Moreover, those who call nature demiurgic art, if indeed they mean the nature which abides in the Demiurgus, they do not speak rightly; but their assertion. is right, if they mean the nature which proceeds from him, Jor we must conceive that artis triple, one kind subsisting in the artist, in unproceeding union ; another, proceeding indeed, but being converted to him; and a third being that which has now proceeded from the artist, and subsists in another thing. The art therefore, which is in the Demiurgus, abides in him, and is himself, according to which the sensible world ' is denominated the work of the artificer, and the work of the artificer of the fiery world. But the intellectual soul is art indeed, yet art which at the same time both abides and proceeds. And nature is art which proceeds alone; on which account also it Is said to be the organ of the Gods, not destitute of life, nor alone alter-motive, but having in a certain respeet the selfmotive, through the ability of energizing from itself, Por the organs of the Gods are essentialized in eflicacious reasons, are vital, and concur with the energies of the Gods.
As we have therefore shown what nature is according to Plato, that it is an incorporeal essence, inseparable from bodies, containing the reasons or productive principles of them, and incapable of perceiving itself, and as it is evident from
* It appears to me, that the words roy αἰσθητὸν κόσμον, are wanting bere in the origival.
BOOK 1 TIMA:US OF PLATO. ii
these things that the dialogue is physical, which teaches us conceraing the whole mundane fabrication,—it remains that we should connect what is consequent with what has been said. For since the whole of philosophy is divided into the theory concerning intelligible and mundane natures, and this very properly, because there is also a twofold world, the intelligible and the sensible, as Plato himself says in the course of the dialogue,—this being the case, the Parmenides compre- hends the discussion of intellizgibles, but the Timaus that of mundane natures. For the former delivers to us all the divine orders, but the latter all the progres- sions of mundane essences. Bat neither does the former entirely omit the theory of the natures contained in the universe, nor the latter the theory of intelligibles ; because sensibles are in intelligibles paradigmatically, and intelligibles in sensibles iconically. But the one is exuberant about that which is physical, and the other about that which is theological, ina manner appropriate to the men from whom the dialogues are denominated: to Timeus, for he wrote a treatise of this kind about the universe; and to Parmenides, for he wrote about truly-existing beings. The divine Iamblichus, therefore, says rightly, that the whole theory of Plato is comprehended in these two dialogues, the Timieus and Parmenides. For every thing pertaining to mundane and supermundane natures, obtains its most excellent end in these, and no order of beings is left uninvestigated. To those also who do not carelessly inspect these dialogues, the similitude of discussion in the Timeus to that in the Parmenides, will be apparent. For as Timius refers the cause of every thing in the world to the first Demiurgus, so Parmenides suspends the pro- gression of all beings from the one. And this is effected by the former, so far as all things participate of the demiurgic providence; but by the latter, so far as beings participate of a uniform hyparxis, [or of an hyparxis which has the form of the one.) Farther still, as Timus, prior to physiology, extends through images the theory of mundane natures, so Parmenides excites the investigation of imma- terial forms, prior to theology. For it is requisite after having been exercised in discussions about the best polity, to be !ed to the knowledge of the universe; and after having contended with strenuous doubts about forms, to be sent to the mystic theory of the unities (of beings.) Tlaving however, said thus much, it is now time
to consider the words of Plato, and investigate their meaning to the utmost of our
ability. “TI see] One, two, three, but where, fricnd Timieus,’ is the fourth
* In all the editions of the Timzus, ἡμῖν follows after gure Τίμαιε, but is wanting in these Commen- taries of Proclus.
12 PROCLUS ON THE- {nook τ.
person of those who having been received by me yesterday at a banquet of discussion, ought now to repay me with a similar repast δ᾽
Plato here, together with the grace and beauty of the words, raises and exalts the whole period. Praxiphanes however, the disciple of Theophrastus, blames Plato, first because he makes an enumeration of one, two, three, ina thing which is Manifest to sense and known to Socrates. For what occasion had Socrates to numerate, in order that he might know the multitude of those that assembled to this conference? In the second place he blames him, because he makes a change in using the word foxrth, and in su doing, does not accord with what had been sald before. For the word four, is consequent to one, two, three; but to the
Jourth, the frst, second, and third are consequent. These, therefore, are the objec- tions of Praxiphanes. The philosopher Porphyry however directly replies to him, and in answer to his second objection observes, that this is the Grecian custom, for the purpose of producing beauty in the diction, Homer! therefore
has said many things of this kind:
Full of the brass descending from above,
Through six bull hides the furious weapon drove,
Till in the secenté it fix’d.
And in ἃ similar manner in many other places. Here also the mutation has a cause. For to numerate the persons that were present, was to point them out. For to say one, two, three, is indicative; but he signifies the person that was absent (since it Was Impossible to point him out) through the fourth. For we use the term the fourth, of one that is absent. But to the former objection Porphyry replies, thataif as imany had been present as was requisite, it would have been superfluous to nunerate them, but one of them being absent, of whos? name we are ignorant, the enumeration of those that are present contains a representation of the one that is wanting, as desiring that which rema‘nas, and as being in want of a part of the whole number, Plato therefore indicating this, represents Socrates “enumerating the persons that were present, and requiring him who was wanting, For it he had known him, and had been able to manifest him by name, he would perhaps have said, J see Critias, and Timeus, and Hlermocrates, but that man I do not see. Since however, he who was absent was a stranger, and unknown to
ε Vil. 247:
ποῦκ 1 Tim.Eus of Plato. 13
him, he only knew through number that he was wanting, and manifests to us that so many were present. All these observations, therefore, are elegant, and such others of the like kind as may be devised by some in subserviency to the theory of the words before us. But it is necessary to remember that the dialogue is Pythagorean, and that it is requisite interpretations should be made in a way adapted to the philosophers of that sect.
Such ethical Pythagoric dogmas therefore, as the following, may be denved from the present text: Those men established friendship and a concordant life, as the scope of all their philosophy. Hence Socrates prior to every thing else adduces this, by giving Timeus the appellation of friend. In the second place, they thought that the compacts which they made with each other, should be stably preserved by them; and for the fulfillment of these, Socrates desires the presence of the fourth person. In the third place, they embraced communion in the invention of dogmas, and the writings of one, were common to all of them. This also Socrates establishes, calling on them to become both guests and hosts, those that fill, and those that are filled, those that teach, and those that learn, Others, therefore, have written arts concerning disciplines through which they think they shall improve the manners of those that are instructed by them; but Plato delineates the forms of appropriate manners, through the imitation of the most eveellent men, which have much greater efficacy than those which are de- posited in mere rules alone. For imitation disposes the lives of the auditors, conformably to its own peculiarity. Hence, through these things it is evident what that is about which the philosopher is especially abundant, that it is about the hearing of discussions, and what he conceived to be a true feast; that it is not such as the multitude fancy it to be; for this is of an animal and brutal nature ; but that which banquets in us the [true] man. Hence too, there is much in Plato about the feast of discourse. ‘These therefore, and such particulars as these, are ethical.
But the physical Pythagorie dogmas are as follow: They said that every phy- sical production was held together by numbers, and that all the fabrications of nature subsisted conformably to numbers. These numbers however are partici- pated, just as all mundane forms are participable. Very properly, therefore, does the dialogue at its commencement proceed through numbers, and use numbers as things numbered, and not those very things themselves of which they partici- pate. For the monad, duad, and triad are one thing, and one, two, three, another. For the former are simple, and each of these subsists itself by itself;
14 PROCLUS ON THE [Βοοκ |.
but the latter participate of the former. Aristotle therefore, is not right in assert- ing, that these men considered numbers as subsisting in sensibles, For how could this be admitted by those who celebrate number as the father of Gods and men, and the tetractys, as the fountain of ever-flowing nature? But since the dia- logue iy physical, it makes ity commencement from participated numbers, such as are ΑἸ γα {πὰ} αὐτὸ physical PBarther stl, these men venerated physical communion, both that whieh isin generation, wecording to whieh all Chines are rendered effable and commensurate with each other, and that whichis in celestial natures. For these impart to each other their proper powers, Rightly therefore, and in away acapted to the thing proposed, does Socrates think fit, that the same persons should become both hosts and guests.
From these things also, you may survey such theological conceptions as the following: These men generated all things through the first numbers, and which also rank as rulers and leaders; and from three Gods, gave subsistence to all mundane natures, Of these three, the monad, duad and triad, are indicative; so that it is requisite to begin from these, and that be why surveys nature inwardly should look to these, Farther still, the concauses of mataral Chings were also contemplated) by other philosophers, as by Anaxagoras and Zeno; bat the final, the paradigmatic, and the producing ' cause, were peculiarly investigated by Plato, These causes therefore are manifested through the above numbers, Phe final, indeed, through the monad ; for it presides over numbers in the order of the good. But the paradigmatic through the duad; for the difference of beings separates the primary causes of wholes. And besides this, the duad is the principle of the tetractys of intelligible paradigms. But the producing cause is signified through the triad. For intellect is adapted to the triad, since itis the third from being through life as the medium, or from the father through power, or from the intelli- gible through intelligence. Por as the monad is to the duad, so is being to life, father to power, and the intelligible to intelligence. Βα ἀν the duad is to the triad, so is life, and also power and intelligence, to intellect. Again, all divine natures are 'nall, and are united to each other, so that all of them are in one, and each is in all, and they are connected together through divine friendship, The sphere also which is there, comprehends the one union of Gods. Hence Socrates who looks to divinity, very properly begins from) communion and concord, and likewise calls the other persons of the dialogue to this. Moreover, the words
* Por warpoaow here, it is necessary to read ποιητίκον.