Commentary on the Timaeus of Plato

Referring, however, the theory of these particulars to nature, let us show how they pertain to the order of the universe. For these things by a much greater priority exist in the Gods, on account of the union of the divinities. For all things! are the progeny of all the Gods, though different things are characterized by a different peculiarity. All the Gods likewise are in all, and all are united to all, in conjunction with an unmingled purity adapted to all, to which Socrates directing his attention, embraces this communion, and this distribution of employments, assigning one to each of the arts, conformably to nature. For not to know their own progeny as peculiarly their own, takes place with the Gods. On which account, indeed, their intellectual perceptions, and also. their productions are common. Each of them, however, benefits and preserves that which is generated, as being the common offspring of all of them. Moreover, to consider all those as brothers and sisters that are of an equal age, those that are elder as fathers and grandfathers, and the younger as children and grandsons, originates from. the Gods, and is transferred from thence to this polity. For similitude of essence, derived from the same cause, is that which is fraternal in them. But prolific cause, is in them that which is analogous to father and grandfather. And an efflux of essence proceeding into a second and third serics, exhibits the form of offspring.

For that the same Goddess is conjoined with diflerent Gods, or the same Gud with many Goddesses, may be assumed from mystical treatises, and from what are called Sacred Marriages in the mysteries, which Plato as much as possible imitating in what he ordains about politics and marriages, calls the marriages sacred. In physical productive powers also, we may sce that there is one and the same recipient of different powers ; and one productive power presenting itself to the view in a multitude of recipients, and pervading through many receptacles, But forms are analogous to males, and receptacles to females. Why therefore is this very thing beheld in the universe, but is paradoxical in human lives! 1 say it is because these lives are cut off from wholes, and every human soul is partible.

* For ravra here, it is necessary to read παντγα. Tim. Plat. τ Vou. 1. ὰὼ 42 PROCLUS ON THE {Book 1. Hence the dogmas which embrace this communion appear to it most difficult to be admitted. If, therefore, some one should take away the condition of lis present subsistence, and elevate himself to the whole of things, he would immediately admit this communion, and despise the sympathy whichis divided by the multitude. So far, however, as each of us is extended, and minutely distributed about a part, and thus relinquishes the whole and one, so far also he leaps toa life of this kind, which is an unrestrained habitude, a disorderly arrangement, and “Soc. But that they might from their birth acquire a natural disposition as far as possible the best, we decreed that the rulers whom we placed over the marriage rites should, through the means of certain lots, take care that in the nuptial league, the worthy were mingled with the worthy ; that no discord may arise in this connexion, when it does not prove prosperous in the end, but that all the blame may be referred to fortune, and not to the guardians of such a conjunction.”

Plato particularly assumes in his Republic similitude, sameness, and geometrical, In conjunction with arithmetical equality, ino order that the similitude of it to the heavens, as in sensibles, or to the intelligible, as in supereclestial lives, may be perfectly preserved. For through this cause, in marriages also, he preserves the union of the best woman with the best man, and of the less excellent: woman with the less excellent man. For in the Gods likewise, primary natures are more connascent with those of the first rank, and secondary with those of the second rank ; and together with union there is unmingled purity. Tfence in the second genera after the Gods, a distribution of this kind conformably to the intention of the Gods, is effected according to desert. On this account, divine femate diemons are co-arranged with divine male dimons, psychical female with psychical inale, and material female with material male dwmons. And every where, the analogous in order proceeds as far as to the last of things. Po which we may add that the rulers contriving that this connexion may take plaice litently, sufhciently adumbrates to us that the cause of such a conjunction of genera subsists unapparently with the Gods; being thence primarily derived, bat) secondarily from damons,' and from the order of each, which ¢he lot indicates; possess-

It is necessary here to insert the words, ἀπὸ τὼν δαιμόνων. ing the power of colligation from similitude of life, according to which each is co-arranged with the similar, the divine with the divine, the material with the material, and that which has a middle subsistence, with the middle. On this account, likewise, all sedition and dissension is removed from divine natures, each loving that which is allied to itself, according to its own order, perceiving that this order is spontaneous, and not adventitious and devised; of all which, the citizens being conjoined in marriage by lot, and not looking to elegance and ornament in the connexion, is an image, For in natural things, also, receptacles are distributed to forms appropriately; and each form may ascribe the cause of its own co-ordination to material variety. At the same time, likewise, this is eflected according to causes ' which preside over the whole fabrication of things, and which are analogous to guardians. And thus much, therefore, has been said, tor the sake of the theory of wholes. Longinus, however, doubts here, whether Plato was of opinion, that souls are emitted together with the seed: for in order that they may become most excellent, he conjoins similars with similars. And Porphyry replies indeed to the doubt, but not satisfactorily. Our preceptor, however, thinks that in’ the first place it should be observed, that Plato himself adds, “ In order that they might acquire a natural disposition as far as possible the best.” For children receice a physical stmilitude from their parents, and participate of a certain dignity and excellence from their begetters, according to the physical virtues. In the next place, it must be observed, that though it is not true that souls are emitted together with the seed, yet there is a distribution of the organs according to desert. For all souls are not introduced into casual organs, but each into that organ which is adapted to it.

ezira μὲν ἐσῆλος ebuve, χείρα Ce χείρονι δοσκεν," says Homer. Farther still, as an initiator into the mysteries, by placing certain symbols about statues, renders them more adapted to the participation of supcrior powers, thus also total nature fashioning bodies, by physical productive powers, the statues of souls, disseminates a different aptitude in different bodies for the reception of different * For ra atriara here, it is requisite to read ra αἰτία. * Iliad, χιν, vs, 382. i.e. ‘* He gave the good [i. e. the brave] man, good things, but the less excellent character, things of a less excellent nature. In the text of Proclus it is erroneously eofAa μὲν εσθλα eduve, x. Xr. 44 PROCLUS ON THE : [Boox 1. souls, the better and the worse ; which the politician likewise rightly understanding, pays attention to the emission of seed in the city, and to all physical aptitude, in order that the most excellent souls may be generated for him in the most excellent natures. And thus much in answer to the doubt of Longinus. But why does Plato conceive it is better to think that Fortune is the cause of this distribution to the citizens? Shall we say it is, because it is advantageous to us to know the cause of things which we think to be good, but better to conceive the presence of such as we apprehend to be evil, to be causcless, than to accuse the cause which distributes these [seeming evils] for a good purpose? For this excites to a contempt, or rather to a hatred of the giver; because every one avoids that which becomes to him productive of evil.

“Soc. Moreover, we ordered that the children of the good should be educated, but that those of the bad should be secretly sent to some other Cie: These things also are established in the Republic, but by a much greater priority take place in the universe. With respect, therefore, to the productions of Gods and Dwimons, some genera abide in them, pure and remote from generation, which on this account are called undefiled; but others descend into generation, not being able to remain in the heavens without a downward inclination. And some of these are the offspring of good, but others of less excellent powers. lor the term dad is indicative of less excellent. ‘The horses, therefore, and charioteers of the Gods, are all of them good; but those of partial souls are of a mixed nature.t Hence in these, there is preponderation, a verging downward, and a defluxion of wings, which the celestial Gods send into generation, and diemons who preside over the descent of souls, The celestial and undefiled genera of souls, therefore, are nourished following the Gods to the banquet and delicious food, as it is said in the Phedrus. And those that are subservient to generation, communicate with it, being latently sent into it from the heavens, as Socrates says, indicating by the word Jafent the invisible and occult cause in the Gods of the psychical descents, and that souls which thence descend, become subject [latently] to another providential inspection, and to other guardians who preside over generation.

' This is asserted inthe Phadrus. See this explained, in the notes at the end of this Translation. δας A καράβι, ει, RN αὶ Boox 1] 'TIM.EUS OF PLATO. 45 * Yet so that such of the adult among these as should be found to be of a good disposition, should be recalled from exile; while, on the contrary, those who were retained from the first in the city as good, but proved afterwards bad, should be similarly banished.” In the Republic, Socrates makes a transition not only from those that were distributed from the upper into the lower city, but also from those of the golden race that were born there. Here, however, the reference is made to those who are recalled from exile. Do these things, therefore, accord with each other? Perhaps, indeed, it is possible to reconcile what is here said, with what is there determined, if we understand the word adult, as not only pertaining to those sent from the upper city, but likewise to all those that are educated in the lower city. For, in short, the natural disposition is to be considered of those adults who were born in the lower city, or of those who were sent from the upper into the lower city, and thus those that are worthy are to be recalled from exile. Butif some one is willing to understand the words according to our first explanation of them, it:

must be said, that what Socrates now delivers is conformable to the things proposed to be considered. For descending [rational] souls again ascend, but not such souls as had their .ypostasis from the beginning in generation, and about matter, such as are the multitude of irrational souls. And thus much for the words themselves. See, however, how the same things take place in wholes, as. those Which Socrates ordains in his polity. For some things always have the same order in the heavens, remaining divine and immutable; but others are always conversant with generation ; and others are in a certain respect the media between both ; at one time, indeed, being suspended from divine natures themselves, but at another being mingled with those that embrace generation. It is not, therefore, the damoniacal genus which ascends or descends, nor is this to be asserted of multiform lives, nor are dwemons subject to death, but partial souls, which are at one time conversant with generation, and at another are transferred into a divine demoniacal allotment; which things being known by Socrates in the Republic, he legislatively ordains that which is analogous to them. — For the celestial Jupiter presides over the Gods in the heavens, over damons that elevate partial souls [to their paternal port}, and also over others that lead souls into generation, in order that the ascents and descents of souls may be never failing in the universe. “ For though you should see this particular soul restored to its pristine perfection, yet

46 PROCLUS ON THE - [Book 1. the father sends another to be annumerated,” according to the divinely-inspired indication‘ about these things. “Soc. Have we, therefore, again sufficiently resumed the epitome of the discussion of yesterday, or do we require any thing further, friend Timeus, which has been omitted ἢ The resumption of the polity teaches us, through images, how the universe is filled with the most excellent productive powers. For generated natures in it are separated from each other, and each communicating with other things, energizes according to its own peculiarity. And primary, indeed, are exempt from: secondary natures, yet employ their energies, as necessary to: the completion of the universe. But secondary are adorned by primary natures. Phe most excellent, however, of mundane beings, are connascently conjoined with the most excellent, middle with middle, and last with such as are dast. Bat the same productive powers pervade through many subjects, and the same recipients participate of many productive powers. Lives, also, at different times have different allotments, according to their desert. All these particulars, therefore, sufficiently place before our view the order of the universe. For in detinite heads, Socrates has, ina becoming manner, epitomized every form of the polity, recurring to intellectual Impartibility, in order that he might imitate the God who adorns the celestial polity intelligibly and paternally. But since every where measures and perfection are detinitely imparted to secondary natures from [primary 7 eases, on this account also Socrates requests Tinieus to inform him, whether he has compre.

hended fin his epitome} every ἤσαν οὐ the polity. Por every intellect being firmly fixed in the deity prior to itself, defines itself by looking to it. To which we may add, that to speak) summarily is a syvinbol of the first parts, and the head of the universe being adorned by the fabricator of the heavens; which the Demiurgus of the universe adorns ina more perfect manner, looking to the whole, and the one life of the world. And thus much respecting the analogy of partial natures to wholes.

The investigation, however, is not attended with any difficulty, whether the words inean, “ Slave we now epitomized the polity which we discussed yesterday ?” or “ Have we again epitomized to-day, the polity which we epitomized yesterday?” For δ, ον, According to the Chaldean Oracles. ποοκ 1. TIMAUS OF PLATO. 47 whether yesterday Socrates spoke more diffusely, but now summarily, or he spoke summarily in both, the divine Tamblichus approves of either of the readings, and we do not at all difler from him. | Perhaps, however, the latter construction is more consonant, For again to discuss the polity summarily, manifests thatit was summarily discussed yesterday. And it is not at all wonderful, that the summary discussion which took place in the Republic, should not be brought to light. For many other things which are asserted here, as being said on the former day, are not to be found in that dialogue. Unless it should be said that the word again, does not refer to the epitomizing, but to resuming the discussion. For he resumes, who narrates at great lencth what had been before said ; but he again resumes, who summarily contracts the narration. But whichever of the constructions is adopted, neither of them is attended with any difliculty.

“Soc. Hear now, then, how I am affected towards this polity which we have discussed.” What Socrates says in the words that follow, comprehends, that I may speak summarily, these five particulars. First, what that is which in what has been said, he desires should take place, after the narration of the polity. Secondly, that he is not sufficient to effect this himself. Thirdly, that neither is any one of the poets sufficient. Fourthly, that it is not proper to commit a work of this kind to the sophists, Fitthly, that the anditors alone can accomplish that which is earnestly desired by Socrates, ina becoming manner. What, therefore, is this? Por it is necessary, ino the first: place, to speak concerning that: which Socrates desires to sec after this polity, viz. to see, as he says, a city of this kind In motion, engaging in contests and labors, and warlike actions, in order that after the peaceful lite which he had delivered, he might have to narrate the energies of the city arising from circumstances of times and places. This, therefore, is What he wishes to see accomplished. Some one, however, may doubt to what the desire of Socrates is directed, and on what account he wishes this to be accomplished. Porphyry therefore dissolves the doubt by saving, that energies perfect habits, not only those energies that are prior to habits, but also those that proceed from them. For the perteetion in habit, is in conjunction with energy, since otherwise habit will be in a certain respect in capacity, and at rest through remission of energy. Socrates therefore, in order that he may survey the polity truly perfect, requires that in

48 PROCLUS ON THE [Book ι- words it may be beheld in motion, engaged in warlike actions, and contending with others, And it appears, says he, from hence, to be manifest that Plato does not admit that the habit of virtue by itself, but. when energizing, is sufficient to felicity. It may, however, be said, in answer to Porphyry, that if the end was military, it would be requisite to assert that war gives perfection to the polity. But ifthe end of it is peace, what occasion is there to solve Platonic doubts by introducing Peripatetic explanations? Or though the end is not military, νοὶ war exhibits the magnitude of virtue in a greater degree than peace, just as mighty waves and a tempest, show in a stronger light the skill of the pilots art. And in short, this is eflected by circumstances, as the Stoies also are accustomed to say, “ Give circumstances, and take the man.” For that which is not subdued by things which enslave others, manitests a life in every respect worthy, — Perhaps, however, it is absurd to refer the cause to these things alone, though they have a political reason, and not to look to the whole scope of Plato, according to which the God who adorns the polity in the heavens, Is ling also that generation should be governed by the celestial Gods, and that the war of forms in matter should always subsist ;

in order that the cirele of generation may adambrate the celestial circulation. Aud this itis to see the eity excited to war, to see generation co-arranged with the celestial regions, and the whole of it governed from thence. Ttappears likewise, that this 15 analogous to what is shortly after said by the Demiurgus of the universe, © That when the generating futher understood that ths wencrated resemblance [the workd| of the eternal Gods moved and lived, he was delizhtd with his work.” In asimilar manner, therefore, Socraies wished to see his city moving and energizing 5 just as the God who comprehends the celestial polity wished to behold: the natures whieh it contains energizing, and adorning the contrariety produced by generation, Such an analogy, thetefore, as this, takes phice in the present instince,

If, however, we arranged before, the lower city as analoyous lo ceneration, but now as analogous to war, you must not wonder, Por the same things may be safely arranged among diflerent things according to different analogies. Por generation also, according to the lives in it which are inseparable from matter, resembles the lower city; but according to its contrarieties and material tumult, it is similar to war, and warlike dissensions, That we may, however, co-adapt every thing to the theory of mundane wholes, prior to the consideration of every particular, let us direct our attention to the second thing said by Socrates, and see how it accords with this theory. For since Socrates is analogous to the first of the three fathers who adorn the first of things, he says he is not sufficient to fashion what follows. For the divinity who gives subsistence to all things, is different from him who constitutes toings of a middle nature ; and this God again is different from him who is the cause of things that rank as the third. But the third particular is, that neither are the poets sufficient for this purpose. Nor, in the fourth place, the sophists. The former, indeed, because they imitate the things in which they have been nourished ; but the latter, because they are wanderers, and not at one and the same tine, philosophers and politicians.

Again, therefore, let us see how these things are conformable to what has been before said. For it is necessary that the powers that are to preside over generation should not be separable’ from material natures, but conversant with them, For these powers are analogous to poets who invent fables, and to imitators. For these are employed about images, alone praise material and partible natures which they only know, and are unable to ascend from matter. Nor is it fit that these powers should be inseparable,’ and very mutable, at diflerent times ascending or descending to different orders, such as are partial souls, who are assimilated to sophists ; because they also possess all-beautifal productive powers, but at different times wander to different parts of the world. [lence it is necessary that the powers that connectedly contain generation, which is governed by the heavens, should at one and the same time be philosophical and political; in order that through the philosophic characteristic, they may be separate from the subjects of their government, but may energize providentially through the political peculiarity, performing the duties pertaining to their allotments according te intellect. For that which is physical, being productive, is inseparable from matter, but the form of partial souls: being sophistical, is abundantly wandering. Its necessary, however, prior to things which are moved, that there should be the invariable and perpetually-permanent providence of the Gods, and immutable prior to mutable allotments. In the Ἐπ place, therefore, Socrates delivers to us who those are, that are able to effect this. For these things are to be transferred from words to deeds ; because the Demiurgus of the universe, and the rest of the fathers, fabricate totally and exemptly ; the second of which fathers zives subsistence to middle, but the third to last natures. And to these Timeus, Critias, and

* For axwpiorous here, it is necessary to read ywporovs, and to supply adda, 50 as instead of cure axwpiorovs aurwy εἰναι dei, και εν avrais orpegoueras, to read oure ywprorovs avrwy εἰναι det, ἀλλα και κ΄ A. * Hence for χωριστας in this place, it is necessary to read axwporas. Tim. Plat. Vou. I. ᾿ G 50 PROCLUS ON THE [nook 1. Hermocrates, are analogous. But of these, the first is praised in an admirable manner, Socrates also adding, “in my opinion;” but the second, in a middle way, conformably to his order; and the third, in the last degree, te. according to the testimony of others. | “ For J will illustrate the affair by a similitude. Suppose then that some one, on beholding beautiful animals, whether represented in ἃ picture or really alive, but in ἃ state of rest, should desire to behold them in motion, and engaging in some one of those contests which per- Longinus says, that Plato here decorates and beautifies his diction, through similitudes and the gracefulness of the words. But Longinus says this in answer to certain Platonists, who contend, that this mode of expression is spontaneous, and not the result of art. For Plato, he observes, pays attention to the selection of words, and does not employ them casually. It may, however, be said, that Plato made choice of this form of words from a mode of diction which was at that time common and usual, and that he was very attentive to what was customary.

For the atoms of Epicurns would more rapidly by their concurrence produce the world, than nouns and verbs would form a correct sentence by a casual composition. Bat some blame Plato for employing metaphors in’ the use of words 5 though with respect to composition, all admire him, At the same time, however, it may be inferred, not from this cireumstance alone, but from such care and industry as are exhibited in the present words, that he paid great attention to diction. For Socrates does not simply say, that he desires to see this accoms plished by those that were with Pinwus; but he speaks like one decorating his words and alluring the hearer, when he says: ‘Lor 7 will dlustrate the affair by a δἰ μος. Suppose that some one on beholling beautiful animals, whether repres sented ina picture, or really alive,” &e. And thus much for Longinus.

Origen, however, grants indeed, that Plato is attentive to the grace of diction, not as regarding that which is pleasing, as the end of it, but that he employs this. image for the sake of exhibiting the manner in which he was himse!faflected. ' The text of Proclus haus, erroneously, καὶ rot των row σωμάσι δυκουντῶν ἀνήκειν Kara τὴν ἀγωνίαν αθλενν Tw, instead of καὶ re γὼν τοῖς σωμασι δοκυνντων προσήκειν κατὰ Τὴν αγωγια) αθλονντα. ROOK 1 TIMAEUS OF PLATO. δ] And we say, that this similitnde was written for the sake of the imitation of divine natures; that the grace of the words presents to us an image of the grace imparted by the Deminurgus to celestial natures; and that the artitice of the diction, Which is mingled with the spontaneous, adumbrates divine production, which has indeed a boundary from itself, and also a progression from being and essence. Tf, likewise, you direct your attention to the image itself, beautiful animals manifest those natures that are resplendent with [divine] beanty ; but those represented in a picture, or really alive, indicate corporal images, and true lives prior to these imitations, For the figures of the Gods are resemblances of the animals that are in them, But those that are ina state of rest exhibit to us the natures that are fall of intellectual arrangement, and of an equable and continued life; those that are in motion such as proceed into another order, and a second fabrication ;

and those which engage in some one of the contests pertaining to bodies, are images of those that impart to more imperfect natures their own proper eflluxions and powers, and operate by their own powers on other things. And thus much respecting the image. But the words whcther represented in a picture or really alive, ave rightly asserted in both respects of divine bodies. For they are depicted by the dodecahedron, and they possess eflicacious and demiurgic lives. If, however, you consider the words separately, they will signify that the beforementioned polity is indeed fashioned in words, and is assimilated to the heavens, but evists, tf not in human, yet in true or demoniacal lives. Farther still, ἐὸ desire ta see the city in motion, is analogous to the words {in another part of this dialogue] “as soon as the father saw the universe moving, he was delighted, and wished to assimilate it ina still greater degree to its paradigm.” For thus also the adorner of the heavens wished to see them in motion, and through motion governing the war of generation, But the words “engaging in some one of the contests pertaining to bodies,” are employed, because of contests some belong to souls, but others to bodies ; and the latter are such as running, wrestling, and gymnastic.

Ta such a manner am I also affected towards the city which we have discussed. For I should gladly hear any one relating the contests of our city with other cities, when it engages in a becoming manner in war, and acts during such an engagement in a way worthy of its education and discipline, both with respect to practical. achievements, and verbal negociations.” 52 _PROCLUS ON THE [RooK 1. We have before shown through what cause, and with reference to what paradigm, Socrates wished to see his republic contending in war. Because cities, however, employ against their enemies both works and words; words indeed in embassies, in compacts, in exhortations to battle, and inevery thing of this kind ; but works in the pitching of camps, in spears, and the hurling of missive weapons; on this account Socrates wishes that a city of this kind should be celebrated according to both these. In words indeed, as prudent, cautions, magnanimous, and strenuous; but in deeds, as brave, vehement, and well exercised. For thus, according to both, it will imitate its paradigm, who, shining with physical and intellectual productions, adorns all the war of generation, “ For, indeed, O Critias and Hermocrates, I am conscious of my own inability to praise such men and such a city according to their desert.”

This is the second of the proposed heads, of which we have before assigned the cause, and shall now again explore it according to another method. For now some of the more ancient [interpreters] have said, that the encomiastic form of writing is robust, superb, and magnificent; but the Socratic character of diction is slender, accurate, and dialectic. The latter, therefore, is contrary to the former. Hence (say they} Socrates avoids panegyric, as knowing the power he possessed, and the subjects to which it was naturally adapted. Those, however, who assert this, in addition to their being directly refuted by the Menexenus, appear to me not to have perceived the magnificence of the diction of Socrates in the Phiedrus. There are also those who say it is fit that the artificer of such-like encomiums, should be skilled in warlike affairs. Hence many historians err in their disposition of armies, through ignorance of tactics. But Socrates having fought at Delos and Potidiwa, was not unskilled in all such-like particulars. Others avain assert, that Socrates speaks ironically, Just as he said with respect to other things, that he was ignorant of them, so here he says, that he did not know how to praise this city according to its desert. The irony, however, of Socrates was employed against sophists and young men, and not against wise and scientific men. It is better, therefore, instead of these things to say, that he guards against becoming the third from the truth. For the works of a rightly instituted city, are the third from the paradigm of truth fi. e. of the true or intelligible polity}. Hence, wishing to remain in the second from the truth, he says, he is not able to bear the

book 1 TIMEUS OF PLATO. 53 descent to the third species of life. And an impotency of this kind is an abundance of power. For to be able to abide in paradigms, is eflected through power which ts transcendent. You may likewise see how this accords with what has been before said by us respecting the analogy of these things to wholes. For the second fabrication ts assimilated: to the first, and on this account is proximate to it. For the whole demiurgic series is one, possessing union together with separation. Very properly, therefore, is Socrates precedaneously extended to Critias and Hermocrates, and he rightly thinks it fit that they should weave together the particulars that are next in order, For Timaus is about to deliver these things in a more universal and elevated manner, and not through images, in consequence of directly preserving his analogy to the Demiurgus of wholes, who paints the heavens with the dodecahedron, but generation with appropriate figures. Indeed, that I should be incapable of such an undertaking is not wondertul, since the same inbecility seems to have attended poets, both of the pastand presentage. Not that [ despise the poetic genus; but it is pertectly evident, that the imitative tribe easily and in the best manner imitate things ino which they have been educated. But that which is foreign to the education of any one, it is difficult to imitate well in deeds, and still more dithcult in words.”

This is the third of the before-mentioned heads of discussion, in which Socrates shows that none of the poets have been adequate to the praise of men and cities of this kind, which have casually been engaged in warlike actions. Longinus, however, and Origen, donbt, whether Plato comprehends Homer among the poets, when he says, that he has not only the same opinion of the poets then existing (for this is nothing novel), but likewise of those of former times, so that Porphyry informs us that Origen passed three whole days exclaiming, blushing and toiling, asserting that the hypothesis and the doubt were great, and being ambitious to show that the imitation in the poetry of Homer is sufficient for virtuous actions, For who speaks more magnificently than Llomer, who, representing the Gods as contending and fighting with each other, does not err in his imitation, but speaks loftily conformably to the nature of things? Porphyry, however, in reply, says, that Homer is indeed sufficient to give magnitude and elevation to the passions, and to excite actions to an imaginative bulk, but that he is not capable 54 PROCLUsS ON THE {BooK 1. of delivering an impassivity which is intellectual, and which energizes according to a philosophic life. But YT should wonder if Homer is not sufficient for these things, but Critias is, or Hermocrates, and should be thought fit to speak about them. It appears, therefore, to me, that Plato divides poetry into the divinelyinspired, and the artificial, And having made this division, he refers the magnificent diction and sublimity derived from inspiration, to the Gods.

For oracles in a remarkable degree possess grandeur, vehemence, and magnificence of language. But he evinces that the poetry proceeding from human art, is not adequate to the praise of the fortitude of this city, and of the great deeds of the men that are educated init. For if there is any artificial sublimity 1m some one of the poets, it has much of contrivance in it, and grandeur of diction, and makes great use of metaphors, as is the case with Antimachus. But Socrates requires a panegyrist, who exlubits in his pratse a spontaneous sublimity, and a magnificence of language, which 15 free from compulsion and pure; justas actions Cin bis Republic] have magnificence, not casually, bat adapted to the education and discipline of the men, That Socrates, however, does not reject’ the divinely-inspired poet, nor the whole of poetry, but that only which is artiticul, he manifests, PE think, when he says, “that he docs not despise the poetic genus.” The poctic genus, therefore, is divine, as he elsewhere says. But he despises the imitative species of poetry; nor yet Uns simply ; but that whieh ts nourished in depraved manners and laws. For this, in consequence of verging to things of a less excellent nature, is not naturally adapted to be imitative of more exalted manners. And thus much in answer to the doubt.

The last part, however of the words of Socrates, being ina certain respect difficult, may be rendered perspicuous as follows: But the words are, that which ts Sorcign to the education of any one, itis dificult to imitate well in deeds, and still more difficult in werds.” Por it scems to be easy to imitate words or deeds. Not a few, therefore, act suphistically, by exlibiting virtue as far as words, bat in deeds being entirely alienated from it. Willit not, therefore, be better to interpret these words thus, viz.: To suppose the most excellent education is implied in the words, that which ts foreign to the education of any one; but to assume, in decds and in words, as equivalent to, conformably to deeds, and conformably to words ; and to imifate well, as having the same meaning with fo be τε εὐ imitated 2. And thus we may collect from all these, that for that which is most excellent to be well imitated, itis difficult mdeed according to deeds, but it is still more dullicult for it to be well imitated according to words in a written work. For this is the thing proposed to be effected in poetry. And you may see how this accords with things themselves. For he who in a written work narrates the deeds of the most excellent men, composes a history. But he who narrates the speeches of these men, ifhe intends to preserve the manners of the speaker, assumes a disposition similar io the speaker.

For words are seen to difler according to the inward dispositions. For thas we deride most of those, except Plato, who have written the Apology of Socrates, as not preserving the Socratic manner in their composition. Though the narration of this very thing, that Socrates was accused, made an apology, and was sentenced to die, would not be thought worthy of laughter, but the dissimilitude of imitation in the composition, renders the imitators ridiculous. — Since, also» to say of Aclilles, that he came forth armed after such a manner, and that he performed such deeds, is not dificalt; but to narrate copiously what he said» when detained in the river, is not easy. But this is the province of one who is able to assume the manners of the hero, and to write conformably to what he would have said. This also is evident from Socrates in the Republic, very much Dblamine Homer respecting the imitation of words. But as to the Gods, it is said to be easy by language to uifa/e the words or the deeds of the Gods. For who can delineate their works according to their desert? Or it may be said that it is the same thing with respect to the Gods, to imitate their words or deeds. For since their words are intellections, and their intellections are productions, the imitator of their words is also the imitator of their productions, So that by how much he fails in the one, by so much also is he deficient in the imitation of the other.

Longinus, however, has the following doubts with respect to the proposed words. For if poets are not worthy imitators of the works pertaining to such a city as this, because they are not educated in the manners of the city, neither will Critias and his associates be able to effect this. For neither did they live performing the office of magistrates in it. But if it is because they have not science, but are imitators alone, why by receiving types from us, may they not be able to imitate, since they possess an imitative power? In answer to these doubts, it may be said, that the imitation of such a polity proceeds through a life concordant with its paradigms. For he who does not live according to virtue, is incapable of adducing words adapted to worthy men. It is not, therefore, sufficient merely to hear what form of life the polity possesses, in order to imitate it, as the doubt of Longinus says itis, Bat Porphyry adds, that as all things, such for instance as the diurnal light, are not imitated by painters, so neither is the life of the most excellent polity imitated by poets, in consequence of transcending their power.

56 — PROCLUS ON THE [BooK 1. “ But with respect to the tribe of sophists, though I consider them as skilled both in the art of speaking, and in many other beautiful arts, yet as they have no settled abode, but wander daily through a multitude of cities, IT am afraid, lest with respect to the institutions of philosophers and politicians, they should not be able to conjecture the quality and magnitude of those concerns, which wise and politic men are engaged in with individuals in warlike undertakings, both in deeds and With respect to the sophists, some of them frequently pretended to be skilled in astronomy, others in geometry, others in politics, and others in the art of dividing. Hence they are now said to be skilled in many beautiful arts. Since, however, they did not possess a scientific knowledge of these, it is added, that they are skilled in them. For skil! manifests an irrational occupation in’ mere words, unaccompanied with the Knowledge of the why. Because, however, they not only lived at different times in different cities, but were full of deception, of false opinion, and unscientific wandering, they are justly called wanderers. But as they led a disorderly and inerudite life, energizing according to passion, they are very properly said not to have a settled abode ; since it is requisite that every one should arrange himself prior to other things. For all such particutars, as ave ina family and a city, are Likewise in manners, and these prior to externals ought to be titly governed.

Who then are the proper imitators of the deeds and words of the best polity, if neither the poets nor the sophists are? Phey are such as are both politicians and philosophers. For the union of both these is necessary, in order that through the political character they may be able to perceive the works of the citizens ; but through the philosophic, their words, te consequence of inwardly pre-assuming their life. And through the former, indeed, they comprehend their practical wisdom, but through the latter, the intellectual energy of the rulers. But from these images we should make a transition to demiurgic causes. For it is necessary that these also should) be total and Intellectual, mn order that the universe may be consummately perfect, and that generation may

possess ironically such things as the heavens primarily contain. “ The genus, therefore, of your habit remains, which at one and the same time participates of both these, by nature and by education.” Longinus, not disdaining to survey these words, and those that precede them, — says, that in that part of them beginning with, “ But with respect to the tribe of sophists, Lam afraid, as they are wanderers,” &c. there is a difference of expression through the desire of dignity and gravity in the diction. That in the words that follow, “ Lest with respect to the institutions of philosophers and politicians, they should not be able to conjecture the quality and magnitude of those concerns,” &e. there is a distortion of phrase from what is natural. And that the third part, “ The genus therefore of your habit remains,” &c. is perfectly unusual. For it is not at all dissimilar to the strength of Hercules, to sey ig Τελεμαάχοιο, the sacred strength of Telemachus,” and other such like expressions. But Origen admits, that the form of expression in the proposed words, is conformable to the manner of historians. For such like periphrases are adapted to a narration of this kind, as well as to poetry. We, however, say, that Plato everywhere changes his mode of diction, so as to be adapted to his subjects; and in unusual things, studies mutations of expression. But we do not admit that the proposed words are a periphrasis. For they do not manifest the same thing as the expression you, like the strength of Hercules ; from which there would only be an ability of giving that which is adapted to the imitation of the best polity. For those who are both philosophers and politicians, by energizing according to the habit which they possess, and which differs from the poetical and sophistical habit, will be able to effect that which Socrates desires. And thus much for the words themselves,

Looking, however, to the conceptions which they contain, we must say, that Socrates excites Critias and [lermocrates to what remains to be accomplished in the polity. But he likewise calls on Timieus to assist the undertaking. And this is the fifth head of the things proposed for elucidation. You may also see how magnificently Socrates celebrates the men from the very beginning, calling [the wisdom which they possess] a Aabit, in order that he may exempt them from sophistical wandering. But he says that they are partakers of the political science, both by nature and education, in order that you may contradistinguish it from poetical imitation, which is nourished by less excellent laws. And he designates the perfect from nature and educaiion ; lest depriving nature of education, you should cause it to be lame ;* or you should think that education ought to be thrown into an * Odyss. 11. 409. * For xoAny here, it is necessary to read χωλην, Tim. Plat. το α, te unapt and incongruous recipient. And thus much has been said in common respecting the men, But if you wish to speak, proceeding to paradigins, the demiurgic genus, which is total and intellectual, remains to be arranged according to a providential attention to wholes. Let us, however, survey separately every particular.

“ For Timzus here of Locris, an Italian city, governed by the best of laws, exclusive of his not being inferior to any of his fellow-citizens in wealth and nobility, has obtained in his own city the greatest honours, and the highest posts of government; and, in my opinion, has arrived at the summit of all philosophy.” What testimony, therefore, can be more admirable than this, or what praise can be greater? Does it not, in the first place, evince that Timiwus was a political character; in the second place, that he possessed intellectual knowledge {ina most eminent degree], by saying, that he had arrived at the summit of all phuilosophy; and adding, in my opinion, which places a colophon on all the panegyrics ? What other image also than this among men, is more carable of being assimilated to the one Demiurgus? For, in the first place, by the poutical and the philosophic, the image is Jovian. In the next place, by asserting that Timiwus belonged toa city governed by the best of laws, it imitates the god who was nurtured in the intellizible by Adrastia. And by Timwus excelling in nobility of birth, it adumbrates the total, intellectual, and unical nature of the god. For all these the Demiurgus possesses, by participating of the fathers prior to himself. By asserting also that Timwus had obtained the highest posts of government, it represents to us the royal power of the Demiurgus, and which has dominion over wholes ;

his sceptre, according to theologists, consisting of four and twenty measures. But to add likewise that he had enjoyed the greatest honours, presents us with an image of that transcendency which is exempt from wholes, both in dignity and power. It is the Demiurgus, therefore, who also distributes honours to others. And it may be said, that the assertion that Timius had arrived at the summit of philosophy, assimilates him to the god, who at once perfectly contains all knowledge in himself. So that, from all that has been said, you may apprehend, as from imases, who the Demiurgus of the universe is; that he is an intellect comprehensive of many intellects, and arranged among the intellectual Gods ; that he is full of

the first intelligibles ; and that he has a royal establishment, as surpassing in dignity the other demiurgic gods. If, however, Plato calls the city of Timaus Locris, it not being usual with the Greeks thus to denominate it, but to call it Locri only, in order to distinguish it from the Locris opposite to Eubcea, we must not wonder. For Plato changes many things for the purpose of signifying in a clearer manner the thing proposed. But that the Locrians were governed by the best laws is evident ; for their legislator was Zaleucus. “ Besides, we all know that Critias is not ignorant of any of the particulars of which we are now speaking.” Critias, indeed, was of a generous and grand nature. He likewise engaged in philosophic conferences, and was called, as history informs us, an ideot among philosophers, but a philosopher among ideots. He tyrannized also, being one of the thirty. Itis not, however, just to accuse Socrates on this account, because he now thinks him deserving of a certain praise. For, in the first place, we should attend to the manner in which he praises him. For he says, that “ he is not ignorant of any of the particulars of which we are now speaking,” both on account of his natural disposition, and his association with philosophers. In the next place, we should observe, that the tyrannical character is an argument of an excellent nature, as we learn from the fable in the [10th book of the] Republic, which particularly leads souls descending from the heavens to a tyrannical life.

For being accustomed there to revolve with the Gods, and to govern the universe in conjunction with them, in these terrestrial regions also, they pursue apparent power ; just as those who possess the remembrance of intelligible beauty, embrace visible beauty. That Critias, however, pertains, according to analogy, to the middle fabrication of things, may be learnt, in the first place, from his succeeding to the discourse of Socrates ; in the next place, from his narrating the Atlantic history, the Atlantics being the progeny of Neptune; and, in the third place, from his own proper life, Bor the ruling peculiarity, and that which extends to many things, are the characteristics of this life. Power, likewise pertains to media, and therefore he possesses the middle place in the encomiums. For to assert of him, that he was not one of the vulgar, but a partaker of the prerogatives of Timeus, shows his inferiority to the first person of the dialogue. But that he was not entirely removed from him, indicates his alliance to him,

60 PROCLUS ON THE (soox 1. “ Nor is this to be doubted of Hermocrates, since a multitude of circumstances evince that he is, both by nature and education, adapted to 411 such concerns.” Hermocrates was a Syracusan general, desirous of living conformably to law. Hence also he participates, in a certain respect, of the political science and philosophy. He must be * referred, therefore, according to analogy, to tle third fabrication * of things. For the command of an army is a power allied to the god, who arranges the last and most disorderly parts ΟΥ̓ mundane fabrication ; and fo be testified by a multitude of circumstances, indicates an analogy to the power that produces fabrication into all multitude, and an ultimate division. We therefore make this arrangement, in order that the men may have an analogy to the things. But others arrange Critias as inferior to Hermocrates ; though the absent person was neither adapted to speak nor to hear, and of those that are present Lat a conference], he who is an auditor, indeed, but is silent, is secondary to lim who is both an auditor and a speaker, and in this respect: imitates those that are about Socrates and Timwus. In the next place, this also must be considered, that Socrates gives the preference to Critias, in what he says, praising him immediately after Timewus. There are likewise those who attribute such an order as the following to these persons, viz.

they arrange Timanus according to the paradigmatic cause, Socrates aceording to the efficient, and Critias according to the formal cause; for he Jeads into energy those that have been rightly educated ; but: Hermocrates according to the material cause. Hence also he is adapted indeed to hear, but not to speak. For matter receives productive powers externally, but is not naturally adapted to generate. And this arrangement indeed will be found to be very reasonable, if we abandon the former conceptions [relative to the analogy of the men].

* Instead of So καὶ πολιτικῆς πως pererxe, καὶ φιλοσοφιαι evexey οὖν «κ᾿ A., iL is Necessary to read διο και πολιτικὴς ἴων μετειχέ καὶ φιλυσυφιαι. ενεέγκεν οὖν K. A, * Timeus is analogous to Jupiter, the Demiurgus of the universe; but Socrates, Critias, and Hermocrates, are analogous to the three ruling fathers, or demiurgi, Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto, who form the summit of the supermundane order of Gods. For, according to the arcana of the Grecian theology, there is a twofold Jupiter; one being the Demiurgus, and existing at the extremity of the intellectual order; but the other being the first of the supermundane demiurgic triad. See the oth Book of my translation of Proclus on the Theology of Plato. ORAS Os < AMO βε" “Hence when you yesterday requested me to discuss what pertains to a polity, I readily complied with your request; being persuaded that the remainder of the discourse could not be more conveniently explained by any one than by you, if you were but willing to engage in its discussion. For when you have properly adapted the city for warlike purposes, there is no one in the present age but you from whom it can acquire every thing fit for it to receive. As I have, therefore, hitherto complied with your request, I shall now require you to comply with mine in the abovementioned particulars. Nor have you, indeed, refused this employment ; but have, with common consent, determined to repay my hospitality with the banquet of discourse. I now, therefore, stand prepared, in a decorous manner, to receive the promised feast.”

The summary repetition of the polity appears, indeed, as Socrates now says, to have been made for the sake of the discussion of the contests in war of a rightly constituted city. Both the concise comprehension, however, of the polity, and the Atlantie war, refer us to the one fabrication of the world. For, as we have before observed, it is better, prior to the whole fabrication, and all the form of the production of the world, to make a survey from parts and images. Socrates, therefore, resuming the polity in certain forms, and, first, through this imitating the universe, very properly establishes himself, as it were, in essence; but excites others to the discussion, who celebrate the power of such a city, and imitate those who arrange the universe according to the middle demiurgic form, and uniformly comprehend the contrarieties and multiform motions which it contains. As, therefore, Jupiter, in Homer, being seated in his citadel on the summit of Olympus, and abiding in his own accustomed unity, sends the Gods who preside over the mundane contrariety to the Grecian war; thus also Socrates, being purely established in the intelligible form of a polity, prepares those after him that are able, to celebrate the motion and power of this polity, calling forth, indeed, the science of Timezus, to the survey of wholes totally, but preparing the others to the total and concise comprehension of partial natures. For as he had discussed the polity totally, after this manner also, he wishes that the power of it should be celebrated by the rest. Since, however, all these discourses bring with them an image of demiurgic works, and the whole conference adumbrates the fabrication of the

02 PROCLUS ON THE [βοοκ 1. world, Socrates very properly says, ‘ that he stands prepared, in a decorous manner; to receive the promised feast,” his words being invested with modesty, as a form adapted to virtue. “ FTerm. But we, O Socrates, as Timeus just now signified, shall cheerfully engage in the execution of your desire; for we cannot offer any excuse sufficient to justify neglect in this affair. Yor yesterday, when we departed from hence, and went to the lodging of Critias, where we are accustomed to reside, both in his apartment and in the way thither, we discoursed on this very particular.” It was requisite that Hermocrates should say something, and not be silently present, like the unemployed persons ina comedy. Hence also he ts represented speaking to Socrates. And this indeed is logographic for pertaining to the art of writing); but it is hkewise adapted to what has been before said. For it represents to us, asin an image, that the last parts, of the fabrication of things, follow the one father of wholes, and, through similitude to him, converge to the one providence of the world. For Hermocrates, following Socrates, says, that nothing shall be wanting, either of alacrity or power, to the accomplishment of the narrations investigated by Socrates. For these two things become especially impediments to us in our mutual energies, viz. our indolence, and any external impediment. Removing, therefore, both these, he says, that there cannot be any excuse sufficient to justify their neglect, or prevent them from accomplishing the mandate of Socrates.

Very properly, therefore, does he call upon Critias for the narration respecting the city of the ancient Athenians, in which the mandate of Socrates terminates ; just as Socrates calls on Timwus, and makes himself a partaker of his discourse. For on the preceding day, Hermocrates says, they discoursed on this very particular together with Critias, just as the third Demiurgus in the universe communicates with the production of the second. For the whole of generation is entirely in want of returns from the subterranean world. If, however, these things subsist after this manner, the Atlantic Iistory will appear to have had the third narration. But those numbers, the duad and the triad, are said to be adapted to the middle fabrication, the former through power, and the latter through its demiurgic providence, and which is also perfective of mundane natures. So that whether you assign to this history a double or a triple narration

MP 5 SNS ANE Sa SA I BE DLN OLE LILES ES you will, from either of the numbers, be able to recur to the conception of the intervening medium. “He therefore narrated to us the following particulars from ancient rumour, which I wish, O Critias, you would now repeat to Socrates, that he may judge whether it any way conduces to the fulfilment of his request. “Cri. Itis requisite to comply, if agreeable to Timaus, the third associate of our undertaking. “Trim. I assent to your compliance.” You will find in these words an admirable indication, as in images, of divine natures. For, as in them, such as are secondary call forth the prolific powers of such as are primary, and produce them to the providential inspection of the subjects of their government; thus also here Hermocrates calls on Critias to speak, and gives completion to what was promised to Socrates. And as, among divine natures, effects convert themselves to the reception of their causes, thus also here, Hermocrates is extended to Critias, but Critias looks to the mandate of Socrates. As likewise all demiurgic causes are suspended from the one father of the universe, and govern all things conformably to his will; after the same manner here also all the persons tly to Timeus, and to his nod, or consent, or will, in order that, being impelled from that as from a root, they may dispose their narration agreeably to his desire.

For thus what is going to be said will contribute to the discourse about the whole fabrication of the world. Moreover, the words “ from ancient rumour,” if the narration is historicel, signify ancient according to time. But if they are an indication of what takes place in the universe, they will obscurcly signify the reasons or productive powers which are from eternity inherent insouls. And if, likewise, they bring with them an image of divine causes, they show that these demiurgic causes, being supernally filled from more ancient Gods, impart also to secondary natures their own providential energies.

“Cri. Hear, then, O Socrates, a narration surprising indeed in the extreme, yet in every respect true, which was once delivered by Solon, the wisest of the seven wise men.” 64 PROCLUS ON THE [βοοκ !. With respect τὸ the whole of this narration about the Atlantics, some say, that it is a mere history, which was the opinion of Crantor, the first interpreter of Plato, who says, that Plato was derided by those of his time, as not being the inventor of the Republic, but transcribing what the Exyptians had written on this subject; and that he so far regards what is said by these deriders as to refer to the Exyptians this history about the Athenians and Atlanties, and to believe that the Athenians once lived conformably to this polity. Crantor adds, that this is testified by the prophets of the Exyptians, who assert that these particulars (which are narrated by Plato} are written on pillars which are still preserved. Others again, say, that this narration Is a fable, and a fictitious account of things, which by no means had an existence, but which bring with them an indication of natures which are perpetual, or are cenerated in the world 5 not attending to Plato, who exclaims, “ that the narration is surprising in the extreme, yet ts in every respect true.” For that which is in every respect true, is not partly true, and partly not true, nor is it false according to the apparent, but true according to the inward meaning;

since a thing of this kind would not be perfectly trac. Others do not deny that these transactions took place after this manner, but think that they are now assumed as images of the contrarictics that pre-cxist in’ the universe, lor war, say they, Is the father of all things, as Heraclitus also asserted. And of these, some refer the analysis to the fixed stars and planets τ so that they assume the Athenians as analogous to the fixed: stars, but the Athantics to the planets. They Ekewise say, that these stars fight on account of the opposition in their circulation, but that the fixed stars vanquish the planets on account of the one convolution of the world. ΟΥ̓ this opinion, therefore, is the illustrious Ameliis, who vehemently contends that this must be the case, because it is clearly said in the Critias, that the Atlantic island was divided into seven circles. But I do not know of any other who is of the same cGpimion., Others, again, as Origen, refer the analysis to the opposit on of certain dwmons, some of them being more, but others less, excellent. And some of them being superior in mulutude, but others in power: some of them vanquishing, but others being vanquished. But others refer it to the discord of souls, the more excellent being the pupils of Minerva, but the inferior kind being subservient to generation; who also pertain to the God that presides over generation [i, e.to Neptune]. And this is the interpretation of Numenius. Others, mingling, as they fancy, the opinions of Origen and Numenius together, say, that the narration refers to the opposition of souls to damons, the latter drawing down, but the former being drawn down. And

with these men, demon has a triple subsistence. For they say, that one kind is that of divine dwmons ; another, of diemons according to habitude, to which partial sonls give completion, when they obtain a damoniacal allotment; and another is that of depraved diemons, who are also noxious to sonls, Daemons, therefore, of this last kind, wage this war against souls, in their descent into generation, And that, say they, which ancient theologists refer to Osiris and Typhon, or to Bacchus and the Titans, this, Plato, from motives of piety, refers to the Athenians and Atlantics. Before, however, souls descend into solid bodies, those theologists and Plato, deliver the war of them with material daemons who are adapted to the west; since the west, as the Egyptians say, is the place of noxious demons.’ Of this opinion is the philosopher Porphyry, respecting whom, it would be wonderful, if he asserted any thing different from the doctrine of Numenius. These [philosophers] however, are in my opinion, very * excellently corrected by the most divine Tamblichus. According to him, therefore, and also to our preceptor Syrianus, this contrariety and opposition are not introduced for the purpose of rejecting the narration, since on the contrary, this is to be admitted as an account of transactions that actnally happened; but, as we are accustomed to do, we must refer that which precedes the subject of the dialogue, to the scope itself of the dialogue.

Hence, they are of opinion, that this contrariety which is derived from human affairs, should, according to a similar form, be extended through the whole world, and especially through the realms of generation, That in consequence of this, we should survey every where how things participate of contrariety, according to the variety of powers. For since all things are from the one, and from the duad after the one, are in a certain respect united to each other, and have an opposite nature; as in the genera of being, there is a certain: opposition of sameness to difference, and of motion to permanency, but all things participate of these genera ;—this being the case, we must survey after what manner mundane natures possess the contrariety which pervades through all things.

Moreover, if we consider the polity of Plato as analogous in every respect to the world, it is necessary that we should survey this war as existing in every nature. For the polity is analogous to existence and essences, but war, to the powers of these essences, and as Plato says, to their motions, We must, like- ' For exc καὶ ἡ dusts, here it is necessary to read ἐπεὶ καὶ Svors, and for caswricor, κακωτίκων, 3. Instead of κομηδει in this place, it is requisite to read κομεδῃ. Tim. Plat. Vo a ] 66 PROCLUS ON THE [Book 1, wise, refer the polity, by making it common to all things, to the whole union of things ; but it must be said, that war is to be assimilated to the mundane division, and’ to the empire of victory, Whether, therefore, you give a twofold division tu the universe, by separating it into the Incorporeal and the corporeal; and again divide the incorporeal into the more intellectual and the more material natures, and the corporeal into heaven and generation ; and heaven, into contrary periods, but generation into opposite powers; or in whatever way you assume this opposite life, whether in the mundane Gods, or in daemons, in souls, or in bodies,—you may every where transter the analogies from men to things. For of the Gods themselves, the divine Homer makes oppositions 3 representing Apollo as hostilely opposed to Neptune, Mars to:

Minerva, the river Nanthus to Vulcan, Hermes to Latona, and Juno to Diana, For it is requisite to survey generauion in incorporeal natures, in bodies, and in both. ΖἴἜΤ is likewise necessary to consider Neptune and Apollo as the fabricators of the whole of generation, the one totally, but the other partially, But Juno and Diana, as the suppliers of vivipication, the former rationally, but the latter physically. Minerva and Mars, as the causes of the contrariety which pervades through both evistence and life; the former, of that which ts defined accurding to intellect; but the latter, of that which is more material and passive. Hermes and Latona, as presiding over the twofold perfection of suuls; the former, indeed, over the perfection which is obtained through the gnostic powers,* and the evolution into light of productive principles ; but the latter, over the sn.ooth, spontancous, and voluntary elevation which is acquired through the vital powers, Vulcan and Nanthus, as the primary leaders of the whole of a corporcal conSttiution, and of the powers it contains , the former, of those that are more cficacious but the latter of those that are more passive, and as there more material. But he leaves Venus by herself, in order that she may tlluminate all things with union and harmony, and represents her as fighting on the worse side, because THE ONE. in those that belovy to us sule, ts less eaceltent than multitude. Vor all contraricty is surveyed ina becoming manner in conjunction with a unity, whieh is either prior to it, Or Connascent with, or isin a certain respect an adjunct posterior to it. And Plato, as well as theologists, rightly perceiving that this is the case, have delivered

a multitudinous contrariety prior to the one fabrication of the world, and parts * cae is omitted in the original, aud the omission of it, reuders the latter part of the sentence very ambiguous. * For δυνάμεως here, it is requisite to read dur ἀμεων. prior to wholes, Finding, likewise, these things in images prior to paradigms, he surveys this contrariety ino men, which also has an analogous subsistence in wholes, neither being in want of Titannic or Gizantic wars. For how could he narrate such wars to Socrates, who on the preceding day had blamed the poets for devising things of this kind?) Reeeiving, therefore, ransactions from history, in order that he might not assert of the Gods that they fight with each other, he ascribes these battles to men, but throneh a cautious and pious analogy, transfers them also to the Gods, For such like wars are delivered by divinely-inspired poets, prior to the one order of things. Their mode, however, of narrating them, is adapted to them, but the present mode to Plato; the latter, in conjunction with the political science, being more moderate, but the former, in conjunction with the telestic art, being more replete with divine inspiration, And thus much concerning the whole of the text.

In what is said by Critias, however, the word “hear” is proverbial, and is employed in those things to which we wish to call the attention of the hearer. The word hear, therefore, is equivalent to receive what is worthy of attention. But the word “ surprizing” (aroxov) manifests that which happens contrary to expectation, as in the Gorgias, “ [tis surprizing, O Socrates,” (arora ys w Σωκρατηςνὶ or that which is paradoxical, as in the Crito, What a surprising dream, Socrates ; (wg ατόπον ενυπνίὴν ὦ Σωκχρατης); or the wouderfal, as in the Theatetus, © And itis not at all surprising, but it would be much more wonderful, if it were not a thing of this kind.” (και οὐδὲν γε ατοπον, κλλὰ πολυ Savuarroresoy εἰ μη τοιουτῆς TY.) But here it is assumed as that which deserves admiration. This, however, is evident irom what follows, in which it is said, “ that the decas of this city were great and admirable” Moreover, the word © narration” (Asyos), Manilests the truth of what is going to be related. For thus it is said in the Gorgias, that a fable differs from Asya; [because the latteris true, but the former is ποῖ. ΤΕ is also very properly said, that “ Solon was the wisest of the seven wise men ;~ as being asserted of one who was related to Plato; as being said to another Athenian, and in the Panathenaie 5 and as indicating that the ensuing narration extends to all wisdom.

Nor is it requisite to wonder how Solon is said to be the wisest of all the seven wise men, nor to be anxious to know, how he can be said to be the wisest of other men, but one of the wise men, when all of them were most wise. For what absurdity is there, mecalling a man the wisest of those that are of the same order with himself? But his legislation, his pretended insanity at Salamis, his armed attack of Pisistratus the tyrant, who said he was more prudent than those that

68 PROCLUS ON THE {Book 5. were absent, and more brave than those that were present, his conference also with Croesus, and his answer to one who said, that he had established most beautiful laws; for he replied, that he had not established the most beautiful, but) powerful laws, and that he knew laws that were more excellent than these ;—all these particulars bear testimony to his wisdom. There is, likewise, a story told of a tripod that was dragged up in’ a net by certain young men, though it is not related by all historians, and that the oracle (of Apollo} being consulted on the oceasion, the God answered, that it should be given: to the wisest: man, That im consequence of this, it) was offered to Thales, but he sent it to another of the seven wise men, this again to another, and so on, till at last it came to Solon, all of them yielding it to him, Solon, however, sent it to the God, saying, that he was the wisest of beings. Solon, also, is said to have found, that the lunar month does not consist of thirty days, and on this account he was the first that called it ἐν vey "ὦ new one, and ysag niew. And, in short, the discovery, that the numbers of the days revert frum the twenticth day, is ascribed) to him. Some, also, assert, that pricr to Anaxagoras, Solon showed that intellect presided over the whole of things. From all which it is evident, that he was a paruicipant of a certain

“ Solon, then, was the familiar and intimate friend of our great-grandfather Dropides, as he himself frequently? relates in his poems. But he once declared to our grandfather Critias (as the old man himself informed us) that great and admirable actions had once been achieved by this city, which nevertheless were buried in oblivion through length of time, and the destruction of mankind.” The history of the race of Solon, and of the alliance of Plato to him, is as follows: The children of Execestides were, Solon and Dropides, and of Dropides Critias was the son, who is mentioned by Solon in his poems, where he sings, Bid Critias with the yellow locks, Attention to his father pay, * The same story is also told of Solon, by Diogenes Laertius, in his life of Thales. 2 In the original ἐνυν, which I conceive to be erroneously transcribed for ev veer. 3 πολλαχὸν is omitted in the text of Proclus. Por by revering what he says, No faulty Jeader he'll obey. Bat Callescrus and Glauco were the sons of Critias: and again the Critias of the present dialogue was the son of Calliescrus. This, however, is evident from Critias in the Charmides, calling the father of Charmides, his uncle. But Charmides and Perictione were the offspring of Glauco: and Perictione was the mother of Plato. So that Glauco was the uncle of Critias, but the father of Charmides. And Charmides was the uncle of Plato, but Solon was the brother of the greatgrandfather of Critias.

Such, therefore, is the truth (respecting the race of Solon.} The divine Tamblichus, however, gives a different account of the succession of his race. Vor he immediately makes Glauco to be the son of Dropides. But others, as the Platonic Theon, assert, that Critias and Glauco were the sons of Callwserus; though in the Charmides, Critias says, that “ Charmides ts the son of Glauco our uncle, but is my couzin” Uence Glauco is not the son of Dropides, nor the brother of the younger Critias. To a man, however, who pays attention to things, itis of no consequence in whatever manner these particulars may subsist. Passing on, therefore, to things, you may assume from these particulars as Images, that all the discord of the world, and the twofold co-ordinations that are Init, are suspended from: proximate demiurgie causes, and are referred to other more Intellectual and anetent causes; that the causes of this motion are continuous and united, and suspended from one cause; that the superior causes: are More ancient in intellection ; and that secondary receive the production of primary natures, difler from and yet have a connascent communion with them, [ἢ addition to these things also, you may assume, that a twofold oblivion ix produced in souls of the theory of great and admirable wholes, arising either frem having abandoned for along tinea life of that hind, or through having fallen immodcrately into genetion. Tor ths is for the real man to be truly corrupted.

But souls that have been recently perfected, and retain the memory of things ino the intelligible world, in consequence of not falling into matter, easily acquire a reminiscence of the trath. And thus much for these particalars. We must not, however, wonder, if Critias calls Solon simply a λων αν. For we not only call those with whom we associate, but also our kindred, favulars. But by likewise adding, ‘ and an intimate Jricnd,” he indicates, that there was not merely a communion of race, but a sameness and similitude of lite, in the ancestors of Plato. The prior Critias, also, is called an old man, which signilies his possession of prudence and intellect, and his being adapted to many disciplines.

70 PROCLUS ON THE (Boox 1. “Jn particular, he informed me of one undertaking surpassing in magnitude all the rest, which I now think proper to relate to you, both that I may repay my obligations, and that by such a relation I may offer my tribute of praise to the Goddess in the present solemnity, by celebrating her divinity, as it were, with hymns, justly, and in a manner agreeable to truth.” Longinus doubts what was the intention of Plato in the insertion of this narration, For he does not introduce it either for the purpose of giving respite to the auditors, or as being in want of it. And he dissolves the doubt, as he thinks, by saying, that it is assumed by Plato prior to: physiolozy, in order to allure the reader, and soften the severity of that hind of writing, But Origen says, that the narration is indeed a tietion, and so far he agrees with Numenius and lus followers, but he does not admit: with Loneinus, that it was devised for the sake of pleasure. {0 does not, however, add the cause of the fiction, We, therefore, have frequently said, that it contributes to the whole theory of mature 5 and we likewise sav, that in these words, Plato calls the one and common productive principle of the twofold co-ordinations ino the world, and the one contrariety which pervades through wholes, the greatest and most admirable of works, as containing the other fabrication of things in infrangible bonds, this) fabrication consisting of participations of the contraries, bound and infinity, as Philolaus says, and as Plato also asserts in the Philebus.

Por he there says, “ (hat there is much bound and much infinity inthe world, which are things most coutrary tocach other, and give completion to this universe.” Since, however, all things that contribute to the production of the world, are said to recompense the benefits bestowed by total causes, Critias says very properly, that it becomes him to repay fis obligations to Socrates, who excited both the second and third powers. These things, therefore, may be immediately assumed (from the words betore us. |

But will vou not say, that the Minerval solemnity las an indication of demiurgic works?) For the Goddess herself indeed, connectedly contains all the mundane fabrication, and possesses intellectual lives in herself} according to which she weaves together the universe, and unifying powers, according to which she governs all the mundane oppositions, “Phe Minerval solemnity, however, indicates the gift of the Goddess which pervades through all things, and fills all things with herself, and likewise the union which extends through all variety. Book 1.] TIMEUS OF PLATO. 71 For in solemnities, we especially embrace a common and concordant life. If, however, we have asserted these things rightly, we may from these transfer ourselves to the various and one life of the world, and survey the diflerence between the Parmenides and this dialogue. | Por both have their hypothesis in the Panathenway but the former in the greater, and the latter in the lesser of these solemnities. Por they were celebrated about the same time with the Bendidian festival ; and this very properly. For since the productions of Minerva are twofold, total and partial, sapermundane and mundane, intelligible and sensible ; the former of these solemnities, indeed, pertains to the exempt productions of the Goddess, unfolding into light the intelligible series of the Gods, but the latter to her subordinate productions, interpreting the powers of the Gods about the world. And the Bendidian festival, indeed, appears to manifest the suppression of the contrariety externally acceding to the universe from a = Barbarric tempest, by the Gods who are the inspective guardians of the festival.

Hence it is said to have been celebrated in the Pirwus, as being most adapted to the extremities, and material parts of the universe. But the Panathenwan festival, exhibits the established order which proceeds into the world) from intellect, and the unconfused separation of mundane contrarietes, Por this Goddess is at one and the same time, a lover of wisdom, and a loverof war. Another veil, therefore, was referred to the Goddess fin the Bendidian festival.) representing the war in which the pupils of Minerva were victorious; just as the veil in the Panathenwan solemnity, represented the Gants vanquished by the Olympian Gods. The Goddess, however, Is celebrated with hymns, justly and with truth; jast/y, indeed, because it is necessary that every thing which has proceeded, should be converted to its proper principle; but with (ruth, because the hymn is assumed through things and through beings, And because of hymns, some celebrate the essence, but others

the providence of the Gods, and others praise the works that proceed from them,' cand a hymn of this hind is the last form of celebration 5 (for the praise of the divine essence precedes all other panegyrics, as Socrates asserts in the Banquet) —this being the case, the words “ celebrating as it were,” are very properly added. For he wishes to celebrate the Goddess from the deeds performed by the Athenians, But that the Panathenwean followed the Bendidian festivals, is asserted both by the commentators, and by Aristotle the Rhodian. For they say, that the Bendidia were celebrated in’ the Pireus on the * For ax’ αὐτὸν here, it is necessary to read ax’ avurwr. 72 PROCLUS ON THE [Rook 1. twentieth day of April; but that the festival sacred to Minerva followed these. “ Soc, You speak well. But what is this ancient achievement, which Critias once heard from Solon, and which is not narrated in history, but was once actually accomplished by this city.” Socrates exciting Critias to narration, requests that he would relate the mighty undertaking which the ancient Critias said he had heard from Solon, and which though not much celebrated, yet was really performed, Τὰ which, this in the first place deserves to be considered, that wany things happen in the universe of which the multitude are ignorant. And inthis, worthy men differ from others, that they sce things of this hind, and understand the events that take place, sat it is worth while secondly to observe, that the more perfect causes, rejoice in sim plicity, and proceed from things of a composite nature, to such as are test, But subordinate beings on the contrary, descend from things simple to things composite. For thus also here Socrates recurs from that which is downward as far as to Solon, in an ascending progression; but Critias on the contrary, descends

from Solon to the mention of himself. “Cri. 1 will acquaint you with that ancient history, which 1 did not indeed receive from a youth, but from aman very much advanced in years.” Longinus here again observes, that Plato pays attention to elegance of diction, by narrating the same things differently. For he ealls the wudertaking ἀρχαιον, but the narration sara, and the man, nota youth; though as he sienifies the same thing through all these, he anight have denominated all of them: after the same manner. Longinus, therefore, as Plotinus said of him, was a philologist, but nota philosopher. Origen, however, docs not admit that Plato is studious of artificial delight and certain ornaments of diction, but that he pays attention to spontaneous and unadorned credibility, and accuracy in imitations. ‘This mode also ofexpression has spontaneity, as being adapted to erudition. For it was rightly said by Aristoxenus, the lyric poet, that the dispositions of philosophers extend as faras to sounds, and exhibit in all things the arrangement which they possess 3 just 7 think, as this mighty heaven, exhibits tn its transfigurations clear images of the splendor of intellectual perceptions ; being moved in conjunction with the unapparent periods of intellectual natures."| The great Iamblichus, however, thinks that we should rather refer the variety of the words to things, and see how in nature contranies are vanquished by the one; how the one is varied, and how great a mutation the same productive principles exlibit; subsisting in one way in the intellect of the universe, in another, in soul, in another, in nature, and in the last place, subsisting in matter. And again, unfolding about matter a most abundant difference in conjunction with similitude. For these observations are worthy the conceptions of Plato, and not a solicitous attention to diction.

“ For at that time Critias, as he himself declared, was almost ninety years old, and I was about ten.” These three persons are assumed, as having preserved this history, or mythology, Solon, the ancient Critias, and this junior Critias; because perfect causes precede the fabrication of the world, and perfective causes are antecedent to the subjects of their government. The elder Critias, however, heard this narration from Solon, one from one; from the elder Critias it was heard by the junior Critias and Amynander; and from the junior Critias three persons received it. For the monad_ proceeds through the duad to the perfective providence of wholes. The numbers also of the ages, have much alliance to the things themselves. For the decad manifests the converston of all mundane natures to the one ; and nincty the restitution again to the monad, in conjunction with progression. But both numbers are symbolical of the world. You may say, therefore, that Solon is analogous to the cause of permanency; but the former Critias, to the cause which supplies progression ; and the present Critias to the cause which converts and conjoins things which have proceeded, to their causes. And the first of these, indeed, preserves the relation ofa ruling and leading cause ; the second, of the cause which comes into contact with mundane fabrication in a liberated manner; and the third, of that which now pays attention to the universe, and governs the mundane war.

“ When, therefore, that solemnity was celebrated among us, which is known by the name of Cureotis Apaturiorum, nothing was omitted which * Instead of ovyxwovpevas ταῖς εἰκονων agavess περιοδοις, it is necessary to read, σνγκινουμενας ras Tim. Plat. Vou. J. K 74 PROCLUS ON THE {noox 1. boys during that festivity are accustomed to perform. For when our parents had set before us the rewards proposed for the contest of singing verses, both a multitude of verses of many poets were recited, and many of us especially sung the poems of Solon, because they were at that time The Apaturia was a festival sacred to Bacchus, on account of the duel between Melanthus and Xanthus the Bootian, and the victory of Melanthus through deception ; the Bavotians and Athenians waging war with each other for CEnoe. But this festival was celebrated for three days; of which the first day was called avazcuris, because many sacrifices were performed in tt ; and the victims were called avaccuuara, because they were drawn upward, and sacrificed. The second day was called dogma; for on this day there were splendid banquets and much feasting. But the third day was called κουρεώτις 3 fur on tis day boys, three or four years old, were enrolled in their tribes. On this day also, such boys as were more sagacious than the rest, sung certain poems, and those were victorious who retained the greater number of them in their memory, They sang, however, the poems of the ancients.

Bat with respect to the tribes, it must be observed, that after Jon there were four families, but from Clisthenes ten, and that after these, each twelve of the families was divided into three: the tribes were arranged into the same family and company, as being allied to each other: the cnrolment of the boys was into these tribes; and this day, as we have before observed, was called Cureotis, from the boys that were enrolled. And such is the information derived from history.

Again, however, let us direct our attention to things, and behold these in the particulars that have been narrated, as in images. “The festival, therefore, of the Apaturia, which had for its preteat the victory of the Athenians, pertains to the hypothesis according to which the Athenians conquered [the Atlantics}, and all intellectual subdue material natures. Deception, likewise, is adapted to mundane forms, Which separate themselves from impartble and inumaterial principles, and become apparent, instead of truly-existing beings. But the enrolment of the boys, imitates the arrangements of partial souls into their proper allotments, and their descents into different) generations. The festival Is an imitation of the eternal hilarity in the world: for if it is filled with Gods, it celebrates a perpetual festival. But the contests of rhapsody, are analogous to the contests which souls sustain, weaving their own ΠΡ together with the universe. And the rhapsody uself, resembles the above-mentioned woven life of the universe. For this has an imitation of intellectual forms, in the same manner as the contests of rhapsody have of heroic actions and manners, possessing together with an harmonious conjunction, a connected series. The many poems of many poets, adumbrate the many natures, and many circum-mundane productive powers,’ and, in short, the division of physical imitations, But the new poems, are images of forms which are perpetually flourishing, always perfect and prolific, and able to operate efhieaciously on other things. And thus much concerning these particulars.

Mention, however, is made of the poems of Solon, not as of a poct in the popular sense of the word, but as of one who mingled philosophy with poetry. For of mundane works likewise, and whole productions, a royal intellect is the leader. And the praise is related as being mentioned to another person, i.e. to Amynander, because, as we learn in the Phadrus, that which judges diflers from that which makes and generates. Referring, however, all that has been said, to the universe, we may infer as from images, that partial souls, partial natures, and partible forms, and of these, those especially that are always new and efficacious, contribute to the mundase war. But all these are connected together by the Gods, who are the inspective guardians of fabrication, and are co-arranged with one world, one harmony, and one kindred life. ut then one of our tribe, whether he was willing to gratify Critias, or whether it was his real opinion, affirmed that Solon appeared to him to be most wise in other concerns, and in things respecting poetry, the most ingenuous and free of all poets. Upon hearing this, the old man (for I very well remember) was vehemently delighted ; and said, laughing —If Solon, O Amynander, had not engaged in poetry as a casual affair, but had made it as others do a serious employment ; and if through seditions and other fluctuations of the state in which he found his country involved, he had not been compelled to neglect the completion of the history which he brought from Egypt, I do not think that cither [Hesiod or Homer, or any other poet, would have acquired greater glory and renown.” ° /

Here again, the lovers of diction may indicate to their admirers, that Plato * The word Aoyovs is, | conceive, omitted in the original in this place. 78 PROCLUS ON THE . [βΒοοκ 1. cautiously praises the poetry of Solon, since he represents the praise as bestowed by a private individual, and for the sake of others, and not as given by one who spoke conformably to intellect and reason. For Plato, if any one, was a most excellent judge of pocts, as Longinus also admits. Heraclides Ponticus therefore says, that Cheerilus and Antimachus being at that time most renowned, Plato preferred the poems of the latter to those of the former, and that he persuaded Heraclides at Colophon, to collect the poems of Antimachus. Tn vain, therefore, is it futilely observed by Callimachus and Duris, that Plato was nota sufficient judge of poets. Hence, what is here said manifests the judgment of the philosopher, and it may be considered in a more historical point of view. The investigator, however, of things, will think it requisite to show how all the causes of the orderly distribution of the universe, and also the causes that are connective of contrariety, are extended to one principle, and how the last adhere through media to the first of things. For thus those who receive the narration of the ancient Critias, are extended to him, but he looks to Solon. And he, indeed, admires the poctic power of Solon ;

but they, through Critias as a medium, are referred to the poetry of Solon. For gratifying the former [1. e. Critias], they praise the poctry of the latter. But what is it that Critias says respecting Solon? That he was subordinate to divinely-inspired pocts, from these two causes; because he engaged in poetry as a casual affair; and because when he came from Egypt, he found the city of the Athenians in a state of sedition, and that he was not able, his country being involved in difficulties, to complete the history, which he brought from thence hither. What the history therefore was, he informs us as he proceeds.

From these things, however, as images, Plato manifests, that what is primanly demiurgic, and every thing effective, have other primary energies ; but that their secondary energy is the production of secondary things. Likewise, that the confused, disorderly, and unstable nature of matter, frequently does not receive ornament from more divine causes, but subsists without symmetry’ to the gift which proceeds from them. Hence, second and third powers are unfolded into light, which proximately adorn its formless nature. Solon, therefore, being most ingenuous, and imitating exempt causes, did not deliver through poetry the Atlantic war. But Critias, and those posterior to him, transmit the account of this war to others, imitating second and third causes, who produce the variety of ‘ For ἀλλα ovpperpws in this place, it is necessary to read, αλλ᾽ aovpperpes. effective principles, and the orderly distribution of things, which is harmonized from contraries into a visible subsistence. Moreover, the assertion that Solon was the wisest of the seven wise men, exhibits his analogy to the first principles. And his being most free, adumbrates the power which is exempt, and established in itself, and which fills all things in a hberated manner. A thing of this kind likewise concurs with the wise man, as being immaterial, without a master, and of itself. The ancient Critias, also, being said to be old, indicates a cause which is intellectual, and remote from generation. For “ wisdom,” says Plato, “ and true opinions are most desirable things to himwho has arrived at old age.” Again, the assertion of Critias, that he very well remembers, exhibits to our view the salvation of eternal productive powers, and the stable energy of secondary causes, about such as are first. But Solon engaging in poetry asa casual affair, represents to us that productions into secondary natures, have only a secondary rank among first causes. For their first energies are intellectual, according to which they are united to the beings prior to themselces.

If, however, some one omiiting the survey of things, should consider through what cause Plato introduced’ these particulars, according to their apparent’ meaning, he will very properly find that they contributed to the thing proposed. For the design of Plato was to narrate the Atlantic war. But it was requisite that the messenger of this history should neither deceive nor be deceived. Hence also, Solon is said to have been most wise, and intimately acquainted with those about Critias. For as a wise man, he was not déceived, and as being an intimate acquaintance, he would not deceive. It was likewise requisite, that the receiver of this history should neither have been aged, in order that the narration may appear to be ancient, nor yet so young, as to be forgetful. Hence, Critias is supposed to have been a youth, but sufficiently able to remember, and in consequence of this, to have contended with others in rhapsody, in which much memory is necessary. Farther still, it was requisite, that the ancient Critias should not commit suchlike narrations to very young men, lest they should appear to them to be contemptible. Ience, it is very properly said, that some one of the tribes, by enquiry of Solon, heard the history. But it was requisite that he also should, in a certain respect, have been familiar with Solon, in order that the old man might opportunely relate all the history to him. Hence, likewise, the praises of the poetry of

* For παρεισκεκληκεν read παρεισκνκλ yeer. 78 PROCLUS ON THE [Boox 1. Solon precede the history 5 the praise being given by Amynander in order to gratify Critias. And thus much concerning the disposition of what is said in the text. That Solon, however, went to Egypt, not only for the purpose of obtaining the Atlantic history, but likewise that the Athenians, during his absence, obeyed his laws, which he had bound them by an oath not to violate, is evident. Por during this time, also, he associated with Crarsus, and sailed to Egypt; but on his return, he became master of the city, which was ina tumultuous condition through the Pisistratida. And thus much we have derived from history. Origen, however, doubts how Plato calls Solon most free: for this is not an encomium adapt ed toa poet. And he dissolves the doubt by saying, that he is so called, either because he spent his money (ideral/y, or because he used the greatest freedom of speceh; and that on this account he was free, without any timidity in his poetical compositions. Or he was 50 denominated, as being in lis poetry remiss and uncompelled. But Tamblichus says, that no one of these solutions is true, but that through this appellation, the Uderated condition of the intellect of Solon, the τις servile nature of his virtue, and that which was venerable in his character, and which transcended all other things, are signified.

The same interpreter also says, that the daughter of Critias manifests a generative progression from causes, perfect, and rejoicing inits progeny. But the remembering well, indicates the salvation of effective principles in the world. Why, therefore, was Solon anxious to deliver the Atlantic war in verse?) Because, says he, all natural works and the mundane contrariety subsist through imitation, Por this is analogous to its effective and primary Causes; just as Critias is analogous to proximate and secondary causes. But why was he prevented by sedition? Because material motions and material tumult become an impediment, as we have before observed, to the productive

powers of mundane Causes. “Tn consequence of this, Amynander enquired of Critias what that history was. ‘To which he answered, that it was concerning an athair, which ought most justly to be the greatest and most renowned which this city ever accomplished ; though through length of time, and the destraction of those by whom it was undertaken, the fame of its execution has not reached the present age.” Longinus says, that something is wanting here to render the sense complete For the word considered is wanting to the words most justly to he, because these are required in what follows, but not the word overs, being. Porphyry, however, says, that Longinus did not perceive, that, in consequence of the undertaking being the greatest, but not yet celebrated, Plato adds, “ ought most justly to be most renowned.” But we, directing our attention to things, say, that Plato calls it the greatest undertaking, as bringing with it an image of all contrariety, extending itself every where. And that he denominates it most renowned, as contributing to the visible fabrication of things. For thus, also, the works of nature are called by Boundless eternity, and nature’s works Ἧ Renown'd, remain. “Relate this affair, O Critias, says Amynander, from the beginning, and inform us what that transaction was, how it was accomplished, and from whom Solon having heard it, narrated it asa fact.’

Joe. Relate what this admirable deed was, how, or after what manner. it was performed, how it became Known to, and by whom being preserved, it reached the hearing of Solon. Plato appears, through this, to investigate the whole forin of contraricty, how it was effected, or may be known, and from what causes, tous invisible, itis suspended, Before, therefore, he recurred through relatives to the narration of Solon; but now he investigates the superior histories of it, or, that ITmay speak clearer, the principles of the fabrication of this contrariety. And by directing your attention to this narration, you may survey, as in images, through certain symbols, all the principles of this fabrication, as far as to the first causes of it. “ There is, then, says he, a certain region of M.gypt, called Delta, about the summit of which the streams of the Nile are divided, and i in which there is a province called Saitical.” In the first place, itis worth while to observe how the narration always delivers things comprehended, proceeding from such as are more comprehensive ; from Egypt, indeed, the river, from this Delta, from this the Saitic province, and from this Sais, sacred to Minerva. In the next place, having observed this, it will be

80 PROCLUS ON THE {poo τ. proper to ascend through the analogy of these things, to the first and most comprehensive causes of fabrication. For you may perceive this supernally comprehended by more total causes, and proceeding as far as to the last of things ; comprehending causes every where preceding such as are comprehended ; the more total, such as are more partial; and the impartible fabrication, that which is parti ble, and is denominated recent ; to which also the present words refer the father of the narration. And this fabrication, indeed, is filled from these causes, and particularly participates of the undefiled power of Minerva. For, in short, since we refer this war, for the sake of which the whole narration 15 excited, to the mundane contrariety, it will be well, preceeding in the same way, to assimilate all the knowledge of the Egyptian priests to the former [or impartible] fabrication, which stably comprehends the productive powers contained in the universe 5 but the history of Solon, which is always recent, and placed in mutations, to the more novcl fabrication, and which administers the all-various circulations of mundane natures. We shall also be benefited by perceiving how, in images, the difference between human and divine fabrications becomes apparent; and how, i these, Solon, indeed, calls on the priest to the developement of ancient transactions, but the priest knows both such events as are reckoned ancient by the Greeks, and prior to these, such as are truly ancient. For thus also, in’ divine fabrications, that which is recent or junior, is converted to that which Is more ancient, and is perfected by it; but the latter antecedently Comprehends the causes of the former, and is established above it, by still greater and more perfect intelJectual perceptions and powers, And thus much concerning the whole of the text.

It is necessary, however, to discuss every particular. With respect to Egypt, therefore, some call it an image of matter; others of the whole earth, as being divided analogously to it; and others of the intelligible, and the intelligible essence. But we say, that in what is here asserted, it is assimilated τὸ the whole invisible order, which is the principle of visible natures. With respect to Delta also, itis produced from the Nile, being divided about the Saitic province, so as to make its egress from one right line to the right and left, and to the sea, the sea forming the hypothenuse of the triangle, which Plato calls the Saitic province 5 indicating, in what he here says, that it is that about which the stream of the Nile is divided. It is, however, analogous to the one vivific fountain of all divine life, and, in visible natures, to the celestial triangle which is connective of all generation, heing proximate to the ram, which the Egyptians particularly honor, on account of Ammon having the face of a ram, and also because the ram is the principle of gencration, and is moved with the greatest celerity, as being among the constellations established about the equinoctial. The mention, therefore, of Delta is here very appropriate τ since the triangle, as we shall learn in what follows, is the principle of the hypostasis of the mundane elements. But the Nile is to be arranged analozous to the zodiac, as being situated under it, having an inclination similar to it, and imitating, through its divisions, the obliquity of it, and its division about the equinoctial points, The Nile also ts a symbol of the life which is poured on the whole world.

Moreover, the two sides of the Nile, which ran into the sea from the summit fof Delta], may be, ina certain respect, assimilated to the two co-ordinations, Which proceed from one root as far as to generation, and of which generation is the recipient. So that a triangle is produced from them and their common receptacle, into which they conjointly flow. But the Saitic province, which forms agreat part of Delta, participates also of a great portion of the celestial regions. Sais, therefore, must be sacerdotally referred to the constellation called the Bear, not becanse it is situated under it, nor on account of its coldness, but as participating of a certain peculiar ettlux of the God [who presides over that constellation]. Hence likewise Sais is not shaken by earthquakes, in consequence of receiving a firm establishment on account of the place about the pole.

“ Of this provinee, the greatest city is Sais, from which also king Amasis derived his origin. The city has a presiding divinity, whose name is, in the Egyptian tongue, Neith, but in the Greek Athena, or Minerva. The inhabitants of this city were very friendly to the Athenians, to whom also they said they were after a certain manner allied.” The word νομὸς, or province, derived its appellation from the distribution of land. For thus the Egyptians called divisions of the great parts of Egypt. But from the city the whole province was denominated Saitic, just as Sebennytic is denominated from Sebennetus, and Canobic from Canobus. Amasis, however, is now assumed analogous to Solon. For he paid attention to wisdom and justice beyond all the {other Egyptian) kings. He is therefore conjoined with Solon, and has the same relation to him, which the city has to Athens ; in order that we may survey the cities and the men adomed by the Goddess [Minerva] as from one monad, and secondary natures always perfected from such as are more per- Tim. Plat. Vou. I. L . 82 PROCLUS ON THE [BooK 1. fect. Callisthenes, however, and Phanodemus relate, that the Athenians were the fathers of the Saite. But Theopompus, on the contrary, says, that they were acolony of them. The Platonic Atticus says, that Theopompus altered the his_ tory through envy. For, according to him, some of the inhabitants of Sais came to renew their alliance with the Athenians. But Plato only says thus much concerning them, “that the Suite were very friendly to the Athenians, and after a certain manner allied to them.” \t is possible, however, that he might say this on account of the tutelar Goddess of the city being the same with the Minerva of the Athenians.

With respect, however, to this Goddess the guardian of the two cities, itis requisite to know, that proceeding from intelligible and intellectual causes through the supercelestial orders, to certain parts of the celestial regions and) terrene distributions, she is allotted places adapted to herself; not imparting an adventitious government of herself, but antecedently comprebending the essence and form of it, and thus possessing this allotment in a manner adapted to herself, “Phat the government, however, of this Goddess extends supernally as far as to the last of things, the Greeks manifest by asserting that she was venerated from the head of Jupiter, But the Egyptians relate, that in the adytum of the Goddess there Was this inscription, Zam the things that are, that will be, and that have been. No one has ever laid open the garment by which Tam concealed. The fruit which I brought forth was the sun. Che Goddess, therefore, being demiurgic, and at the same time apparent and unapparent, has an allotinent in the heavens, and tlluminates generation with forms. Lor of the signs of the sudiac, the ram ts ascribed to the Goddess, and the equinoctial circle itself, where especially a power motive of the universe is established. She is very properly, therefore, called by Plato a lover of wisdom, and a lover of war, and he now denominates her the leader of these allotments in the earth. In the tirst place, Iykewise, he honours the Goddess in the language of his country. For the Athenians dcnominate the tutelar Goddess of the city cIrchevetes, or the leader, celebrating her surname, and her presiding power. Jn the next place, he indicates the uniform: preestablished comprehension in herself, of the allotments which are governed by her. And besides this he clearly represents to us, that it is possible for the same

* The former part of this inscription is to be found in Plutarch’s treatise on Isis and Osiris; but the latter part of it, viz. the fruit which 1 brough! forth was the sun, is only to be found in these Commentaries of Proclus. The original of this part is, ov eyw καρπὸν erexoy ἡλίὸς Eyevero. βοοκ 1.) ᾿ TIMGEUS OF PLATO. 83 things to be signitied through many words, since words are images of the things signified by them. For many statues may be formed of one thing froin different materials; so that the Ezyptians preserve the analogous,” because they call the Goddess by a name which has the same signification with that of the Greeks. Nor is it at all wonderful that both should denominate her rightly, in consequence of establishing the name according to one science. If, therefore, there is one tutelar Goddess of the two cities Sais and Athens, the inhabitants of Sais are very properly said to be lovers of the Athenians, as being ina certain respect allied to them: for the aflinity is not wholly perfect. For some may participate more and others less of the same providence. And some may participate of one, but others of another power contained in the Goddess. Jur again, it ts likewise necessary to hnow this, that a variation is produced in different nations from the places which they severally inhabit, from the temperature of the air, from habitude to the heavens, and sll more partially from spermatic productive powers, But you may say, that they especially differ according to the gregal government of the Gods, and the diversities of the tutelar powers, from which you will find a difference in colour, figure, voice, and motion, in different places. So that those who migrate into other countries

Srequently chanse, by dielling in those countries, their colour and voice; just as plants are changed together with the quality of the region, when they are transplanted ina foreign land, * Tn this country Solon, on his arrival thither, was, as he himself relates, very honourably received. And on his inquiring about ancient affairs of those priests who possessed a knowledge of such particulars superior to others, he perceived that neither himself, nor any one of the Grecks (as he himself declared), had any knowledge of things of this Solon, on account of his political wisdom, and on account of the dignity and worth of his city, justly appeared to be deserving of honor to the priests of Sais. But he found, with respect to memory and history, among the Greeks, that neither himself, nor any other Grecian, had any knowledge of very ancient transactions. The remembrance, however, of such transactions, contributes indeed to political virtue, and also contributes to the theory of the mundane * For &weovew ἀπολογον in this place, I read σωδσυσιν avadoyor. 84 PROCLUS ON THE [Book 1. periods, which Solon being desirous to know, and interrogating for this purpose the priests, found that he was perfectly deficient in knowledge of this kind. These things, likewise, are symbols of divine concerns. For a certain fabrication or workmanship, is called by theologists recent. But this 15. particularly honoured [as being suspended): from the father of wholes, and from the intelligible Gods, with whom there are intellectual perceptions exempt from other things, and which have more eternal natures for their objects. But those intellectual perceptions are more partial and less excellent, which are in secondary natures. And farther still, there is such a difference in demiurgic principles, that some of them are comprehensive of more total, but others of more partial forms. And some of them precede in dignity and power, but others are recent as with reference to them, and possess a subordinate power.

“* Hence, when he once desired to excite them to the relation of pristine transactions, he for this purpose began to discourse about those most ancient events which formerly happened among us. 1 mean the traditions concerning the first Phoroneus and Niobe ; and after the deluge, of Deucalion and Pyrrha (as described by the mythologists), together with their posterity ; at the same time paying a proper attention to the different ages in which these events are said to have taken place.” 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. ἢ Ἷ I Ϊ 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 cenerated 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 wonderful. 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 IMposstble 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 primogenial 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 maltiphied, 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 fabrication 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

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 pertains 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 ancient 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 eternally 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? Before, 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 unitedly ; 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, therefore, 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) generation, 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 nature; 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 dissipated, perpetual natures would be the extremities of beings, and the first essences would be the last of all things. But if all things were disposed preternaturally, there would be nothing stable; from which an invariable sameness of subsistence might be present with mutable natures; nor would the circle of generation be preserved. And it is impossible that wholes should have a preternatural, but parts a natural, subsistence ; for parts follow wholes, and wholes are comprehensive 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: It remains, therefore, that wholes being established in a natural subsistence, the parts at one time following the wholes, are disposed conformably to nature, but at another time have a preternatural tendency. But as of partial animals, each is indeed always generated and corrupted, on account of the efflux of them in the universe; but one is more generated, and another is more corrupted than another, and one is more adapted to existence, but another to corruption; thus also the several parts of the earth, receiving both a natural and preternatural subsistence, some of the parts are more able to subsist conformably to nature, but others are more adapted to sustain deviations into a preternatural condition of being ; this, indeed, on account of a different temperament, but afterwards on account of the position being different of diferent parts, and in the next place, on account of habitude to the heavens. For different parts of the earth are adapted to different parts of the heavens, though they are preserved by other figures [or configurations} And in addition to all that has been said, on account of the power of the inspective Gods, and of the divinities who preside over climates, and who are allotted different peculiarities ; some rejcicing more in motion, but others in permanency, seme in sameness, but others in difference; abundant corruptions likewise of partial natures being produced in different places;

the forms or species of the universe have a never-failing subsistence. For man is always, the earth is always, and each of the clements always is. For since corruption and generation proceed from the celestial figures; but these are imitations of divine intellections, and the intellections are suspended from intellectual forms, but from these stability is derived ;—this being the case, continuity is produced in mundane forms, and the visible figures are preservative of species, but corruptive of parts, so as to cause things which are generated in time, to be also dissolved in time, according to a circular progression. For the universe does not envy salvation to such things as are able to exist in conjunction with it; but that which is incapable of being administered together with the universe, is not able to abide in it. The law of Jupiter, however, expels ' from essence every thing of this kind as disgraceful, For it is perfectly impossible that what is disgraceful should remain in the universe. But that whichis deprived of order in the universe is disgraceful. We have shown therefore why * abundant and partial corruptions are produced in different places of the earth,

* For εἐμβαλλει here, it is necessary to read εκβαλλει. * For tore in this place, read δια τι. Tim. Plat. Vouk 0. M 90 PR@CLUS ON THE [βοοκ 1. In the next place it must be shown why the greatest of destructions are through the predominance of fire and water, and not through that of the other elements. Fire, therefore, has an efficacious and productive order in the elements, is sufficiently able to proceed through all other things, and is naturally adapted to divide them. But water, is indeed moved with greater facility than earth, yet is more difficultly passive than air. Aud by its facility of motion, indeed, it is able to operate ; but through being passive with difficulty, it is not affected by violence, nor becomes imbecile when dissipated, like air; so that it reasonably follows, that violent, and the greatest destructions are effected by deluges and conflagrations. You may also say, that the remaining two elements are more adapted to us. For we are pedestrious, and allied to earth; and as we are on all sides comprehended by air, in which we live, and which we respire, itis evident that our bodies are of a kindred nature with it. [fence these elements, as being more alhed to, are less destructive of us; but the others, which are contrary to these, bring. with them more violent destructions. © Farther sull, according to another mode of survey also, these clements earth and air, together with suflering themselves, and sufleting prior to us, appear to operate on us.

For air when it becomes putrid, produces pestilence ; and earth when divulsed, abundant absorptions, But) pestilence is a passion of air, and chasms and earthquakes are passions of earth, Fire, however, and water are able to operate on us, without being previously af fected themselves ; the former by permeating, but the latter by external impulsion, Hence they are capable of producing more extended destructions, as being more vigorous and powerful than the other elements, in consequence of not corrupting through being themselves distempered, Deluges, therefore, and contlagrations are the greatest destructions. But famine and pestilence, earthquakes and wars, and other such-like partial calamities, may be produced from other causes. And of all these, the effective cause indeed is the order of the universe, and prior to this, the junior fabrication, which always makes new effects, and at different times produces the generation of different things. For this is asserted by the fables of the Greeks, and is indicated by the tradition of the Egyptians, which mystically says of the sun, that he assumes different forms in the signs of the zodiac. Itis not, therefore, atall wonderfal, ifthough there are many destructions, and inanany places, yet man and every form always exist, through the tmmutable progression of divine forms. For through these, the productive principles in’ the universe possess an invariable