But from the Socratic philanthropy, the sociable, the mild, the demonstrative, the contemplat- ing beings through images, the ethical, and every thing of this kind. Hence it is a venerable dialogue ; forms its conceptions supernally from the first principles ; and mingles the demonstrative with the enunciative. It also prepares us to under- stand physies, not only physically, but likewise theologically. For Nature herself who is the leader of the universe, being suspended from, and inspired by the Gods, governs the corporeal-formed essence. And she neither ranks as a God- dess, nor is without a divine peculiarity, but is illuminated by the truly-existing Gods.
If, likewise, it be requisite that discourses should be assimilated to the things of which they are the interpreters, as Timeus himself says, it will be fit that this dialogue also should have the physical, and should also have the theological ς imitating nature, which is the object of its contemplation, Fartier still, acvording to the Pythagoric doctrine, things receive a threefold division into intelligibles, ἢ things physical, and such as are the media between these, and which are usually called mathematical, But all things may be appropriately surveyed in all. For/ such things as are media, and such as are last! presubsist in intelligibles after a primordial manner, and both these subsist in the mathematical cenera ; first natures indeed iconically, but such as rank as the third, peradigmatically, In physical entities, also, there are images of the essences prior to them. This, therefore, being the case, Timieus, when he constitute? the soul, very properly indicates its powers, its productive principles, and its elements through mathematical names. But Plato defines its peculiarities by geomc.tical figures, and leaves the causes of all these primordially pre-existing in the intelligible and demiurgic intellect. And thus much concerning these things ; since when we descend to particulars, we shall be able to know more perfectly the manner of the dialogue. But the hypo- thesis of it ix as follows :
Socrates having come to the Pirwus for the sake of the Bendidian festival and solemn procession, discoursed there concerning a polity with Polemarchus, the son of Cephalus, Glanco and Adimantus, and likewise Thrasymachus the sophist. But on the day after this, he narrates the conference in the Pirwus, as it is laid down in the Republic, in the city, to Timaus, Hermocrates and Criteas, and to another fourth anonymous person. Having, however, made this narration, he calls upon the other associates, to feast him in return on the day after this, with the banquet of discourse. The auditors therefore and speakers assembled together
8 PROCLUS ON THE [Rook 1.
on this day, which was the third from the conference in the Pireus. For in the Republic it is said, “* T went down yesterday to the Pirwus 37 but in this dialogue, “ Of those who were received by me yesterday at a banquet of discourse, but who ought now in their turn to repay me with a similar repast.” Not all of them how- ever, Were present at this audition, but the fourth was wanting through indispost- tion, What, therefore, you will say, are these three auditors of a discussion about the whole world? Treply, that itis fit the father of the discussion should be con- sidered as analogous to [the Demiurgus, or] the father of works. For the fabrica- tion of the world in words, is the image of the fabrication of it according to intel- lect. Bat the triad of those that receive the discussion of Timieus, is analozous to the demiurgic triad which receives the one and total motion of the father; of which triad Socrates is the summit, through an alliance of life immediately con- Jolming himself to Tinieus, just as the first of the paradigmatic triad is united to the fatter, who is prior to the tuiad, These things, however, if the Gods please, we shall render more manifest through what follows. As we have therefore spoken concerning the scope and management of the dialogue, have shown low admirable the character of itis, and what is the whole of the hypothesis, and have indicated the adaptation of the persons to the present discussion, twill be proper that, betaking ourselves to the words of απ, we should investigate every par- Hieular to the utinost of our power,
Since, however, the word nature, being diflerently understood by different: per- sons, disturbs those who love to contemplate the conceptions of Plato, let us in the first place show what it appeared to him: to he, and what his opinion was of Its essence. For the hnowledge of what nature is, whence it proceeds, and how far itextends to productions, will be adapted) τὸ the dialogue, which bas for its object the physical theory. For of the ancients, some indeed, as Antipho, called iatter nature; but others form, as Aristotle, in many places. Others again called the whole of things nature, as some prior to Plato, of whom he speaks ino the Laws. Others’ denominated nature things which subsist by nature. But others gave the appellation of nature to physical powers, such as gravity and levity, rarity and density, as some of the Peripatetics, and still more ancient: pliysiolo- vists. Others called things which have a natural subsistence the art of God 5 others soul; and others something else of this kind. Plato, however, does not
think fit to give the appellation of nature primarily, either to matter, or material
' For ore δὴ here, it is necessary to read οἱ dy,
Rook 1] Tim-Leus of Plato. 9
form, or body, or physical powers, but is averse to call it immediately soul. Placing, however, the essence of it in the middle of beth, I mean, between soul and corporeal powers, the latter being inferior to it, in consequence of being divided about bodies, and incapable of being converted to themselves, but nature surpass- ing things posterior to if, through containing the reasons or productive principles of all of them, and generating and vivifving all things, he has delivered to us the most accurate theory concerning it. For, according to common conceptions, nature is one thing, and that which subsists according to, and by nature, another, For that which is artificial, is something diflerent from art, and the intellectual soul is one thing, and nature another. For nature, indeed, verges to bodies, and is inseparable from them, But the intellectual soul is separate from bodics, is esta- blished in herself, and at one and the same time belongs to herselfand to another. She belongs to another, indeed, in consequence of being participated, but to herself, through not verging to the participant; just as the father of soul is of himself being imparticipable, and, if yon are willing, prior to him the intelligible paradigm itself of the whole world. For these follow each other, viz. itse/; of itself; of’ itself and of another ; of another ; another. And with respect to the last of these, it is evident that it is every thing sensible, in which there is interval and all-various division. But of the next to this, (viz. that which is of another,] it is nature which is inseparable from bodies, That which immediately precedes this [viz. that which is both of itself and of another,] is soul which subsists in herself, and imparts by illumination a secondary life to another thing. The next to this [or that which is of itself.) is the demiurgie intellect who abides Cas Plato says] in himself in his own accustomed manner. And the next to this Cor itself] is the intelligible cause of all things, which is the paradigm of the productions of the Demiurgus, and which Plato on this account thinks fit to call animal itself. Nature, therefore, is the last of the causes which fabricate this corporeal-formed and sensible essence. She is also the boundary of the extent of ineorporeal essences, and is full of reasons and powers through which she directs and governs mundane beings. And she is a Goddess indeed, in consequence of being deified, but she has not immediately the subsistence of a deity. For we call divine bodies Gods, as being tle statues of Gods. But she governs the whole world by her powers, containing the heavens indeed in the summit of herself, but ruling. over generation through the heavens; and every where weaving together partial natures with wholes. Being however such, she proceeds from the vivific Goddess [Rhea.} [For according to the Chaldwan oracle] “ Immense Nature is suspended from the Tim. Plat. Vou. I. Bb
10 PROCLUS ON TIE [Book 1.
back of the Goddess ;” from whom all life is derived, both that which is intellee- tual, and that which is inseparable from the subjects of its government. Hence, being suspended from thence, she pervades without impediment through, and inspires all things; so that through her, the most inanimate beings participate of a certain soul, and such things as are corraptible, remain perpetually in the world, being held together by the causes of forms which she contains. For again the Oracle says, “ Unwearied Nature rules over the worlds and works, and draws downward, that Heaven may run an eternal course,” kc. So that if some one of those who assert that there are three demiurgi, is willing to refer them to these principles, viz. to the demiurgic intellect, to soul, and to total nature Lor to nature considered as a ἡ 016,7 he will speak rightly, through the causes which have been already enumerated. But he will speak erroneously, if he supposes that there are three other demiurgi of the universe, beyond soul. For the Demiurgus of wholes is one, but more partial powers, distribute his whole fabrication into parts. We must not therefore admit such an assertion, whether ibe Amelius or ‘Theodorus (Asinwus} who wishes to make this arrangement; but we must be careful to remain in Platonic and Orplic hypotheses.