UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO 3 1822022573265 \ A JNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO 3 1822022573265 TTAATQN02 TIMAIOS T7AATQN02 TIMAIOI THE TIMAEUS OF PLATO EDITED WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES BY R. D. ARCHER-HIND, M.A. FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE Honfcon MACMILLAN AND CO. AND NEW YORK 1888 [ The Right of Translation is m CTam bvtogc : PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. PREFACE. THE present appears to be the first English edition of the Timaeus. Indeed since the sixteenth century, during which this dialogue was published separately no less than four times, it had not, so far as I am aware, been issued apart from the rest of Plato's works until the appearance of Lindau's edition, accompanied by a Latin translation, in 1828. Lindau's com- mentary, though here and there suggestive, does not afford much real help in grappling with the main difficulties of the dialogue ; and sometimes displays a fundamental misappre- hension of its significance. Ten years later came Stallbaum's edition ; concerning which it were unbecoming to speak with less than the respect due to the zeal and industry of a scholar who has essayed the gigantic enterprise of editing with elaborate prolegomena and commentary the entire works of Plato, and it would be unfair to disparage the learning which the notes display: none the less it cannot be denied that in dealing with this dialogue the editor seems hardly to have realised the nature of the task he has undertaken. Stallbaum was followed in 1841 by Th. H. Martin, whose work, published under the modest title of ' Etudes sur le Timee de Platon,' is far and away the ablest and completest edition of the Timaeus which exists. As an exposition of the philosophical import of the dialogue I should not be disposed to rate it so very highly ; but so far as it deals with the physical and other scientific questions discussed and with the numerous grave difficulties of detail, it is invaluable : the acuteness and in- vi PREFACE. genuity, the luminous clearness, and (not least) the unfailing candour of the editor, deserve all admiration. The debt owed to Martin by any subsequent editor must needs be very great. The most recent edition known to me was published in 1853 in the useful series issued by Engelmann at Leipzig, including text, German translation, and rather copious notes. Bockh's ' Speci- men editionis' unfortunately is but a small fragment The only English translations with which I am acquainted are Thomas Taylor's and Prof. Jowett's : in German there are several. Martin's edition includes a clear and close French rendering, considerably more accurate than Cousin's. Among the most valuable and important contributions to the explanation of the Timaeus are some writings of August Bockh, especially his admirable treatise ' Ueber das kosmische System des Platon.' It is much to be regretted that so excellent a scholar did not give us a complete edition of the dialogue. The chief ancient exponent is Proklos, of whose commentary, 6eiq rtvl fjioipa, only perhaps one third, a fragment of some 850 octavo pages, is extant, breaking off at 440. This dis- quisition is intolerably verbose, often trivial, and not rarely obscure : nevertheless one who has patience to toil through it may gain from it information and sometimes instruction ; and through all the mists of neoplatonic fantasy the native acuteness of the writer will often shine. The principal object of this edition is to examine the philo- sophical significance of the dialogue and its bearing on the Platonic system. At the same time, seeing that so few sources of aid are open to the student of the Timaeus, I have done my best to throw light upon the subsidiary topics of Plato's dis- course, even when they are of little or no philosophical import- ance ; nor have I willingly neglected any detail which seemed to require explanation. But as in the original these details are subordinate to the ontological teaching, so I have regarded their discussion as subordinate to the philosophical interpretation of this magnificent and now too much neglected dialogue. A translation opposite the text has been given with a view to relieving the notes. The Timaeus is one of the most difficult of Plato's writings in respect of mere language; and had all matters of linguistic exegesis been treated in the commentary, PREFACE. vii this would have been swelled to an unwieldy bulk. I have hoped by means of the translation to show in many cases how I thought the Greek should be taken, without writing a gram- matical note ; though of course it has been impossible to banish such subjects entirely. My obligation to Dr Jackson's essays on the ideal theory will be manifest to any one who reads both those essays and my commentary. I am as fully as ever convinced of the high importance of his contribution to the interpretation of Plato. In his essay on the Timaeus indeed there are some statements to which I can by no means assent ; but as that paper in its present form does not contain Dr Jackson's final expression of opinion, I have not thought it necessary to discuss divergencies of view, which may prove to be very slight, and which do not affect the main thesis for which he is contending. Lastly I must thank my friend Dr J. W. L. Glaisher for his kindness in examining my notes on the arithmetical passage at the beginning of chapter VII, and for mathematical information in other respects. TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, 17 January, 1888. ERRATUM. P. 204, ist col. of notes, line ai, cancel as erroneous the words 'And if.. .as the first.' INTRODUCTION. i. OF all the more important Platonic writings probably Vindica- none has less engaged the attention of modern scholars than the Timaeus. Nor is the reason of this comparative neglect far ance to seek. The exceeding abstruseness of its metaphysical content, * ^e rendered yet more recondite by the constantly allegorical mode Timaeus of exposition; the abundance of a priori speculation in a domain which experimental science has now claimed for its own; the vast ties. and many-sided comprehensiveness of the design all have con- spired to the end that only a very few of the most zealous students of Plato's philosophy have left us any considerable work on this dialogue. It has been put on one side as a fantastic, if ingenious and poetical, cosmogonical scheme, mingled with -ora- cular fragments of mystical metaphysic and the crude imaginings of scarcely yet infant science. But this was not the position assigned to the Timaeus by the more ancient thinkers, who lived 'nearer to the king and the truth.' Contrariwise not one of Plato's writings exercised so powerful an influence on subsequent Greek thought; not one was the object of such earnest study, such constant reference. Aristotle criticises it more frequently and copiously than any other dialogue, and perhaps from no other has borrowed so much: Cicero, living amid a very stupor and paralysis of speculative philosophy, was moved to translate it into Latin : Appuleius gives for an account of the Platonic philosophy little else but a partial abstract of the Timaeus, with some ethical supplement from the Republic: Plutarch has sundry more or less elaborate disquisitions on several of the subjects handled in it. As for the neoplatonic school, how completely their thought was dominated by the metaphysic of the Timaeus, despite the incongruous and almost P. T. I OP INTRODUCTION. Pre- platonic basis of Platonism: Heraklei- tos, Par- menides, Anax- agoras. monstrous accretions which some of them superimposed, is mani- fest to any reader of Plotinos or Proklos. Such being the con- cordance of ancient authorities, is it not worth while to inquire whether they be not justified in attaching so profound a significance to this dialogue? The object of this essay is to establish that they were justified. No one indeed can read the Timaeus, however casually, without perceiving that in it the great master has given us some of his profoundest thoughts and sublimest utterances : but my aim is to show that in this dialogue we find, as it were, the focus to which the rays of Plato's thought converge; that by a thorough comprehension of it (can we but arrive at this) we may perceive the relation of various parts of the system one to another and its unity as a whole: that in fact the Timaeus, and the Timaeus alone, enables us to recognise Platonism as a complete and co- herent scheme of monistic idealism. I would not be understood to maintain that Plato's whole system is unfolded in the Timaeus; there is no single dialogue of which that could be said. The Timaeus must be pieced together with the other great critical and constructive dialogues of the later period, if we are rightly to apprehend its significance. But what I would maintain is that the Timaeus furnishes us with a master-key, whereby alone we may enter into Plato's secret cham- bers. Without this it is almost or altogether impossible to find in Platonism a complete whole ; with its aid I am convinced that this is to be done. I am far from undervaluing the difficulty of the task I have proposed : but it is worth the attempt, if never so small a fraction may be contributed to the whole result. With this end in view, it is necessary to consider Plato's intellectual development in relation to certain points in the history of previous Greek philosophy. These points are all notorious enough, but it seems desirable for our present purpose to bring them under review. 2. Now it seems that if we would rightly estimate the task which lay before Plato at the outset of his philosophical career and appreciate the service he has rendered to philosophy, we must throw ourselves back into his position, we must see with his eyes and compute as he would have computed the net result of preplatonic theorising. What is the material which his pre- decessors had handed down for him to work upon? what are the solid and enduring verities they have brought to light? and INTRODUCTION. 3 how far have they amalgamated these into a systematic theory of existence ? In the endeavour to answer these questions I think we can hardly fail to discern amid the goodly company of those early pioneers certain men rising by head and shoulders above their fellows : Herakleitos, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, these three. Each one of these bequeathed to his successors a great principle peculiarly his own; a principle of permanent importance, with which Plato was bound to deal and has dealt. And save in so far as the Pythagorean theory of numbers may have influenced the outward form of his exposition, there is hardly anything in the early philosophy before Sokrates, outside the teaching of these three men, which has seriously contributed to Plato's store of raw material. The synthesis of their one-sided truths required nothing less than the whole machinery of Plato's metaphysical system : it is from their success and their failure that he takes his start the success of each in enunciating his own truth, the failure of each to recognise its relations. Since these three men, as I conceive, furnished Plato with his base of operations or, more correctly perhaps, raised the problems which he must address himself to solve, it is incumbent on us to determine as precisely as we can the nature of the contributions they severally supplied. 3. The old Ionian physicists were all unknowingly working The their way to the conception of Becoming. They did not know this, because they knew not that matter, with which alone they kleitos were concerned ! , belonged altogether to the realm of Becoming. Nor yet did they reach this conception, for they had not been able to conceive continuity in change that is to say, they had not conceived Becoming. They imagined the indefinite diversity of material nature to be the complex manifestations of some uniform underlying element, which, whether by condensation and expansion or by some more fundamental modification of its sub- stance, transmuted itself into this astonishing multiplicity of dis- similar qualities. But according to their notion this underlying element, be it water or air or some indefinable substrate, existed at any given place now in one form, now in another ; that is, it abode for a while in one of its manifestations, then changed and abode for a while in another. Air is air for a time ; then it is 1 Of course the antithesis of matter and spirit had not yet presented itself to Greek thought. I 2 4 INTRODUCTION. condensed and turns to water. Thus the notion of continuity is absent, and consequently the notion of Becoming. Yet, for all that, Thales, Anaximandros, and Anaximenes were on the path to Becoming. The penetrating intellect of Herakleitos detected the short- coming of his predecessors. All nature is a single element trans- muting itself into countless diversities of form : be it so. But the law or force which governs these transmutations must be omni- present and perpetually active. For what power is there that shall hold it in abeyance at any time ? or how could it intermit its own activity without perishing altogether? Therefore there can be no abiding in one form; transmutation must be every- where ceaseless and continuous, since nature will not move by leaps. Motion is all-pervading, and rest is there nowhere in the order of things. And this privation of rest is not a matter of degree nor to be measured by intervals of time. Rest during an infinitesimal fraction of the minutest space which our senses can apprehend were as impossible and inconceivable as though it should endure for ages. We must see the oSos avw KOTU as Herakleitos saw it : all nature is a dizzy whirl of change without rest or respite, wherein there is no one thing to which we can point and say 'See, it is this, it is that, it is so.' For in the moment when what we call ' it ' has begun to be ' this ' or ' that ' or ' so,' at that very moment it has begun to pass from the state we thus seek to indicate : there is nowhere a fixed point. And thus Herakleitos attains to the conception of continuity and Becoming. He chose appropriately enough fire, the most mobile and impalpable of the four reputed elements, to be the vehicle of this never resting activity of nature : but it matters nothing what was his material substrate. His great achievement is to have firmly grasped and resolutely enunciated the principle of con- tinuity and hence of Becoming: for continuity is a mode of Becoming, or Becoming a mode of continuity, according as we may choose to view it. Moreover, Herakleitos introduces us to the antithesis of ov and p.^ ov. We cannot say of any object 'it is so,' or use any other phrase which implies stability. Yet the thing in some sense or other is, else it would be nothing ; it is at any rate a continuity of change. So then the thing is and is not ; that is to say, it becomes. Or if, as we watch a falling drop of rain, we take any spot in its course which it would just fill, we can never say 'it is there,' for it never rests ; yet, by the INTRODUCTION. 5 time the drop reaches the earth, that spot has been filled by it. The drop has a 'where,' though we can never define the 'where.' Thus throughout the teaching of Herakleitos the 'is' is confronted by 'is not.' 4. In the preceding paragraph I have confined myself Result of within the limits of the actual teaching of Herakleitos : the Platonic developments of it will occupy our attention later on. What then is the actual result the contribution to the philosophical capital with which Plato had to start? We have conceived change as continuous, that is, we have conceived Becoming. And Be- coming is negation of stable Being. Also since change is a transition, it involves motion : therefore in affirming Becoming we affirm Motion. And since change is a transition from one state to another, it involves plurality. So in affirming Becoming we affirm Multitude. Becoming, Motion, Multitude these are three aspects of one and the same fact : and this is the side of things which Herakleitos presents to us as the truth and reality of nature. The importance of this aspect cannot be exaggerated, neither can its insufficiency. 5. For where does this doctrine leave us in regard to the Impossi- acquisition of knowledge? Surely of all men most hopeless. Let \ y ij us set aside for the present the question of the relation between the neces- subject and object as elaborated in the Theaetetus, and confine s ^ y '" n r ourselves simply to the following considerations. The object of Heraklei- knowledge must exist : of that which is not there can be no |^ n l knowledge. But we have seen that according to Herakleitos it is as true to say of everything that it is not as to say that it is : therefore at best it is as true that there is no knowledge as that there is. Again the object of knowledge must be abiding : how can the soul have cognisance of that which unceasingly slips away and glides from her grasp? For it is not possible that we cognise our elemental substrate now in one form, now in another, since change is continuous : there is no footing anywhere ; for each thing the beginning of birth is the beginning of dissolution ; every new form in the act of supplanting the old has begun its own destruction. In this utter elusiveness of fluidity where is knowledge to rest ? Plato sums up the matter in these words : ei p.fv yap O.VTO TOVTO, rj yvdxri?, TOU yvwats etvat fitj p.c- TaTriTrm, /W.CVGI re oV act 17 yptoats /ca! elrj yv<3(ris' (I 8 KCU avro TO eiSos fJifTaTriirrei rrjs yvwo-etos, a//,a T* av /^UTaTTiWoi tts dAAo eiSo? yvaxrews Kai OVK av eir; yvwcris' i 8t aei fUTaTTiTrrei, aei OVK av fit] INTRO D UCTION. KCU CK TOUTOU Tou Xoyou cure TO yvoxjoftevov OVTC TO fitvov av flrj. Cratylus 440 A. Thus the teaching of Herakleitos tends to one inevitable end none can know, for nothing can be known. Parmeni- 6. Seeing then that Becoming and Multitude are unknow- able, are we therefore forced to abandon in despair all striving after knowledge? Or is it perchance possible that there exists Being or Unity, which abides for ever sure and can be really and certainly known? Such at least was the conviction of Parmenides. This great philosopher, who may be considered as the earliest herald of the idealism which should come but yet was not, set about his work by a method widely different from that of the Ionian physicists 1 . The lonians indeed, and even Herakleitos himself, in a certain sense sought unity, inasmuch as they postu- lated one single element as the substrate of material phenomena. But such a unity could not content Parmenides. What, he may have asked, do we gain by such a unity ? If there is one element underlying the appearances of material nature, why choose one of its manifestations as the fundamental form in preference to another? If the same substance appears now as fire, now as air, now as water, what is the use of saying that fire, air, or water is the ultimate element ? And if with Anaximandros we affirm that the ultimate substance is an undefined unlimited substrate, this is only as much as to say, we do not know the substrate of things. In any case the supposition of a material substrate leaves us just where we were. The unity that pervades nature must be one of a totally different sort ; not a material element which is trans- formed into multitudinous semblances, but a principle, a formative essence, distinct from the endless variety of visible nature. It must be no ever-changing substrate, but an essence simple, im- mutable, and eternal, far removed from the ken of sensation and to be reached by reason alone. And not only must it be verily existent, it must be the sum-total of existence ; else would it fail of its own nature and fall short of itself. Since then the One is and is the whole, it must needs follow that the Many are not at all. Material nature then, with all her processes and appearances, is utterly non-existent, a vain delusion of the senses : she is Not- being, and Not-being exists in no wise only Being is. And since 1 I take Parmenides as the repre- speaking, a philosopher at all, and sentative of Eleatic thought, regard- Zeno as merely developing one aspect ing Xenophanes as not, properly of Parmenidean teaching. INTR OD UCTION. 7 Not-being is not, neither is there Becoming ; for Becoming is the synthesis of Being and Not-being. Again if there is not Be- coming, Motion exists not either, for Becoming is a motion, and all motion is becoming. Multitude, Motion, Becoming all these are utterly obliterated and annihilated from out of the nature of things : only the One exists, abiding in its changeless eternity of stillness 1 . 7. Such is the answer returned by Parmenides and his school The Elea- to the question asked at the beginning of our previous section, takei^by^' Material nature is in continual flux, you say, and cannot be itself, is as known: good then material nature does not exist. But Being aTthat'of 6 or the One does exist and can be known, and it is all there is to Heraklei- , tos. know. Now it is impossible to conceive a sharper antithesis than that which exists at all points between the two theories I have just sketched. The Herakleiteans flatly deny all unity and rest, the Eleatics as flatly deny all plurality and motion. If then either of these schools is entirely right, the law of contradiction is peremptory the other must be entirely wrong. Is then either entirely right or wrong ? We have already admitted that Herakleiteanism presents us with a most significant truth, and also that it remorselessly sweeps away all basis of knowledge. Therefore we conclude that, though Herakleitos has given us a truth, it is an incomplete and 'one- sided truth. Let us notice next how the Eleatics stand in this respect. About the inestimable value of the Eleatic contribution there can be no doubt. Granted that the phenomena of the material world are ever fleeting and vanishing and can never be known what of that ? The material world does not really exist : it is not there that we must seek for the object of knowledge, but in the eternally existent Unity. Thus they oppose the object of reason 1 This sheer opposition of the ex- little value he might attach to opinion, istent unity to the non-existent plurality was bound to take account of it*, led Parmenides to divide his treatise That Parmenides was perfectly con- on Nature into two distinct portions, sistent in embracing the objects of dealing with Truth and Opinion. I Opinion in his account, I admit. But am not disposed to contest Dr Jack- none the less does his language justify son's affirmation that ' Parmenides, the statements in the text : he em- while he denied the real existence phatically affirms the non-existence of of plurality, recognised its apparent phenomena, and has no care to ex- existence, and consequently, however plain why they appear to exist. 8 INTRODUCTION. to the object of sensation. This is good, so far as it goes : it points to the line followed by Plato, who said, if material nature cannot be known, the inference is, not that knowledge is im- possible, but that .there is some immaterial existence, transcending the material, which is the true object of knowledge. But the further we examine the Eleatic solution, the more reason we shall see to be dissatisfied with it. First the problem of the material world is not answered but merely shelved by the negation of its existence. Here are we, a number of conscious intelligences, who perceive, or fancy we perceive, a nature which is not our- selves. What then are we, what is this nature, why do we seem to perceive it, and how can there be interaction between us and it ? A bald negation of matter will not satisfy these difficulties. Again, the Eleatics are bound to deny not merely the plurality of objects, but the plurality of subjects as well What then are these con- scious personalities, which seem so real and so separate, and which yet on Eleatic principles must, so far as their plurality and their separation is concerned, be an idle dream ? Secondly, if we ask Parmenides what is this eternally existent One, no satisfactory answer is forthcoming. On the one hand his description of the v OK ray is clogged with the forms of materiality : it is ' on all sides like unto the globe of a well-rounded sphere, everywhere in equipoise from the centre:' on the other, it is a mere aggregate of negations, and, as Plato has shown, an idle phantom of the imagination, an abstraction without content, whereof nothing can be predicated, which has no possible mode of existence, which cannot be spoken, conceived, or known. This is all Parmenides has to offer us for veritable existence. If it is true that on Herakleitean principles nothing can be known, it is equally true that on Eleatic principles there is nothing to know. The Hera- 8. How is it then that either of these most opposite theories JariEl^. leads to an equally hopeless deadlock? It is because each of tic theories them presents us with one side of a truth as if it were the whole. like^n* ^ or OPP 05 ^ 6 as th e doctrines of Herakleitos and Parmenides complete, may appear, they are in fact mutually complementary, and neither iallT*com- * s actua ^y **** except in conjunction with its rivaL Herakleitos plementary did well in affirming Motion ; but he forgot that, if Motion is to other the ^ there must likewise be Rest : for opposite requires opposite, fusion of So too Parmenides in denying plurality saw not that he thereby the work* abolished unity: for One and Many can exist only in mutual left to correlation each is meaningless without the other. Both must Plato. INTRODUCTION. 9 exist, or neither : the two are as inseparable as concave and convex. Here then lies the radical difference between Parmenides and Plato. Parmenides said, Being is at rest, therefore Motion is not; Being is one, therefore Multitude is not ; Being is, therefore Not- being is not at all. Plato said, since there is Rest, there must be Motion ; since Being is one, it must also be many ; that Being may really be, Not-being must also be real. The chasm between the two sides must be bridged, the antinomy conciliated : Rest must agree with Motion, Unity with Multitude, Being with Not- being. But, it may be objected, is not this the very thing we just now said that the theory of Herakleitos achieved ? is not his great merit to have shown that each thing becomes, that is to say, it is at once and is not? True, Herakleitos shows this in the case of particulars : he exhibits 'is' and 'is not' combined in the processes of material nature. But as his universal result he gives us the negation of Being, just as Parmenides gives us the negation of Not-Being: each in the universal is one-sided. This Becoming, to which Herakleitos points in the material world, must be the symbol of a far profounder truth, of which Herakleitos never dreamed, which even Plato failed at first to realise. So then these are our results up to the present point. On the one side we have Multitude, Motion, Becoming; on the other Unity, Rest, Being. The two rival principles confront each other in sheer opposition, stiff, unyielding, impracticable. And till they can be reconciled, human thought is at a standstill. The partisans of either side waste their strength in idle wrangling that ends in nothing. And indeed, as we have them so far, these two principles are hopelessly conflicting: some all-powerful solvent must be found which shall be able to subdue them and hold them in coalescence. Now this very thing is the contribution of the last of the three great thinkers who are at present under considera- tion: he brought into the light, though he could not use, the medium wherein the fundamental antithesis of things was to be reconciled. 9. Anaxagoras belongs to the Ionian school of thought and Anaxago- mainly concerned himself with physics. But such was the ras> originality of his genius and such the importance of his service to philosophy that he stands forth from the rest, as prominent and imposing a figure as Herakleitos himself. With his physical 10 INTROD UCTION. Anaxago- ras and causation. theories we are not now concerned, since it is the development of Greek metaphysic alone which we are engaged in tracing. Anaxagoras distinguished himself by the postulation of Mind as an efficient cause: therefore it is that Aristotle says he came speaking the words of soberness after men that idly babbled. All was chaos, says Anaxagoras, till Mind came and ordered it, Now what is the meaning of this saying, as he understood it? First we must observe that the teaching of Anaxagoras is not antithetical to that of either Herakleitos or Parmenides, as these two are to each other: he takes up new ground altogether. His doctrine of vous is antagonistic to the opinions of Empedokles and of the atomists. Empedokles assumes Love and Hate as the causes of union and disunion. But herein he really introduces nothing new; he merely gives a poetical half-personification to the forces which are at work in nature. The atomists, conceiving their elemental bodies darting endlessly through infinite space, assigned as the cause of their collision TVXTJ or dvdyKrj, by which they meant an inevitable law operating without design, a blind force inherent in nature. This is what Anaxagoras gainsaid: to him effect required a cause, motion a movent. Now he observed that within his experience individual minds are the cause of action: what more likely then, he argued, than that the motions of nature as a whole are caused by a universal mind? It did not seem probable to him that a universe ordered as this is could be the chance product of blindly moving particles; he thought he saw in it evidence of intelligent design. He knew of but one form of intelligence the mind of living creatures, and chiefly of man. Mind then, he thought, must be the originator of order in the universe a mind transcending the human intelligence by so much as the operations of nature are mightier than the works of man. Thus then he postulated an efficient cause distinct from the visible nature which it governed. This leads us briefly to compare his attitude towards causation with that of Herakleitos and Parmenides. Herakleitos sought for no efficient cause. The impulse of transmutation is inherent in his elemental fire, and he looks no further. Why things are in perpetual mutation is a question which he does not profess to answer; it is enough, he would say, to have affirmed a principle that will account for the phenomena of the universe: it is neither necessary nor possible to supply a reason why the universe exists on this principle. And in fact every philosophy INTR OD UCTION. \ I must at some point or other return the same reply. Herakleitos then conceives a motive force to exist in matter, but seeks not any ulterior cause thereof. The Eleatics simply abolished causation altogether. Since the One alone exists and changes never, it is the cause of nothing either to itself or to anything else. Causation in fact implies Becoming, and is thus excluded from the Eleatic system. No attempt is made to establish any relation of causality between the One and the Many, since the latter are absolutely negated. Nor does Parmenides in his treatise on the objects of Opinion make any effort to account for the apparent existence of the multitude of material particulars. Anaxagoras is thus the first with whom the conception of an efficient cause came to the front; and herein, however defective may have been his treatment of the subject, his claim of originality is indefeasible. 10. The shortcomings of the Anaxagorean theory have been Deficien- dwelt upon both by Plato and by Aristotle. Plato found indeed ciesof An- much in Anaxagoras with which he could sympathise. His conception that Intelligence, as opposed to the atomistic dvdyKr], is the motive cause in nature, is after Plato's own heart. But after advancing so far, Anaxagoras stops short. Plato complains that he employs his Intelligence simply as a mechanical cause, as a source of energy, whereby he may have his cosmical system set in motion. But if, says Plato, the "PX 9 ? f l ^ e universe is an intelligent mind, this must necessarily be ever aiming at the best in its ordering of the universe no explanation can be adequate which is not thoroughly teleological. But Anaxagoras does not represent 'the best' as the cause why things are as they are : having assumed his vous as a motive power, he then, like all the rest, assigns only physical and subsidiary causes. The final cause has in fact no place in the philosophy of Anaxagoras. Nor does he ever regard Mind as the indwelling and quickening essence of Nature, far less as her substance and reality. On the contrary Mind is but an external motive power supplying the necessary impetus whereby the universe may be constructed on mechanical principles. Material phenomena stand over against it as an independent existence; they are ordered and controlled by Mind, but are not evolved from it, nor in any way conciliated with it. Thus we see how far Anaxagoras was from realising the immeasurable importance of the principle which he 1 2 INTRO D UCTION. himself contributed to metaphysics, the conception of a causative mind. And so his philosophy ends in a dualism of the crudest type. Results. ii. And now we have lying before us the materials out of which, with the aid of a hint or two gained from Sokrates, Plato was to construct an idealistic philosophy. These materials consist of the three principles enunciated by the three great teachers whose views we have been considering 1 . These principles we may term by different names according to the mode of viewing them Motion, Rest, Life; Multiplicity, Unity, Thought; Becoming, Being, Soul: all these triads amount to the same. But however pregnant with truth these conceptions may prove to be, they are thus far impotent and sterile to the utmost. Each is presented to us in helpless isolation, incapable by itself of affording an explanation of things or a basis of knowledge. To bring them to light was only for men of genius, rightly to conciliate and coordinate them required the supreme genius of all. Like the bow of Odysseus, they await the hand of the master who alone can wield them. The One of Parmenides and the Many pf Herakleitos must be united in the Mind of Anaxagoras : that is to say, unity and plurality must be shown as two necessary and inseparable modes of soul's existence, before a philosophy can arise that is indeed worthy of the name. And it is very necessary to realise that to all appearance nothing could be more hopeless than the deadlock at which philosophical speculation had arrived: every way seemed to have been tried, and not one led to know- 1 It may be thought strange that I between the Pythagorean theory of here make no mention of the Pytha- numbers and the Platonic theory of goreans. But the Pythagorean in- ideas a resemblance sufficient to in- fluence on Platonism has been grossly duce Aristotle to draw a comparison overrated. Far too much importance between them in the first book of the has often been attached to the state- metaphysics. But that the similarity ments of late and untrustworthy au- was merely external is plain from thorities, or to fragments attributed Aristotle's own account, and also that on most unsubstantial grounds to the significance to be attached to the Pythagorean writers. All that we Pythagorean numbers had been left can safely believe about Pythagorean in an obscurity which probably could philosophising is to be found, apart not have been cleared up by the from what Plato tells us, in Aristotle : authors of the theory. We may doubt- and from his statements we may less accept the verdict of Aristotle in pretty fairly infer that they had no a somewhat wider sense than he real metaphysical system at all. There meant by the words \lav dirXwi is indeed some superficial resemblance INTR OD UCTION. 1 3 ledge. The natural result was that men despaired of attaining philosophic truth. 12. Before we proceed further, perhaps a few words are Empedo- due to Empedokles. For he seems to have been dimly conscious of the necessity to amalgamate somehow or other the principles which Herakleitos and Parmenides had enunciated, the principles of Rest and Motion. But of any scientific method whereby this should be done he had not the most distant conception. His scheme is crudely physical, a mere mechanical juxtaposition of the two opposites /uis re SiaAXa^'s TC //.(.ye'vTwv : a real ontological fusion of them was utterly beyond his thought. Still, although he really contributes nothing to the solution of the problem concerning the One and Many, the fact that he did grope as it were in darkness after it is worthy of notice. 13. The hopelessness of discovering any certain verity con- The cerning the nature of things found an expression in the sophistic ^p^i*]} movement This phase of Greek thought need not detain us Protago- long, since it did nothing directly for the advancement of meta- ras> physical inquiry. It is possible enough that the new turn which the sophists gave to men's thoughts may have done something to prepare the way for psychological introspection, and their studies in grammar and language can hardly have been other than beneficial to the nascent science of logic. From our present point of view however the only member of the profession that need be mentioned is Protagoras, who was probably the clearest and acutest thinker among them all, and who is interesting because Plato has associated his name with some of his own developments of the Herakleitean theory. The historical Pro- tagoras probably did little or nothing more in this direction than to popularise some of the teaching of Herakleitos and to give it a practical turn. What seems true to me, he said, is true for me ; what seems true to you is true for you : there is no absolute standard TTO.VTWV xp^arcuv /xeVpov avOpwrros. Therefore let us abandon all the endeavours to attain objective truth and turn our minds to those practical studies which really profit a man. The genuine interest of the doctrine of the relativity of knowledge, which Protagoras broached, is to be found in Plato's develop- ment of it ; and this will be considered in its proper place. So far as concerns our present study, we see in Protagoras only a striking representative of the reaction against the earlier dogmatic philosophy. 1 4 JNTR OD UCTION. Sokrates. 14. Into the question whether Sokrates was a sophist or not we are not concerned to enter. And, deep as was the mark which he left on his time, we need not, since our inquiry deals with metaphysics, linger long with him : for whatever meta- physical importance Sokrates possesses is indirect and may be summed up in a very few words. With Sokrates the ultimate object of inquiry is, not the facts given in experience, but our judgments concerning them. Whereas the physicists had thought to attain knowledge by speculation upon the natural phenomena themselves, Sokrates, by proceeding inductively to a classification and definition of various groups of phenomena, substituted concepts for things as the object of cognition. By comparing a number of particulars which fall under the same class, we are enabled to strip off whatever accidental attributes any of them may possess and retain only what is common and essential to all. Thus we arrive at the concept or universal notion of the thing : and since this universal is the sole truth about the thing, so far as we are able to arrive at truth, it follows that only universals are the object of knowledge, so far as we are able to attain it. This Sokratic doctrine, that knowledge is of universals is the germ of the Platonic principle that know- ledge is of the ideas : and though, as we shall see, a too close adherence to it led Plato astray at first, it remained, since there was a Plato to develope it, a substantial contribution to philo- sophical research. Plato: two X 5- We are now in a position to appreciate the nature stages to of the work which lay before Plato and of the materials which guished in ne found ready to his hand. We have seen that philosophy, his treat- properly speaking, did not yet exist, though the incomposite the meta- elements of it were there ready for combination. Now it would physical be a very improbable supposition that Plato realised at first sight the full magnitude and the exact nature of the problem he had to encounter : and a careful study of his works leads, I believe, to the conclusion that such a supposition would be indefensible 1 . If then this is so if Plato first dealt with the question incompletely and with only a partial knowledge of what he had to do, but afterwards revised and partly remodelled his theory, after he had fully realised the nature of the problem 1 For a full statement of the rea- denned phases of his thought, I must sons for holding that in Plato's dia- refer to Dr Jackson's essays on the logues are to be found two well- later theory of ideas. INTRO D UCTIOtf. 1 5 obviously our business is to investigate his mode of operation at both stages : we must see how he endeavoured in the first instance to escape from the philosophical scepticism which seemed to be the inevitable result of previous speculation, what were the defici- encies he found in the earlier form of his theory, and how he pro- posed to remedy its faults. We must see too how far his concep- tion of the nature of the problem may have altered in the interval between the earlier and the later phase of the ideal theory. To this end it will be necessary to examine Plato's meta- physical teaching as propounded in a group of dialogues, whereof the most important metaphysically are the Republic and Phaedo with which are in accordance the Phaednts, Symposium, Meno, and apparently the Cratylus and next the amended form of their teaching, as it appears in four great dialogues of the later period, Parmenides, Sophist, Philebus, Timaeus ; especially of course the last. The Sokratic dialogues may be dismissed as not bearing upon our question. 1 6. Plato had thoroughly assimilated the physical teaching Plato of Herakleitos. He held no less strongly than the Ionian philo- sopher the utter instability and fluidity of material nature. We tean stand are not perhaps at liberty to allege the very emphatic language P omt> of the Theaetetus as evidence that this was his view in the earlier phase of his philosophy, with which we are at present dealing : but there is abundant proof within the limits of the Republic and Phaedo; see Republic 4796, Phaedo 788. He therefore, like Protagoras, was bound to draw his inference from the Hera- kleitean principle. The inference drawn by Protagoras was that speculation is idle, knowledge impossible. The inference drawn by Plato was that, since matter cannot be known, there must be some essence transcending matter, which alone is the object of knowledge. And furthermore this immaterial essence must be the cause and sole reality of material phenomena. Thus it was Plato's acceptance of the Herakleitean TrdvTa. pei, together with his refusal to infer from it the impossibility of knowledge, that led him to idealism. At this point the hint from Sokrates is worked in. What Thecontri- manner of immaterial essence is it which we are to seek as the gokrates object of knowledge ? Plato cordially adopted the Sokratic and the principle that universals alone can be known. But the Sokratic ^ as universal, being no substantial existence but merely a con- presented ception in our own mind, will not meet Plato's demand for a 1 6 INTR OD UCT1ON. self-existent intelligible essence. Plato therefore hypostatises the Sokratic concept, declaring that every such concept is but our mental adumbration of an eternal and immutable idea. Thus in every class of material things we have an idea, whereof the particulars are the material images, and the concept which we form from observation of the particulars is our mental image of it. Immaterial essence then exists in the mode of eternal ideas or forms, one of which corresponds to every class, not only of concrete things, but of attributes and relations, of all things in fact which we call by the same class-name (Republic 5 96 A). The particulars exist, so far as they may be said to exist, through inherence of the ideas in them at least this is the way Plato usually puts it, though in Phaedo IOOD he declines to commit himself to a definition of the relation. These ideas are arranged in an ascending scale : lowest we have the ideas of concrete things, next those of abstract qualities, and finally the supreme Idea of the Good, which is the cause of existence to all the other ideas, and hence to material nature as well Now since, as we have seen, there is an idea corresponding to every group of particulars, we may note the following classes of ideas in the theory of the Republic: (i) the idea of the good; (2) ideas of qualities akin to the good, KCIAOV, Sucaiov and the like ; (3) ideas of natural objects, as man, horse ; (4) ideas of cncevaoTa, guch as beds or tables ; (5) ideas of relations, as equal, like ; (6) ideas of qualities antagonistic to good, aSucov, aurxpov, and so forth (Republic 476 A). Thus then we have the multitude of particulars falling under the above six classes deriving their existence from a number of causative immaterial essences, which in turn derive their own existence from one supreme essence, to wit, the idea of the good. The particulars themselves cannot be known, because they have no abiding existence : but by observation and classification of the particulars we may ascend from concept to concept until we attain to the apprehension of the auro dyaOw, whence we pass to the cognition of the other ideas. Thus Plato offers us a theory of knowledge which shall enable us to escape from metaphysical Predica- scepticism. But he also offers us in the theory of ideas his solution tion. Q a p ressm g logical difficulty the difficulty raised by Antisthenes and others as to the possibility of predication. The application of the ideal theory to this question is to be found in Phaedo 102 B. Predication signifies that the idea of the quality predicated is INTRODUCTION. 17 inherent in the subject whereof it is predicated : if we say ' Sokrates is small,' we do not, as Antisthenes would have it, identify ' Sokrates ' and ' small,' but simply indicate that Sokrates partakes of the inherent idea of smallness. Thus we find in the doctrine of ideas on the metaphysical side a theory of knowledge, on the logical side a theory of predication. 17. Such is Plato's first essay to solve the riddle bequeathed The him by his predecessors. Let us try to estimate the merits and deficiencies of his solution. Plato's The bold originality of Plato's theory is conspicuous at a ^eory. glance. In the first place, by proclaiming the Absolute Good as The source the sole source of existence, he identifies the ontological with the of Being ethical first principle, the formal with the final cause. Thus he Good the makes good the defect whereof he complained in the philosophy same, of Anaxagoras. For in the Platonic system a theory of being is most intimately bound up with a theory of final causes : ontology and teleology go hand in hand. Everything exists exactly in proportion as it fulfils the end of being as perfect as possible ; for just in that degree it participates in the idea of the good, which is the ultimate source of all existence. In just the same way he escapes from the utilitarian doctrine of Protagoras, by deducing his ethical teaching from the very fount of existence itself. Thus he finds one and the same cause for the existence of each thing and for its goodness. A good thing is not merely good relatively to us : as it exists by participating in the idea of the good, so it is good by resembling the idea ; the participation is the cause of the resemblance. Hence good is identified with existence, evil with non-existence; and, as I have said, each thing exists just in so far as it is good, and no further. Again in the ideal theory we for the first time reach a Concep- conception, and a very distinct conception, of immaterial existence. tio f j m ~ Perhaps we are a little liable to be backward in realising what a existence, huge stride in advance this was. I will venture to affirm that there is not one shadow of evidence in all that we possess of preplatonic utterances to show that any one of Plato's predecessors had ever so remote a notion of immateriality. Parmenides, who would gladly have welcomed idealism, is as much to seek as any one in his conception of it. And when we see such a man as Parmenides 'the reverend and awful' with all his 'noble profundity' hopelessly left behind, we may realise what an invincible genius it was that shook from its wings the materialistic bonds that clogged P. T. 2 18 JNTROD UCTION. Distinction between perceiving and think- ing. Plato works in whatever is valid in Heraklei- tos, Par- menides and Anax- agoras. Deficien- cies of the earlier Platonism. Heraklei- tos and Parmeni- des not yet con- ciliated. both thought and speech and rose triumphant to the sphere of the 'colourless and formless and intangible essence which none but reason the soul's pilot is permitted to behold.' And as the material and immaterial are for the first time distinguished, so between perception and thought is the line for the first time clearly drawn. Perception is the soul's activity as conditioned by her material environment ; thought her unfettered action according to her own nature : by the former she deals with the unsubstantial flux of phenomena, by the latter with the immutable ideas. Plato then recognises and already seeks to conciliate the conflicting principles of Herakleitos and Parmenides. He satisfies the demand of the Eleatics for a stable and uniform object of cognition, while he concedes to Herakleitos that in the material world all is becoming, and to Protagoras that of this material world there can be no knowledge nor objective truth. He also affirms with Anaxagoras that mind or soul is the only motive power in nature soul alone having her motion of herself is the cause of motion to all things else that are moved. Thus we see that Plato has taken up into his philosophy the great principles enounced by his forerunners and given them a significance and validity which they never had before. 1 8. Now had Plato stopped short with the elaboration of the philosophical scheme of which an outline has just been given, his service to philosophy would doubtless have been immense and would still probably have exceeded the performance of any one man besides. But he does not stop short there nay, he is barely half way on his journey. We have now to consider what defects he discovered in the earlier form of his theory, and how he set about amending them. First we must observe that the conciliation of Herakleitos and Parmenides is only just begun. It is in fact clear that Plato, although recognising the truth inherent in each of the rival theories, had, when he wrote the Republic, no idea how completely interdependent were the two truths. For in the Republic his con- cern is, not how he may harmonise the Herakleitean and Eleatic principles as parts of one truth, but how, while satisfying the just claims of Becoming, he may establish a science of Being. He simply makes his escape from the Herakleitean world of Becoming into an Eleatic world of Being. And the world of Becoming is for him a mere superfluity, he does not recognise it as an INTRODUCTION. 19 inevitable concomitant of the world of Being. This amounts to saying that he does not yet recognise the Many as the inevitable counterpart to the One. Plato is in fact still too Eleatic. He does not roundly reject Pheno- the material world altogether: he sees that some explanation of it ^"^tely is necessary, and endeavours to explain it as deriving a kind of explained, dubious existence from the ideas. But this part of his theory was, as he himself seems conscious, quite vague and shadowy: the existence or appearance of material nature is left almost as great a mystery as ever. And, as we shall see, the nature of the ideas themselves is not satisfactorily made out, still less their relation to the avro dyaOov. Plato is also too Sokratic. He allows the Sokratic element Necessity in his system to carry weight which oversets the balance of the ^g^ 1112 whole. We have seen that, owing to his admission of a hypostasis of ideas, corresponding to every Sokratic concept, we have among the denizens of the ideal world ideas of o-Kcuaora, of relations, and of things that are evil. In the first place the proposition that there exist in nature eternal types of artificial things seems very dubious metaphysic. Again, we have only to read the Phaedo in order to perceive what perplexities beset the ideas of relations'. Finally, the derivation from the supreme good of ideal evil is a difficulty exceeding in gravity all the rest. Clearly then the list of ideas needs revision. Moreover but scant justice is done to the Anaxagorean Principle principle of vovs. Plato had indeed supplied the teleological " O . w u ^" deficiency of Anaxagoras ; but we have no hint yet of soul as the substance and truth of all nature, spiritual and material, nor of the conciliation of unity and multitude as modes of soul's existence. Nor have we any adequate theory to explain the relation of particular souls to phenomena and to the ideas. Even the Herakleitean principle itself is not carried deep enough. It is not sufficient to recognise its universal validity in the world of matter. For if there be any truth in Becoming, this must lie deeper than the mere mutability of the material world: the changefulness of matter must be some expression of changeless truth. I conceive then we may expect to see in Plato's revised Summary. theory (i) a more drastic treatment of the problem concerning the One and the Many, (2) a searching inquiry into the relation between ideas and particulars, (3) a large expurgation of the list 1 For instance Phaedo 102 B. 2 2 20 INTRODUCTION. of ideas, (4) a theory of the relation of soul, universal and particular, to the universe. The answer to these problems may be latent in the earlier Platonism : but Plato has not yet realised the possibilities of his theory. By the time he has done this, we find most important modifications effected in it. Still they are but modifications: Plato's theory remains the theory of ideas, and none other, to the end. The Par- 19. The severe and searching criticism to which Plato sub- menides. j ec t s his own theory is begun in the Parmenides. This remarkable dialogue falls into two divisions of very unequal length. In the first part Parmenides criticises the earlier form of the theory of ideas ; in the second he applies himself to the investigation of the One, and of the consequences which ensue from the assumption either of its existence or of its non-existence. The discussion of the ideal theory in the first part turns upon the relation between idea and particulars. Sokrates offers several alternative suggestions as to the nature of this relation, all of which Parmenides shows to be subject to the same or similar objections. The purport of his criticisms maybe summed up as follows: (i) if particulars par- ticipate in the idea, each particular must contain either the whole idea or a part of it ; in the one case the idea exists as a number of separate wholes, in the other it is split up into fractions ; and, whichever alternative we accept, the unity of the idea is equally sacrificed : (2) we have the difficulty known as the rpiVos av- Opwiros if all things which are like one another are like by virtue of participation in the same idea, then, since idea and particulars resemble each other, they must do so by virtue of resembling some higher idea which comprehends both idea and particulars, and so forth ets aTreipov : (3) if the ideas are absolute substantial existences, there can be no relation between them and the world of particulars : ideas are related to ideas, particulars to particulars ; intelligences which apprehend ideas cannot apprehend particulars, and vice versa. It may be observed that the second objection is not aimed at the proposition that particulars resemble one another because they resemble the same idea, but against the hypothesis that because particulars in a given group resemble each other it is necessary to assume an idea corresponding to that group. Sokrates is unable to parry these attacks upon his theory, but in the second part of the dialogue Plato already prepares a way of escape. In the eight hypotheses comprised in this section of the dialogue Parmenides examines TO v, conceived in several different INTRO D UCTION. 2 1 senses with the view of ascertaining what are the consequences both of the affirmation and of the negation of its existence to TO ev itself and to raXXa TOV evoV The result is that in some cases both, in other cases neither, of two strings of contradictory epithets can be predicated of TO tv or of TaXAo. If both series of epithets can be predicated, TO ev can be thought and known, if neither, it cannot be thought nor known 1 . Now in the latter category we find a conception of ev corresponding to the Eleatic One and to the idea of the earlier Platonism. The positive result of the Parmenides then is that the ideal theory must be so revised as to be delivered from the objections formulated in the first part : the second part points the direction which reform is to take. We must give up looking upon One and Many, like and unlike, and so forth, as irreconcilable opposites : we must conceive them as coexisting and mutually complementary. Thus is clearly struck the keynote of the later Platonism, the conciliation of contraries. In this way Plato now evinces his perfect consciousness of the necessity to harmonise the principles of his Ionian and Eleate forerunners, giving to each its due and equal share of importance. 20. It will be convenient to take the Theaetetus next 2 . The The- This dialogue, starting from the question what is knowledge, a presents us with Plato's theory of perception a theory which entirely harmonises with the teaching of the Timaeus and in part supplements it. This theory Plato evolves by grafting the p-crpov ai>0pr) OTL dor) eoTiv OTTOO-O. .\v TWJ/ irpos TI TTOIOVO~IV iScas, c5v ov ayu,ev cTvai naff avro ye'vos. Relations were undoubtedly included among the ideas of the earlier period ; yet, since, as we have seen, they are rejected in the later, Aristotle simply denies their existence without reference to the earlier view. 24 INTR OD UCTION. Thus then, sweeping away all ideas of o-Kevaora, we are able to affirm that in Plato's later metaphysic there are ideas corre- sponding only to classes of particulars which are determined by nature, and none corresponding to artificial groups. The 23. In the Phikbus we come for the first time to construc- J ' tive ontology. We have the entire universe classed under four heads Limit, Trepas the Unlimited, avfipov the Limited, P.IKTOV the Cause of limitation, alria rrjs /uc9. In this classification Trepas is form, as such ; aTmpov is matter, as such ; /UKTOV is matter defined by form; amo. -riys /u'o>s is the efficient cause which brings this information to pass : and this efficient cause is declared to be the universal Intelligence or voi)s. The objects of material nature are the result of a union between a principle of form and a formless substrate, the latter being indeterminate and ready to accept impartially any determination that is im- pressed upon it. It is not indeed correct to say that the aTrapov of the Phikbus is altogether formless : it is indeterminately qualified, and the Trepas does but define the quantity. For example, oVeipoi/ is 'hotter and colder,' that is, indeterminate in respect of temperature : the effect of the Trepas is to determine the tem- perature. The result of this determination is JUKTO'V, i.e. a substance possessing a definite degree of heat. The analysis of the material element given in the Phikbus therefore falls far short, as we shall see, of the analysis in the Timaeus. It is not however the Trepas itself which informs the aVeipov : Plato speaks of the informing element as Trepas ex ov or 7r P aTO s yeVva. This it is which enters into combination with matter, not the Trepas itself. What then is the Trepas l\ov ? I think we cannot err in identifying it with the ewriovra KCU eioWa of the Timaeus ; i. e. the forms which enter into the formless substrate, generating /xi/Aif- fiara of the ideas, and which vanish from thence again. The Trepas l^ov will then be the Aristotelian eTSos the form inherent in all qualified things and having no separate existence apart from things. Every sensible thing then consists of two elements, logically distinguishable but actually inseparable, form and matter. Nowhere in the material universe do we find form without matter or matter without form. Form then or limit, as manifested in material objects, must be carefully distinguished from the absolute Trepas itself, which does not enter into communion with matter : but every Trepas e^ov possesses the principle of limitation, which it imposes upon the oVeipov wherewith it is combined. INTRODUCTION. 25 But what is the Tre'pas itself? I think we are not in a position to answer this question until we have considered the Timaeus. But the nature of the reply has been indicated by a hint given us in the Parmentdes, viz. that the ideas are 7rapa8eiy/*aTa eo-rwra eV TTJ by imposing limit, so far assimi- lates the oVeipov to the Tre'pas; consequently the /XIKTOV is the of the Trepas as irapdSfiyfjLa. We may therefore regard the as the ideal type to which the particulars approximate. Thus we derive from the Philebus a hint of the paradeigmatic character of the idea, which assumes its full prominence in the Timaeus. This part of the theory however cannot be adequately dealt with until we have examined the latter dialogue. The most important metaphysical results of the Philebus may thus, I conceive, be enumerated : (i) the assertion of universal mind as the efficient cause, and as the source of particular minds, (2) the distinction of the formal and material element in things, (3) the theory of matter as such, rudimentary as it is, which is given us in the aTretpov. 24. Besides this, the Philebus enables us to make another ideas of very important deduction from the number of ideas. We now f vl1 no , . ..... longer ad- regard the particular as resembling the idea in virtue of its in- mined. formation by the Trepas f-\ov. And in so far as this information is complete the particular is a satisfactory copy of the idea. Now let us represent any class of particulars or /xi/cra by the area of a circle. The centre of this circle would be marked by the par- ticular, if such could be found, which is a perfect material copy of the idea that particular in which the formal and material elements are blended in exactly the right way. Let us suppose the other particulars to be denoted by various points within the circle in every direction at different distances from the centre. Now in so far as the particulars approximate to the centre, they are like the idea, and by virtue of their common resemblance to the idea they resemble each other. Such particulars then as resemble each other because of their common resemblance to the idea are called by the class-name appropriate to the idea. But it is clear that particulars may also resemble each other because of a similar divergence from the idea: we may have a number of them clustering round a point within our circle far remote from the centre and therefore very imperfectly representing the idea. Such particulars have a class-name not derived from the idea, but de- noting a similar divergence from the idea. A word denoting 26 INTR OD UCTION. Advance made in the four dialogues on the metaphy- sic of the earlier period. divergence from the idea denotes evil. Therefore there are class- names of evil things ; but such class-names do not presuppose a corresponding idea : they simply indicate that the particulars com- prehended by them fall short of the idea in a similar manner. For example : a human being who should exactly represent the avro o tvnv dv0pu)7ros would be perfectly beautiful and per- fectly healthy. But in fact humanity is sometimes afflicted with deformity and sickness: we have accordingly class-names for these evils. But one who is deformed or sick fails, to the extent of his sickness or deformity, in representing the ideal type : these class- names then do not represent an idea but a certain falling-off from the idea. Hence we have no idea of fever, because fever is only a mode of deviation from the type ' ; and the same is true of all other imperfections. Thus at one stroke we are rid of all ideas of evil. 25. Let us now pause to consider how far these four dialogues have carried us in the work of reconstruction, and how much awaits accomplishment. In the first place, the elimination of spurious ideas is fully achieved. The Sophist frees us from ideas of relations, the Philebus from those of evil ; while o-KeuaoTa are rejected on the strength of Aristotle's testimony, confirmed by the total absence of reference to them in the later dialogues : accordingly we have now ideas corresponding only to classes naturally determined. It seems to me manifest that ideas of qualities must also be banished from the later Platonism ; and on this point too we have the negative evidence that they are never mentioned in the later dialogues; but there is no direct statement respecting them. We have also a clear recognition, especially prominent in the Parmenides, of the indissoluble partnership between One and Many, Rest and Motion, Being and Not-being. The necessity for reconciling these apparent opposites is distinctly laid down, though the conciliation is not yet worked out. The acknowledgement of soul as the one existence, from which all finite souls are de- rived, and as the one efficient cause is a notable advance, as is also the theory of the Theaetetus concerning the relation between particular souls and material nature. And finally we have the analysis of OVTO. into their formal and material elements, and the still immature conception of matter as a potentiality. 1 In the Phaedo, on the contrary, we definitely have an idea of fever : see 105 c. INTR OD UCTION. 27 Moreover, putting the Theaetetus and Philebus together, we obtain a result of peculiar importance. From the latter we learn that finite souls are derived from the universal soul, from the former that material objects are but the perceptions of finite souls. The conclusion is inevitable, since the objects which con- stitute material nature do not exist outside the percipient souls, and since these percipient souls are part of the universal soul, that material nature herself is a phase of the universal soul, which is thus the sum total of existence. Thus we have the plainest possible indication of the ontological theory which is set forth in the Timaeus ; though, as usual, Plato has not stated this doctrine in so many words, but left us to draw the only possible inference from his language. 26. Yet great as is the progress that has been made, even Deficien- more remains to be achieved : and it is to the Timaeus that we " es stl11 to be sup- must look for fulfilment. plied. Although the fundamental problem of the One and the Many is now fairly faced, the solution is not yet worked out. Nor is the relation between the universal efficient Intelligence and the world of matter clearly established : the failure of Anaxagoras in this regard remains still unremedied. Also (what is the same thing viewed in another way) the relation between ideas and par- ticulars is left undefined. Nay, in this respect we seem yet worse off than we were in the Republic. For the old unification, such as it was, has disappeared, and no new one has taken its place. Formerly we were content to say that the particulars participated in the ideas, and from the ideas derived their existence. But now this consolation is denied us. We have the ideas entirely separate from the particulars, as types fixed in nature ; and no explanation is offered as to how material nature came to exist, or seem to exist, over against them. We have the 'subjective idealism' of the Theaetetus^ and that is all. In fact, while we vindicate the idea as a unity, we seem to sacrifice it as a cause. Furthermore we desiderate a clearer account of the relation between the supreme idea and the inferior ideas, and also between limited intelligences and the infinite intelligence : nor can we be satisfied without a much more thorough investigation into the nature of materiality. And the answers to all these questions must be capable of being duly subordinated to one compre- hensive system. Now if the Timaeus supplies in any reasonable degree a solution 28 INTRODUCTION. The cen- tral meta- physical doctrine of the Timaeus. of the aforesaid problems, it seems to me that no more need be said about the importance of the dialogue. 27. In the Ttmaeus Plato has given us his ontological scheme in the form of a highly mystical allegory. I propose in the first place to give a general statement of what I conceive to be the metaphysical interpretation of this allegory, reserving various special points for after consideration 1 . The ontological teaching of this dialogue, though abounding in special difficulties, can in my belief be very clearly apprehended, if we but view it in the light afforded us by the other writings of this period ; on which in turn it sheds an equal illumination. In the Timaeus then the universe is conceived as the self- evolution of absolute thought. There is no more a distinction between mind and matter, for all is mind. All that exists is the self-moved differentiation of the one absolute thought, which is the same as the Idea of the Good. For the Idea of the Good is Being, and the source of it ; and from the Sophist we have learnt that Being is Mind. And from the Parmenides we have learnt that Being which is truly existent must be existent in two modes : it must be one and it must be many. For since One has meaning only when contrasted with Many, Being, forasmuch as it is One, demands that Many shall be also. But since Being alone exists, Being must itself be that Many. Again, Being is the same with itself; but Same has no meaning except as correlated with Other; so Being must also be Other. Once more, Being is at rest ; Rest requires its opposite, Motion; therefore Being is also in motion. Seeing then that Being is All, it is both one and many, both same and other, both at rest and in motion : it is the synthesis of every antithesis. The material universe is Nature manifesting herself in the form of Other : it is the one changeless thought in the form of mutable multitude. Thus does dualism vanish in the final identi- fication of thought and its object : subject and object are but different sides of the same thing. Thought must think: and since Thought alone exists, it can but think itself 8 . 1 Considering that the exposition here offered deals with matters of much controversy, my statement may be thought unduly categorical and dogmatic. In reply I would urge that difficulties of interpretation and the manner in which Plato's meaning comes out are pretty copiously dis- cussed in the commentary. At pre- sent I am aiming at making my story as clear as possible, to which end I have given results rather than processes. What I conceive to be the justification for the views advanced will, I hope, appear in the course of my exposition. 2 It is easy to see that Aristotle's INTRODUCTION. 29 Yet, though matter is thus resolved into a mode of spirit, it is not therefore negated. It is no longer contemptuously ignored or dismissed with a metaphor. Matter has its proper place in the order of the universe and a certain reality of its own. Though it has no substantial being, it has a meaning. For Nature, seeing that she is a living soul, evolves herself after a fixed inevitable design, in which all existence, visible and invisible, finds its rightful sphere and has its appointed part to play in the harmony of the universe. But there is more to be said ere we can enter upon the nature of matter. 28. The universal mind, we say, must exist in the form of Pluralisa- plurality as well as in the form of unity. How does this come t] to pass ? The hint for our guidance is to be found in the Phi- mind in lebus, where we learn that, as the elements which compose our of^jjj bodies are fragments of the elements which compose the universe, existences, so our souls are fragments, as it were, of the universal soul. Hence we see how the one universal intelligence exists in the mode of plurality : it differentiates itself into a number of finite intelli- gences, and so, without ceasing to be one, becomes many. These limited personalities are of diverse orders, ranging through all degrees of intellectual and conscious life ; those that are nearest the absolute mind, if I may use the phrase, possessing the purest intelligence, which fades into deeper and deeper obscurity in the ranks that are more remote. First stands the intelligence of gods, which enjoys in the highest degree the power of pure unfettered thought ; next comes the human race, possessing an inferior but still potent faculty of reason. Then as we go down the scale of animate beings, we see limitation fast closing in upon them intelligence grows ever feebler and sensation ever in proportion stronger, until, passing beyond the forms in which sensation appears to reign alone, we come in the lowest organisms of animal and vegetable life to beings wherein sensation itself seems to have sunk to some dormant state below the level of consciousness. Yet all these forms of life, from the triumphant intellect of a god to the green scum that gathers on a stagnant pool, are modes of one universal all-pervading Life. Reason may degenerate to sensation, sensation to a mere faculty of growth ; vb-r\a likewise. Or let us put it in another way. We have been led to identify the supreme intelligence with the auro dyaOov. We have said too that this supreme intelligence or idea pluralises itself into finite existences, and that it determines itself into special ideas. Now do not this INTRODUCTION. 35 pluralisation and this determination constitute one act? Is not the evolution of Mind in the form of human minds the same process as the determination of the idea of Man ? If this be so, then, since Mind can only pluralise itself in the form of living beings, it can only determine itself into ideas of taXij: but it in no way requires the existence of any ideas of these things. There is however the passage 516, in which an idea of fire is distinctly mentioned. I think it probable that this passage ought not to be pressed too hard. After he has been speaking of the four material elements, Plato raises the question whether these material substances alone are existent, or whether there is such a thing as immaterial essence : and the four elements being in possession of the stage, it naturally occurs to contrast them with ideal types of the elements. I do not think we are forced to conclude from this that Plato deliberately meant to postulate such ideas. If this explanation be not admitted, I should say that we have in this passage a relic of the older theory, which Plato ought to have eliminated, and would have eliminated, had his attention been drawn to the subject. Practically then I believe that we should regard the ideal world as confined to ideas of <3a. 34. The foregoing account of the metaphysical teaching Summary contained in the Timaeus suffices, I think, to show that in this ofres ' dialogue, taken in conjunction with the other later writings, Plato does offer us a solution of the problems enumerated in 26 as yet unsolved. We now have his theory (i) as to the relation of the efficient mind to material nature, the latter arising from the pluralisation of the former; (2) the relation of the supreme idea to the other ideas, which are determinations of it; (3) the relation of ideas and particulars that the particular is the symbolical presentation of the idea to limited intelligence under the conditions of space and time; (4) the relation between the supreme intelligence and the finite intelligences, into which it differentiates itself; (5) the relation between the finite intelli- gence and material nature, involving an account of matter itself; 1 Metaphysics A iii 1070* 19. 32 36 INTRODUCTION. and (6) we have the fundamental antithesis of One and Many treated with satisfying completeness. Plato is indeed far more profoundly Herakleitean than Herakleitos himself. Not content, like the elder philosopher, with recognising the antithesis of ov and fir) ov as manifested in the world of matter, he shows that this is but the visible symbol of the same antithesis existing in the immaterial realm. True Being itself is One and Many, is Same and Other. Were there not a sense in which we could say that Being is not, there were no sense in which we could say that it verily is. Matter in its mobility, as in all besides, is a likeness of the eternal and changeless type. It now remains to deal with some special features of the dialogue, and to discuss certain objections and difficulties which may seem to us to threaten our interpretation. Difficulty 35. The form which Plato gives to his thoughts in this fromYhe dialogue has greatly multiplied labour to his interpreters. For all allegorical his clearness of thought and lucidity of style Plato is always ^ e most difficult of authors: and in the Timaeus we have the added difficulty of an allegorical strain pervading the whole exposition of an ontological theory in itself sufficiently abstruse. And if we would rightly comprehend the doctrine, we must of course interpret the allegory aright. Plato is the most imagi- native writer produced by the most imaginative of nations ; and he insists on a certain share of imagination in those who would understand him. A blind faithfulness to the letter in this dialogue would lead to a most woful perversion of the spirit. Here, more than in any of Plato's other writings, the conceptions of his reason are instantly decked in the most vivid colours by his poetic fancy. And of all poetical devices none is dearer to Plato than personi- fication. Hence it is that he represents processes of pure thought, which are out of all relation to time and space, as histories or legends, as a series of events succeeding one another in time. In conceiving the laws and relations of mind and matter, the whole thing rises up before his imagination as a grand spectacle, a procession of mighty events passing one by one before him. First he sees the unity of absolute thought, personified as a wise and beneficent creator, compounding after some mysterious law the soul that shall inform this nascent universe: next he descries a doubtful and dreamlike shadow, formless and void, which under the creator's influence, gradually shapes itself into visible existence and is interfused with the world-soul which controls INTR OD UCTION. 3 7 and orders it, wherewith it forms a harmonious whole, a perfect sphere, a rational divine and everlasting being. Next within this universe arise other divine beings, shining with fire and in their appointed orbits circling, which measure the flight of time and make light in the world. Finally, the creator commits to these gods, who are the work of his hands, the creation of all living things that are mortal : for whom they frame material bodies and quicken them with the immortal essence which they receive from the creator. All this is pure poetry, on which Plato has lavished all the richness of imagery and splendour of language at his command. But beneath the veil of poetry lies a depth of philosophical meaning which we must do what in us lies to bring to light. And there is not a single detail in the allegory which it will be safe to neglect. For Plato has his imagination, even at its wildest flight, perfectly under control : the dithyrambs of the Timaeus are as severely logical as the plain prose of the Parme- nides. Most of the details of this myth are considered in the notes as they arise; but there are one or two of its chief features which must be examined here. 36. The central figure in what may be called Plato's cos- How is the mological epic is the o^/uoupyos, or Artificer of the universe. It to^^im. * is evidently of the first importance to determine whether Plato derstood? intends this part of his story to be taken literally; and if not, how his language is to be interpreted. The opinions which have been propounded on this subject may fairly be arranged under three heads. According to the first view the S^/xtovpyo? is a personal God, (0 is he a external to the universe and actually prior to the ideas : to GocT^ex- this appertains one form of the opinion that the ideas are ' the temal to e .^ , , the uni- thoughts of God.' verse and There is but one passage in all Plato's works which can give P". r to the slightest apparent colour to the theory that the ideas are in any sense created or caused by God. This is in Repttblic 597 B D, where God is described as the //xioiy>yo INTRODUCTION. 39 are alike eternal, are we to suppose that there are two separate and distinct Intelligences that is, inasmuch as vous exists in ^v\^ alone, two tyvxal to all eternity existing? What could be gained by such a reduplication? Moreover, if two such ^v-^al exist, there ought to be an idea of them a serious metaphysical compli- cation'. If on the other hand it be maintained that the cosmic soul is an emanation or effluence of the S^/xiovpyo's, this is practi- cally abandoning the present hypothesis in favour of that which is next to be considered. Finally, if the S^/tioupyos is a personal creator, he is certainly which comes to the same in the end. Now the position of the S^iovpyos in the Timaeus is precisely that of vov? /facriAcvs in the Philebus: see Philebus 26 E 28 E. Therefore the , oD ^pos av flrr]v titelvu. The irepi^x " Tfo-vra, oiroffa voT}rd. fo, ptO' argument is the same as in Republic trtpov devTfpov of'K S,v TTOT' elV irdXic 597 c. yap av irepov flvai rd irepl 40 IN TROD UCTION. Applica- tion to the avrb dyaOov. Creation not an arbitrary exercise of will, but the fulfil- ment of eternal law. taining the element not only of the Same, but of the Other also. In other words the 8>//xtovpyos is to the world-soul as the reasoning faculty in the human soul is to the human soul as a whole, in- cluding her emotions and desires. But the reasoning faculty is nothing distinct from the human soul ; it is only a mode thereof. The 8>7jnioiy)yos then is one aspect of the world-soul: he is the world-soul considered as not yet united to the material universe or more correctly speaking, since time is out of the question, he is the world-soul regarded as logically distinguishable from the body of the universe. And since the later Platonism has taught us to regard matter as merely an effect of the pluralisation of mind or thought, the S^toupyos is thought considered as not pluralised absolute thought as it is in its primal unity. As such it is a logical conception only; it has not any real existence as yet, but must exist by self-evolution and consequent self-realisation 1 . These two notions, thought in unity and thought in plurality, are myth- ically represented in the Timaeus, the first by the figure of the creator, the second by the figure of the creation : but the creator and the creation are one and the same, and their self-conscious unity in the living KO'CT/XOS is the reality of both. 39. Now we may apply what has been said to the auro dyaOov. In 27 we identified the on'ro dya0ov with absolute thought or universal spirit. The identity of rous with the dya6ov is plainly affirmed in Philebus 22 c: compare too the language used of vovs in Philebus 26 E with that used of the dyaOov in Republic 508 E. We are justified then in identifying the orjfjuovpyos with the afro dyaOov, so long as the dyadov is conceived as not yet realised by pluralisation. For the realisation of the Good or of Thought comes to pass by the evolution of the One into the Many and the unification of both as a conscious whole. Thus Plato's system is distinctly a form of pantheism : any attempt to separate therein the creator from the creation, except logically, must end in confusion and contradiction. 40. Thus we see that the process which is symbolised in the creation of the universe by the Artificer is no mere arbitrary exercise of power : it is the fulfilment of an inflexible law. The creator does not exist but in creating : or, to drop the metaphor, absolute thought does not really exist unless it is an object to 1 I must guard against being sup- posed to mean that the pluralised thought is more real than the primal unity : only that the existence of both is essential to the reality of either. INTRO D UCTION. 4 1 itself. So then the creator in creating the world creates himself, he is working out his own being. Considered as not creating he has neither existence nor concrete meaning. Thus we have not far to seek for the motive of creation : it is so, because it must be so. A creator who does not create is thought which does not think, being which does not exist : it is no more than the lifeless abstraction of Eleatic unity. After what has been said, it is almost a truism to affirm that The P ro * the process represented in the Timaeus is not to be conceived bolised as occupying time or as having anything whatsoever to do with in .the t nr-r.1 \ t Timaens time. Yet SO potent IS the spell of Plato S irorava. fjia^ava, that it indepen- may not be amiss to insist upon this once more. The whole story d . ent of .... r i r time and is but a symbohsation of the eternal process of thought, which spa ce. is and does not become. All succession belongs to the pheno- mena of thought pluralised ; it is part of the apparatus pertaining to them : but with the process of thought itself time has no more to do than space. It seems therefore vain to discuss, as has often been done, the eternity of the material universe in Plato's system. Considered as one element in the evolution of thought, material nature is of course eternal; but its phenomena, considered in themselves, belong to the sphere of Becoming and have no part in eternity : although, viewed in relation to the whole, time itself is a phase of the timeless, or, as Plato calls it, ' an eternal image of eternity.' 41. Only if we adopt the interpretation of the S^tovpyos The uni- which I have been defending can we understand Plato's statement V if rs f-if s in 920 that the universe is 'the image of its maker' for the ness of its reading TTOIT/TOU is better authenticated than vorjrov. If the KOO-/AOS creator< is the image of its maker, the maker must be identical with the O.VTO o eon <3ov. Now since the icooyxos is Trav, the <3ov cannot be anything outside it : rather it must be the notion which is realised in the universe ; a type not separate from the copy, but fulfilled in the copy and in that fulfilment existing. It must be the unity whereof the KO'O-/U,OS is the expression in multiplicity. Unity is the type, multiplicity the image thereof: and it is necessary that unity, if it is really to exist, must appear also in the form of multiplicity. Thus then must it be with the <3ov. But this is exactly the position we have seen reason for assigning to the S?7/aoupyo's, so that Plato is fully justified in identifying the two. So if we say that the universe is the likeness of its creator, we mean that it is unity manifested in plurality and so realised. 42 INTRODUCTION. The type and the likeness are the same thing viewed on different sides. It is perhaps worth noticing that our view harmonises with Plato's statement in Parmenides 1340, that as absolute knowledge cannot belong to man, so the knowledge of finite things cannot appertain to God. But if God be distinct from the universe, and so far limited, there seems no reason why he should not have knowledge of finite things. A God who is not the All, however much his knowledge may transcend human knowledge, would surely have the same kind of knowledge. But a God whose know- ledge is of the absolute alone is a God whose knowledge is of himself alone ; and such a God must be the universe, not a deity external to the universe. The Koffpos 42. Having thus investigated the relation of the S^/uovpyos and the ^ ^ ^ cosm i c sou i anc i to the material universe, it behoves us to Y v ~X.n TOV Koffpov. make a similar inquiry concerning the relation of the Kooyxos and the i/^x 1 / T v Ko'cr/iou. The ij/v^oyovia of the Timaeus has been treated with some fulness in the commentary, so that a compara- tively brief statement may here suffice by way of supplement. The cosmic soul, like finite souls, consists of three elements of rauTov, Odrepov, and ovcrla : that is to say, the principle of Same, i.e. of unity and rest, of Other, i.e. of variety and motion, of Essence, which signifies the identification of these two in one conscious intelligence. The terms ravrov Odrcpov and ouVta have distinct applications, according to the side from which we regard the subject : these applications I have endeavoured to distinguish in the note on the passage which deals with the question. Let us first look at it thus. The world-soul consists (i) of absolute undifferentiated thought, (2) of this thought differentiated into a multitude of finite existences, and (3) it unites these two elements in a single consciousness. Now of what consists the material part, the body of the Ko'oyxos? Simply of the perceptions of finite consciousnesses. And as these perceptions exist only in the con- sciousness of the percipient souls, so these souls are comprehended in the universal soul, whereof we have seen that finite souls are, as it were, fractional parts. Therefore the cosmic soul comprehends within her own nature all that exists, whether spiritual or material. Thus the only reality of the universe is the soul thereof, which is the one totality of existence. Matter is nothing but the revelation to finite consciousness, in the innumerable modes of its apprehen- sion, of the universal spirit. All that is material is the expression INTRODUCTION. 43 in terms of the visible of the invisible, in terms of space and time of the spaceless and timeless, in terms of Becoming of Being. All sensible Nature is a symbol of the intelligible, and she is what she symbolises. So are all things at last resolved into an ultimate unity, which yet contains within itself all" possible multiplicity ; and Plato's philosophy, shaking off the last remnants of duality, reaches its final culmination in an abso- lute idealism. 43. But is the cosmic soul herself percipient of matter, The cosmic or is such perception confined to limited intelligences ? I think Material the true answer is that the cosmic soul is percipient of matter perception. through the finite souls into which she evolves herself. We may regard her elements, TavroV, Odrcpov, owi'a, either as modes of her existence or as modes of her activity. As a mode of her existence, Odrepov signifies the multitude of finite souls in which she is plu- ralised. As a mode of her activity, Odrepov is sensible perception. But both modes must belong to the same sphere, so that per- ception of matter must belong to that phase of the universal soul which appears as a number of finite souls. Thus then the aggre- gate of perceptions experienced by all finite souls constitute the perception of matter in the cosmic soul : there is no such per- ception by the cosmic soul apart from the perceptions of finite souls. We must observe that in the region which is Odrepov rela- tively to the tyvxj TOV Kou/iov, TO.VTOV and ovcria reappear relatively to the finite souls which constitute that region. Each separate soul must have ravrov also, else it would not have ovaia, it would not substantially exist : and hence the element of Bdrepov in the cosmic soul, and by consequence the cosmic soul herself, would be nonexistent. So each finite soul is a complete miniature copy of the great soul. Accordingly in Plato's similitude we find that the Circle of the Other is constructed of soul which is composed both of Same and of Other. 44. There is yet another question, the answer to which Relation is indeed to be inferred from what has been already said, but which ought perhaps to receive explicit treatment : how are the soul and . ^ the ideas. ideas related to the cosmic soul ? Since we have seen our way to identifying the Srjfjuovpyos both with the avTo dyaOov and with one element of the ^xn T0 " KOO-/AOV, the simple unity of thought, conceived as still undifferentiated, it follows that whatever relation we have established between the avro dyaOoy and the other ideas will hold good as between the 44 INTRODUCTION. cosmic soul and the ideas. But perhaps it may serve to render the matter clearer, if we put it in some such way as this. The ideas, we know, are self-existing, substantial realities. But they can in no wise be essences external to the world- soul, else would the world-soul cease to be All : they must therefore be in- cluded in it or identical with it. Now the body of the universe is the material image of the soul thereof: also all material things are images of the ideas. Thus then, being TrapaSeiy/xara of the same troves, the ideas and the cosmic soul coincide. The ideas, I say not an idea. For every single idea is the type of one class of material images ; the ideal tree is the type of material trees, and of nothing else. The material trees then represent the cosmic soul in so far as that can be expressed in terms of trees they represent, so to speak, the ScvSpoV^s of it. Accordingly the idea of tree is one determinate aspect of the cosmic soul that aspect which finds its material expression in a particular tree. And so the sum total of the ideas will be the sum total of the determi- nations of the cosmic soul the soul in all her aspects and signifi- cations. Also the supreme idea, the avro dyaBdv, will be the soul herself as such, considered as not in any way specially determined : the material copy of which is not anything in the universe, but the material universe as a whole, which is fairer, Plato says, than aught that is contained within it. Thus by following up this line we arrive at a result which precisely tallies with that which we reached when considering the relation between the avro dya.9ov and the inferior ideas. And so is the substantial existence of the ideas preserved intact, since each idea is the universal soul in some special determination. So too is the unity of the eternal essence maintained ; for all the ideas are the same verity viewed in different aspects. And here, as everywhere in the mature Platonism, do the principles of Unity and Multitude go hand in hand, mutually supporting one another and never to be parted. Qdrepov 45. We have seen that the universal soul is constituted as space. o f Tav ' T ov Odrepov and ovata, and the general significance of these terms has been discussed. But there is one special application of 6d.Tf.pov which has not yet occupied our attention. This is Plato's conception of x^P a ) or Space. Plato's identification of the material principle in nature with space than which there is no more masterly piece of analysis in ancient philosophy has also been very copiously dealt with IN TROD UCTION. 4 5 in the notes; but it is too important to be entirely passed over in this place. It has been seen that in the Philebus the analysis of the material element in things was manifestly incomplete. The direipov was not altogether d-raOes, but possessed ei/arnoT^Te?, such as hotter and colder, quicker and slower, which were quantified and defined by the Trepa? ex ov - But only the quantity or limit is imposed upon the aireipov from without; the quality, though in an un- defined form, is still resident in it. Now however, in the Ti'maeus, all quality and attribute is withdrawn : we have an absolutely formless uVoSo^', or substrate, potentially receptive of all quality, but possessing none. So far, this may be identified with Aris- totle's irpwrrj v\t]. But Plato takes a further step, which was not taken by Aristotle : the uVoSo^i} is expressly identified with Space. How is this done ? The vVoSox?) is absolutely without form and void : no sense can apprehend it. The sensible objects of perception are the dor) do-iovTo, KCU fi6vTa the images thrown off in some mysterious way by the ideas and localised in the vTro8ox>j- All attributes which belong to our perceptions are due to these elorj, save one alone, which is extension. The vVoSo^, submissive in all besides, is peremptory on this one point of whatever kind a material object may be, it must be extended. So then, if we abstract from matter all the attributes conferred by the euno'vra KCU e'ltoVra, we have remaining just a necessity that the objects composing material nature shall be extended. Thus we see Odrtpov in another way playing its part as the principle of Difference. For, as Plato says, if the type and the image are to be different, if they are to be two and not one, they must be apart, not inherent one in the other : the copy must exist in something which is not the type, ovcrtas aju,axry7rojs dvTe\op.vi]. Hereupon 6a.Tf.pov Steps in and provides that something, to wit, the law of our finite nature which ordains that we shall perceive all objects as extended in space. Space then is the differentiation of the type and its image. But extension is nothing independently and objectively existing. For all our perceptions of things are within our own souls, which are unextended ; and the things exist not but in these perceptions, Extension then exists only subjectively in our minds. All the objectivity it has is as a universal law binding on finite intelli- gences, that they should all perceive in this way. It is a conse- quence and condition of our limitation as finite souls. 4 6 INTRODUCTION. Plato's motive for devoting so much space to physical specula- tion. The significance of 6drepov as space is thus but a corollary of its significance as pluralisation of mind ; since this pluralisation carries with it sensuous perception, which in its turn involves extension as an attribute of its objects. In like manner is time another consequence of this pluralisation : so that we may regard space and time as secondary forms of Odrepov. And so are all the aspects in which we view the element of Odrepov necessarily contingent upon its primary significance of Being in the form of Other, the principle of Multitude inevitably contained in the principle of Unity. 46. Up to this point I have dwelt exclusively upon the metaphysical significance of the dialogue: this being of course incomparably more important than all the other matters which are contained in it. Nevertheless the larger portion of the work is occupied with physical and physiological theories, with elabo- rate explanations of the processes of nature and the structure and functions of the human body. This being the case, it would seem advisable to say a few words on this subject also. It might excite not unreasonable surprise that Plato, so strongly persuaded as he was that of matter there can be no knowledge, has yet devoted so much attention to the physical constitution of nature; more especially as he repeatedly declares that con- cerning physics he has no certainty to offer us, but at most 'the probable account.' It is perhaps worth while to see if we can discover any motives which may have influenced him. In the first place it is to be observed that the restriction of ideas to classes of natural objects tended in some degree to raise the importance of physical study. If it is true that of natural phenomena themselves there can be no knowledge, it is yet possible that the investigation of these phenomena may serve to place us in a better position for attaining knowledge (or approximate knowledge) of the ideas, which are the cause and reality of the phenomena. For from the knowledge of effects we may hope to rise to the cognition of causes. If then ideas are of natural classes alone, we may at least gain thus much from the study of nature: we may by the observation of particulars ascertain what classes naturally exist in the material world, and thence infer what ideas exist in the intelligible world. As Plato says in 69 A, we ought to study the dvayKalov for the sake of the INTRODUCTION. 47 Oflov : that is to say, we must investigate the laws of matter in the hope that we may more clearly ascertain the laws of spirit. Physical speculation is not an end in itself: at best it is a re- creation for the philosopher when wearied by his more serious studies: but considered as a means of attaining metaphysical truth, it is worthy of his earnest attention. For this cause the study of material nature was encouraged in Plato's school; though Plato would have been scornful enough of the disproportionate importance attached to it by some of his successors. And since he thought it deserving of his scholars' attention, it was fitting that the master should declare the results of his own scientific speculation. It must be remembered too how Plato had found fault with Anaxagoras for not introducing TO /?e'ATrToi/ in his physical theories as the final cause. In the physical part of the Timaeus he seeks to make good this defect. He strives to show in detail how the formative intelligence disposed all matter so as to achieve the best result of which its nature was capable; to show that the hypothesis of intelligent design was borne out by facts. He is careful to point out that the physical processes he expounds are but subsidiary causes, subordinate to the main design of Intel- ligence; for example, after explaining the manner in which vision is produced, he warns us that all this is merely a means to an end : the true cause of vision is the design that we may look upon the luminaries of heaven and thence derive the knowledge of number, which is the avenue to the greatest gift of the gods, philosophy. Now of course on Platonic principles such a teleological account of Nature can have no completeness, unless it be based upon ontology ; since everything is good in so far as it represents the avro dyaOov. Plato describes phenomenal existence as materi- ally expressing the truth of intelligible existence ; and in so far as this expression is perfectly accomplished, the phenomena are fair and good. So then Plato, from the teleological side seeks to show that the material universe is ordered as to all its details in the best possible way, and demonstrates, from the ontological side, that this is so because all the phenomena of the universe are -symbols of the eternal idea of good. Plato's contention is that there is an exact correspondence between the ideal and phe- nomenal worlds, that material Nature is not a mere random succession of appearances, but has a meaning and a truth. And if material Nature has this significance, she cannot be unworthy 48 INTRODUCTION. of the philosopher's attention; she must be studied that her meaning may be revealed. Viewed in this light, the physical portions of the Timaeus have a genuine bearing on philosophy; and the very minuteness with which Plato has treated the subject proves that he attached no slight importance to it. The scientific value of these speculations is naturally but small: many of them are however very interesting, both intrinsi- cally, for their ingenuity and scientific insight, and historically, as showing us how a colossal genius, working without any of the materials accumulated by modern science, and without the instru- ments which it employs, endeavoured to explain to himself the constitution of the material universe in which he lived. Plato's 47. From the question that has just been raised, con- opinions cerning the bearing of physical inquiry upon metaphysical know- concerning ledge, naturally arises another question which should not be left ledge." altogether unnoticed. What did the Plato of the Timaeus con- ceive to be the province of human knowledge, and what sort of knowledge did he conceive to be attainable? We have already seen reason to believe that he had more or less altered his position with regard to this point since the Republic and Phaedo were written. This was to be expected: for, as the Theaetetus showed, ontology must precede epistemology; before we can say definitely what knowledge is, we must find out what there is to know. Therefore, since Plato's ontology has been modified, it may well be that this modification had its effect on his views of knowledge. The object of knowledge is plainly the same as ever. Only the really existent can be known: and the only real existence is the ideas, and ultimately the auro aya06V. Knowledge then, in the truest and fullest sense of the word, signifies only the actual cognition of the supreme idea as it is in itself. Now in the days of the Phaedo and Republic we know that Plato actually aimed at such cognition. However remote the consummation might be, however despondingly the Sokrates of the Phaedo may speak of it, that and that alone was the end of the philosopher's labours an end regarded as one day attainable by man. But now, both in the Parmenides and in the Timaeus, Plato disclaims such abso- lute knowledge as lying beyond the sphere of finite intelligence. And he is right. For he who should know the Absolute would ip so facto be the Absolute. Only the All can comprehend the All. And if the supreme idea cannot be absolutely known, neither can INTRODUCTION. 49 the other ideas. For since every idea is, as has been said, a determination of the supreme idea, a complete knowledge of any one idea would amount to a complete knowledge of every other idea and of the supreme idea itself. From such ambitious dreams we must refrain ourselves. But we are not therefore left beggared of our intellectual heritage. Absolute knowledge of universal truth may be beyond our reach, but an approximation to such knowledge is in our power, an approximation to which no bounds are set. We have said that the supreme idea determines itself into a series of subordinate ideas. The more of these subordinate ideas we contemplate, the more comprehensive will be our con- ception of the supreme idea: and in proportion as our vision of the subordinate ideas gains in clearness, even so will our con- ception of the highest advance in truth. For since Truth is one and simple, every mode of truth is an access to the whole. This then is what Plato now holds up as the philosopher's hope an ever brightening vision of universal truth, attained by industrious study of particular forms of truth. Thus in place of the complete fruition of knowledge, once for all, of which we once dreamed, we have the prospect of a perpetual advance therein. And what- ever increment of knowledge we may win, although it is neces- sarily incomplete, it is real: the ladder has no summit, but we have gained one step above our former place. And there seems certainly nothing discouraging in the reflection that, however much we may succeed in learning, behind all our knowledge there lies something in wait to be known that though the truth which we know is true, there is always a truth beneath it that is truer still. Knowledge then is now as ever for Plato to be found in the ideal world : and there alone. Material nature is still to him a realm of mists and shadows, where nothing stable is nor any truth, where we grope doubtfully by the dim light of opinion. But through these mists lies the road to the bright sphere of reason, where abide the ideal archetypes, which are the true objects of our thought, and which have lost none of that lustre that once was chanted in the Phaedrus. There is no recession here : still the immaterial and eternal only can be known. All that is changed is the extension of the word knowledge. We know the ideas but as finite minds may know them ; that is, partially, with never perfect yet ever clearer vision : being our- selves incomplete, completeness of knowledge is beyond our P. T. 4 50 INTRODUCTION. scope. This restriction of the bounds of human knowledge must needs have presented itself to Plato's mind along with the clear conception of an infinite universal soul which is the sum and substance of all things.. For only in the endeavour to grasp the boundlessness of the infinite would he become fully alive to the limitation of the finite. Con- 48. The account I have thought it necessary to give of C ' Udin kL *^ e philosophical doctrines contained in the Timaeus is now completed. There are indeed divers matters of high importance handled in the dialogue which I have either left unnoticed or dismissed with brief mention. The theory of space propounded in the eighteenth chapter, although its profound originality and importance can hardly be overestimated, has been only partially examined : further treatment being reserved for the commentary on the said chapter, since it involves too much detail to be conveniently included in a general view of the subject such as I have here sought to give. The same will apply to the very interesting ethical disquisition towards the end of the dialogue, and to the psychological theories advanced in the thirty-first and thirty-second chapters. In the foregoing pages my aim has been to trace the chief currents of earlier Greek speculation to their union in the Platonic philosophy, and to follow the ever widening and deepening stream through the region of Platonism itself, until it is merged in the ocean of idealism into which Plato's thought finally expands. In particular I have sought to follow the history of the funda- mental antithesis, the One and the Many, from the lisping utter- ance of it (as Aristotle would say) by the preplatonic thinkers to its clear enunciation as the central doctrine of the later Pla- tonism. And however imperfectly this object may have been accomplished, I trust I have at least not failed in justifying the affirmation that the Timaeus is second in interest and importance to none of the Platonic writings. Of course it is not for a moment maintained that all the teaching I have ascribed to this dialogue is to be found fully expanded and explicitly formulated within its limits. To expect this would argue a complete absence of familiarity with Plato's method. Plato never wrote a handbook of his own philosophy, INTR OD UCTION. 5 r nor will he do our thinking for us : he loves best to make us construct the edifice for ourselves from the materials with which he supplies us. And this we can only do by careful combination of his statements on the subject in hand, spread, it may be, over several dialogues, and by sober interpretation of his figurative language, availing ourselves at the same time of whatever light we may be able to derive from ancient expositors of Plato, and chiefly from Aristotle. Consequently no theory we may thus form is a matter of mathematical demonstration : if we can find one which combines Plato's various statements into a systematic whole and reveals a distinct sequence of his thought, all reason- able expectation is satisfied. In evolving the opinions which have in this essay been offered concerning the interpretation of the Timaeus, I have made but two postulates that Plato does not talk at random, and that he does not contradict himself. To any who reject one or both of these postulates the arguments adduced in the foregoing are of course not addressed, since there is no common ground for arguing. But of those who accept them, whoever has an interpretation to propound which more thoroughly harmonises all the elements of Plato's thought than I have been able to do, and which more readily and directly arises from his language, e/ceo-os OVK fxOpo? wv d\\d i\o<; 49. It remains to say a few words about the text. In this edition I have rather closely adhered to the text of C. F. Her- mann, which on the whole presents most faithfully the readings of the oldest and best manuscript, Codex Parisiensis A. The authority of this ninth century ms. is such that recent editors have frequently accepted its readings in defiance of a consensus among the remainder; an example which I have in general followed. In departing from Hermann I have usually had some manuscript support on which to rely, and sometimes that of A itself: but in a very few cases (about six or seven, I believe, in all) I have introduced emendations, or at least alterations, of my own ; none of which are very important In order that the reader may have no trouble in checking the text here presented to him, I have added brief critical notes in Latin, wherein are recorded the readings of the Paris manuscript (quoted on Bek- 42 5 2 JNTR OD UCTION. ker's testimony), of C. F. Hermann, of Stallbaum, and of the Zurich edition by Baiter Orelli and Winckelmann, wherever these differed from my own. These authorities are denoted respect- ively by A, H, S, and Z. The readings of other manuscripts have not been cited. Fortunately the text of the Timaeus is for the most part in a fairly satisfactory condition. There are some small points of orthography in which this edition systematically differs from Hermann's spelling; but I have deemed it superfluous to record these. TIMAIOS TIMAIOS [17 Trepl (frv TA TOY AIAAOrOY 2HKPATH2, KPITIA2, TIMAIO2, EPMOKPATH2. St. in. p. I. SO. El?, Bvo, T/9et9' o Be Brj rera/oro? rjp.lv, w ffTiai> : avTefaffTiav AZ. position of that work in the series; while the myth of Atlantis marks the intimate connexion which Plato intended to exist ' between the Timaeus and Critias : it is indeed artistically justifiable only in rela- tion to Plato's projected, not to his accom- plished work. It is obvious that when the Republic was written no such trilogy was in contemplation. The supposed date of the present dis- cussion is two days after the meeting in the house of Kephalos. The latter, as we learn from the beginning of the Republic, took place on the day of the newly esta- blished festival of the Thracian deity PERSONS OF THE DIALOGUE: SOKRATES, TlMAEUS, HERMOKRATES, KRITIAS. I. Sokrates. One, two, three what is become of the fourth, my dear Timaeus, of our yesterday's guests and our entertainers of to-day ? Timaeus. He has fallen sick, Sokrates : he would not will- ingly have been missing at this gathering. Sokrates. Then it is for you and your companions, is it not, to fulfil the part of our absent friend ? Timaeus. Unquestionably ; and we will omit nothing that lies in our power. For indeed it would not be fair, seeing how well we were entertained by you yesterday, that the rest of us should not heartily requite you with a fitting return of hospitality. Bendis, a goddess whom the Athenians of a hexameter. It is quoted in Athenaeus seem to have identified with their own IX 382 A, where there is a story of a man Artemis. The festival took place on the who made his cooks learn the dialogue by 1 9th or 2oth Thargelion ( = about 22nd heart and recite it as they brought in the or 23rd May). On the following day dihes. Sokrates reports to the four friends what 6 Si 81^ rfrapros] Some curiosity has passed at the house of Kephalos ; and on been displayed as to the name of the the next the present dialogue takes place. absentee ; and Plato himself has been i. cts 8vo rptis] This very simple suggested. But seeing that the conversa- opening has given rise to a strange tion is purely fictitious, the question would amount of animadversion, as may be seen seem to be one of those dfairodeiKra by any one who struggles through the which are hardly matter of profitable weary waste of words which Proklos has discussion. devoted to its discussion. Quintilian (ix 2. Sairvfiovcov] i.e. guests at the feast iv 78) attacks it for beginning with part of reason provided by Sokrates. 56 HAATHNOS [i7- Sfl. *Ap' ovv /j,epvr)(r0e, oo~a vplv teal irepl u>v eirera^a elrrelv ; TI. Td fiev ftejMvrifAeOa, oaa Be pr), av rrapwv vTro/j,w>j, ef a/3%^9 Bid @pa%ea)V rrd\tv 7rdve\de avrd, 'Cva, /3e/3aua0r) pa\\ov irap -fjfuv. 5 2O. TaOr' carat. %#9 TTOU rwv vrf e/iou prjBevrwv \6ya)v irepl rro\ireia^ fy TO Ke Sw/cpare?, prjOeia-a irdat Kara vow. 2fi. *Ap' ovv ov TO T&V v\aKa$ elvat /JLOVOV rfjs TroXew?, ei re Tt? et;(o6ev r) Kal roov evSodev tot KaKovpyrjcrwv, Bt,Kaovra<; pev rrpdws Tot? dp^of^evot<; vrc avrwv Kal (pvcret i\oi<; overt, %a\e7rovv rrjs ^f^^9 eXe- fj,ev OvjAoeiBf), ap,a Be ov Belv elvat Btatye- 13 Soi/res: didovres A. 14 (jdav exiiffTtp T^XV-TJV : sic SZ e Bekkeri coniectura. d' fKa.' oZv ws d\i)6s 6p0&- substitute so long as the attainment of TCLTOV Ka.\elv TOVTOVS ptv u\a.Kas iravreXeTs that ideal was impracticable. Plato re- TWJ> re t^uOev iro\ep.i ol fitv /*TJ povX^crovrai, oi 3 /urj that city ' whereof the pattern is pre- duvriaovrai KOMovpyeiv, TOI)S 3 viovs, o)s vvv served in heaven '. dri ^>y\acas ^/coXoO/xei', firticovpovs rt KO.I 7. KaTaivtT' av] $. belongs to >e- por)6oi>s TO?S rCiv &pi'>vTtav dby/jLasvra<; e\e%0r) TTOV apyvpov f&JTt aXXo Trore fj^rjSev /cr^ytta eavrwv 'iSiov 8eiv, aXX' co? eTTitcovpovs fticrOov \afJL(BdvovTai>\a/c//9 irapa JO TCOJ/ 0-z/ ev/jLvrj^ovevTov, on Koivd rd r ISia yvcacroiro, vofj,tovcrt Se rrdvres D avrovs oftoyeveis, doe\ds fj,ev /cat a8eX<^>oi)9 ocronrep dv 25 T^? rrpeTTovaT)? ei/To? ^Xt/a'a? yiyvcovrai, rovs 8' e^rrpoaOev /cat tivwQev yoveas re /cat v rrpoyovovs, rovs 8' et9 TO icdrwdev eicyovovs TratSa? T6 etcyovuv ; TI. Nat, /cat ravra ev/jivrj/jLovevra, y \eyeis. 2Ii. f/ O7TG)9 Se S?) Kara Svvafjuv evdvs yiyvoivro a><> apiaroi 30 Ta? (privets, dp ov n.ep>vqp,e6a, a$9 TOU9 apj^ovras e ri&iv, OTTW? 01 Kaicol %aXaiot9 ird\iv eirave\6elv, r) iroOov^ev en ri rwv p^Oevrwv, w TI. Oi}Sa/4ft>9, aXXa rai^ra raOr' ^y ra \e%6evTa, w Sw/3are9. B 15 II. Sfi. ^AKOVOIT' dv rjBrj rd fj,erd raOra Trept r^9 7roXtTeta9, 7)1; 8iij\0ofJ,ev, olov TI 7T/309 avrr)v TreTrovOws rvy^dva). Trpoaeoiice Be Brj nvl pot, TOHoSe TO Trddos, olov ei T49 ^a5a a\a TTOU 6eaa~d- /uei/09, efre i5?ro yparj<; elpyaapeva eire /cat %>vra d\r)0ivd)- viav d&Kovvra' ravrov KCU eyca irkTrovQa ?rpo9 rrjv TTO\IV fjv c Biij\8ofjLV. TJBecos 25 ra 'Trpoa'rjKOVTa aTroBiBovaav rfj TratBeia KOI rpocpfj tcard re ra9 dia\\drreiv A. 14 TayrA: awrd S. 24 re : 75 A. omittit S. 6. Xa9pa SiaSoTe'ov] Plato has here enjoined : idv re afarepos ticyovos vv6\a\- somewhat mitigated the rigour of his /cos 77 virocrldripos ytvrjTat, /j.t)5evl ordinance in the Republic : see 459 D TOI)J /careXe^croiia't*', oXXa rrjv ry vffei apiarovs rats dplffrats avyylyvecrOai ws xovvav rtfj.^v airodovres <5ffovffu> els 5i)fuovp- TrXeurrdKis, TOI)S 5^ ^>ai;Xo7-(Toi;s rats av- yobs rj els yeupyovs. Probably then, when Xordratj rovvavrlov, Kal ruv /lev rk ticyova. Plato speaks of not rearing the inferior rptfaiv, ruv deftr/. Compare too 4600 rit. Si children, he merely means that they are TUV x ei P^ vuv > Kal fav TI rui> oXXuw avdir-qpov not to be reared by the state as infant ylyvrjrai, ev airopp-firtf re Kal aSf/Xtf) Kara- 0u'Xa*cs. tcptyovaiv us irpewei : and again, 461 c 7. iravavo|Uvv 8i o-Koirovvras] fjLd\iffra fj.ev /t7?5' els ws fKepeiv Kvi)/j.a Plato clearly recognises that the laws of Hrj5e 7' ev, edv yevrjrai, eav 5e ri /3idrjs r

i> yevos, d\\d Travrl SrjXov eJrj, ravra ptfiTja-erai paf)iarwv yevos av iro\\wv fj,ev -.-' ^oywv teal Ka\a>v d\\(av /iaX' e/MTreipov rjyr)fj,ai, (j>o/3ovjLLai Be, ftij 7Tc0v dv&pdav y teal TroXiriKwv, 'ocf av old re ev TroXe/zw teal fj,d%ai<> Trpdr-rovres epya> teal \oyy rcpoaoyn- 15 Xof)z/Te5 e/catTTOt? irpdrroiev teal \yoiev. KaraKiXenrrat Srj TO rfjs v/jLerepa? e^ew? yevos, a//a d/j,orepwv (f>vcrei teal rpo<}>f) ^ere-^ov. 20 A TlfUUOS re ydp '68e, evvoptordrris dv vroXecu? Tr;? ev *\ra\iq Aotept- So?, ovo-ia teal yevet ovo'evos varepos u>v rwv eteei, Ta? fiev a/3%a? Te teal rijj,d<; rwv ev rfj rroKei f^eraKe^elpio-rat, 20 o-o^i'a? 8' av tear* e/j,rjv Sogav err dtepov a-Tracr?;? e\Tj\v0e' Kptriav 8e TTOV rrdvres ol rffi icrjAev ovSevos ISicorijv ovra wv Xeyofiev' T^9 Be 'J&ppotepdrovs av rrepl fyvcrews teal rpo(j>!j<;, TT/JO? inravra 6 Kal rwv : Kal irepl TWV A. 7. ri |up.T]TiK6v ?0vos] See Republic a very similar phrase below at 42 D 392 D, 398 A, 597 E foil. Poetry, says TTJJ irpwr^j Kal AplffT^ d.lKoiro Plato, is an imitative art ; and poets can- ews. ? expresses a permanent habit not imitate what is outside of their experi- of mind. ^ ence. For the use of tOvos compare 16. cin<})OTpwv] sc. i\off&ov Kal Sophist 242 D, Gorgias 455 B, Politicus TTO\ITIKOV. 290 B. 17. T Yap] The re is not answered: 9. ?n8^ xoXtirwTtpov XOYOIS] Proklos see Shilleto on Demosth.ya/j. leg. 176. raises needless difficulty about this. Plato vvo|AwrdTTis wv ir6\ws] The laws simply means that to describe such things of the Epizephyrian Lokrians were worthily requires a rare literary gift : it is ascribed to Zaleukos, 660 B.C. From far easier to find an Agamemnon than a Demosthenes Kara Tt/j-oKparovs p. 744 it Homer. appears that this people was so conser- 12. art irXavtfriv ov] cf. Sophist 224 B, vative as to pass no new law, with a where one kind of sophist is described as single amusing exception, during a rbv (laOyfjiaTa ffwuvovfj-fvov ir6\tv re K period of 200 years. In Laws 638 D rriXewj vofj.lefjLaTos ifutfttflM* they are said eiW/twroTot rwv irepl ineivov 15, TO TTJS vp.T^pas %ws Y^VOS] i.e. rbv rbirov ytyovivai. Pindar adds his men of a philosophical habit. We have testimony, Olymp. XI (x) 17 vfati yap 20 A] TIMAIOS. 63 tion, both when dealing in action and parleying in speech with other cities. Now, Kritias and Hermokrates, my own verdict upon myself is that I should never be capable of celebrating the city and her people according to their merit. So far as concerns me indeed, that is no marvel ; but I have formed the same opinion about the poets, both past and present ; not that I disparage the poetic race, but any one can see that the imitative tribe will most easily and perfectly imitate the surroundings amid which they have been brought up, but that which lies outside the range of each man's experience is hard to imitate correctly in actions and yet harder in words. As to the class of sophists on the other hand, I have always held them to be well furnished with many fine discourses on other subjects ; yet I am afraid, seeing they wander from city to city and have never had dwellings of their own to manage, they may somehow fall short in their conception of philosophers and statesmen, as to what in time of war and battles they would do and say in their dealings and converse with divers people. One class then remains, those who share your habit of mind, having by nature and training a capacity for both philosophy and statecraft. Timaeus for in- stance, belonging to an admirably governed state, the Italian Lokris, and one of the foremost of its citizens in wealth and birth, has filled offices of the highest authority and honour in his native city, and has also in my judgment climbed to the topmost peak of all philosophy : while at Athens we all know that Kritias is no novice in any of the questions we are discuss- ing: of Hermokrates too we must believe on the evidence of 'Arp^/ceia iroKiv AoKpuJf Zevpluv. mides 169 C KO.KVOS [sc. Kpirias] 20. iir aKpov dirdoTjs] Plato's judg- /tot VTT' ffj.ou diropovvros dvayKaffdrjvat Kal ment of the historical Timaeus can hard- avrdj a\uvai inrb airoplas. are ovv eiJ- ly have gone so far as this: that however SOKI/JLUV ^Kaarore rjffxtvfro TOI>* ira- he must have set a high estimate on the povras, Kal otire ^vy^wpfiaal /tot ^df\fv Pythagorean's philosophical capacity he dStWros tlvai SifXfoOai a vpoi'KaXov/jujv has proved by making him the mouth- avrov, tXeyt re ovdiv 0-a^s, eiriKaXvirruv piece of his own profoundest specu- r-qv diroplav. lations. 22. ' EpfJioKparovs] This was the cele- 21. ovSevos I8iwn]v] ^KaXelro WCWTTJJ brated Syracusan general and statesman, fdv ev 4>i\oi\6ffoos S ev I5iu- distinguished in the Peloponnesian war. reus, says Proklos. He seems to have A Hermokrates mentioned among the been one of those who made a good friends of Sokrates by Xenophon memo- show out of a little knowledge : cf. Char- rabilia I ii 48 is doubtless a different 64 HAATHNOS [20 A i elvai iKavrjs TTO\\(OV papTvpovvrayv TTUTTevTeov 877. o Kal %0e ovv KOivy a-Ke-^rafievot Trpos vfia? avrovs et? vvv avraTroBcacreiv fj,oi TO, TWV \6jajv evia, Trdpei/jLi re C ovv Brj KKO KaOdirep etrre T///at09 o8e, w ^wfcpares, ovre \,\etyo(jiV TrpoOvfjiias ovSev ovre eanv ovSefiia 7rp6(pa, to? o raJy eTrra <7o yxey ouy otVeto? /cat vv tTTifivrjffdeia'i rrpirrov av rjplv eir) troi 21 A 5 re aTToBovvai %dpiv Kal rrjv 6eov afia ev rfj I 7rai>rjyvpei BiKaiw re Kal d\r}0(Ja<; olbvrrep vfLVOvvra^ eyKW/Mid^iv, 2n. Eu \eyeis. aXXa 8^ rrolov epyov rovro KpiTta5 ov \ey6fj,evov (Aev, to? Be rrpa^dev OI/TG)? VTTO rf)o~Be rfjs 7roXea)5 ap- %aiov Btrjyeiro Kara rijv SoXeovo? QKOIJV ; 10 III. KP. '70) (f>pd Be Try fj,d\io~ra Se/cer?;?' ij Be Koupec3Ti5 B Kal rore gvveftr) rot? rraio~iv' aO\a yap rjfj.lv oi I TTOV rov : iroi; omittunt SZ. 5. ^v rig iravtfyvpti] The goddess is of course Athena; and the festival would seem to be the lesser Panathenaia, as Proklos tells us. Considerable discussion has arisen as to the time of year in which this festival was held. The greater Pana- thenaia, which took place once in four years, lasted from the iyth to the 25th Hekatombaion. The lesser festival was annual. Demosthenes Kara Tifj-OKparovs 26 refers to a Panathenaic festival which took place in Hekatombaion ; and it is affirmed by some scholars that he is speaking of the lesser Panathenaia. Were this so, it would follow that the greater and lesser festivals were held at the same time of year. But Proklos has an ex- plicit statement to the contrary: on ye flip TO IlavaflTjwua (sc. ra fiiKpa) rots BevSiSe/otj tJtrtTO \tyovffiv ol viro/JLV-rj- fjia.TiffTa.1, Kal 'ApttrroTAijj 6 'P65tos ftap- Tvpel TO ptv iv llfipaiei HfvSiStia rrj et\dct TOW Ga/yyijXtwi'Oj eiriTC\fiff0ai, tirtffOa.1. ot rat rept TIJV 'AOrjvav lopras. It seems to me that this direct evidence is not to be outweighed by an uncertain argument based on the passage of Demosthenes. Clinton Fasti Hellenici II pp. 332 5 has a careful discussion of the question elirev: tlvetv A. and decides in favour of placing the lesser Panathenaia in Thargelion. 7. o Xry<5j.vov p^v] Stallbaum is ill advised in adopting the interpretation of Proklos ny travv ftev -reOpv\ri[j.tvov, ytvofjifvov ot 5/iws. The meaning is be- yond question ' not a mere figment of the imagination (like the commonwealth de- scribed in the Republic), but a history of facts that actually occurred'. Cf. 26 E TO re ^17 ic\ao0tnTa. nvOov d\X' a\i}0ivbv \6yov elvai vd/jifjLeya. iron. 4i A 25 D, c. iii. Kritias proceeds to tell a story which his grandfather once learned from Solon : that when Solon was travelling in Egypt he con- versed with a priest at Sais ; and begin- ning to recount to the priest some of the most ancient Hellenic legends he was interrupted by him with the exclamation 'Solon, ye are all children in Hellas, and no truly ancient history is to be found among you. For ever and anon there comes upon the earth a great de- struction by fire or by water, and the people perish, and all their records and monuments are swept away. Only in the mountains survive a scattered rem- nant of shepherds and unlettered men, 21 B] TIMAIOS. passages of his poems : and Dropides told my grandfather Kritias, who when advanced in life repeated it to us, that there were great and marvellous exploits achieved by Athens in days of old, which through lapse of time and the perishing of men have vanished from memory : and the greatest of all is one which it were fitting for us to narrate, and so at once discharge our debt of gratitude to you and worthily and truly extol the goddess in this her festival by a kind of hymn in her honour. Sokrates. A good proposal. But what was this deed which Kritias described on the authority of Solon as actually performed of old by this city, though unrecorded in history? III. Kritias. I will tell an ancient story that I heard from a man no longer young. For Kritias was then, as he said, hard upon ninety years of age, while I was about ten. It happened to be the 'children's day' of the Apaturia ; and then as usual the boys enjoyed their customary pastime, our fathers giving us knowing nought of the past : and when again a civilisation has slowly grown up, presently there comes another visitation of fire or water and overwhelms it. So that in Greece and most other lands the records only go back to the last great cataclysm. But in Egypt we are pre- served from fire by the inundation of the Nile, and from flood because no rain falls in our land : therefore our people has never been destroyed, and our re- cords are far more ancient than in any other country on earth '. Then the priest goes on to tell Solon one of these his- tories : how that nine thousand years ago Athens was founded by Athena, and a thousand years later Sais was founded by the same goddess ; how the ancient Athenians excelled all nations in good government and in the arts of war ; and above all how they overthrew the power of Atlantis. For Atlantis was a vast island in the ocean, over against the pillars of Herakles, and her people were mighty men of valour and had brought much of Europe and Africa under their sway. And once the kings of Atlantis resolved at one blow to enslave all the countries that were not yet subject to them, and led forth a great host to sub- due them. Then Athens put herself at the head of the nations that were fight- ing for freedom, and after passing through many a deadly peril, she smote the in- vaders and drove them back to their own country. Soon after there came dreadful earthquakes and floods ; and the earth opened and swallowed up all the warriors of Athens ; and Atlantis too sank beneath the sea and was never more seen. 13. 'AirarovpCwv] Apaturia was the name of a festival in honour of Dionysos, held in the month Pyanepsion, which corresponded, roughly speaking, with our October. It lasted three days, of which the first was called 56pirtia, the second d.vappva'is, the third Kovpewris. On this third day the names of children three or four years of age were enrolled on the register of their tpparpla. Proklos seems mistaken in making dvappwis the first day ; all other authorities place 56p- Treia first. 52 68 IIAATHNOS [21 B edecrav pa^a>oYa9. jro\\v fj.ev ovv 877 /ecu TroXXa Troiyuara, are Se vea /car' etceivov rov xpovov ovra rd ZoXa>ro9 TroXXoi rcov TTdiScw yaaiiev. elrrev ovv Brj ns rdJv (frparepwv, eire &f) SOKOVV avrepa)V, Soiceiv 5 ot rd re aXXa o~o(pa>rarov yeyovevai SoXtoz/a /cal /cara r^y Trotrjo'iv C av TWV 7roirjT enrev' Et ye, (a 'A/jkvvav&pe, /x) Trapepyq) rfj 7roiij(rt Karexp'lo'aTO, aXX' ea-Trov&drcei tcaOdirep aXXot, TOV re \6yov, ov air Alyinrrov Stvpo rfveyKaro, 10 aTrereXeere icai fir) Sid ra/ w rrt / *> f N / t f/ rr / * TT eyevero av irore avrov. 1 19 o 771/0 Xo7O9, 77 o 09, w Kpma ; xl Trepl fuyforqf, r), teal ovofiaa-rordrrj^ rracr^uv St/catorar' av irpd- 5 fea>9 ovarj6opdv r&v cpyaaanevatv ov Siijpicea-e cevpo 6 \6yos. Aeye ef dp^rj9 0X77^77 SiaiC7)ico(0<; e\eyev 6 %o\a)v. "Eir)v a^l^erai TO TOU Nei'Xou pe)/za, Sai-Tto9 eiriica- 20 \ovfjievo) /tat "A/iaacriv. ol Sr/ SoXeoy ^77 iropevOels Trap' ai/rot9 evrifio^, Kal 877 /cat ra TraXata dvepwraiv rovs aa\i(rra 22 A irepl ravra rouv lepeatv epTreipovs a"%eSov ovre avrov ovre d\\ov Ei\\7]va ovSeva ovSev a><; 7ro9 eiTreiv elSora Trepl rdov roiovrwv dveupeiv. /cat rrore Trpoayayeiv ftov\r)0ei fcara- K\v/caXtWo9 /cat Hvppas w? BteyevovTO nv6o\oyelv, ^ % KOI TOVS ej; avTtoV yevea\oye"iv, Kal TO, TWV ITWV '6aa r\v 019 eXeye B 5 TretpacrBai, BiafivrjfjLovevwv TOI)? %p6vovs dpiOjteiv' icai Tiva enrelv rwv iepewv ev fid\a TraXatoV *H 2,6\wv, SoXw^, "EXX^/i/e? ael e'ore, yepcov 8e"E\\r)v OVK etrriv. aKovcras oiv, IIdvai. Neoi eVre, elirdv, rdi i|ru^;aae0Q)v 'HXtof Trai? TO ToO Trarpos appa ^ei/'^a? Sid TO fir) &vvaTo<; elvat Kara rrjv TOV iraTpbs 6Sbv eXavveiv 15 rd T 7rl 7^9 %uveKavo- Kal avTos KepavvwOels 8i(p6dpr), TOVTO fjivBov pev afflfia e%ov \eyeTai, TO Be dXrjOes ecrTt TWI/ Trepl yr t v Kal KaT 1 ovpavbv IOVTMV irapd\\a%i$ Kal Bid jiaKpwv ^povwv D yiyvofievrj TUIV eVi 7^9 Trvpl TroXXa) |r^Xot9 T07rot9 Kal ev ^rjpois oiKovcri, fj,d\\ov Bio\\vv- 20 Tat TO>V 7rora/iot9 /cat 0a\djTp TrpocroiKovvTcav' rjiJ.lv Be o NetXo9 et9 T Ta aXXa awTrjp Kal TOTC etc TavTrjf T^9 aTropias aa^et \v6fJLevos. oTav S' av Beol TTJV yfjv vBaa't, Ka0aipovT<; KaTaK\v- 22 Ocoi: olOfoi SZ. 2. ^opwv^ws] Phoroneus is said in 384 Kiihn Kal TUV KaTa.K\i6ivruv OVK ol$' the legend to have been the son of Ina- et T Kal i^rpiov \p!>vov dieytvero. chos : he was nevertheless the first man 16. pSOov p.\v cr\^\u>.] Compare Poli- according to the explanation in Pausanias ticus 268 E, where another myth is II xv X^yerat 5 Kal 85e \6yos' $opuvta similarly explained as a fragmentary re- iv rjj yrj raimy yevtffffai irpurov, "Ivayov miniscence of the great convulsion that 5 OVK dvdpa a\\a TOP iroranbv Trartpa took place when the motion of the uni- tlvai $opuveT...$opuvfvt Si o 'Ivd\ov TOVS verse was reversed. dvOpuwovs ffvvjyaye irpurov h KOIVOV, ffiro- 1 7. irapaXXois] This does not sig- pdSas T^WS Kal ofj.dvpios 1 2. Xv6|itvos] The explanation given n^v 5?) - r$ Alyvwrly 8i)\ovi> Kal rb Xud- fjifvos = \vwi> (the only authority Stall- fj.ei>ov, ovx 8ri 17 XIUM* XUO/U^J'T; TO vXrjOos baum can quote is a very uncertain in- rwt> vSa-rtav iroieT, d\\' Sri \verai diro ruv stance in Xenophon de venatu I 17), the tavrou irtjyuv ical vpofiffiv tU TO ipQavis clumsy tautology of the participle, thus ^7rexd/x'os irp&Tfpoi>. Nothing can be understood, is glaring. It appears to me more natural than that the Egyptians that the right interpretation has been should have believed that the 'earth is suggested by Porphyries, whom Proklos full of secret springs ', which by their HAATflNOS [22 D Tat9 Trap' vfilv , ol fiev ev rot? opefft Biaa-a>ovrai J3ovtc6\ot voxels re, 01 8' ev ea-iv ei9 rrjv 0d\arrav VTTO ra eKda-rore Tvy^di'ei ypafjifjiaa-i Kal aTraaiv, oiroawv 7roXet9 Seovrat,, Kal 7rd\iv Bi eiwOorwv eVcof S SoXwi/, Trepl Trap vfjLtv a BiijXdes, TraiBtov flpa-xy ri Biatpepei pvOwv, ot irpwrov nev eva 7^9 KaraKkvc^ov fie/jLi-rja-Qe TroXXeijy efj,Trpoa-0ev 4 K&ru6ev TTO.V : irav omittit Z. 9 aicoty dedi ex A. acog HSZ. breaking forth gave rise to the inunda- tion. It is true that there is still need of an explanation why the springs burst forth at a certain season : but the ancient Egyptians do not stand alone in sup- posing that they solve a difficulty by removing it a stage further back. \v6- /tevoj will therefore mean ' being re- leased ' by the unsealing of its subterra- nean founts. This explanation also gives a good and natural sense to KaruOev tira.vifra.1 below. I hold it then undesira- ble to admit pvbuevos, which is the reading of some inferior mss. 3. KttTd TljvSl TT]V XWf*"'] The priest's theory is as follows. The destruc- tion of ancient records is due (i) to con- flagrations, (2) to deluges. From the first the Egyptians are preserved by the inun- dation of the Nile, from the second by the total absence of rain in their country. Accordingly their population is continu- ous, and their monuments and other records escape destruction. But in Greece and elsewhere, when a deluge comes, the inhabitants of cities and the low countries are swept into the sea, and only the rude dwellers in the mountains escape : cf. Critias 109 D, Laws 677 B. Thus from time to time the more cultivated por- tion of the inhabitants, with all their memorials, are cut off, and civilisation has to make a fresh start : on which account all their history is of yesterday compared with that of the Egyptians. It would seem however that a conflagration which should occur in the winter or spring might take Egypt at a disadvantage. 6. T& 8i dXijOls] The application of this remark is not very obvious, but I take it to be this. We have seen that the history of the Egyptians, owing to their immunity from 0opal, goes back to an extremely remote period, and conse- quently many 0opai dv0pwirui> are re- corded. Elsewhere this immunity does 23 B] TIMAIOS. 73 waters, those in the mountains are saved, the neatherds and shepherds, but the inhabitants of the cities in your land are swept by the rivers into the sea. But in this country neither then nor at any time does water fall from on high upon the fields, but contrariwise all rises up by nature from below. Wherefore and for which causes the legends preserved here are the most ancient that are told : but the truth is that in all places, where exceeding cold or heat does not forbid, there are ever human beings, now more, now fewer. Now whether at Athens or in Egypt, or in any other place whereof we have tidings, any- thing noble or great or otherwise notable has occurred, we have all written down and preserved from ancient times in our temple here. But with you and other nations the commonwealth has only just been enriched with letters and all else that cities require : and again after the wonted term of years like a recur- ring sickness comes rushing on them the torrent from heaven ; and it leaves only the unlettered and untaught among you, so that as it were ye become young again with a new birth, know- ing nought of what happened in the ancient times either in our country or in yours. For instance the genealogies, Solon, which yojj just now recounted, concerning the people of your country, are little better than children's tales. For in the first place ye not exist : tradition tells of but one countries is no greater than that of the dopa; and people suppose that there records. has been but one, and that the existence 12. KaT H Laeri ] 'lit- of man in their country dates from acorn- eris mandata', says Stallbaum, a render- paratively recent time. But the truth is, ing which will surely find few friends : says the priest, that in all countries where nor can we confine iraQopat t nished ' or ' enriched ', a sense which it although no memorial of the earlier in- bears several times in Thucydides : see VI habitants remains. It was a common belief 91, viil 24. The following words ge- that as the North from cold, so the South nerally comprehend all the appurtenances from heat was uninhabitable by man : cf. of civilisation : amongst others, as Proklos Aristotle meteorologica II v 362 b 26 fv0a says, r^xvai Kal a.yopa.1 KO.I \ovrpa,. TO, irap' fj.h yap Sia ^Ox J oi/Ktri KaroiKovcnv, (vOa. V/MV'IS also a general phrase, =your insti- d dia T7)v a\tai>. The difficulty about tutions or commonwealths. Compare the sentence is that rb 5' aXrjff^s has the Critias no A &TO.V tdrjrdv riffiv ydy rou air of correcting the statement in the (St'ou Ta.va.yKO.la. Ka,TrKeva,ffopal were i.e. that the antiquity of man in other normal and regularly recurrent. 74 IIAATHNOS [23 B- yeyovoro)v, ert Be TO Kd\\io~rov Kal upicrrov yevo? eV dvOprirrovs ev rfi \(apa rfj Trap* vp.lv OVK fore 76701/09, e wv o~v re Kal rrdaa TJ 7roXf9 edevroi>, uTTfp TJ}I/ fieyl&Tijv (pdopav vSacriv rj vvv *A.6r)vai(0v ovo~a 7roXt9 upla-rr} 7T/309 T rov 7ro\fj,ov Kal Kara Trdvra evvofiwrdrf] &ia ovv 6 26\tov r) 6avp,daai Kal iratrav Trpodvp-lav %eiv Seo/xei/09 TWV iepewv irdvra 8t aKpiflelas ol TO. irepl TWV TrdXat TroXirwv 6^179 8ie\0tiv. rov ovv iepea (ftdvaf <&6bvos oi)Set9, 9 vfiwv, p.d\iora 8e T^9 Beov X"P iV > r) ri]v re vfierepav Kal ryvoe eXa^e xal edpe-^re Kal errai^evae, rrpo- 15 repav fiev rr)v Trap' V/JLIV erecri ^iXi'ot9, K F^9 re Kal 'tLai Bid ftpa^ecov voftovs, Kal rwv epywv avrols 20 o Ka\\i(rrov ercpd^dri' TO 8" a/c/3*/3t9 irepl rcdvrwv e rfjBe. TroXXa ydp 7rapa8eiy/J,ara rwv rore reap vfilv ovrwv evddBe vvv dvevprjcrets, Trpcorov /j,ev TO rv lepewv yevos diro rwv d\\cov %0a.5lS. 22 Tjjde: rrjvde A. i. iir' eiv8pirovs] ^iri signifies exten- curious: it seems to stand for 'political sion over: a use exceedingly rare in Attic institutions'. prose, but occurring again in Critias 1 1 2 E 15. ITJS TC KCU 'H^aio-rov] As we ifl traffav TS>vp0opdv] vwip ras dpxas vaXiv rldrjcri, Ocpubv Kal if/vxpov, = back beyond. olov irvp xal yijv \tyuv. Cf. physica I v 8. iroXiTtiai] The plural is somewhat i88 a 20. Plato's statement falls in with 24 A] TIMAIOS. 75 remember but one deluge, whereas there had been many before it ; and moreover ye know not that the fairest and noblest race among mankind lived once in your country, whence ye sprang and all your city which now is, from a very little seed that of old was left over. Ye however know it not, because the sur- vivors lived and died for many generations without utterance in writing. For once upon a time, Solon, far back beyond the greatest destruction by waters, that which is now the city of the Athenians was foremost both in war and in all besides, and her laws were exceedingly righteous above all cities. Her deeds and her government are said to have been the noblest among all under heaven whereof the report has come to our ears. And Solon said that on hearing this he was astonished, and used all urgency in entreating the priests to relate to him from beginning to end all about those ancient citizens. So the priest said, I grudge thee not, O Solon, and I will tell it for thy sake and for the sake of thy city, and chiefly for the honour of the goddess who was the possessor and nurse and instructress both of your city and of ours ; for she founded yours earlier by a thousand years, having taken the seed of you from Earth and Hephaistos; and ours in later time. And the date of our city's foundation is recorded in our sacred writings to be eight thousand years ago. But concerning the citizens of Athens nine thousand years ago I will inform you in brief of their laws and of the noblest of the deeds which they performed : the exact truth concerning every- thing we will examine in due order hereafter, taking the actual records at our leisure. Consider now their laws in comparison with those of our country ; for you will find here at the present day many exam- ples of the laws which then existed among you : first the separation of the priestly caste from the rest ; next the distinc- Athenian mythology : Erechtheus was the ical TOVTWV ol plv Iptes, ol 5 son of Earth and Hephaistos. xX^arat, ol 3 POVKO\OI, ol 8t ffv^iZrai, ol 12. irapaSeCYp-ara is of course not put S /ccunjXot, ol5 ep/j.rjvtes, ol 8t KV^epvrjrat. for elxovas, as Proklos would have it, but The discrepancy arises from the fact that signifies samples, specimens. there were actually three castes, the two 23. TO TWV Icplwv y&'os] Plato's classi- higher being priests and warriors, and fication does not coincide with that given the lowest comprising men following in Herodotus n 164. The latter makes various occupations which are differently seven castes : ftm 5 Alyvrrluv eirra. yfrfa, enumerated by different authentic 7 6 TIAATHNOS [24 A TOOV Brjmovpyoov, OTI xaff avro CKCKTTOV aXX ?e OVK eirip,iyvvp.evov BrjfjLiovpyei, TO re TWV vofieeov Kal TO TTr\icr^eda, r/J? ^eoO KaOdtrep ev eKeivois rot? roTrof? Trap vp.lv TrpajTOi? evBei^afievrjs. TO 8' av Trepl T^? povijo-(o<;, opa? TTOV TOV vopov TTJBe ocrrjv eTTtfieXeiav eVotJ/craTO 1 evBvs KOT frep TC TOV icoa^ov aTravTa, Ka Trpo? C >5 vyieiav, CK TOVTWV Oeiwv OVTQJV ei? ra dvOpanriva dvevpwv, cpv ev avTat KaTiBovo~a, on povi- dvBpas otcroi' are ovv povnVcws] Hav- ing described the ordinances relating to externals he now proceeds to the training of the mind. 10. ircpC T TOV KoVjiov] The meaning of this curiously involved and complex sentence seems to be this. The lawgiver, beginning with the study of the nature of the universe, which is divine, deduced from thence principles of practical use for human needs, applying them to divina- tion and medicine and the other sciences therewith connected. The peculiarity of the law in fact consisted in basing its precepts concerning practical arts such as medicine (avffpuviva) upon universal truths of nature (Beta), /x^xpt navTiK-fis, i.e. bringing its deductions down to divi- nation. In the words ^c TOVTUV Oduv ovrtav eij TO. avdpuirii>a wevpuv we cer- tainly have a difficulty of construction. I take the meaning to be 'from these divine studies (i.e. of the *60>toj) having invented them (^OLVTIK^ and larpiic/i) for human needs '. But the lack of an object to cti'eupuH' and the construction of /j TO a*9p D] TIMAIO2. 77 tion of the craftsmen, that each kind plies its own craft by itself and mingles not with another ; and the class of shepherds and of hunters and of husbandmen are set apart ; and that of the warriors too you have surely noticed is here sundered from all the other classes ; for on them the law enjoins to study the art of war and nought else. Furthermore there is the fashion of their arming with spears and shields, wherewith we have been the first men in Asia to arm ourselves ; for the goddess taught this to us, as she did first to you in that country of yours. Again as regards knowledge, you see how careful our law is in its. first principles, investigating the laws of nature till it arrives at divination and medicine, the object of which is health, draw- ing from these divine studies lessons useful for human needs, and adding to these all the sciences that are connected there- withal. With all this constitution and order the goddess estab- lished you when she founded your nation first; choosing out the spot in which ye were born because she saw that the mild temperament of its seasons would produce the highest intelli- gence in its people. Seeing then that the goddess was a lover of war and of wisdom, she selected the spot that should bring forth men likest to herself, and therein she first founded your race. Thus then did ye dwell governed by such laws as I have described, ay and even better still, surpassing all men in ex- cellence, as was meet for them that were offspring and nurslings of gods. Many and mighty are the deeds of your city recorded here for the marvel of men ; but one is there which for greatness and much doubt whether the text is sound. from the treatise of Hippokrates de aerc The whole sentence reads strangely in a locis et aquis : ct. especially fvp^fisyapfirl passage of such singular literary brilliance TO irX^os -nfc x^pW rrj vcri d.Ko\ovOevi>Ta. as this chapter. With regard to HCLVTIK^ ical efSea rlav dvOpwiruv /cal TOI)J rpowovs. Kal larpiKTJs Proklos observes that the Kiihn vol. I p. 567. Compare too Flo- Egyptians combined these two profes- tinos ennead mis d.Ko\ov6eiv Si rotj TO- sions. irots ov fjjovov TO. &\\a tpvra. re Kal fyo, 15. 4>povi|iwT eVi Tfl5 a\Xa? i/r)o-of9 rot? rore eyiyvero Tropevopevois, etc Be rwv vijaiverai \ifj.ijv vrevov riva fywv iv Be d\\wv vrjcrwv Kal pepwv rrjs -JTreipoV 15 7rpoavrjv 'E\\r)va>v rjyovjji,evr), rd 8' avrr) fiovwOeiva e'f dvdyKtjs rwv C 5 KaXtVcu...(Ti7Xat: Ka\ftTt... t6t\y nance from geology. The wild absurdity X&yoi/s iroiet or whether it really more of most of the theories on the subject may or less represents some Egyptian legend be gathered from Martin's learned and brought home by Solon. Stallbaum sup- amusing dissertation. There is hardly a poses that the ancient Egyptians really country on the face of the globe, not only had some information of the existence of from China to Peru, but from New Zea- America. But this is entirely incredible, land to Spitzbergen, including such an considering the limited powers of navi- eminently unpromising locality as Pales- gation possessed by even the boldest sea- tine, which has not been confidently iden- farers of those times. The greatest voyage tified with the Platonic Atlantis. It can on record was the circumnavigation of only be said that such speculations are Africa related by Herodotus IV 42: but that deivou K /j.d%ifj.ov D Tray dQpcov eBv /card 7^?, i^ re 'ArXai/Tt? i/^o-o? axravTox; Kara rf)<; 0a\drrr)<; &v5 eiTreiv, a/c^/coa?- E Xeyoi/TO? 8e 8^ X^ 1 * , tcaravooov, ? e/c Tti/o? etTrev. 01 8, fcaOaTre 08' etTre, ^5 T6 ot//c a?ro (TKOTTOV ^vv^vk^Qf]^ rd -rroXXa e^ov\i]0r)v Trapa-^pfj/jia eiTreiv Bid 26 A evevorjcra ovv, OTI ^pewv eirj irdvra dva\aj36vTa \eyeiv oi/rw?. xi|iov] We must suppose the chief fury of the earth- quake was spent on Athens itself, so that all the more cultivated and intelli- gent citizens, who, as in Plato's own re- public, included the fighting men, were destroyed ; while the Attic race was con- tinued by the rude inhabitants of country districts. 8. fiiropov Ko.1 dSicptvv^Tov] Ari- stotle agrees, though assigning a different reason, about the shallowness of the At- lantic near Gibraltar : cf. meteorologiea n i 354" 11 TO. 5' {w (TTijXwv /Spax^o n^v 8ta rbv irr)\6v, dirvoa 5' iarlv ws Iv Koi\y Tijj Oa\a.TTT)s ovffijs. uffirtp ovv ical Kara, julpot iieTwv ty^ui'oliroTa.fjiol <(>aivwrai ptovrt j, ovru xal rljs o\i/j 7^5 i* rS>v vifrrjXoTtpuv TOW Tpiy &PKTOV r6 ptvfia ylvercu. . TO AZ. *\ei uxne olov ejKavfj,ara dveKir\vrov 7/>a0^ 10 KCU Brj KOI roicrBe ev6v D '5 Bevpo drjaopev a>s eKeivrjv rrjvBe ov rare ovras "xpovtp' KOIVJJ Be Bta- \afj,/3dvovr e$ aTravres jreipaa'op.eOa TO irpeirov et9 Bvvafjiiv 0X9 to e7reVa|'a9 aTroBovvat. cricoTrelv ovv Brj %p>j, to ^wicpares, el Kara vovv 6 \oyo<$ rjpJiv ovros, tf riva IT' aXXov avr avrov ^rjrrjreov. E Sfl. Kal rlv av, (a KptTta, /ioXXov dvrl rovrov fAeraXdpoi- fiev, 09 ry re Trapovo-rj T^9 ^eoO Ovcriq Bid rrjv olfceiorrjr' av TrpeVot fj,d\i(rra, TO TC /A^ TfkaaQkvta p,v6ov aXX' dXtjOivov \6yov elvai 7 5 Trdfifieyd TTOV. 7ra9 7p /cat Trodev aXXoi9 dvevpr)crop,ev d ^^69 \6ya)v vvv rjTes omittunt SZ. 19 post dirai'rej inserit A roi>j dvdfxiiirovy. 4. OVK av oI8' fl Svva(tit]v] For the 9. tyKavpara] For the methods of construction and position of &v see Euri- encaustic painting see Pliny Nat. Hist. pides A Ices tii 48, Medea 941. I have xxxv 149. not noted another instance in Plato. 14. JM} irXao-O^vro. p.v0ov] Cf. 21 A. 7. irai.8i.KTJs] Stallbaum with very We must not bind Plato down too strictly slight ms. authority reads ireuSias, without to this affirmation. noticing any other reading: apparently 29. oVrpovoixiKwraTov] Not in the he failed to perceive that iraiSt^s was in popular sense merely, but in the sub- agreement with ridovyt. limated Platonic manner. 27 A] TIMAIO2. 83 we should be fairly well provided. So then, as Hermokrates said, as soon as ever I departed hence yesterday, I began to repeat the legend to our friends as I remembered it; and when I got home I recovered nearly the whole of it by thinking it over at night. How true is the saying that what we learn in childhood has a wonderful hold on the memory. Of what I heard yesterday I know not if I could call to mind the whole : but though it is so very long since I heard this tale, I should be surprised if a single point in it has escaped me. It was with much boyish delight that I listened at the time, and the old man was glad to instruct me, (for I asked a great many questions) ; so that it is indelibly fixed in my mind, like those encaustic pictures which cannot be effaced. And I narrated the story to the rest the first thing in the morning, that they might share my affluence of words. Now therefore, to return to the object of all our conversation, I am ready to speak, Sokrates, not only in general terms, but entering into details, as I heard it. The citizens and the city which you yesterday described to us as in a fable we will transfer to the sphere of reality and to our own country, and we will suppose that ancient Athens is your ideal commonwealth, and say that the citizens whom you imagined are those veritable forefathers of ours of whom the priest spoke. They will fit exactly, and there will be nothing discordant in saying that they were the men who lived in those days. And dividing the work between us we will all endeavour to render an appropriate fulfilment of your injunctions. So you must consider, Sokrates, whether this story of ours satisfies you, or whether we must look for another in its stead. Sokrates, How could we change it for the better, Kritias ? It is specially appropriate to this festival of the goddess, owing to its connexion with her ; while the fact that it is no fictitious tale but a true history is surely a great point. How shall we find other such citizens if we relinquish these ? It cannot be : so with Fortune's favour do you speak on, while I in requital for my discourse of yesterday have in my turn the privilege of listening in silence. Kritias. Now consider, Sokrates, how we proposed to dis- tribute your entertainment. We resolved that Timaeus, who is the best astronomer among us, and who has most of all made it 62 84 HAATHNOS [27 A- teal irepl (frvveajs TOV TravTos elBevai fid\io~Ta epyov fj,evov, TrpwTov \eyeiv dp-^ofievov diro T/?9 TOV KOO-JJLOV Te\evrdv Be elo9 B \6yov T Kai vofiov elo-ayayovTa avTovs 009 et? StAcacrra? 7/ia9 7roir)r), TO, \otird Be 0)9 7re/)t 7ro\tTt3y /fal 'AOrjvattov OVTWV 17877 TroielaOat, 10 TOW Xo70t>9. SO. TeXe(09 re /cat Xa/iTrpco? eot/ca ai/TaTroX^eo-^at T?}y \6ya)v o-Tiao~iv. vo-iv seems to have its old 27 C 29 D, r. v. Timaeus, after due sense of 'generation'. invocation of heavenly aid, thus begins 4. TW Xo-yw yeyovoTas] cf. Republic his exposition. The first step is to dis- 361 B TOV oliccuov irap' afirov iffTwpev ry tinguish the eternally existing object of Xoytf), avdpa aTrXouv Kalyevvaiov, also 534 D thought and reason from the continually Trcuoas ovj T^> Xo'7cal TOI- fleeting object of opinion and sensation, fietfeis, ef irorc ^/ryy T/J^KHS. To which class does the material uni- 5. Kara 8^] Stallbaum's suggestion verse belong, to Being or Becoming? of reading 8ij for St appears to me to To Becoming, because it is apprehen- restore the true structure of the sentence. sible by the senses. All that comes to 6. XOYOV TC Kal vofiovj i.e. accept- be comes from some cause; so therefore ing the statement of Solon that they were does the universe. Also it must be a Athenian citizens, we formally admit their likeness of something. Now what is claim to citizenship in the mode pre- modelled on the eternal must needs be scribed by his law. fair, but what is modelled on the created D] TIMAIO2. 85 his business to understand universal nature, should speak first, beginning with the origin of the universe, and should end with the birth of mankind : and that I should follow, receiving from him mankind brought to being in theory, and from you a por- tion of them exceptionally cultivated ; and that in accordance with Solon's laws, no less than with his statement, I should introduce them before our tribunal and make them our fellow- citizens, as being the Athenians of bygone days, whom the declaration of the sacred writings has delivered from their oblivion ; and thenceforward we shall speak as if their claim to Athenian citizenship were fairly established. Sokrates. Ample and splendid indeed, it seems, will be the banquet of discourse which I am to receive in my turn. So it would seem to be your business to speak next, Timaeus, after you have duly invoked the gods. V. Timaeus. Yes indeed, Sokrates, that is what all do who possess the slightest share of judgment ; at the outset of every work, great or small, they always call upon a god : and seeing that we are going to enter on a discussion of the universe, how far it is created or perchance uncreate, unless we are altogether beside ourselves, we must needs invoke the gods and goddesses and pray above all that our discourse may be pleasing in their sight, next that it may be consistent with itself. Let it suffice then thus to have called upon the gods ; but we must call upon ourselves likewise to conduct the discourse in such a way that you will most readily comprehend me, and I shall most fully carry out my intentions in expounding the subject that is before us. First then in my judgment this distinction must be made. is not fair. The universe is most fair, The first eight chapters of Timaeus' therefore it was modelled on the eternal. discourse, extending to 40 D, deal with And in dealing with the eternal type and the universe as a whole; after which he the created image, we must remember proceeds to its several portions, that the words we use of each must 11. TO 8' i]|ircpov irapaKXryrfov] i e. correspond to their several natures : those after appealing to the gods for aid, we which deal with the eternally existent must appeal to ourselves to put forth must be so far as possible sure and true all our energies : heaven helps those who and incontrovertible ; while with those help themselves. which treat of the likeness we must be 22. fl Siavoovjiai] Stallbaum proposes content if they arc likely. To this So- to read a. krates assents. *\ i, 86 HAATHNOS [27 D ov del, yevecriv 8e OVK e^oi>, fcal rl TO yiyvoaevov pev del, ov oe ovoeTTOTf. TO pev 8>) vorfffei p.Ta \6yov 7rept\r}7rr6v, del Kara 28 A ravrd cv, TO 8' av o6r) UCT' alffOrj crews d\6yov oo^acrTov, yiyvo- fjievov Kal aTToXkii/jievov, oW. yeyovev oparos yap avrTO? Te eVrt /cat e")(wv, iravra Se Ta TotavTa alcrd^Ta, TO, S' alcrdijTa, B6rj fiT alcrBrjaews, yiyvopeva Kal yevvrjTd ecfrdwr). TOJ 8' c av yevopevti) (frapev vir aiTtov TWOS dvdyKrjv elvai yeve&Oai. TOV fjiev ovv TroirjTrjv Kal iraTepa TOvSe TOV TravTos evpelv T epyov Kal 10 eipovTa et? Tcavras dSvvaTov \eyetv Tooe 8' ovv irdXiv eVfo-/ce- i. ri> |iv 8^ voTjo-ti] voT/ffts and 5o^a customary reverent diffidence in naming denote the faculties, \6yot and oto-^crtj the divine : cf. Aeschylus Agamemnon the processes. The language of the pre- 160 Zei5s, 6'i\ov /ce/cX^yu^Vi TOVTO viv irpoffevvtiru. account given at the end of the fifth book The sentence becomes an anacoluthon of the Republic. owing to the parenthetical words 17 iced 5. W alrfov TWOS] So Philebus 16 a\\o...wvofj.dffOu. E 8pa >4p et act 5oce avaytcaiov dvai 14. nxSrtpov fy a(] i.e. whether it jrdvra ret yi.yv6fi.tva. did Tiva atriav ylyve- belongs to things eternal or to things 060.1. Only the Cvrws 6v, the changeless temporal. It cannot be too carefully and abiding, is a cause to itself and needs borne in mind that there is throughout no no oWa from without : the yiyv6fj.tov question whatsoever of the beginning of has no principle of causation in itself and the universe in time. The creation in must find the source of its becoming in time is simply part of the figurative some ulterior force. representation : it is /car' imvoiav only. 8. n]v IS^av Kal 8vvap.iv] Neither In Plato's highly poetical and allegorical of these words has a technical meaning, exposition a logical analysis is repre- though dtivamv is here not so very far sented as a process taking place in time, removed from the Aristotelian sense. and to reach his true meaning we must iStav = the form and fashion of it, S6va.fj.iv strip off the veil of imagery. He con- its function or quality. ceived the universe to be a certain evo- u. TJ Ka\ oXXo] The universe is a lution of absolute thought; and the living god: Plato therefore uses the several elements in this evolution he 28 c] TIMAIO2. 87 What is that which is eternally and has no becoming, and again what is that which comes to be but is never ? The one is com- prehensible by thought with the aid of reason, ever changeless ; the other opinable by opinion with the aid of reasonless sensa- tion, becoming and perishing, never truly existent. Now all that comes to be must needs be brought into being by some cause : for it is impossible for anything without a cause to attain to birth. Of whatsoever thing then the Artificer, looking ever to the changeless and using that as his model, works out the design and function, all that is so accomplished must needs be fair : but if he look to that which has come to be, using the created as his model, the work is not fair. Now as to the whole heaven or order of the universe for whatsoever name is most acceptable to it, be it so named by us we must first ask con- cerning it the question which lies at the outset of every inquiry, whether did it exist eternally, having no beginning of generation, or has it come into being, starting from some beginning? It has come into being : for it can be seen and felt and has body ; and all such things are sensible, and sensible things, apprehen- sible by opinion with sensation, belong, as we saw, to becoming and creation. We say that what has come to be must be brought into being by some cause. Now the maker and father of this All it were a hard task to find, and having found him, it represents as a succession of events. a TravSoKfiov for all views they had a Such criticism then as that of Aris- difficulty in otherwise bestowing. As to totle in de caelo I x is wholly irrele- the past tense rjv de(, Proklos very justly vant: he treats a metaphysical concep- observes e2 d TO yv oti (prffft irpof\duv tion from a merely physical point of olKeiov elvai TO?S alwvlou, eu e? raparrta- view. Stobaeus eel. I 450 says llvOa- 6ai' irpbycLprrj^dtapOpwo'eus Zirerat ryffw- yopas 9 777)09 TO diBiov eft\errev 5 el Be o /iT/8' elrrelv nvl Befits, 777*09 TO 76701/09. rravrl Brj o-a<>? oVt 777309 TO diBiov 6 fiev yap /caXXtaTO? rwv yeyovorwv, o B" dpivros r Kal poviuovs Kal dfieraTrrwrovs, Kad' 'QGOV [0^0^] T6 15 dv\eyKroi<; jrpoaijKei \6yoi? elvat, Kal aKivrjrois, rovrov Set prjBev eXXeiireiv TOI)? Be rov ?rpo9 uev eKelvo aTreiKacrdevros, oi/T09 Be C eiKovos, eiKoras dva \cyov re eKeivcov 6Wa9* o ri rrep Trpds yevetriv ovaia, rovro Trpos rrianv dXyOeia. eav ovv, w ^WKpares, iroXkd 3 irpbs ri> yeyovos: rb omittit A. 8 Kal ante *carA omittit A. 14 KO.&' Sffov olov re AZ. /ca0' 8 there is nothing in the universe which, taken by itself, is so fair as the universe as a whole. g. cixova nvAs ttvai] This leads the way to the question raised in 30 C. Seeing that the creator looked to a pat- tern in framing the universe, it follows that the universe is a copy of something ; and we have to inquire what that is whereof it is the copy. Cicero renders these words ' simulacrum aeternum esse alicuius aeterni'; whence it would ap- pear that his ms. gave tli<6va. alSiov TWOS cit5/ou, which it has been proposed to re- store. This however it were rash to do against all existing mss. and Proklos. The phrase tlnova. didiov might perhaps be defended on the same principle as I . irpos irirtpov TWV irapa8ti-y|Jid,TWv] It may reasonably be asked, how could the creator look 117.6$ rd yeyovbs, since at that stage there was no 7ryoi'6s to look to? Plato's meaning, I take it, is this: the yeyovos at which the Artificer would look can of course only be the ytyovos that he was about to produce. Now if he looked at this, instead of fixing his eyes upon any eternal type, that would mean that he created arbitrarily and at random a universe that simply fulfilled his fancy at the moment and did not express any underlying thought: the universe would in fact be a collection of incoherent phenomena, a mere plaything of the creator. But, says Plato, this is not so: material nature is but the visible counterpart of a spiritual reality ; all things have their meaning. Creation is no merely arbitrary exercise of will 29 c] TIMAIO2. 89 were impossible to declare him to all men. However we must again inquire concerning him, after which of the models did the framer of it fashion the universe, after the changeless and abid- ing, or after that which has come into being? If now this universe is fair and its Artificer good, it is plain that he looked to the eternal ; but if nay it may not even be uttered without impiety, then it was to that which has come into being. Now it is manifest to every one that he looked to the eternal : for the universe is fairest of all things that have come to be, and he is the most excellent of causes. And having come on this wise into being it has been created in the image of that which is comprehensible by reason and wisdom and changes never. Granting this, it must needs be that this universe is a likeness of something. Now it is all-important to make our beginning according to nature: and this affirmation must be laid down with regard to a likeness and its model, that the words must be akin to the subjects of which they are the interpreters : there- fore of that which is abiding and sure and discoverable by the aid of reason the words too must be abiding and unchanging, and so far as it lies in words to be incontrovertible and immova- ble, they must in no wise fall short of this ; but those which deal with that which is made in the image of the former and which is a likeness must be likely and duly corresponding with their subject : as being is to becoming, so is truth to belief. If then, Sokrates, after so many men have said divers things concerning aluviov dKova. in 37 D: but there the ex- does indeed produce a sentence that can pression has a pointedness which is lack- be construed ; but it involves larger alte- ing here. aiSiov properly means exempt rations of the text, and the position of from time, and cannot strictly be applied the word Xtfyous seems extremely unsatis- to the phenomenal world, though its factory. I cannot therefore concede his duration be everlasting. claim to have restored Plato's words, j 3. TOV jiiv oxiv |iov(|iov] Some cor- According to my version of the sentence ruption has clearly found its way into elcoi must be supplied with (j.ovt/j.ovs Kal this sentence. It seems to me that the oueraTTTwroi/s. simplest remedy is to reject olov, which I 17. dcd \6-yov] i.e. they stand in the think may have arisen from a duplication same relation to the XOYOJ of the irapd- of &roc. By this omission the sentence dtiy/j-a as the elK&v to the TrapdSeiyfjM: as becomes perfectly grammatical. Stall- becoming is to being so is probability to baum, reading /cai before a0' $vcriv dv0pa>7rivr)v D exoftev, &are trepl rovrwv rov elicora pvOov d7roBe%opevovs rovrov fArjBev eri Trepa fyreiv. Sn. "Apicrra, co Tifiaie, iravrdiracrL re aT TO fjbev ovv Trpooifjiiov Qav^aaia)^ aTreBe^dfjLeQd crov, rov Be Sij vopov jo rjp.lv Trepaive. VI. TI. Aeyco/jiev 8^ 8t' rjv riva alriav yevea-iv Kal TO rrav r68e 6 vvi(rrd<; ^vvecrrrjo'ev. dyados r)v, dyadw Be ovBels irep] E ovBevof ov&eTTore eyyiyverai, 86vo$' rovrov 8' e/rro? u>v Traira o n p,d\i(rra yevea-Qai e/3ov\ri6r} KaoaTr\r}cria eavrut. ravrrjv Brj 15 7ej/eo-ea>9 Kal Koa-fiov /j,d\iar av ripovifj,a>v a7ro8e^6/ievo9 opdorara aTroBe^oir' av. /3oi>- 30 A yap 6 deos dyaOd p>ev irdvra, \avpov Be firjBsV elvat, rts: Oavuforis HSZ. 4 14 rairrjv 5^: 5^ AHZ. omittit A. 3 H. 9 vcfjiov : \6yov Z. :. avrovs taxirois 6)j.oXo^ovp.evo-us] The modesty of Timaeus leads him rather unduly to depreciate his physical theories: it would be hard, I think, to detect any inconsistencies in them, though there may be points which are not altogether a.Trr]Kpipu(n{i>a. But Plato insists with much urgent iteration upon the impossi- bility of attaining certainty in any account of the objects of sense. They have no veritable existence, therefore no positive truth or secure knowledge concerning them is attainable. It is his desire to keep this constantly before the reader's mind that induces Plato to refer so fre- quently to the elicus puffo*. The differ- ence between the eiVccis /*00os and 6 Si' oKpifieias aXrjOrjs Xo'"yoj is instructively dis- played when each is invoked to decide the question of the unity of the universe. In 31 A the latter authoritatively declares the /coV/tos to be one only, and gives the metaphysical reason : in 55 D all the former ventures to say is TO i**v ovv Sr) Trap 1 T)H,W> eva avrov Kara TOV eiKOTa, \6yov /J.rjv0<$vos] The vulgar notion TO Belov 9ovepji> was ex- tremely distasteful to Plato: cf. Phaedrus 247 A 66vos yap Ufa 0eLov xPu teraTtu. So Aristotle metaph. A ii 983 a 2 dXX' ovre TO dtiov (f>dovepov frd^xfrcu elvat, oXXck, Kal Kara ryv ira.poifJ.iat> iro\\a \f/evdovTai dot 5 01. 15. irap' avSpuv c|>povLfj.a>v] \Vhoare the p6vt/j.ot dvSpes? Probably some Py- thagoreans. I have not traced the senti- ment to any preplatonic thinker ; but it is quite consonant with Pythagorean views : cf. Stobaeus eel. ii 64 S ravrd T<{J HuOayopa' T\O [? 6f$]. Stallbaum cites the apophthegm attributed by Diogenes Laertius to Thales, KtiXXtcrToi' KoV/uos, troirj/Aa ydp 6fov: but this does not seem specially apposite. IIAATHNOS [ 3 A /card SvvafJ.iv, ovrco B*} irdv ocrov rjv oparov Trapa\a(3(av ov% r) XKTTOV \oyia-dfjievos ovv evpi&Kev e/c r. Bid &rj TOV \oyi[iaTi gvvio-rds TO irdv gwereKTaivero, OTTW? '6 ri /cd\\iaTov e'lij Kara 10 (f>vv %(ac0v avrov els onoicrijra 6 ^vvia~rd^ gwecrrijo'e. rwv i. Kara 8xiva|uv] To make the ma- terial universe absolutely perfect was im- possible, since evil, whatever it may be, is more or less inherent in the very nature of matter and can never be totally abo- lished : cf. Theaetetus 1 76 A d\X' otir' caro\{ffOai TO. KO.KO. dvvarov, u Qe65wpe' virfvavriov yap TI T$ dyafftf) atl elvai dv&y- Ki)' offr' b Oeois aura ISpvyOai, TTJV 8 0l>TfTT)V QlHTlV Kal TOfSe TOV TOTTOV WepllToXfl ^{ drdymp- See also Politicus 273 B, c. Evil is in fact, just as much as perception in space and time, an inevitable accom- paniment of the differentiation of abso- lute intelligence into the multiplicity of finite intelligences. It is much to be regretted that Plato has not left us a dialogue dealing with the nature of evil and the cause of its necessary inherence in matter : as it is, we can only conjec- ture the line he would have taken. irav oaov rjv oparov irapaXa^wv] Martin finds in this passage a clear indi- cation that chaos actually as a fact existed before the ordering of the KM no*. But this is due to a misunderstanding of Plato's figurative exposition. Proklos says with perfect correctness /COT' tiri- voidv Ofupfirai irpo rrjs Kov Sie- KOffnijffev : he means that matter, as con- ceived in itself, is without any formative principle of order : it is only when we think of it as the outcome of mind that it can have any system or meaning. Com- pare Appuleius de dogni. Plat. I viii 198 et hunc quidem mundum nunc sine initio esse dicit, alias originem habere natumque esse : nullum autem eius exordium atque initium esse ideo quod semper fuerit ; nativum vero videri, quod ex his rebus substantia eius et natura constet, quae nascendi sortitae sunt qualitatem. ovx rjo-ox^av tryv] The very fact that matter is described as in motion, though the motion be chaotic, is sufficient to prove conclusively that it is a phase of since for Plato ifrvx^i is the sole Kivrffffus. Kifoi'ififfov ir\?;/n/ueXtDj Kal c] TIMAI02. 93 this might be, there should be nought evil, having received all that is visible not in a state of rest, but moving without harmony or measure, brought it from its disorder into order, thinking that this was in all ways better than the other. Now it neither has been nor is permitted to the most perfect to do aught but what is most fair. Therefore he took thought and perceived that of all things which are by nature visible, no work that is without reason will ever be fairer than that which has reason, setting whole against whole, and that without soul reason cannot dwell in anything. Because then he argued thus, in forming the universe he created reason in soul and soul in body, that he might be the maker of a work that was by nature most fair and perfect. In this way then we ought to affirm according to the probable account that this universe is a living creature in very truth possessing soul and reason by the providence of God. Having attained thus far, we must go on to tell what follows : after the similitude of what animal its framer fashioned it. To drd/crajj describes the condition of matter as it would be were it not derived from an intelligent apxy- Aristotle refers to this passage de caelo III ii 3oo b 17, com- paring Plato's chaotic motion to that attributed by Demokritos to his atoms. And this philosopheme of Demokritos is doubtless what Plato had in view : such a motion as the former conceives, not proceeding from intelligence, could not produce a /r6x^, an d ^'"X'J is intelligent. 3. ^Y](rd(ivos Kivo TOUTOV iravrws aficivov] sc. rdl-tv dramas. Throughout this passage Plato is careful to remedy the defect he found in Anaxagoras. ' All was chaos', said Anaxagoras ; 'then Mind came and brought it into order ', ' be- cause ', Plato adds, ' Mind thought order better than disorder '. Thus the final cause is supplied which was wanting in the elder philosopher, and we now see Mind working tiri 7. vojv 8' a3 xwpls tjnixtjs] Compare Philebns 30 C ffo<(>ia f*.T}v KO! voOs dvtv ^fX'?* V K &" Tore jfvoiffOrjv. Stallbaum, following the misty light of neoplatonic inspiration, says of ^t'X 1 ?) ' media est inter corpora atque mentem '. But in truth vovs is simply the activity of ^KX 1 ? accord- ing to her own proper nature : it is soul undiluted, as it were; apprehending not through any bodily organs, but by the exercise of pure thought : it is not some- thing distinct from ^xtf, but a particular function of ^I'X 1 ?- 8. 'I'vx'iv 84 v a Trdvra eKelvo ev eavrw irepiXafiov 5 %!,, Kadd-rrep oSe 6 #007109 ^/i9 co*a re aXXa Qpeppara gvve- (rrrjKev cpard, ry yap ra,v voovfievaiv ica\\i(nu> Kal /card trdvra D TeXep fj,d\iv(riv gvyyevrj &Ja eVro? e^ov eavrov, %vvea, /J,e0' erepov Sevrepov OVK av TTOT' eirj" 7rd\iv yap dv erepov elvai TO Trepl eKeivco Seot a>ov, ov /if/309 av etrrjv eKelvto, Kal OVK dv en eKelvouv a\X* eKeivw ra> Trepie^ovn ToS' dv 15 t^wfJLOt(i}fjLvov \eyoiro opOorepov. 'iva ovv roBe Kara rrjv /JLOVWVIV B 13 ticetvu: tudvtj) A. i. Iv (x^povs ttSti] Stallbaum cites Cratylus 394 D tv r^paros tlSet, Phaedo 91 D Iv op/xovfas ftSet, Republic 389 B ws Iv apndKOv etdei, Hippias maior 297 B kv rarpiJs TWOS Iteq.. i. KaO' fv Kal icard Y^vr^] The neo- platonic commentators are at variance whether tv or 7^1*1; is to be regarded as the more universal expression. I think Plato's usage is pretty conclusive in favour of taking Iv as the more special, tv will thus signify the separate species, such as horse or tree ; while yivi], I am disposed to think, refers to the four classes men- tioned in 40 A, corresponding to the four elements to which they severally belong. In any case the ai/rd o tffri faov compre- hends in it all the scale of inferior ideas from the four highest to the lowest species. 6. TWV voovfuvuv KoXXCorcp] As we saw that the material universe is fairer than any of its parts, so the universal idea is fairer than any of the ideas which it comprehends : cf. 39 E Iva r68e ws 6/tot6- TdTOr ft Tlf Tf\l(f KO.I VOIJTIf fvtpo/j.(v. But now that the ideas are restricted to diroaa vfftt, now that they are naturally determined and their existence is no longer inferred from a group of particulars, there is for Plato no reason why a natural genus should not exist containing but a single particular. 3i B] TIMAIO2. 95 none of these which naturally belong to the class of the partial must we deign to liken it : for nothing that is like to the im- perfect could ever become fair ; but that of which the other animals severally and in their kinds are portions, to this above all things we must declare that the universe is most like. For that comprehends and contains in itself all ideal animals, even as this universe contains us and all other creatures that have been formed to be visible. For since God desired to liken it most nearly to what is fairest of the objects of reason and in all respects perfect, he made it a single visible living being, containing within itself all animals that are by nature akin to it. Are we right then in affirming the universe to be one, or had it been more true to speak of a great and boundless number ? One it must be, if it is to be created according to its pattern. For that which comprehends all ideal animals that are could never be a second in company of another: for there must again exist another animal comprehending them, whereof the two would be parts, and no longer to them but to that which comprehended them should we more truly affirm the universe to have been likened. To the end then that in its solitude this universe might be like But what is this avro $ov ? Surely 8e e& ovpavos (pavepov. el yap ir\eiovs not an essence existing outside the KO. Kal TO lating poetry into prose, it is the primal Kivot/j.ei>ov apa del Kal av /j.ia 92 C. Proklos has for once expressed the Kara(f>avelri, r,s txeivai av aZ dfi&Tepai rb truth with some aptness : TO (itv yap elSos txoiev, Kal etrj dv o &m K\lvi] fKelvrj, [irapddeiyfj.a] TJV vorjrws irdv, avros 5^ [6 dXX' oi/x al 5^0. drj/j.iovpyos] voepus irav, 6 Si /coV/uos alffd-q- 13. fie'pos] i.e. a subdivision, a lower TWS irdv : i.e. the irapdSeiyna is universal generalisation. thought regarded as the supreme intelli- 15. Kara rr\v n$>, Bid ravra ovre Bvo otr direipovs e-Trol-rjo-ev 6 TTOIWV KOfffiovs, aXX' el? oBe uovoyevrjs ovpavos yeyovwt V \ V V VII. 2,a)fjiaroeiBe<; Be 8r) Kal oparov dnrbv re Bel TO yevofievov 5 elvai,' ^copiffdev Be Trvpos ovBev av Trore oparov yevoiro, ovBe dirrbv dvev nvos crrepeov, crrepeov Be OVK dvev yrjv odev e'/c 7ri;po9 Kal yfjt TO TOU Travros dpyofj^evo^ uvipt9 ov Bvvarov Beo-fiov yap ev /Mecrw Bel rivd d/j,VKv dva\oyia /caXXtcrra aTTOTeXetv OTrorav yap dpiOpdov rpiwv eire oyKwv eire Bvvdpewv (avrivwvovv rf TO fjiev. The words that follow must be under- stood as an affirmation of the everlasting continuance of the K60>ios, and -yeyovws, as I have already done my best to show, does not imply its beginning in time. 31 B 34 A, c. vii. Now the world must be visible and tangible, therefore God constructed it of fire and earth. But two things cannot be harmoniously blended without a third as a mean : there- fore he set proportionals between them. Between plane surfaces one proportional suffices; but seeing that the bodies of fire and earth are solid, two proportionals were required. Therefore he created air and water, in such wise that as fire is to air, so is air to water, and so is water to earth : thus the four became one used the whole in constructing the uni- verse, so that nothing was left outside it which might be a source of danger to it. And he gave it a spherical form, be- cause that shape comprehends within it all other shapes whatsoever : and he gave it the motion therewith conformable, namely rotation on its own axis. And he bestowed on it neither eyes nor ears nor hands nor feet nor any organs of respiration or nutrition; for as nothing existed outside it, nor had it requirement of aught, it was sufficient to itself and needed none of these things. 4. oparov airr6v TC] Visibility and tangibility are the two most conspicuous characteristics of matter: therefore the fundamental constituents of the universe are fire and earth. This agrees with the view of Parmenides : cf. Aristotle physica I v i88 a 20 Kal -yAp Hapfj.fi> iS \jsvxpbv apxas jrotet, ravra vvp Kal yrjv: and Parmenides 112 foil. (Karsten) : see too Aristotle tfe gen. el corr. II ix 336* 3. The four elements 32 A] TIMAIOS. 97 the all-perfect animal, the maker made neither two universes nor an infinite number ; but as it has come into being, this universe one and only-begotten, so it is and shall be for ever. VII. Now that which came into being must be material and such as can be seen and touched. Apart from fire nothing could ever become visible, nor without something solid could it be tangible, and solid cannot exist without earth : therefore did God when he set about to frame the body of the universe form it of fire and of earth. But it is not possible for two things to be fairly united without a third; for they need a bond between them which shall join them both. The best of bonds is that which makes itself and those which it binds as complete a unity as possible ; and the nature of proportion is to accomplish this most perfectly. For when of any three numbers, whether ex- pressing three or two dimensions, one is a mean term, so that as the first is to the middle, so is the middle to the last ; and con- versely as the last is to the middle, so is the middle to the first ; then since the middle becomes first and last, and the last and the first both become middle, of necessity all will come to be the same, and being the same with one another all will be a unity. Now if the of Empedokles likewise reduced them- a square root; cf. Theaetetus 148 A; and selves to two : cf. Aristotle metaph. A iv here stands for a number composed of 985" 33 i> A"?" XP^ 7 "^ 7 e r^TTapcriv, d\\' two factors and representing two dimen- ws Svfflv oSffi. (j,6vois, irvpl /j.tv Ko.6' cn/rd, sions. This interpretation of the terms TO?J 5' airiKeifjitvois us /JLIQ (fttivet, yfj re Kal seems to me the only one at all apposite dtpi Kal SSart: and de gen. et corr. II iii to the present passage. Another expla- 33O b 20. His division however does not nation is that they represent the dis- agree with that of Plato, who classes fire tinction made by Aristotle in Categories air and water as forms of the same base, i vi 4 b 20 between continuous and dis- and places earth alone by itself. Crete number ; the former being a geo- 8. 8vo 84 |i6vci>] Two things alone metrical figure, the latter a number in the cannot be formed into a perfect harmony strict sense. But as our present passage because they cannot constitute an dva\o7/a. is not concerned with pure numbers at 12. tl'rt o'-yKwv Art Swoficwv] 'whe- all, this does not seem to the purpose, ther cubic or square.' The Greek mathe- 13. '6 ri irep TO irpwrov irp&s avr6] e.g. matician in the time of Plato looked the continuous proportion 4 : 6 :: 6 : 9 upon number from a geometrical stand- may either be reversed so that fffxarov point, as the expression of geometrical becomes irp&rov, 9 : 6 :: 6 : 4: or alter- figures. 6yicos is a solid body, here a nated so that the pfoov becomes ?i\iav re eo"%ev K rovrwv, & A. i. |xCa |A 'ab ; and similarly if the ex- tremes are of the form cPb or abc. The exception is the case a?b : abc :: abc : be 2 . We can however obtain two rational and integral means, whether the extremes be cubes or compounded of unequal factors. Howbeit for Plato's purpose the extremes must be cubes, since a con- tinuous proportion is required correspond- ing to fire : air :: air : water :: water : earth. This we represent by a 3 : a*b :: a*b : alP : : ab 2 : b 3 . The necessity of this proviso Martin has overlooked. Thus the exceptional case of a single mean is excluded. This limitation of the ex- tremes to actual cubes is urged by Bb'ckh as an objection to Martin's theory: but surely the cube would naturally commend itself to Plato's love of symmetry in representing his extremes, more especially as his plane extremes are necessarily squares. It is clear to my mind that, in formulating his law, Plato had in view two squares and two cubes as extremes : in the first case it is obviously possible to extract the square root of their pro- duct and so obtain a single mean ; in the second it is as obviously impossible. Bockh's defence of his own explana- tion is to be found in vol. in of the Kleine Schriften pp. 253 265. The Neoplatonists attempted to extend this proportion to the physical qualities which they assigned to the four elements in groups of three; but as these belong to them in various degrees, the analogy will not hold : e.g. mobility is shared by fire air and water, but not to the same extent in each ; and similarly with the rest. As to Stallbaum's attempt at explanation I can only echo the comment of Martin : 'je ne sais vraiment comment M. Stall- baum a pu se faire illusion au point de s'imaginer qu'il se comprenait lui- meme '. 9. 8ld TdVTd ?K T Si) TOVTCOV] ' On this principle and out of these materials': signifies the dvaXoyla, Totirwv the Plato is accounting for the fact that the so-called elements are four in number by representing this as the expression of a mathematical law; and thus he shows how number acts as a formative principle in nature. In tf>i\la.v we have an obvious allusion to Empe- dokles. It is noteworthy that as Plato's application of number in his cosmogony is incomparably more intelligent than that of the Pythagoreans, so too he excels Empedokles in this matter of i\ia : he is not content with the vague assertion that i\ia keeps the universe together; he must show how t\la comes about. 72 ioo ITAATHNOS [32 c a\\ov 7r\rjv VTTO rov ^vvB^ev rj rov KOO-JJLOV %vo-racris. CK jap rrvpos vBaros re teal depof Kal 777? ^vvea-rrjcrev avrov o ^vvio-raov re\eov K re\ea)v D T&V fJAptoV i1), 7T/30? B TOVTOIS V, O.TC OV% V7TO\.\etfJ,fjLeV(i)V % 33 A <&v a\\o TOIOVTOV yevoir' av, en, 8e 'iva dyijpwv /cal avofjuiTi deppd /cat "^rv^pd /cal TrdvO* ocra 8vvdfJ,ei<; tV^ipa9 e^et TrepiKrrd/Aeva egwOev Kal Trpovrrl'TrTovra 10 dtcaipcos. \vet Kal voa-ovs yrjpds re ttrdyovra fyOlvew Troiei. Bid &r) rr)v alriav Kal rov \o^ta'p,ov ro^Se ev '6\ov o\Q)v e arcavrwv re\eov Kal dyrjpwv Kal dvotrov avrov ereKTijvaro. Be rd rcdvr ev o3a irepte^eiv fJ,eK\ovri &> rcpkirov av eir) o~^^/za TO I5 7repiei,\r}(po<; ev avra> irdvra oTro&a aipoeiBe<;, CK fievov Trdvrr] TT^O? Ta? TeXevTa? laov aTre^ov, KVK\OTepeK\a) rcav e^a>0ev avro dTrtjKpiftovro Tro\\wv %dpiv. op^p.drwv 10 re rjv Begoiro, rrjv Be rrporepov e^ucftaa'fievrjv drrorre^^oi ^f ira\iv. dirrjei re yap ovSev ovBe Trpovrjeiv avrw rroQkv ovBe yap 8 l-vpiov : and from this as to the cause of disease and decay. sense Aristotle derives all the other n. 8v 8Xov] It is needless either with meanings of this word. Stallbaum to read ft/a or to change airrbv 8. ws wrra.T

tos) one single whole '. The reading of Stallbaum and the Zurich 14. TO irtpuiXr]<(>os ^v OVTW] The edition i vviarq. rA ffwfMra has poor ms. sphere is said to contain within it all authority and is weak in sense ; moreover other shapes, because of all figures the form {wtevfj.aros ws avairvtovri Kal rb Kfvbv, $ is the general shape of the K&ff(i.os spheri- dioplfei rdy 0&reis, us 6vros TOV Ktvov cal, but that it is a sphere without any x^P 1 ^^ " T "^ s v ty e w Ka * T W Siopt- appendages. aew Kal TOUT' elvai irpwrov tv rots dpi&- ii. irvevfJ-a TC ovtc r\v irepitoros] This fwlr rb yap nevbv diopifeiv rty (ftvcnv is directed against a Pythagorean fancy, avr&v: and physica III iv 2O3 a 6 ol ph that outside the universe there existed TlvOayApfiot tv rots euV0ip"oTj [sc. nOtcun xevbv, or aireipov Trvtvfj.a, which passed rb aireipov]' ov yap xupiffrbv TTOIOVCTI. rbv into the cavities in the universe, as dpiff^v Kal etvai rb tl-u rov ovpavov though the latter were respiring it: cf. airtipov. See too Stobaeus eel. \ 382. IO2 HAATHNOS [33 c rjv avro yap eavry rporjv rr)v eavrov (f>6icriv Trape^ov KOI Trdvra ev eavr

avrw ical ev eavrw Treptayaywv avro eVot^o-e KVK\W KL- 10 velcrOai crrpetyo/jLevov, rael\e Kal d7r\av<> aTreipydcraro efceivcov eVl Be rrjv TrepioBov ravrr)v arf ovBev TroBoov Beov d0L(riv irapl- \ov] By this striking phrase Plato means that the nutrition of one thing is effected by the decomposition of another : all the elements of which the universe is composed feed upon each other and are fed upon in turn. The idea is still more boldly ex- pressed by Herakleitos fr. 25 (Bywater) fj; TrOp rt>v yjjs 66.va.Tov Kal ayp tfj r6v irvpbs 06.va.TOv, vSup fj; TOV d^pos Od.va.Tov, yrj TOV vdaros. 4. xcipwv 8^] There is an anaco- luthon : the genitive is written as though Xpda- fy belonged to the main clause. 7. ri\v rov o-tojiaros olKcCav] Plato does not of course mean that the motion belongs to the body in the sense of being its own attribute, because all motion is of soul ; but simply that the most perfect motion suits the most perfect form. For TUV tiTTa. see 43 B : the seven are up and down, forwards and backwards, to right and to left, and finally rotation upon an axis. 8. TT\V irtpl vovv Kal prfvTjs Kal tv T< avr(f Kal irepl TO, avTa Kal irpos ra aura Kal KaO^ ?va X6 < yo>' *coi Tii^iv fjiav au Tf tv fvl (ppofj.^vijv Klvrjfftv, ffopals, OVK &v iroTf Ktvdo-0cu 6|ivov] If we compare the account given in the Timaeus concerning the motion of the Ko Br) KVK\OV 5 Bvvdfjievov ^vyyiyve(T0at, Kal ovBevos erepov 7rpoo~Beo- iievov, yvu>pifjiov Be Kal i\ov iKavws avrov avra>. Bia rcavra Br) ravra evBaipova Oeov avrov eyevvr]aaro. Trjv Be Br) ilrvYrjv ou^ GJ? vvv varepav em^eipovp,ev \eyeiv, 10 ovro)\fOpov 8 ov yevoftevov [TO yevo/j-tvov Herm.] a\\' OVK aluviov, woiv, with which words the construction first be- comes determinate. Stallbaum is cer- tainly wrong in connecting them with elSos. Presently the words o.Z irepl after TTJS re ravrov vaeus are unquestionably spurious repeated no doubt from TT;S oC n-f pi TCL ffufj-ara. In the phrase del KO.TO. ravra exotiffrjs oixrlas Dr Jackson has with some probability suggested that for oixrlas we should read tiv avra ovra a-vveKepdcraro els piav travra IBeav, rrjv darepov cpvcrtv Bva-ftiKrov ovcrav els ravrov vvap/J,6rr(0v (Sla* /jityvvs Be jj,erd rrjs ovcrias Kal K rpuav Troir)- B ev, TrdXiv o\ov rovro /j,oipael\e TO irpwrov diro iravros fiolpav, fierd Be ravrrjv d(pijpi, 8t,7T\aa-iav ravrrjs, rrjv S' av rplrrjv r)pio\iav p.ev rfjs Bevrepas, rpi7r\aa-iav Be rr)s irpwr^s, rerdprrjv 3 Post otv ev fiff

4, f, 6, 8: In the rpnrXacria Staff -nj^ara 1, -, i, 3, - , 6, 9, -, 1 8, 27- 8. ^|iioXfo>v 8f| It will be seen that the first of the two series given in the preceding note proceeds regularly in the ratios |, f , &c ; while the second pro- ceeds in the ratios f , |, | &c : there being in the first series three sets of $, f , $, in the second three sets of |, |, f. 10. Tp TOV enxrySoov StaoT-rjixan] In order to understand this passage it is only necessary to bear in mind one or two simple acoustical facts. The pitch of a musical note depends upon the rapidity with which the sounding body vibrates. To take for example two vibrating strings: if one string be twice the length of the other, the shorter string will, other things being equal, produce twice as many vi- brations in a given time as the longer and will give a note an octave above the first. Another string $ the length of the first will give the fifth above the second string, or the twelfth above the first. Therefore we express the octave by the ratio i : 2 and the fifth by 2 : 3. The other ratios with which we are here con- cerned are 3 : 4, which gives the fourth ; 8 : 9, which gives a whole tone; 16 : 27, which gives the (Pythagorean) major sixth ; and 243 : 256, which will be treated of presently, but which is very nearly a semitone. Now in reckoning these ratios we may either take as our basis the num- 36 B] TIMAIO2. 109 second and triple of the first; the fourth double of the second ; the fifth three times the third ; the sixth eight times the first, the seventh twenty-seven times the first. After that, he filled up the interval between the powers of two and of three by severing yet more from the original mass and placing it between them in such a manner that within each interval were two means, the first exceeding one extreme in the same proportion as it was exceeded by the other, the second by the same number exceed- ing the one as it was exceeded by the other. And whereas by these links there were formed in the original intervals new intervals of f and f and , he went on to fill up all the intervals of f with that of f, leaving in each a fraction over ; and the her of vibrations executed in a given time Plato doubtless followed the latter plan, I as is the practice of modern musicians or the relative lengths of string required to produce the several notes, as was usual amongthe Greeks. In the first case it is ob- vious that the ratio expresses the octave upwards, in the second downwards. As shall follow it too that is, we shall reckon the scale from top to bottom. Now taking the dnr\dffM dicier-/] par a with their harmo- nical and arithmetical means, and filling up the intervals as Plato directs, we shall have : 8:g m 8:9 8:9 8:9 313 8:9 8:9 i 2 4 8:9 ! > ! 64 3 243 8 32 3 '9 gi f 16" 3 17 2 16 = 9 8:9 8:9 27 243 128 256 3 Q /c. 243 64 243 256 8:9 8:9 :g 22 4 The small figures denote the ratio between each term and its successor. Now giving these intervals their musical value, we get the following scale : -I The original notes of the rer/xt/crfo are marked as semi breves, the means as minims, and the insertions of the tirbySoa and Xelfjifiara as crotchets. Thus we get a system of three octaves in the Dorian mode, which was identical with one form of our modern minor scale. So far all is simple. But it is not so easy to determine how the scale of Tpiir\dffia. diaffr^fj-ara should be con- structed. The most obvious method is to continue the system of tirlrpiTa or te- trachords in the lower octaves by sup- plying the octaves of the means belonging to the binary system. Thus we shall have one continuous scale formed of the two sets of intervals : we shall add two more lines to our series of numbers, no HAATflNOS [36 B rptra frdvra ^vvejrX'rjpovro, XeiTTtwi/ avrwv etcdffrov fioptov, T^? rot) fiopiov TavTijS SiaoT#ei, e ov 5 ravra tcarere/jLvev, ovrws r}8r) irav dva\u>Ki. ravrrjv ovv rrjv gva-rafftv iraaav St,7r\f)V Kara pfjicos a")(l / 2048 r a maior semitone or aTroro/u/n, ---; of 2107 which two the product =-. The Pytha- gorean \i/j.fj.a is slightly less than the ' natural ' semitone, which is ^| or . ID 256 The pseudo-Timaeus Locrus in his ab- stract of this passage (96 B) says the num- ber of terms in the series is 36 : a similar view is held, according to Proklos, by some of the old Platonists ; apparently for no other reason than that 36 is the sum of another double TerpaKTi/s given by Plutarch, consisting of the first four odd and the first four even numbers. This number of terms is gained by forming the two scales separately and then combining them so that the apotome twice occurs ; e.g. C, B, Bb, A: the interval C B being a Xet/x./u.a, the interval B Bb is an cLTTOTOfj.^. But the apotome is totally foreign to Plato's scale, which is Sidrovov ffvvrovov of the strictest kind. Nor is there any Greek scale which would tolerate three half-tones successively : even in the X/w/ia roviaioi' only two occur in suc- cession. Nor do I see on what plan the apotome could be made to occur twice and no more. Therefore, although this view is supported by no less an authority than Bockh, we must refuse to attribute to Plato a scale which is altogether bar- barous. TTJS TOV [iopCov] rrjs 8t has been retained by Hermann, who defends it as coordinating Xetiruv and Trepiayopevrj Ktvrjo-ei Treptf avrds e\a/3e, teal rov /j,ev e&>, rov 8' ei/ro? eTroieiro rwv KVK\O>V. rrjv fjiev ovv %(!) (fropdv 7rev, rrjv 5 8' eVro? T7<> darepov. rrjv fiev 8r) ravrov Kara 7r\evpdv eVt Se^ia Treptrjyaye, rrjv 8e 0arepov Kara Sidfterpov eV dpicrrepd, Kparos 5' e8d)K rf) ravrov KOI 6/iot'ou Trepiffropa.' piav ydp avrrjv ao"%i- D , in the direction of DE ; that is, its axis is perpendicular to DE or AB, and it re- volves from east to west. CDG, the circle of the Other, rotates /card dia^ierpov, i.e. in the direction of the diagonal CD, from WSW to ENE. The Greek term 17 5ta- /ierpos generally means diagonal, not dia- meter. Proklos sees a special significance in the circle of the Other moving /card Siafj-erpov, inasmuch as (the sides of the rectangle being expressed by integral numbers) the diagonal is irrational. It is quite possible that Plato may have thought of this : but, as Bockh has remarked, un- less the rectangle is a square, the diagonal is not necessarily a surd : e.g. if the sides are 3 and 4, the diagonal will be 5. m Scgid.. eir dpurrcpa] This has given rise to much discussion, because according to the usual Greek nomencla- ture the east was the right side of the heavens and the west the left : and so we have it in Laws 760 D TO 5' twi 8eia 717- vtffOw rb irpbs &o : cf. Epinomis 987 B. This mode of reckoning seems to have arisen from the fact that the Greek diviners stood facing the north in taking the omens. I think the explanation of Plato's present departure from ordinary custom is simple enough. The diurnal motion TIMAIO2. themselves and each other at a point opposite to that of their original contact : and he comprehended them in the motion that revolves uniformly on the same axis, and one of the circles he made exterior and one interior. The exterior motion he named the motion of the Same, the interior that of the Other. And the circle of the Same he made revolve to the right by way of the side, that of the Other to the left by way of the diagonal. And he gave the supremacy to the motion of the same and uniform, for he left that single and undivided ; but the inner circle he cleft into seven unequal circles in the proportion of the of the universe is visible only by the daily motion of the heavenly bodies, espe- cially the sun. An observer in Europe can only see the sun's motions by looking towards the south, when of course the west is on his right hand : compare Pliny natur. hist. VI 24 (of some visitors from the tropics) sed maxume rnirum iis erat umbras suas in nostrum caelum cadere, non in suum, solemque a laeva oriri et in dextram occidere potius quam e diverse. Plato's use of the terms right and left seems then perfectly natural. The uni- verse being a sphere, Plato knew that the right and left, like up and down, are per- fectly arbitrary terms (see 62 c foil.) and he therefore did not hesitate to apply them just as suited his purpose. Those who are curious on the subject may find (to put it mildly) some very singular arguing in the opposite sense in Aristotle de caelo n ii 284 b 6 foil. 6. Kpd-ros 8' e'ScuKe TTJ TO.VTOV] That is, while the circle of the Other retains its independent rotation round its own centre, it is also carried round by the revo- lution of the Same. - rov Snr\aeo"rj ^vvayaycav irpoo-rjpfJLorrev r) 8' e'/c E fj,eo~ov 7rpo9 rov ea^arov ovpavov rrdvrrj Bia7T\aKeicra KVK\W re avrov egaOev TreptAcaXi/'^raa'a, avrrj ev avrfj (rrpe^ofjievrj, Qeiav 10 <*PX*i v tfp aT aTravo-Tov Kal e/z.^poi/o? /3toi> ?rpo9 rov ^vp,rcavra Xpovov. Kal TO /j,ev Brj o~wfj.a oparov ovpavov yeyovev, avrr/ Be ev, \oyio~fjiov Be fj,ereyovo~a Kal dp/j,ovia$ ^vyij, rwv 37 A e re ovrwv VTTO rov parov pari] rv 3 dXXvjXotJ : aXXijXoty re S. in corporeal manifestation. Plato does not of course mean that the immaterial and indivisible essence of soul is com- posed of circles and distributed in mathe- matical proportions. The circle is with him a common symbol of the activity of thought : and by assigning the harmonic numbers to soul he declares that whatever relations or harmonies, mathematical or otherwise, are found in the world of space and time, these are the natural expression in material terms of some eternal law of soul. It is perhaps advisable to notice this, because of the amusing literalness with which Aristotle has treated the sub- ject in dc ammo, I iii 4O7 a 2 foil. a piece of criticism which at first it is hard to believe was intended seriously. 2. Kara rdvavrfa] As seven circles cannot all be contrary each to each, we are to suppose that the three planets hav- ing the same period revolve in one direc- tion, and the four others in the opposite. It is usually supposed that Mercury and Venus alone have the contrary motion ; but if Plato's theory is to be anything like an explanation of the facts, the sun must have the same direction as these two: see note on 38 u rrjv 5' ivavriav el- avT$ 5vi>a.(jut>, where the motive 8 StaTrXaKeio-a : 5iO7rXe/cet!>v8v\oi, each singing one tone. In the Republic there are eight spheres, because the fixed stars are included, which here are assigned to the circle of the Same. For Aristotle's views about the music of the spheres see de caelo II ix 29o b 12 foil.: he thinks the idea K0fj.\f/6v, ^u/X&, and /j.oixriKbi', but cannot believe it. 36 D 37 c, c. ix. So when God had ended the framing of the soul to his mind, next he formed within her all the visible body of the universe : but she her- self is invisible, the noblest creation of the most perfect creator. And seeing that she is composed of Same and Other and Essence, whenever she comes in contact with aught that has being, be it divided or indivisible, she discerns sameness in it and difference and all else that is pre- dicable of it. And her verdict is true both concerning material and immaterial 37 A] TIMAIO2. double and triple intervals severally, each being three in number; and he appointed that the circles should move in opposite directions, three at the same speed, the other four differing in speed from the three and among themselves, yet moving in a due ratio. IX. Now after that the framing of the soul was finished to the mind of him that framed her, next he fashioned within her all that is bodily, and he drew them together and fitted them middle to middle. And from the midst even unto the ends of heaven she was woven in everywhere and encompassed it around from without, and having her movement in herself she began a divine beginning of endless and reasonable life for ever and evermore. Now the body of the universe has been created visible ; but she is invisible, and she, even soul, has part in reason and in harmony. And whereas she is made by the best of all whereunto belong reason and eternal being, so she is existence : for when, by the circle of the Other she deals with sensibles, she forms sure opinions and beliefs ; but when by the circle of the Same she apprehends intelligible being, then knowledge and reason, which soul alone possesses, are made perfect in her. 5. Kara, vovv] Probably, as in Phaedo 97 D, there is a double meaning in these words ' to his mind ', and ' according to reason '. 6. (itrcL TOUTO] TO dt pera. TOVTO n$i XpoviKov 77-0X0/377$, dXXa Tdews arj/jLavri- KOV, says Proklos very rightly. 7. fit'crov n&nj] Soul, being imma- terial, has of course no centre. The phrase simply means that the whole sphere of material nature from centre to circumference was instinct with the in- dwelling vital force. iravT-g SiaTrXa/ceiera, i.e. she interpenetrated its every particle, being everywhere present in her two modes of Same and of Other. 9. Ka>9v irpiKoXm|/a IK o-w/uaTos ytveffiv. Compare Plotinos tnnead II ix 7 Iv yap 777 Trdffj; \f/i< ij(ns SeSefdvij r/Sij ffvvSei o dV avrr) 5 rj rod Travrbs ^vx^l owe civ dtoiro VTT& TUV vir' avrfjs deSf/jt^vuv. 10. Y[paTo] Again of course a begin- ning Acar' iirivoi.a.v only. 1 1 . Kal T& (liv 8^ (Tw^a] So Laws 898 D r/Xiou ?ras dvOpuiros oi/Seis. 12. \OYWTJAOV Si p.T^xovv act rt OVTWV] It is very significant that the drj/juovpybs is iden- tified with the object of reason, voCs with vorjTov. Here then we have another token that the S^ioup'yos is merely a mythological representative of univer- sal vo\h which evolves itself in the form of the /cieryuoy. Still more remark- able is the use of XaytffTiK&v below in 37 c. There is no other passage in Plato where XoyiffTiK&v is contrasted with al : the regular term is of course VOTITOV. It is surely impossible that Plato could have substituted XoyiffTiKov for voi\- 82 DAATHNOS [37 A yevvrjBevrwv. are ovv K rfjs ravrov teal rfjs Oarepov T' av n ravrov y Kal orov av erepov, rrpds o ri re ftdXiara Kal OTry ical OTTCO? Kal B OTTore %vn(3aivei Kara rd yiyvoaevd re TT/JO? exaarov e/cacrra elvai, Kal trdcf^eiv Kal rrpos rd Kara ravrd e%ovra dei- \6yos Be o Kara ravrov d\v)0ri Kivovf^evro v(f) avrov (f)ep6fj,evo<> avev (pdoyyov Kal tfxr]?, orav fiev rrepl TO cuf&^riv yiyvijrai, Kal 6 rov Oarepov KVK\O<$ op#o9 wv ei? irda-av avrd rrjv "^fv^v BiayyeiXy, Bo^ai Kal TTicrTet? yiyvovrat /SeySatot Kal dXyOeiv orav $e av rcepl TO \oyia-riKov y Kal o rov ravrov KVK\O<> evrpo^of y, not ory ^or/, does not really favour his view 'with whatsoever a thing may be the same, she declares it the same'. I coincide then with the other interpreters in regarding the whole sentence from ory T' an as indirect interrogation subordinate to \4yei. 6. irpos o rl rt (idXicrra] Lindau has justly remarked that all or nearly all c] TIMAI02. 117 the best of all that is brought into being. Therefore since she is formed of the nature of Same and of Other and of Being, of these three portions blended, in due proportion divided and bound together, and turns about and returns into herself, whenever she touches aught that has manifold existence or aught that has undivided, she is stirred through all her substance, and she tells that wherewith the thing is same and that wherefrom it is different, and in what relation or place or manner or time it comes to pass both in the region of the changing and in the region of the changeless that each thing affects another and is affected. This word of hers is true alike, whether it deal with Same or with Other, without voice or sound in the Self-moved arising ; and when she is busied with the sensible, and the circle of the Other, being true, announces it throughout all the soul, then are formed sure opinions and true beliefs ; and when she is busy with the rational, and the circle of the Same declares it, running smoothly, then reason and knowledge cannot but be made perfect. And in whatsoever existing thing these two are Aristotle's ten categories are to be found in this sentence. 8. irpAs TO, Kara ravrd] This phrase is exactly parallel to (caret ra yiyvofitva. above. The only reason for the change of preposition is the obvious lack of eu- phony in /card TO, Kara ravrd. Xo-yos] 'her verdict '. \6yos = o \eyei, what she pronounces concerning that which is submitted to her judgment. Stallbaum aptly refers to Sophist 263 E OVKOVV didvoia. ntv Ka.1 X 6 fj.ti> eVroj r^r tyvxfis irpbs avrijv SidXoyos dvev wvris yiyvop.evos TOUT' avro tj/juv diruvo/j.d Kivov|icvu> v<|>' avrov] i.e. iv wxfi being ayroK/PT/ros. 1 2. op0is wv] Proklos draws attention to the difference of the language applied to the two circles; of the circle of the Same it is said efirpoxos <5v. The change of expression is readily understood if we turn to 43 D foil, where Plato is speaking of the disturbance of the circles by the continuous influx, of bodily nutriment : the circle of the Other is distorted and displaced, but the circle of the Same is only blocked (eir^riaav). cis ird evoyae rwv diSiwv 0edov 76701/05 uya\aa 6 yevvrjcras Trarrjp, rjydadr) re Kal ev(f)pav0el<; en 5 8rj fj,d\\ov ofjioiov TT/JO? TO 7rapdBeiyfj.a eTrevoijo-ev direpydcraaOai. KaOcnrep ovv avro rvy%avei %wov diBiov ov, ical rooe TO rcav oirrtus D t9 Svvafjiiv CTre^iptjo'e roiovrov asjroreXelv. r) fj,ev ovv rov % rvy%avV ov&a alwvios. KOI rovro /iei> 8rj rut yevvrjra) 7rapTeX.o505 ev evl tear dpiO/mov lovcrav alwvtov elicova, rovrov ov Srj 3 ivoijae : SZ. 6 ov omittunt AS. g lirivofi : iirtvbei A. discussion as to the exact reference of TOI/TW. One interpretation, mentioned by Proklos, is to refer it to the two pairs, Sofcu irlffrets, vovs ^TTIOTT^I; : and this is practically the view of Stallbaum, who understands 3oa and liri of eternity. alwviov ttxova] This phrase surely de- serves more notice than it has hitherto obtained. In the present passage we have time and eternity most sharply con- trasted ; time being explained as a con- dition belonging to that which is not eternal. And notwithstanding this, time is itself declared to be eternal. Plato's care- ful definition of the word aiwvios entirely precludes the supposition that it here de- notes merely the everlasting duration of time. In what sense then is it eternal? I think but one answer is possible. The universal mind has of necessity not only existence in the form of unity, but also existence in the form of multiplicity. It is to the existence in multiplicity that time appertains. But although time is a condition of the phenomena contained in this manifold existence, that existence is itself eternal ; for mind is eternal whether existing as one or as many : its self- evolution is eternal, not in time. Tem- porality then is the attribute of the par- ticular things comprised in fjifpurTrj owta, but the mode of mind's existence which takes that form is eternal. It is in fact part of the eternal essence of mind that it should exist in the form of things which are subject to time. Thus there is a sense in which time may be termed eternal, as one element in the eternal 120 HAATHNOS [37 D- rj/jiepas yap /cat VVKTCIS vat fUjvaQ /cat eviavrovs, OVK oWa6dvop,ev eVc. rrjv diBiov ovtriav OVK 6p0w eo~Ti re /cat ecrrat, rrj Be TO eo~Tt JAOVOV Kara TQV d\t]dfj \6yov irpoarjKei, TO S' // TO T' ecrTat Trepl TTJV ev xpovq) 38 A yevefftv lovaav TrpeTret \eyeo-0ar tcivijptoi>, d\\' 6 irai xpovos, wore tv rip cnrcipu Xpov yivtrat 6 otpavbs KO.I fffriv e' ficdrfpa Ka.06.irtp b 4. ^ryovora t8i]] i.e. forms or modes of time, and therefore belonging to 6. TQ Si TO ? | b> fwexe's. But the materiality attaching to his conception of tv renders it very doubtful whether he actually realised the full meaning of 38 B] TIMAIO2. 121 named time. For whereas days and nights and months and years were not before the universe was created, he then devised the generation of them along with the fashioning of the universe. Now all these are portions of time, and was and shall be are forms of time that have come to be, although we wrongly ascribe them unawares to the eternal essence. For we say that it was and is and shall be, but in verity is alone belongs to it : and was and shall be it is meet should be applied only to Becoming which moves in time ; for these are motions. But that which is ever changeless without motion must not become elder or younger in time, neither must it have become so in the past nor be so in the future ; nor has it to do with any attributes that Becoming attaches to the moving objects of sense : these have come into being as forms of time, which is the image of eternity and revolves according to number. Moreover we say that the become is the become, and the becoming is the be- coming, and that which shall become is that which shall become, and not-being is not-being. In all this we speak incorrectly. But concerning these things the present were perchance not the right season to inquire particularly. this. It may even be doubted whether can say it is. Compare Plutarch de eJ Aristotle, though Plato had preceded apud Delphos 19. Again to say JJLTJ uv him, held an equally clear view: see for is /m? ov is absurd and contradictory, instance de caelo I ix 279* 23 foil. With It might be rejoined that Plato has the present passage may be compared himself proved that /XT) ov does in a the minute discussion in Parmenides certain sense exist: Sophist 259 A ftm 140 E 142 A. ffa^ffTara, & dvayKys elvai TO /*i) ov, 8. KiVTi Kara Svvauiv 77' TO // 70/3 8>) 7rapd8eijfJ.a irdvra alwvd e&riv C 5 oV, o 8' av Bid reXovs TOI> diravra %p6vov yeyovu>Ta eTrra, T)Tov KO.! d9aprov delKWffi TOV ovpavbv. el yap ytyovtv, ev \pov^ yiyovev. el d& yuera xpbvov yeyovev, OVK ev XP V V yfyovev ovde yftp o xp VO! ev XpovQ yeyovev, Iva. (tr) irpo XP VOV XP VO! jf. el apa yuera xpovov ytyovev, ov yeyove. Sei yap trav TO yiyv6fj.evov [jxTayeveffTepov tlvai xpofov 6 5' ovpavos ovdafj.js effTt Xpovov fj.eTa.yeveaT(pos...5fj.oiov oftv J>s et elvat ^ov\o/j,evo3 TO.S OaTepov vfpiopM eTTTadaXtyot ffvvvTrdpxeut aura?*, TIMAI02. 123 XI. Time then has come into being along with the universe, that being generated together, together they may be dissolved, should a dissolution of them ever come to pass ; and it was made after the pattern of the eternal nature, that it might be as like to it as was possible. For the pattern is existent for all eternity ; but the copy has been and is and shall be throughout all time continually. So then this was the plan and intent of God for the generation of time ; the sun and the moon and five other stars which have the name of planets have been created for defining and preserving the numbers of time. And when God had made their several bodies, he set them in the orbits wherein the revolution of the Other was moving, in seven circles seven stars. The moon he placed in that nearest the earth, and in the second above the earth he set the sun ; and the morning- star and that which is held sacred to Hermes he assigned to those that moved in an orbit having equal speed with the sun, 'iva. ta,v Trore >} cirra* apria ylyvijTai, Kal avTai apTiai yiyvuvTai, a"r)/J.aii'ui> yui) juera- ireffLffda.L TO.S TrepHpopas lirl TO apriov, OVTW 877 Kal vvv -qyeiffOai vofJ.iffT^ov irepl TT)J aXucnas T^S rou /cocrjuou re Kal TOV xpovov. 5. 6 8' afl] Lindau understands Xpofos : but this produces tautology ; evidently ovpavos is to be supplied. 7. [Hva -yevvrjOTJ XP VOS ] Although these words are in all mss. and in Pro- klos, they appear to me so unmistakably a mere gloss on wpoj XP OVOV y^vecnv that I have bracketed them. They are not represented in Cicero's translation. 8. irK\Tiv ?x VTa ir\avt]Ta] I have retained the reading of A, though Stall- baum's irXavrjrai is perfectly good gram- mar; emK\r)v ^x ot>Ta being equivalent to eTTiKaXov/jLtva: compare Symposium 205 D TO TOV ti\ov 6vofJ.a tffx ovffl - v > fywrd rt Kal epav Kal ipaaTai. In Laws 82 [ B Plato condemns the term TrXa^T/rd, on the score of irreverence, as implying that these bodies wandered at random without law. 10. els TO.S Trepi4>opas| sc. the zodiac. 1 1. rjXiov 8' ls TOV Stvrtpov] This was the usual arrangement in Plato's time and down to Eudoxos and Aristotle: later astronomers placed the sun in the fourth or middle circle, above Venus and Mer- cury. 12. i<>>6pov] i.e. Venus. Plato was aware of the identity of eufffopos and &T7re/>os. It is somewhat strange that he gives none of the planets their usual ap- pellations except Mercury; for these names must have been current in his day : they are all given in Epinomis 987 B, c. Other Greek names were for Saturn ut>, for Jupiter QatOuv, for Mars irvpoeis, for Mercury ffriXfiuv, while Venus was w(Topos, eo>(Tos, or &T7re/>os : see Cicero di? natura deorum n 52, 53; pseudo-Aristotle de mundo 392* 23. 13. els TOVS ra\u jUv l t'oWas. But may we not under- stand irXac^ras? As to the equality of the periods assigned to the Sun, Venus, and Mercury, compare Republic 617 B 124 IIAATftNOS [ 3 8 D- TTJV 8' evavriav elXij^ora^ avrra Suvapiv oOev Kara\ap,j3dvovopa. Kal St^|o5os a/j.a Kal ir^wrtj rdxft. fj.tv TjXt^ iKero opdv ru>v o KVK\OV lov, Bdrrov fjiev rd rov e\drrw, rd Be rov //&> ftpaSi/Tepov Trepiyeiv. rfj Br} ravrov cpopa rd Tartar a Trepuovra vrro rwv flpaBvrepov lovrwv eaivTO Kara\ap,ftdvovra Kara\aiijBdvecr6ai' rravra<$ ovopas, that is, traverses it at the angle which the ecliptic makes with the equator, and is controlled by it, that is, it is carried round as a whole by the rotation of the Same. The relative motion of the Same and the Other are precisely exemplified, if we suppose an ordinary terrestrial globe to be revolving on its own axis, and a point upon its surface traversing it along the circle of the ecliptic in a direction approximately contrary to the globe's rotation : thus the point, while retaining its own independent motion on the surface of the globe, shares the rotary motion of the whole. Lindau would justify oi5opav : but this is hopeless. 5. 6irrov (iiv rd TOV IXdrrtt] Thus the periods of revolution continuously in- crease from the Moon to Saturn. Bockh has sufficiently demonstrated that the words ffGLrrov and fipadurepov do not refer to the absolute velocity of the planets through space, but to the celerity with which they accomplish their revolutions: thus the moon, having the smallest orbit to traverse, completes it in by far the shortest period; although her actual ve- locity may be much less than that of Saturn who has the largest orbit and the longest period. Thus the Sun, Venus, and Mer- cury, having the same period for aTroKa- ra.ffTO.ois, differ in actual velocity in the proportion 2, 3, 4. 6. TTJ 81) TO.VTOV opaivtv. Let the circle ACBD represent the universe, diurnally rotating from east to west on its own axis, which is perpendicular to the plane of the equator AB. The re- presentation being in two dimensions, the straight lines A, CD must be taken to indicate great circles of a sphere. Thus the motion of the Same is in the direction AB. The motion of the Other, or of the planets, is in the direction CD. Let us suppose two planets to be at a given time at the point E. Now had these planets, which we 39 A] TIMAI02. 127 But when each of the beings which were to join in creating time had arrived in its proper orbit, and had been generated as animate creatures, their bodies secured with living bonds, and had learnt their appointed task ; then in the motion of the Other, which was slanting and crossed the motion of the Same and was thereby controlled, whereas one of these planets had a larger, another a smaller circuit, the lesser orbit was completed more swiftly, the larger more slowly : but because of the motion of the Same those which revolved most swiftly seemed to be overtaken by those that went more slowly, though really they overtook them. For the motion of the Same, twisting all their circles into spirals, because they have a separate and simul- will call P l and P 2 , no independent motion of their own, but were stationary relatively to the universe, it is obvious that in twenty-four hours the revolution of the Same would bring them both round to the same point E. But suppose that P" travels twice as fast as P 1 (that is accom- plishes twice as great a fraction of its own orbit in the same time) : then, while during the day P 1 has arrived at f, P 2 has got as far as G. Thus, since the course of the planets is approximately opposite to the rotation of the whole, P 2 has counter- acted that motion to twice as great an extent as P 1 , and accordingly is propor- tionally longer in being carried back opposite E. Thus P 1 , departing more slowly from the revolution of the Same (f3pa.dvra.Ta. airibv O.JT ai/Trjs), arrives at the same region of the heavens earlier than P 2 , and so seems to the popular eye to have outstripped it. The revolution of the Same being immeasurably the swiftest, it is the motion imparted by this which attracts the eye from day to day ; and when the leeway due to the planet's own motion is made up, the slower planet appears faster because it accomplishes the rotation of the Same in the shorter time. Supposing for instance on a given day the moon rises as the sun sets, on the following day the moon will not rise for perhaps an hour after sunset, thus appear- ing to have lost an hour on the sun. 9. owa gXixa] The motion of the Same produces the spirals as follows. In the foregoing diagram we will suppose a planet at a given time to be at the point E. Now, as before said, were the planet itself stationary, this diurnal revolution would in twenty-four hours bring it round again to the point E; and the figure described by the planet would be a perfect circle. But, as it is, while the motion of the Same is whirling it round, the planet is travelling along its own path towards G. At the end of twenty-four hours then the planet is not at E but at G; and the figure it has described under the influence of the motion of the Same is accordingly not a circle but a spiral. Similarly the next diurnal revolution brings it back not to G, but to a point between G and Z>; so that each daily journey of the planet caused by the revolution of the Same is 128 TIAATHNOS [39 A afia Trpoievai, TO flpaBvrara aTTiov dfi avrrjs 01/0-779 ra%i9 6 0eo9 avfj^lrev ev rrj 7T/309 yrjv Bevrepa ra, 00*0*9 r]v Trpoarjicov, fiaOovra Trapd rf}opai> and TTJV TO.VTOV jointly as the subject of irpoievai we are enabled to do so. The spirals are formed because the circles move 3xi?, that is, separately, asunder: i.e. they are not two contrary motions in the same circle, but two approximately contrary motions in two separate inter- secting circles, icari Tavavrla does not constitute any part of the cause why the spirals are formed ; they would arise equally were the motion of the Other from D to C; but Plato is in fact con- densing into this one clause a statement of how the spirals are formed and how the slower planets seem to overtake the swifter: the first is given by Sixy, the second by /card rdvavrla. The difficulty of the passage mainly arises from this ex- treme brevity. 3. KJ dfi man derived the conception of number: Tai rdirovs. compare 47 A, and Epinomis 978 c foil. Alkinoos also says that the perfect number 8. 11 TI)S ("as] The circle of the Same, is complete when all the planets arrive in it will be remembered, was left aa-^arm. the same sign of the zodiac and are so situate The Trepi'oSos is here put for the time con- that a radius drawn from the earth to the sumed in completing the ireptodos, the sphere of the fixed stars passes through the wxO-/inepov, as Proklos calls it. centres of all. The phrase ffxv Kfa\rjv 10. tjXiov liriKaToXdpt)] i.e. thesyn- seems like a technical term of astronomy, odic month of ig\ days ; the sidereal but I have found no other example of it, month, or period in which the moon com- though Stobaeus speaks of a Kea\T)V TW rOV TdVTOV KOI 6/iOlOK tOI/TO9 dva/J,Tpr)6eVTa KVK\tt>. Kara ravra Brj /cal rovrcav eveKa e E 5 r\G> Kal VOIjrto %(>(> 7T/JO? Tr/V TrjS Stat&Wa? fjUfJUffft^ $U(7e&>9. XII. Kal ra fJLev a\\a 1781; pexpt ^povov yevecreow djreip- yao~ro et9 o^oLorrjra TO frdvra o>a evTo? ar^ToO vcnv. yirep ovv vow evoixras tSea? TO) o ecrrt %(ov, olaL re eveicrt, /cat ocrat, icaOopa, roiavras Kal rocravras Sievorjdtj Selv Kal r68e cr^lv. el rov ovpavov, d\ijdivov avra> rcerroiKL^^evov eti/at /ca^' o\ov. Kiv^(ret<; Be Svo 12 5^ : 5^ S. 3 iyevv/iOrj : yfi>-/iOr) A. g dureipydfero : air^p^aro AZ. it on the authority of Cicero at 12954 years; but Cicero himself, de natura deorum II 52, expresses no opinion. 1. rd irpis tfXXrjXa vjiirpav06Ta rdxi] i-e. when their several periods are accomplished simultaneously: raxy of course refers to the period of aTroKOTei- O-TCKHS, not to the actual velocity. 2. T

. 13. ovpaviov 0v y^vos] i.e. the stars and planets. The 7^17 are four in number 40 A] TIMAIOS. 131 when the relative swiftnesses of all the eight revolutions ac- complish their course together and reach their starting-point, being measured by-the circle of the same and uniformly moving. In this way then and for these causes were created all such of the stars as wander through the heavens and turn about therein, in order that this universe may be most like to the perfect and ideal animal by its assimilation to the eternal being. XII. Now up to the generation of time all else had been accomplished in the likeness of that whereunto it was likened : but in that it did not yet contain all living creatures created within it, herein it was still unlike. So he went on to complete this that remained unfinished, moulding it after the nature of the pattern. So many forms then as Mind perceived to exist in the ideal animal, according to their variety and multitude, such kinds and such a number did he think fit that this universe should possess. These are fourfold : first the race of the heavenly gods, next the winged tribe whose path is in the air, third whatso dwells in the water, and fourth that which goes upon dry land. The visible form of the deities he created chiefly of fire, that it might be most radiant and most fair to behold ; and likening it to the All he shaped it like a sphere and assigned it to the intelligence of the supreme to follow after it ; and he disposed it throughout all the firmament of heaven, to be an adornment of it in very truth, wrought cunningly over the whole expanse. And he bestowed two movements upon to correspond with the four elements. It is preferable to airi?ipa.To an entirely in- to be observed that only in the first class appropriate word. I cannot think that does the correspondence depend upon the the authority of A ought to prevail to the structure : the remaining three are classed exclusion of sense, according to their place of abode. 17. els-r^v TOV Kparfrrrov 4>p6vT] ^X et /*V irepi(f>opa.v povinax&* /J-tpfi- The reason for the 36 c ; and the phrase means that the fixed qualification is doubtless that were they stars, situate in the outermost sphere, constituted solely of fire, they would be follow the diurnal rotation of the universe, opara, but not airrd : some admixture of but do not change their positions relative earth was necessary to give them the to it. second distinctive property of bodily ex- 18. Koo-fxov dXijOivov] The play on the istence; cf. 31 B. word Kios is obvious, though hardly dircipYO^CTo] This reading, which is capable of being retained in translation, that of all mss. except A, seems certainly 92 132 IIAATflNOS [40 A e/m, rrjv pev ev ravrw Kara ravrn -rrep rwv avrwv del rd avrd eavrw Siavoovftevq), TT)V 8e et? TO TrpoaQev viro rrj<> B ravrov ical O/AOIOV 7repiopd<; Kparovfievy rds Be Trevre Kivqi> tca) r^9 atria? yeyovev oer' a7r\avrj rwv dcrrpwv &>a 6ela ovra teal di&ia teal Kara ravrd ev ravryrjv 8e rpo(f)ov p,ev q/jLerepav, el\\op>evr]v Se Trepl rov Sid Travrcs TTO\OV rera- 3 Kparovfj^vrra i as above, 39 D. 8. 4v TOIS irporflv] 38 c foil.: /car (Kfiva is merely antecedent to Ka.6d.irep. 9. ei\X.o|j.e'vT|v 8i irtpl rov 8wi iravros iroXov] For an exhaustive and very master- ly examination of this passage see Bockh's essay ' Ueber das kosmische System des Platon'. Bockh has proved beyond all controversy that Plato does not here affirm the rotation of the earth upon her axis. Grote has indeed attempted to reply to his arguments, but only to meet with a crushing refutation: see Bockh's 'Kleine Schriften' vol. in p. 294 foil. It is indeed evident from one consideration alone that Plato cannot have intended the earth to move. The universe, he says, revolves diurnally on its axis, and thus, by carrying the sun round with its revo- lution, causes the alternation of day and night on any given region of the earth once in 24 hours. Now if the earth had an independent revolution of her own, whether in the same or in a contrary direction, it is self-evident that this whole arrangement would be overthrown : if the theory is to account for the phenomena, the earth must be absolutely motionless. The word ei'AXe dpbrpuv ?ros els ITOS, the real force of the word lies, not in the motion, but in the confinement of the motion within certain restricted limits, as is justly pointed out by Prof. Campbell, who says ' the force of l\\etv is "limited motion"'. It is indeed safe to affirm that no con- troversy would ever have arisen on the subject, but for a passage in Aristotle, de caelo II xiii 293 b 30. In the Berlin text this reads as follows : frtot 5 Ka.1 Kfifttvijv TIMAI02. 133 each, one in the same spot and uniform, whereby it should be ever constant to its own thoughts concerning the same thing; the other forward, but controlled by the revolution of the same and uniform : but for the other five movements he made it motionless and still, that each star might attain the highest completeness of perfection. From which cause have been created all the stars that wander not but abide fast for ever, living beings divine and eternal and in one spot revolving : while those that move in a circle and wander as aforesaid have come into being on those principles which in the foregoing we have declared. And the earth our foster-mother, that is globed round the axis stretched from pole to pole of the universe, her he fashioned 296 a 26 ol 5' eirl TOV peffov QevTes ?XXe6v5v\oi, for the knees of Necessity, in short for the whole appara- tus of the myth ? M TOV KevTpov (pa.a.(rlv avTrjv "(\\ea0ai" Kal KivetaOai "irepl TOV Sid. iravTdi TeTa.fj.evov irb\ov". That is, he supposes Aristotle to be stating, not Plato's view, but that of some who con- ceived the earth to rotate, quoting the words of the Timaeus, but adding Kal KtvelffOat to adapt them to his present purpose. This however is perhaps too ingenious. As for the second alternative, we have seen and have yet to see that Aristotle has repeatedly misrepresented Plato; and if he was here citing the Timaeus from memory, it is impossible to say that he may not have done so in the present instance. On the whole how- ever I am disposed to believe that the words Kal Kivelo-Oai were added by some unwise annotator, who had in his mind the sentence which occurs soon afterwards, 134 HAATflNOS [40 c fievov, (f>v\aKa Kal 8r)/j,iovpybv WKros re Kal rjiiepas ef^ij^avrja-aro, c Trpwrijv Kal 7rpecrf3vrdr'r)V uewv ocroi euros ovpavov yeyovafft. yopelas 8e rovrwv avrwv Kal TrapaftoXds d\\rj\a>v, Kal Trepl rd<; rwv KVK\WV ?rpo9 eavrovs eiravaKVKXrio-eis Kal -rrpoo-- 5 / y(apTjo'iaiv6p,evoi ^>o/3oi9 Kal cn]^ela rwv /iera ravra D yevTjo'oijievwv Tot9 ov SwafAevois \o i yi^eo~uai rrepsrrovo'i, TO \e 3 ra addidi. g oil Swafj-tvoit : oil omittunt SZ. It may be asked, must not the earth, having a soul, possess motion, seeing that all the other heavenly bodies move be- cause they are t/ji^vxoi ? To this Martin acutely replies that, had she not a soul of her own, she must rotate on her own axis (which is part of the axis of the universe), following the rotation of the whole. But her vital force enables her to resist this rotation, and by remaining fixed to mea- sure day and night: her rest in fact is equivalent to a motion countervailing the motion of the whole. 1. ejuiXaKo. Kal 8i](Aiovp'yov] Earth is the 'guardian' of day and night inas- much as without her they could not be measured; the 'creatress', because it is her shadow which causes night to be distinct from day. Proklos says juaXXop firjv 6 /JL^V ijXios T]/j^pa.s, y Si VVKT!)S alria. But day, regarded as the light portion of the vvx6"nv-epov, cannot exist unless night exists wherewith to contrast it; therefore in that sense earth is its drj/jnovp- 76$: without her there would be light, but not day. Martin puts it thus : ' [elle] est ainsi la productrice du jour par sa resistance au mouvement, en meme temps qu'elle en est la gardienne par son im- mobilit^ '. 2. o- puffiv, rj Kara jidOos, ras ffwavarohas \tyu Kal ffvyKaTaSvfffis. Kal < rd > irepl rds] The vulgate Kal irepl Tas cannot be right, nor is the conjecture of Stephanus, ireptrrdj, much more satisfactory than Stallbaum's iroi- KfXaj. Acting on a suggestion of the Engelmann translator I have inserted rd, which at least gives a good sense. From Republic 617 B rptrov 8 opf Uvai, wj fflffi (jxniveaOai, tiravaKVKXotiiJ.evov rbv rtraprov we might infer that tiravaK6lvovTa TraXiv S^x eff ^ compare 42 E Saveifo/j-tvoi /j.6pia us d.TroSo0ricr6/ji:va irdXiv : they created mortals out of the substance of the uni- verse, and at their dissolution restored the elements of them thither whence they were borrowed. 41 D 42 E, c. xiv. Thus having spoken, the Artificer prepared a second blending of soul, having its proportions like to the former, but less pure. And of the soul so formed he separated as many portions as there were stars in heaven, and set a portion in each star, and declared to them the laws of nature : how TIMAIO2. 141 Therefore in order that they may be mortal, and that this All may be truly all, turn ye according to nature unto the creation of living things, imitating my power that was put forth in the generation of you. Now such part of them as is worthy to share the name of the immortals, which is called divine and governs in the souls of those that are willing ever to follow after justice and after you, this I, having sown and provided it, will deliver unto you : and ye for the rest, weaving the mortal with the immortal, shall create living beings and bring them to birth, and giving them sustenance shall ye increase them, and when they perish receive them back again. XIV. Thus spake he ; and again into the same bowl wherein he mingled and blended the universal soul he poured what was left of the former, mingling it somewhat after the same manner, yet no longer so pure as before but second and third in pure- ness. And when he had compounded the whole, he portioned off souls equal in number to the stars and distributed a soul to that every single soul should be first embodied in human form, clothed in a frame subject to vehement affections and passions. And whoso should conquer these and live righteously, after fulfilling his allotted span, he should return to the star of his affinity and dwell in blessed- ness; but if he failed thereof, he should pass at death into the form of some lower being, and cease not from such transmi- grations until, obeying the reason rather than the passions, he should gradually raise himself again to the first and best form. Then God sowed the souls severally in the different planets, and gave the task of their incarnation to the gods he had created, to make them as fair and perfect as mortal nature may admit. 10. rcL TWV irp6(T0V viroXonra] Not the remnants of the universal soul, as Stallbaum supposes ; for that, we are told in 36 B, was all used up ; but of the elements composing soul, ravrov Odrepov and ovffla. 1 1 . d.KTJpara 8' OVK^TI] That is to say, the harmonical proportions are less accurate, and the Other is less fully subordinated to the Same : in other words, these souls are a stage further removed from pure thought, a degree more deeply immersed in the material. Compare Philebus 29 B foil. Plato's scheme includes a regular gradation of finite existences, from the glorious intelligence of a star down to the humblest herb of the field : all these are manifes- tations of the same eternal essence through forms more and more remote. 13. SiciXe x|n>xds UrapWjiovs rots dorpois] There is a certain obscurity attending this part of the allegory, which has given rise to much misunderstanding. It is necessary to distinguish clearly between the vo/j-rj of the present passage and the s 6? o^na TTJV TOV Travrbs e, VO/AOVS re roi)? tlftappfoov? elirev avrais, oVt yeveais evoiTO TTayfMvrj pia 7rdvvai %a>a)v TO Oeoae/Sea-TaTov, Bnr\rjs Be ovtrr)? 42 A TTJS dvBpwjriwrjs vTa, ?rpo? Be TOVTOIS (f>6f3ov teal OvfJiov oa-a T etro- fieva avTois teal oiroaa evavTiws 7re : yet of alo- vwv is clearly a copyist's error. The rea- son why one planet was more suitable for some souls than another does not appear. 5. u>v] I take ftmluv to mean vehement and masterful, though it might be understood like dvayKaia in 690. 144 ITAATHNOS [42 B IO Kparijcrotev, 8iKrj fttracroivro, KparrjOevret &e do'iKtq. Kal 6 fj,ev ev rov Trpoo-rJKovra %povov ftiovs, Trd\iv et9 T>}V rov ^vvvoftov rropevdels oiKrjcriv do-rpov, ftLov ev&aifiova Kal (rvvr/Or) eor o~(f)a\el<; 8e rovrcov ei9 (bvcriv ev rrj Sevrepa yeveo~ei u,Ta/3a\ot' u,r> r>v , , v ' / ,v Travopevos oe ev rovrois eri KaKias, rporrov ov KaKvvotro, Kara C*, r ta , rrjv ofioiorijra T^9 rov rporrov yeveo-ecos et9 riva roiavryv del /,./!/ , I >^>> ' I I -\ If- yaerapaXot vrjpeiov ^vvercLcnro^evo^ rov iro\vv o'faov Kal varepov irpoafyvvra e/c rcvpos Kal vbaros Kal depot Kal 7^9, Oopvftw&r) Kal d\oyov ovra, \6y(a Kparrja-as e/9 TO T^9 D 7rp&)T?79 Kal dpto~rv)<> dos AHZ. 1. riv irpov] i.e. the star to which was distributed the portion of soul whence his individual soul afterwards proceeded, a w-^Bij = congenial : the con- ditions of life in the vuvvonnv aarpov would be familiar from the soul's former residence in it, though she was not then differentiated. 4. As ywaiKos 4>^6- Tff>ai aQiKvotifJievai tirl K\T?IP av filov fKOffTTrf tv9a Kal fit I}/VXT) aQiKvelrat. These words, which stand in the margin of two mss., are simply quoted from Phaedrus 249 B. 5. Kara Tqv 6|Aoiorr]Ta] That is to say, they assumed the form of those animals to whose natural character they had most assimilated themselves by their special mode of misbehaviour ; cf. Phaedo 8 1 E tvSovvra.1 St, diffirtp elKos, ets roiavra fjQri OTTOI' &TT' av Kal fj^efjifXerriKviai rti- \v tyvxijs dvOpwirivr) 1 * &eov Trpoayevea'Ocu, TOVTO KOI Trdvff ocra E 5 dicoXovda Kivoi, o TI pr) KCLK&V aiiTo eavTw yiyvoiTO afciov. XV. Kat 6 /lev &rj aTravTa TavTa Siard^a<; epevev ev Tv, 43 A ol? ai^Tot %vveiyovTO Seot5 gvvTr/KovTes, ev eg d7repya^6/j,evoi fjice rais fiov- \rpeau> fKaffruv raj oiV/as 1 Siry yap av eiriOv/j.^ Kal OTTOIOS TIS uv Trjv ^vxyv, Tatirr) l ^ e ^ aw f cohesion in matter. The word 76^04, as contrasted with SeepovTo Kal <})pOV, WCTT6 TO [AV '6\OV KiVeio~6ai %G)OV, ttTaKTO)^ /Jbr/V OTTrj B yap TO 7rp6o-0 Kal o7ri(T0v /cat TrdXiv et9 Se^ta /cat dpiaTepd K.O.TW TC Kal ava> Kal jrdvTp KaTcL TOV? 6% TOTTOVS 'jrXavwjJ.eva Trporjeiv. TTO\\OV yap oi>T09 TOV /cara/cXu OVTO<> Kal diroppiovTOS KV/MITO^, o TTJV Tporjv 7rapet%ei>, en /iet^w 06pv/3ov aTretpyd&To ra TWV TrpoaimrTovTwv iraQr^iaTa e/ca (Tco/ia Ttvo9 e^o)0v aXXorptw TreptTv^ov 77 /cat o-Tepeo> 7^9 vypolf T6 o\icr0r/iJ,a ^i>X^ v < f> e po/ J 'vai' TrpocrTriTTTOiev' at 8?) /cat eTretra Sta raura K\ij0f)0'dv re /cat z/Oy ert ala0rjcrei TW TrapovTC 7r\ei(TTr)v Kal fjLeyicrTijv 7rap6%6fivat, Kivrjo-iv, ^tera TOV peovTos eV8eXe^<09 o^eroi) Kivovaai D /cat cr(f)oSpc39 o~elovcrai ra9 T7?9 / v/''i/Y^9 7reotoSou9, TJ?I> itey rauroO r9 ro Kal lovcrav, evavTia avTrj peov&ai Ka ' ai5 0aTepov 8teepo/j.tvuv : fapofdvov A. I. 4irppVTOV craS^a Kal s to include not the body only in which the soul resides, but generally the region of ecrtj in which she is placed : 6 /^P 5rj Tafj.6s ov rd avBp&wivov Si) pov] The vepioSoi could not be altogether passive, that being impossible for an animate being ; the external impressions and the subjective consciousness mutually interacted and conditioned each other. 4. roLs ij; cnrdVas] These six are reckoned as all for the present purpose, since the seventh, or rotary motion, belongs only to beings of a higher order. It may be noted that a completely different classification of Kivrpeis is given in Laws 893 C foil., where 10 kinds are enumerated. 7. iroXXov ydp ovros] Two chief causes are assigned by Plato for the dormant state of the intellect in the case of D] TIMAIO2. 149 flowing and out-flowing continually. And they, being confined in a great river, neither controlled it nor were controlled, but bore and were borne violently to and fro ; so that the whole creature moved, but advanced at random without order or method, having all the six motions : for they moved forward and backward and again to right and to left and downward and upward, and in every way went straying in the six directions. For great as was the tide sweeping over them and flowing off which brought them sustenance, a yet greater tumult was caused by the effects of the bodies that struck against them ; as when the body of any one came in contact with some alien fire that met it from without, or with solid earth, or with liquid glidings of water, or if he were caught in a tempest of winds borne on the air, and so the motions from all these elements rushing through the body penetrated to the soul. This is in fact the reason why these have all alike been called and still are called sensations (atcr^o-et?). Then too did they produce the most wide and vehement agitation for the time being, joining with the perpetually streaming current in stirring and violently shaking the revolutions of the soul, so that they altogether hindered the circle of the Same by flowing contrary to it, and they stopped it from governing and from going ; while the circle of the Other infants: the first is the continual influx of 14. Bid raura 4K\TJ9r)(rav] What is nutriment, which the growing child re- the etymology intended is not very quires ; the second and yet more potent obvious from the context ; but probably, cause is the violent effect produced by as Martin says, Plato meant to connect outward sensations, which bewilder and afcr^crts with dicraru. Proklos also pro- overwhelm the soul but newly arrived poses the Homeric word atedu : cf. Iliad in the world of becoming and inex- xvi 468 6 3 Ppa\e 6v^v dlirOuv : but perienced in its conditions. this suggestion has not very much to 10. dXXorpCw irepiTvxov] Plato says recommend it. ' alien ' fire, because, as we learn in 45 B, 1 6. jwrd TOV p^ovros v8f\exs 6x- there is a fire, viz. daylight, which is TOV] i.e. combined with the (cu/ua T^S akin to the fire within our bodies and Tpo7Js. therefore harmless to us. All the four 18. -iravrairao-iv lir^Srjo-av] It should elements are described, each in its own be observed that the effect on the two way, as conspiring to the soul's confusion. circles is different : that of the Same is The poetical tone of this passage is very stopped ; i.e. the reason does not act : noticeable. that of the Other is dislocated; and dis- 13. lirl TT|V ^vx^y] This theory is torted ; i.e. the reports of the senses are fully set forth in 64 B foil. : see also confused and inaccurate. Philebus 33 D. 150 tlAATHNOS [43 D Bt7r\a(TLOv Kal rpnr\aTe\d<;, iracras Be K\do~eis Kal 5 repeavrderai. ravrbv Brj rovro Kal roiavra erepa at, Trepufropal 7rd rwv e^wOev rov ravrov 44 A yevovs 17 rov Oarepov irepirv^oxn,, rore ravrov rw Kal Odrepov rov rdvavria rwv d\r}0oov Trpoo-ayopevovaai tyevBeis Kal avorjroi 15 yeyova&w, ovSe/Jiia re ev avrais rore rrepioBos dp^ovaa ovB' qye/AWV ecrriv al? S' dv e%u>6ev alcrdijo'eif rti/e? (frepo/mevai, Kal rrpoarreaovGai vve7ri,vrai, Kal TO T^? V'' L '%^ et? o-wfia evBe6fj Qvrjrov. orav Be TO T^9 avj;r)<; Kal rpoTr)Tes Kal eTTiovros rou Xpovov, Tore 1787; 7ry?ov(nv IOVTOJV o-^f/yaa e/cao-rtoi/ rwy KVK\o)v at 7repi(f)0pai fcarevBvvofjievai, TO Te Odrepov /cat TO TauTov 5 Trpocrayopevovaai KOST opdov, e/Jirj TraiBevffeaJS, oXoX??po9 vyirfs re Traj/TeXcS?, n}v fif- C yiaTijv aTrotyisycbv vocrov, yiyverai, /caTa/ieX^cra? Be, %a)Kr)v rov /Stou Sicnropevdels %cotjv, aTeX?)? /cat dvor)TOpova...Yi'yvo|i,cvov] Note that he is only put in the way to become rational. 7. o'p0r| Tpoi] TrcuSevcrfios] These words must be taken together, the geni- tive depending upon rpo^r). Stallbaum, governing iraiSetiffeus by tTriXa/j.fidvrirai, wrongly understands 6p6j] rpodff/Mra fj.voijft.tvoi re Kal tiroirretiovrts iv avyrj Ka6ap$, Ka.0a.pol ovres Kal dffrifiavroi rovrov 5 Tpoirov 5t5efffj.fvfi.^voi. See too Laws 759 C. Similarly dreXrjj is a ritual term. It is also possible that in TTJC nfylarrjv diro- pr. m. S. (f>vy&v voffov we have an echo of the ejaculation of the initiates, tyvyov KaKov, evpov dfj-eivov : cf. Demosthenes de corona p. 312 259. 8. X w ^n v ] Compare 87 r>, where it is said that if a disproportion exists between soul and body, the 8\ov ffiov is d^u fj.fj.tr pov rals ptyiffrais %vfj./j.rpiais. TOV PIOU SiairopevOds <>*] v] j3iov fi)= ' the conscious existence of his life- time', fw?) being a more subjective term than /3/os. Compare on the other hand Euripides Hercules furens 664 a Svvytveia 5' dir\av av \ efye fwas fiiordv. 10. vToepe<; bv eta\r)v eirovo^d^op.ev, o Oeiorarov T etrrt Kal ru>v ev rjjjuv irdvrwv Beo~7rorovV a> teal irdv TO adofia TrapeBoaav 5 VTTTjpecriav avrw %vva6polcravres Oeoi, Karavorjo-avres, ori iracrwv oa-ai Kivrja-eis eo-oivro /u,eTe%ot. 'iv ovv fir) KV\iv8ov/j,evov eVt 7^5 vtyij re Kal ftdOij TravroSaTrd e^ovar}^ aTropol rd /j,ev i/Trepftaiveiv, E evdev 8e etcftaLvew, o^rjfju avrw TOVTO Kal einropiav eSovav' Wev 8rj ftrfKos TO o-w/ia ea^ev, efcrard re Kw\a Kal Ka/Airrd eva-e rerrapa 10 Oeov fjir)xavr)crafAVov iropeiav, ot? dvri\afA/3av6fj,evov Kal direpe&o- (tevov Bid Trdvrajv TOTTWV TropeveaOai Svvarov yeyove, rrjv rov Oetordrov Kal leptardrov epov oircrjariv eTrdvooOev rjfjiwv. tr/ceX?; 45 A fjiev ovv %eipe<> re ravry Kal Bid ravra Trpocrecfrv Trdcri' rov 8' O7rio-0ev TO TrpocrOev riftiwrepov Kal dp^iKU>repov vo/J,iovre|rv^? Trpovola, Kal Bieragav B TO f^ere^ov JfaftpOvfaK TOUT' elvai TO Kara vcnv rrpoaOev. rwv 20 Be op T^ fjiev Kaieiv OVK eo-^e, TO Be a)9 r/fjiepov, OIKCIOV eKaarij^ T/yu-epa? 10 iropeiav : iropela SZ. 18 rj omittit A. Ste'raf av TO /jLerexov ' dieragavro SZ. 22 post r)fj.{pas commate vulgo interpungitur. learnt number, philosophy could never aicrOdverat re p.d\iffra Kal at tpptves. rrjs have been ours. But now we are able ^VTOL povriTa\os curios tffTiv. of our soul by contemplating the serene This view was afterwards upheld by unswerving revolutions of the skies. And Galen against the Peripatetics and Stoics, to the same end too they gave sound who made the heart the sole dpxri- With and music and harmony and rhythm, dfffirorovv compare a phrase in one of the that we might bring order from disorder Hippokratean epistles, m 824 Kiihn: in our souls. 5ea\ot>. luvoi] Cf. 73 c: see too 81 A, where 5. wcwwv] i.e. all the six, excluding the whole human frame is regarded as a rotation : cf. 43 B. microcosm working on the same princi- 10. iropefav] This reading has over- pies as the universe. whelming ms. support, and may very 3. 8 vvv K<|>aXriv] Plato, in placing well signify ' as means of locomotion ' : the apx*l of consciousness in the head, there seems no sufficient ground for agrees with Hippokrates : cf. de morbo changing it to wopeia. sacro vol. I p. 614 Kuhn Siori r] Kapdli} 13. irpoortc^v] With this remarkable 45 B] TIMAI02. 155 XVI. Imitating the shape of the universe, which was sphe- rical, they confined the two divine revolutions in a globe-shaped body, the same that we now call the head, which is the divinest part of us and has dominion over all our members. To this the gods gave the whole body, when they had put it together, to minister to it, reflecting that it possessed all the motions that should be. In order then that it might not have to roll upon the earth, which has hills and hollows of all kinds, nor be at a loss to surmount the one and climb out of the other, they gave it the body for a conveyance and for ease of going : whence the body was endowed with length and grew four limbs that could be stretched and bent, which the god devised for it to go withal, and by means of which clinging and supporting itself it is enabled to pass through every place, bearing at the top of us the habitation of the most divine and sacred element. In this way then and for these reasons were legs and hands added to all mankind ; and the gods, deeming that the front was more honourable than the back and more fit to lead, made us to move for the most part in this direction. So it behoved man to have the front part distinguished and unlike the back. Therefore having set the face upon the globe of the head on that side, they attached to it organs for all the forethought of the soul, and they ordained that this which had the faculty of guidance should be by nature the front. And first of the organs they wrought light- giving eyes, which they fixed there on the plan I shall explain. Such sort of fire as had the property of yielding a gentle light use of the singular compare the still nose and mouth, on the same side of stronger case in Symposium 188 B ical the head, forming the face ; and this side yip rraxva-t xa.1 x<*^ a f at Kai tpvfflfiai K they called the front. ir\fove%ias nal dKOfffJ-las irepl a\\i)\a T&V 18. SUroljav TO |XT\ov] This read- TOIOUTUV jiyverai IpuriKuv. The con- ing is distinctly preferable to 8ieroam> struction is of course distinct from the ptroxov- For /u^roxoc if-ye/jcw/as must be so-called 'schema Pindaricum', in which the predicate: the meaning however the verb precedes its subject, and which plainly is that the gods, to distinguish is not so very uncommon in Attic writers. front from back, ordered that the face, 15. $>i 8i]] Forward motion is more which held the leading position (because dignified than retrograde ; and man is it contained the opyava rfj rrjs ^vxys to have the more dignified. But to at- irpovoiq.), should be TO /card vov ov TOVTOV irvp el\itcpive<; eTroiijo~av Bid T(5v ofji^aTcav pelv \elov ical TTVKVOV, o\ov ftev, fJ-a- \io~Ta Be TO /j.eo~ov vfjnri\'>jo~avT yevofievov, ev crtw/ia ol/ceiQ)dev o~vveo~Tr) tcaTa TT/V TWV o^p>aT(av evdvwpiav, oirrjTrep av avTepelBrj TO irpoo'irlirTov evBodev TT^O? o TU>V ea> o'vveTreo'ev. ofioioTraOes Brj oY 6/j,oioTr)Ta irdv yevoaevov, OTOV Te av avTO TTOTC 10 e(pdTTTr)Tai Kal o av d'XXo eicelvov, TOVTMV TCZ? tcivijo~ei etXiKpivis Kal \eioi> Kal irvKvbv* 6. iv <$ rb 8epfj.bv KO.\ ripov, olov 5o*te? TO T' iv TO?J dvOpaK&Sefftv elvat irvp Kai rj T< url ovStrepov Qalvtrcu vtrap^ov : . It is I 5 8 ITAATHNOS [45 D OVK e'yovrt. rraverat re ovv opwv, eri re erraywyov vrrvov a-Qjrrjpiai' yap r)v oi 6eol rr)<; o^/re&>9 e^rj^avrja-avro, rrjv rwv j3\edp(i)v (frvcnv, orav ravra f^vjAfAvcrrj, tcaOeipyvvat rr)v E TOU rrvpos evrof Biivapiv, rj Be Bia%ei re teal 6/j,a\vvei T9 evro? 5 (civr/vets, 6/j,a\vv0eicr(av Be rjav^ia yvyverai, v Be rivcov Kivrjcrewv fiet^ovwv, olai teal ev otbt? av rorrois \eirra)vrai, 4G A TotaOra /cal roo-avra rrapea-^ovro d(f)OfjLoia)9evra evros e&> re eyepOeiGiv drro^vrj^ovevofjieva (fravrda-fjuara. TO Be rrepl rrjv r(5v 10 Karorrrpwv el8(o\orroi,iav, /cal rrdvra ocra efi(j>avr} teal Xeta, KariBeiv ovBev eri r ^a\err6v. e/c 7^^ T^9 evrcs eT09 re rov rrvpos etcarepov KOivwvias d\\r)\oi<$, evos re av rrepl rrjv \ei6rrjra etcdarore ye- vo/jievov /cal rroX\,a^ fierappvO/jua-Qevros, rrdvra rd roiavra ej~ B dvdyfcr)<; /j,aiverat,, rov rrepl TO TTpoa-forrov Trvpos TW rrepl rrjv 15 O^ITIV rrvpl rrepl TO \elov Kal \afjt,rrpov %vp,rr 0701)9 yiyvofjievov. Beid Be (fravrd^erai rd dpicrrepd, ori Tot9 evavriois fj-epetri rrjs 1 6 Kara post avrderai habet A. lates ' images semblables a des objets soit interieurs, soit exterieurs '. But what can be meant by ' objets interieurs ' ? I had thought of substituting QwOev for w re, 'copied within from without': in which case eytpOeial r' must be read. But though this gives a good sense, it over- throws the balance of the sentence. And the text may, I think, be explained as it stands : the images are copied within that is, in the dream-world, and recalled to mind without that is, when we have emerged from the dream-world. For Ari- stotle's theory of dreams see the treatise irepl (vvirvli>. it. IK -yap Tf\s ivr6<$] Plato proceeds to explain the phenomena of reflection in mirrors. The rays from the object reflected are arrested by the smooth shining sur- face of the mirror, which they cannot penetrate : the combined ws are arrested on the same surface and thus come into conjunc- tion with the rays from the object. Thus the mirror is the cause of contact be- tween the fire of the subject and the fire of the object, and so an indirect vision is I Sirvov ylyverat : ytyverai tiirvov S. impossible to exonerate criticism of this kind from the charge of bvopAruv Or/pev- v f)\t(j)ojioLco0VTa ivros] Dreams are the result of motions which are not tho- roughly calmed down, whereby semblances of external things are presented to the mind from within : the Kivrjffis correspond- ing to any particular external impression producing a likeness of that impression in the sleeping consciousness. The sense is plain enough ; but some difficulty at- taches to the words tivfc (u re. Martin, construing them with aavT(u] 'are reflected', tf*.- v7rr)pTOvV, ^rv^ovTa ical Oep/naivovTa TrrjyvvvTa re teal Bia^eovTa KOI ova ToiavTa aTrepya^o/jLeva' \6jov Be ovSeva ov8e vovv et etdiBvlas tf^ews ^vavrLav atcrOrjffiv irap^xof etdos aTrepydfrrai. 4. v0cv KCU fv0v \i\\n] Xa.pox/0-a] i.e. a concave mirror. Plato conceives the reversal of the phenomena of reflection as appearing in a plane mirror to be due to the concavity deflecting the rays at the TIMAIO2. 161 of the visual current and of the object seen come into contact, contrary to the wonted mode of collision. On the other hand right appears as right and left as left, when in the act of combination with that wherewith it combines the ray changes sides. This happens when the smooth surface of the mirror is curved up- wards on each side and so throws the right portion of the visual current to the left side and the ccfoiverse. But if it is turned lengthwise to the face, it makes this same reflection appear completely upside down, thrusting the lower portion of the ray to the upper end and the upper to the lower. All these things are among the secondary causes which God uses to serve him in carrying out the idea of the best so far as is possible. But the multitude regard them not as secondary but as primary causes, which act by cooling and heating, con- densing and rarefying, and all such processes. Yet they are incapable of all reason or thought for any purpose. For the only existing thing to which belongs the possession of reason moment of impact. In the case of a con- cave mirror the section AB would be a curved line instead of straight ; and thereby a ray from the right side, just at the moment of impact, while it is in act of amalgamating with the ray from the object, is shifted to the left side, and vice versa- It must be remembered that the concave mirrors of which Plato speaks are not of the sort with which we are most familiar, namely hemispherical mirrors : they are hemicylindrical : there- fore when the mirror is held laterally, so that the curvature is from right to left, the position of right and left as compared with a reflection in a plane mirror is inverted ; if it is held vertically (Kara. pfJKos ei> TOV irpocrwirov), so that the curvature is from top to bottom, the reflection is upside down. See Munro's note on Lucretius iv 317. If the mirror were hemispherical, or one which is concave all round from centre to circum- ference, both right and left and top and bottom would be inverted, as may be seen by simply looking into the bowl of P. T. a silver spoon. This case is not noticed by Plato, nor by Lucretius /. /. Martin gives a mathematical explanation of the phenomena. 9. TWV jjvvaiTCwv] Plato now pro- ceeds to guard against being supposed to mean that the physical principles which he has just laid down are the real cause : they are merely the means through which the true cause works, viz., poCs operating ^?ri rb (3\Tiffrov. Compare Phaedo 99 B. The whole of this latter part of the chapter contains a polemic partly against Anaxagoras, partly against Demokritos. Anaxagoras did indeed postulate vovt as his prime force, but he used it simply as a mechanical agent, without attributing to it a conscious effort to produce the best result. Demokritos conceives a blind unconscious force, avdyKi), to be the motive power of the universe. Thus whereas the opposition between Demo- kritos and Plato is fundamental and essential, Plato's controversy with Anaxa- goras is due rather to inconsequence or incompleteness on the part of the latter. II 1 62 HAATHNOS [46 u ' TOVTO Be dopaTOV, Trvp Be real vBcop teal 777 ical dr)p o~(o- fiara irdvra oparci yeyove' TOV Be vov Kal e-Trta-TT;/^? epaa-rrjv dvaytcrj ra? T^? fjbpovo<; tfrvcrews atrta? irpwra^ fj.TaBia>Kiv, ovai Be VTT d\\cov fjuev KivovfjLevwv, erepa Be eg dvdyKijs KIVOVVTWV E 5 ytyvovTai, BevTepas. Troirjreov Brj Kara ravra Kal rjplv' \eicrea fj,ev dfj,(f>6repa rd TWV alriwv povr)(Ta)<; TO araKTOv eKaa-rore e^epjd^ovrai. rd fj,ev ovv rwv ofijjbdrwv airia irpos TO e%iv rrjv Bvvafiiv rjv vvv ei\r}^ev elpr)6elo-at /J,rjve<; re Kal 15 eviavTWv TrepioBoi fie/Jiij^dv'rjvTai pev dptOpov, %p6vov Be evvotav Trepl T T^9 TOU Tra^TO? vo-eo)9 r)Tr)o~iv eBoo-av' eg d>v eTropiffd^eOa (f)i\oo~o(j>ia TTOT TCO B 6vr)T(p yevei BcapijOev CK dewv. Xeya> Brj TOVTO ofifjidTwv fieyio-TOV dryaOov' TaXXa Be, oo~a e\aTTo>, TL dv vuvolftev', &v 6 firj i\6o~o(f)o<> 4 a\\uv fj.ev : aXX?}Xa>j> A. g fyeiv : o 3. rds TTJS ?(Jt}>povos 4>vpovri crews] The in the Journal of Philology, vol. vii p. nature of the two causes is dealt with in in, where he is dealing with Aristotle's the note on avdyicr) at the beginning of views of causation. 'Any agent', he 47 B] TIMAI02. 163 we must affirm to be soul : and this is invisible, whereas fire and water and air and earth are all visible creations. Now the lover of reason and knowledge must first seek for the causes which belong to the rational order ; and only in the second place those which belong to the class of things which are moved by others and move others in turn. This then is what we must also do : we must declare both classes of causes, distinguishing between those which with the aid of reason are the creators of fair things and good, and those which being destitute of reason produce from time to time chance effects without design. Enough then of the auxiliary causes which combine in giving the eyes the power they now possess ; but the great result, for the sake of which God bestowed them on us, must be our next theme. Sight, according to my judgment, has been the cause of the greatest blessing to us, inasmuch as of our present discourse concerning the universe not one word would have been uttered had we never seen the stars and the sun and the heavens. But now day and night, being seen of us, and months and the revolution of the years have created number, and they gave us the notion of time and the power of searching into the nature of the All ; whence we have derived philosophy, than which no greater good has come neither shall come hereafter as the gift of heaven to mortal man. This I declare to be the chiefest blessing due to the eyes : on the rest that are meaner why should we descant ? let him who loves not says, 'natural or artificial, may produce sequence of the 'casual relation' which is effects which do not naturally or necessarily thus established between it and the coal, flow from those qualities which give it its But this is in complete conformity with name or constitute its kind, but which the natural laws which arise solely from result from properties common to it and the evolution of voh. other kinds, or from circumstances which 16. l| <3v erropurdiwOa] The true bring it into casual relation with the final cause of sight then is the attainment thing it acts upon : a coal may break of philosophy, which is the ultimate result yovir head as well as warm you '. See of the knowledge of number, acquired by Aristotle physica n iv i95 b 31 foil. In observation of the celestial bodies. The this sense only is an effect produced which sciences of number and astronomy were is TO Tvxbv O.TO.KTOV. The falling of the for Plato a propaedeutic to philosophy, coal is the natural effect of its gravity, a as we learn from Republic 525 A foil. : property bestowed upon it by vovs : and and it is well known that he regarded if your head happens to be in the line of geometry as an indispensable part of a the coal's descent, it is broken in con- liberal education. II 2 1 64 ITAATHNOS [47 B av 0pr)voi fjidr'rjv. d\\d rovrov Trap" rjpwv avrrj eVt ravra atria, 0eov r^iiv dvevpelv T oifnv, iva raV ei9 avra fiolpav, cxrov T' av fj.ovopd<; rat? eV D fyv'xfis TrepioSois, rc3 perd vov Trpoo-^pw^evw Moi^o-at? OVK TjSovrjv a\oyov, KaOaTrep vvv elvat SOKGI xprjo'ifios, a\\ 15 7rl rrjv yeyovviav ev r^/jfiv dvdp^oo~rov -^rtn^? irepioBov et? icara- Kocr/j,r}criv Kal (oviav eavrf) o'v^a^o^ VTTO MoycreSy SeSorai' Kal pv0fjU)uvy: uvr) A pr. m. of*.oiovffdai. a marginal gloss on opds] Thus of the text, although I cannot consider it is brought out the significance of the altogether satisfactory, affords a fairly harmonic ratios in 35 B: the laws of good sense, ^owud] is a comprehensive harmony and the laws of being are the term, including much more than 'music' same ; the former being just one special in the modern sense. Plato is therefore aspect of the latter. limiting the signification in the present 47 E 48 E, c. xvii. Hitherto our dis- E] TIMAIOS. 165 wisdom, if he be blinded of these, lament with idle moan. But on our part let this be affirmed to be the cause of vision, for these ends : God discovered and bestowed sight upon us in order that we might observe the orbits of reason which are in heaven and make use of them for the revolutions of thought in our own souls, which are akin to them, the troubled to the serene; and that learning them and acquiring natural truth of reasoning we might imitate the divine movements that are ever unerring and bring into order those within us which are all astray. And of sound and hearing again the same account must be given : to the same ends and with the same intent they have been bestowed on us by the gods. For not only has speech been appointed for this same purpose, whereto it contributes the largest share, but all such music as is expressed in sound has been granted, for the sake of harmony : and harmony, having her motions akin to the revolutions in our own souls, has been bestowed by the Muses on him who with reason seeks their help, not for any senseless pleasure, such as is now supposed to be its chiefest use, but as an ally against the discord which has grown up in the revolution of our soul, to bring her into order and into unison with herself: and rhythm too, because our habit of mind is mostly so faulty of measure and lacking in grace, is a succour bestowed on us by the same givers for the same ends. XVII. Now in our foregoing discourse, with few exceptions, course has been entirely or mainly con- blessing let us set forth on a new and cerned with the works of Intelligence ; strange journey of discovery, but now we must likewise take account 20. TO, p,iv ovv irapcXrjXvOoTa] Up of the operations of Necessity. For all to this point Plato has been treating of the fabric of this universe is the effect of the general design and plan of creation, Intelligence acting upon Necessity and TT\TJV Ppaxtwv, with some small excep- influencing it to produce the best possible tions, e.g. the account of the ffv/j-nerairta result. Therefore in our account of crea- which contribute to the process of vision, tion we must find room for the Errant The inquiry into the effects of necessity, Cause. And first we must set forth the to which a great part of the remainder origin of fire and the other elements, of the dialogue is devoted, consists of which no man has yet declared. But in physical and physiological speculations dealing with things material we cannot concerning the various properties and find any infallible first principle where- forms of matter and their interaction upon to base our discourse ; we must be one on another. This inquiry is how- content, as we have always said, with the ever introduced by a metaphysical theory probable account. And so with heaven's of the first importance, without which it 1 66 TIAATflNOS [47 E CTTtBeBeiKTai TO, Bid vov BeSijfjiiovpyrjpeva' Sei Be Kal rd Si yiyvofieva rc3 \o Treideiv avrrjv rv yiyvoftevwv 5 rd TrXetcrra eVi TO /3e\Ti(TTOv dyeiv, ravrrj Kara ravrd re oY dvdyKtj 1 ; rjTTWpevr)*; VTTO ireiOovs e(ji tear dp%ds gvvi- crraro roBe TO irdv. ei ri&>/4eV79 elSo? atria?, 77 ept,v 7re. It was im- possible, we must suppose, for vovs to assume the form of a multitude of phy- sical forces, all in themselves and in their design beneficent, which should not, amid the infinite complexity of their interaction, inevitably under some conditions produce effects which are not beneficent. This necessity and this im- possibility constitute dvdyKr]. It is then in the final analysis the law by which vovs necessarily has a mode of existence to which imperfection attaches: and the very constancy with which the law acts is the cause of the friction which arises in its manifold and complex operation. But this is no law imposed upon vovs by any external cause, for there is none is not too much to say that no concep- tion of Platonism as a coherent whole could be formed. A thorough study of the eighteenth chapter of the Timaeus is absolutely essential before we can even think of beginning to understand Plato. To this theory the present chapter is prefatory. 3. t avd-yKT|s T Kal vov s] The first point which it is indispensable precisely to determine is the meaning of dvayKr) and 17 ir\avu/j.tvr) alria, which clearly signify one and the same thing. I have already in the note on 46 E to some extent indicated what I conceive to be Plato's meaning. In the first place it is necessary once for all to discard the notion that dvayicr) is in any sense what- soever an independent force external to vovil this would be totally repugnant, as I have said, to the cardinal doctrine of Platonism, that the only a.px'n /cipijtrews is \j/vxn- For this reason we must not sup- pose that there is in matter as such any resisting power which thwarts the efforts of yoDj: this is an absolute misconcep- tion. Matter, qua matter, being soul- less, is entirely without any sort of power of its own : whatever power it has is of faxy- What then is dvoiyKi} or the irXa- vwfdvtj alrlaf It signifies the forces of matter originated by vovs, the sum total of the physical laws which govern the material universe: that is to say, the laws which govern the existence of PoOs in the form of plurality. Now these laws, once set in motion, must needs act constantly according to their nature; 48 A] TIMAIOS. 167 we have been declaring the creations wrought through mind : we must now set by their side those things which come into being through necessity. For the generation of this universe was a mixed creation by a combination of necessity and reason. And whereas reason governed necessity, by persuading her to guide the greatest part of created things to the best end, on such conditions and principles, through necessity overcome by reasonable persuasion, this universe was fashioned in the beginning. If then we would really declare its creation in the manner whereby it has come to be, we must add also the nature of the Errant Cause, and its moving power. Thus then such : it is in the very nature of vovs itself in its pluralised form. The problem of the ir\avw[j.&r] alrla is the same as the problem concerning the nature of evil, of which Plato has offered us no explicit solution. 6. iJTT(Uvt]s uiro irciOovs |Apo- vos] In these words is indicated the difference between the dvaymi of Plato and the dvdyicr} of Demokritos. For Plato, although the forces of nature are inevit- able and inexorable in their action, yet these forces are themselves expressly de- signed by Intelligence for a good end. And though in detail evil may arise from their working, yet they are so ordained as to produce the best result that it was possible to attain. Necessity persuaded by intelligence means in fact that ne- cessity is a mode of the operation of in- telligence. The necessity of Demokritos, on the other hand, is an all-powerful un- intelligent force working without design ; and whether good or evil, as we term them, arises from its processes, this is entirely a matter of chance. Thus in Plato's scheme evil is deliberately limited to an irreducible minimum, while with that of Demokritos the whole question of good and evil has nothing to do. 8. TO TTJS irXava>(j^VTis ctSos alrCas] The name irXavufj^vrj alrla does not sig- nify that Plato attributed any degree of uncertainty or caprice to the operation of Every effect is the result of a cause; and just that effect and nothing else whatsoever must arise from just that cause. And were we omniscient, we could trace the connexion between cause and effect everywhere, and we could con- sequently predict everything that should happen. As it is, so obscure to us are the forces amid which we live, and so complex are the influences which work upon one another, that in innumerable instances we are unable to trace an effect back to its causes or to foresee the action of dvdyKi). Hence Plato calls dvayK-rj the ir\avu/j.{i'r] atria, because, though work- ing strictly in obedience to a certain law, it is for the most part as inscrutable to us as if it acted from arbitrary caprice. We can detect the relation of cause and effect in results which are immediately due to the design of vovs, but frequently not in those which are indirectly due to it through the action of dvayicri. It is ex- tremely inaccurate in Stallbaum to say that the irXavufdviri alrla is ' materia cor- porum'. Q 4>t'piv ir&J>vKev] Literally 'how it is its nature to set in motion'. The Tr\avwfj.{vr} alrla is the source of insta- bility and uncertainty (relatively to us) in the order of things ; whence Plato terms it the moving influence. What Stallbaum means or fails to mean by his rendering 'ea ratione, qua ipsius natura fert', it is difficult to conjecture. i68 ITAATHNOS [48 A (S8e ovv TrdXiv dva^coprjreov, real \a/3ovo~iv avrdav rovrwv Trpoar)- B Kovo~av erepav dp^rjv av0i<; av, Kaddirep Trepl ra>v Tore, vvv ovrco Trepl rovrcov ird\iv dpxreov OTT' dp^r}?. rrjv 8r) rrpo rfjs ovpavov yevea-ecos Trvpos v&aros re KOI aepos /cat 7179 cf>v(riv ffeareov avrrjv 5 real rd Trpo rovrov TrdOr). vvv yap ovSek TTCO yevecnv avrcov pefjirj- VVKCV, aXA* 009 elSoo-t, irvp '6 rl rcore ecrrt real etcacrrov avrwv, \eyofiev ap%9 avrd TiQeftevoi, Vroi^eta roO Travros, Trpoo-fjrcov ai)rot9 ovS 1 av 0)9 ev (rv\\aj3f)s i8e9 opOws eyxeipolp av roaovrov '5 eVt/3aXXo/Aei>o9 epyov' ro 8e tear dp%d<; pfjdev 8t,av\drra)V, rr/v D rwv elfcorwv \6ycov Svvajjuv, Tretpd&o/jiai, firjo'evos rjrrov eiicora, fj,d\\ov 8e, Kal e/^irpoo'dev air" dp%r) w coniecit H. oi55a/tws A. oi>8' ws SZ. i. Ka6airp ircpl TWV TOTC] i.e. as we began at the beginning in expounding rci 5tct vov 6e8T)/MOvpy7ifji.tva t so we must begin at the beginning again in our ex- position of rd 5t' avayicTjt yiyvb/jieva. 3. irpo TTJS ovpavov y Wu>s, but which are analytically prior to those forms which do exist in the ccoo^tos. But the priority is in analysis only; there never was a time in which the elements existed in these forms. Indeed when we come to see the nature of Plato's orot- Xet, it will be apparent that they never could have an independent existence, irpb Tofrrov = irpb rov yevtcrOai rbv ovpavov the state of fire, air, &c prior (in analysis) to their complete form. 8. iv o-uXXaprjs t8o-t] This is an allusion to the common meaning of OTOI- Xeia = letters of the alphabet. So far from belonging to this rank, fire and the rest are more composite even than syllables. For, as we shall see, Plato's ultimate aroi-xflov is a particular kind of triangle, out of which is formed another triangle, and out of that again a regular solid figure, which is the corpuscule of fire. 10. Art dpx^v Art opxdsj Plato says he will not, like the early lonians, attempt to find some principle or prin- D] TIMAIOS. 169 let us return upon our steps, and when we have found a second fitting cause for the things aforesaid, let us once more, pro- ceeding in the present case as we did in the former, begin over again from the beginning. Now we must examine what came before the creation of the heavens, the very origin of fire and water and air and earth, and the conditions that were before them. For now no one has declared the manner of their generation ; but we speak as if men knew what is fire and each of the others, and we treat them as beginnings, as elements of the whole ; whereas by one who has ever so little intelligence they could not plausibly be represented as belonging even to the class of syllables. Now however let our say thus be said. The first principle or principles or whatever we may hold it to be which underlies all things we must not declare at present, for no other reason but that it is difficult according to the present method of our exposition to make clear our opinion. You must not then deem that I ought to discourse of this, nor could I persuade myself that I should be right in essaying so mighty a task. But holding fast the principle we laid down at the outset, the value of a probable account, I will strive to give an explanation that is no less probable than another, but more so ; returning back to describe from the beginning each and all things. So now again at the outset of our quest let us call upon God to pilot us safe through a strange and un- ciples to serve as an dpxr) for matter, %x eiv - solely for the reason that in a physical 17. Kal $\i.Trpo attained by dialectic. The Ionian dpx eTrucaXecrdfjievoi ird\iv dp%(0jji,e6a \eyeiv. E XVIII. 'H 8' ovv av0t<; dp^rj Trepl TOV rravTos o~Ta> fj,ei%6v(a$ T^? TrpocrOev 8ippr)fj,evr}. Tore fJ,ev yap 8vo ei8r) 8iei\6fjt,eOa, vvv 5 8e TPLTOV a\\o 761/09 ^piv 8r}\a)Teov. rd jj,ev yap 8vo iKavd yv eir\ rot? efj,Trpoo~6ev Xe^Oelcnv, ev pev 005 TrapaSeiyfAaros el8o<; VOTJTOV teal del Kara ravrd ov, jJii^^a 8e 7rapa8eiy- 49 A Sevrepov, yeveviv e%ov /cat oparov rplrov 8e Tore /lev ov vofiio-avres TO, 8vo e^etv iaj/(09, vvv 8e 6 \6yo$ eoitcev 10 eio-avay/cd^eiv %a\7rbv teal dftvo'pov elSos 7rt%ei,peiv \6yois ejj,(f)a- via-ai. TIV ovv e%ov Svva/Aiv Kara v] The reference is to 28 A, where Timaeus divides the universe into ov and ytyv6fj.evov. 5. TO. p.ev -yap Svo IKO.VCI r\v] This remark is most characteristic of Plato, who always confines himself to the limits of the subject in hand. He is like a good general, who does not call upon his re- serves till they are wanted. So in the Philebus he carries his analysis of dSrei- pov no further than to describe it as in- definitely qualified, because that served all the purpose of that dialogue. And in the same way at the earlier stage of Timaeus's exposition he distinguishes only such principles of the universe as then concern the argument. 7. |x(|xi]|xa] It may be as well to draw attention to the fact that through- out all the dialogue the relation of par- ticular to idea is one of /il/M?(rts : the old Ai^0eij has disappeared never to return. 10. xoXcir&v Kol d(iv8p6v ctSos] Plato repeatedly in the most emphatic language expresses his sense of the difficulty and obscurity attaching to this question con- cerning the substrate of material existence. The difficulty is recognised also in the Philebus, though in less forcible terms, cf. 24 A xXei'ii' /J.tv y&p Kal &fj.ia-prjT^ffifj.ov o KeXetfw 9 ware Tivl TTKTTM Kal /8e/3ai&) xprja-aaOat, \69 SiaTroprjOevres av \eyoifj,i> ; irpcorov (jiev, o Srj vvv vSatp eJi/o/aa/ca/iei/, TT^VV^GVOV, a5? C 8oKovfj,v, \i6ovs Kal a Kal depa, ^vjKavOevra Se dipa Trvp, avarca\(,v 8e irvp oa.Tropi\9r]va.\. ircpl irvpcJs] This may have passed into another. necessity arises because the conception of 7. clKorws should be joined with 8ia- the virodoxh as an unchanging substrate iroptj&vTcs. 'raising what reasonable involves the conception of fire and the question'. rest as merely transitory conditions of this 9. XtOovs Kal yfjv] Plato here speaks substrate : therefore we must put the as if all four elements were interchange- question, what is the real nature of this able : this statement is corrected in 54 c, appearance which we call fire? And this where we find that earth, as having a in its turn raises the question of the ex- different base, will not pass into the other istence of the ideas, rwv perd. irvpbt of elements, nor they into it : the other D] TIMAIOS. 173 saying is true, but we must put it in clearer language : and this is hard ; especially as for the sake of it we must needs inquire into fire and the substances that rank with fire. For it is hard to say which of all these we ought to call water any more than fire, or indeed which we ought to call by any given name, rather than all and each severally, in such a way as to employ any truthful and trustworthy mode of speech. How then are we to deal with this point, and what is the question that we should properly raise concerning it ? In the first place, what we now have named water, by condensation, as we suppose, we see turning to stones and earth ; and by rarefying and expanding this same element becomes wind and air ; and air when inflamed becomes fire : and conversely fire contracted and quenched returns again to the form of air; also air concentrating and condensing becomes cloud and mist ; and from these yet further com- pressed comes flowing water ; and from water earth and stones once more : and so, it appears, they hand on one to another the cycle of generation. Thus then since these several bodies never assume one constant form, which of them can we posi- tively affirm to be really this and not another without being shamed in our own eyes ? It cannot be : it is far the safest course when we make a statement concerning them to speak as follows. What we see in process of perpetual transmutation, as for instance fire, we must not call this, but such-tike is the three however are interchangeable. Note aWis. KVK\OV is perfectly right, being a however that the present statement is predicate to yiveaiv: 'handing on their guarded with the qualification ws doKov- generation as a circle': the re is also right, /j.fv. Of course this limitation of the in- coupling diadiS6vra and yiyvofievov. There terchangeability does not affect Plato's is more to be said for omitting re after argument, which is probably the reason ISiav ; in which case vvyKpidtv and KO.TO.- why it is not mentioned here. fffieeOtv would be subordinate to dirioV : n. dvdiroXiv &] This is just the 656$ but as it is in all the mss. I have not dvu K&TU ula. of Herakleitos. Stallbaum thought fit to expunge it. wishes to omit re after I8tav and after 20. \>.r\ TOVTO dXXd TO TOIOVTOV] That ictK\ov, which he would alter to /cv/cXy. is to say, we must not speak of it as a There is really no occasion for any of substance, but as a quality : in Aristotelian these changes. The main participles in phrase, it is not inroicelfjievov, but ica.0' the sentence ytyvopfvov, ffvyKpi8{v, Kara- vwoKfi^vov. TOVTO denotes what a thing fffifffetv, &iri6v, Siadid6vra, are governed is, TOIOVTOV what we predicate of it. Fire by opw^ev, while the rest are subordinate is merely an appearance which the inro- to yiyv6fj.cvov, which has to be supplied SOXTJ assumes for the time being: we again with the clauses ical ird\iv... \l6ovs must not say then 'this portion of space 174 IIAATHNOS [49 D ayopevetv Trvp, fjLfjBe vBwp TOVTO d\\d TO TOIOVTOV del, jj,r)Be aXXo TTOTe /jurjBev eiyei yap > f / \ /5> \ \ \ \ rf OVK VTTOp,eVOV TTJV TOV T006 K(Ll TOVTO fCCtl TT)V Tft)O tCdl TTCLCraV OCTT] 5 fjiovifia o$9 OVTCL avTa evBeiKWTai (frdais. aXXa TavTa fj,ev etcacrTa fir) \eyeiv, TO be TOIOVTOV del Trepifapofievov d/io/W etcdcrTov irkpi Kal %vpTrdvT(av OVTW Ka\elv Kal &rj ical irvp TO Bid Trai/ro? TOI- OVTOV Kal cnrav '6 ToBe Trpoa"xpa)/j,evov<; 50 A ovopaTi, TO Be OTTOIOVOVV TC, depfjibv r) \VKOV fj Kal OTIOVV TWV evavTicov, Kal trdvff' op6|xvov opoCcos] On the sug- and of water; whence we see that the gestion of Stallbaum I have adopted only permanent thing is the space; fire, d/iofos for ofioiov. The meaning is that air, water are merely its transitory attri- the term TOIOVTOV keeping pace with the butes derived from the 6fj.oiwfj.aTa im- elements in their transformations (jrept- pressed upon it. &v Xo7oj, ovre TI ^vyx w P ^ v o$ Te T v not denote a permanent substance but a otfr' t/jiov oCre rode our' iKfivo our' a\Xo variable attribute: therefore we can apply ovStv 6vofj.a, & TI dv iffTrj. Also 183 A it to fire &c without fear of treating such 5et 5 ovSt TOIITO TO OVTW \tyeiV oi8 yap qualities as substantial fixities. If opoiov av ?TI KIVOITO TO OVTW ovo' a& IJ.T] OVTW be retained, it must be regarded as a ovdt yap TOVTO Kli>ri(avT]v 0fT^ov TO?S TOV \6yov TOVTOV \tyov- same : but I think the construction is too ffiv, us vvv ye wpbs T^V avTtav viroOeffiv OVK awkward to have come from Plato. For tx ov"niJ-aTa, el HTJ apa TO ovd' SITUS. Trepiep6/J.evoi> compare Theaetetus 202 A Thus we see that what is in the Theae- TO.VTO. fiev yap irepiTpe\ovTa iraffi irpoff- tetus described as the olKeioraTrj StaXexroj epea6ai. : where TOUTO = aiVo, eKeiv , of the Herakleiteans is here expressly a- exaffTov and the like. dopted by Plato as his own, when he 7. TO Bid iravro's] i.e. fire is the name 50 B] TIMAI02. 175 appellation we must confer on fire ; nor must we call water this, but always such; nor must we apply to anything, as if it had any stability, such predicates as we express by the use of the terms this and that and suppose that we signify something thereby. For it flees and will not abide such terms as this and that and relative to this, and every phrase which represents it as stable. The word this we must not use of any of them; but such, applying in the same sense to all their mutations, we must predicate of each and all : fire we must call that which universally has that appearance ; and so must we name all things such as come into being. That wherein they come to be severally and show themselves, and from whence again they perish, in naming that alone must we use the words that and this; but whatever has any quality, such as white or hot or any of two opposite attributes, and all combinations of these, we must denote by no such term. But we must try to speak yet more clearly on this matter. Suppose a man having moulded all kinds of figures out of gold should unceasingly remould them, interchanging them all with one another, it were much the safest thing in view of truth to say that it is gold ; but as to the triangles or any we give to such and such a combination 6opa, dSwarov tKeivo irpotrayopevevdai ^ of attributes wheresoever in nature it may ov ytyovev. Kairoi yt rj flvai. g. p.6vov IKCIVO] To the viroSox'n, How this criticism applies I fail to see. on the other hand, we can and must apply That which suffers yve> d\- TO, the substance, the cubic form is rot- Xoiwcru, iv. ev & ovv rcS Trapovri ^prf yevij BiavorjBrjvai rpirrd, TO fiev yLyvbp,evov, TO 8' ev q> yiyveTai, TO 8' odev d(f)0fj,oiovfj,evov v(Tii> exyova), vorjaal re, e9 OVK dv aXXa)9, eKTVTrwfjiaTos eveo-Oat, /LteXXoi/ro9 IBetv TTOIKI^OV Tratra? TroiKtXias, TOUT' ai/TO, ev c5 eKTVTrovjAevov evio-TaTai, yevoiT dv Trape&Kevacr/jLevov ev, 7r\r)v d^op^ov ov eKelvwv dirao'wv TWV IBewv, 10 dvTa. post del dedit A. 2. lav apa Kal TO TOIOUTOV] Plato warns us that we have gone to the ut- termost verge of security in venturing to describe phenomena even in terms of quality : the advanced Herakleitean point of view is as conspicuous here as in the passages quoted above from the Theaetetus. 4. ravrov avnjv del wpoo-piyHov] We are not here to take ravrov in the technical sense in which it is used in 35 A. For as the tiiroSoxrj is the home of ytyvo/JLeva, as it is the region of thought as pluralised in material objects, it must belong to the domain of Oarepov : and thus TO.VTOV will simply denote the change- lessness of the substrate contrasted with \he mutability of the phenomena. Never- theless, as we saw that there is a sense in which time may be spoken of as eter- nal (see 37 D), so there is a sense in which the principle of ravrbv may be said to inhere in ffarepov. The phe- nomena which belong to the sphere of pluralised thought are transient, but this mode or law of their appearance under the form of space is changeless. Con- sidered as the law or principle of pluralised existence the tiro5o\r) may be termed eternal. IK ydp TTJS tavrfjs] Thus we have two immutable fixities, the ideas and the uTroSox'?, between which is the fluctuating mass of sensible appearances. 7. tK^xa-yeiov] That is to say, as it were a plastic material capable of being moulded into any form, like a mass of soft wax or the molten gold in the simile above. Plato seeks by frequently varying his metaphor to bring home to the under- standing his novel and unfamiliar con- ception of the substrate. g. TO. 8i tlo-iovra Kal e'giovraj These forms which pass in and out of the sub- strate are of course not the ideas, which go not forth into aught else : here comes in the difference between the Platonism of the Timaeus and that of the Republic and D] TIMAIO2. 177 other shapes that were impressed on it, never to speak of them as existing, seeing that they change even as we are in the act of defining them ; but if it will admit the term such with any tolerable security, we must be content. The same lan- guage must be applied to the nature which receives into it all material things : we must call it always the same ; for it never departs from its own function at all. It ever receives all things into it and has nowhere any form in any wise like to aught of the shapes that enter into it. For it is as the substance wherein all things are naturally moulded, being stirred and informed by the entering shapes ; and owing to them it appears different from time to time. But the shapes which pass in and out are likenesses of the eternal existences, being copied from them in a fashion wondrous and hard to declare, which we will follow up later on. For the present how- ever we must conceive three kinds : first that which comes to be, secondly that wherein it comes to be, third that from which the becoming is copied when it is created. And we may liken the recipient to a mother, the model to a father, and that which is between them to a child ; and we must remember that if a moulded copy is to present to view all varieties of form, the matter in which it is moulded cannot be rightly prepared unless it be entirely bereft of all those Phacdo : they are, like the ir^/aaj tx ovra 1 1 ov clVW] The IKJOVO. are the ma- pendent existence ; they are in fact (apart terial phenomena formed by the impress from their relation to the ideas) practi- of the tlaiovra upon the ttc/j.ayfioi>. cally indistinguishable from Aristotle's 16. I8tiv iroucCXov] Ideiv follows troi- elSoj as opposed to v\i). These are the icl\ov, to which irdffas irouciXlas is a cog- visible semblances of the invisible verities nate accusative. Plato is rather fond of of the ideal world, whereupon they are this construction with Idfiv, cf. Phaedo modelled in a mysterious manner hard 84 c, Republic 615 E, Phaedrtis 2 SOB. to explain : for if is not easy to under- 18. &\i.op4>ov Sv] Aristotle has de- stand how the immaterial is expressed rived from hence his description of the in terms of matter, or the invisible repre- thinking faculty, de anima in iv 429* 15 sented by a visible symbol. The elffiovra diraOes apa del flvai, SKTIKW 5 TOV etSovs must then be distinguished (logically, for nal Swdfj.fi roiovrov, d\\a /j.fi TOVTO they are never actually separable) from dvdyicr) apa, tirel irdvTO. voei, d/j.iyrj thai, the material objects which they inform ; uffirep rja.iv6nti>ov yap P. T. 12 178 DAATHNOS [50 D oaaoz> eV 5 avro) yevr), KaOdirep irepl TO, aXet/i/iara, oTrocra evwBrj, Te^vr] fj,r)%avot)VTai irpwTOv TOUT' avro inrdp^ov, TTOIOVO~IV o TI /iaXtcrra dvouBrj TO, Se6/jieva vypd Ta? ocr//,a9* ocroi Te ev ncrt r&v /iaXa/coCv a")(rjpUTa ajrofjidTTeiv eVt^etpoOcrt, TO Trapdirav <7^yu.a o^Sey ev- Br)\ov VTrdp^eiv e TO, Tofj,oi(afj,aTa /caXcS? //.eXXo^Tt eT09 ai/T&i Trpoo-ijfcet, Trefyvicevai, TWV elSrov. 8to ST) opctTov Kal TrdvTWS aio~07)Tov injTepa KCU yrjv /i^Te depa jj.r/T irvp firjTe vBwp T^eywfiev, fj,r}T Baa e/c 15 TovToiv jAijTe eg (ov TavTa yeyovev aXX' dvoparov etSo? TI Kal dfjioptyov, Trai'Se^e?, (jLTa\afj,(3dvov Be djropwTaTd Try TOV vor/rov Kal Bvo-a\(i)TOTaTov avTO Xeyo^Te? ov tyevaopeda' KaO' oaov 8' e'/c B TU>V Trpoeiprjfievwv BvvaTov ei,Kveto~0at T^? ^i/trew? ai/Tov, T//8' av 7 avdiSrj : evJiSrj A. dwSij HZ. TO d\\oTpioi> Kal avTi applied to the vTroSox^. 18. TWV I83v] Not the ideas, which do not enter into the virodoxrf, but the shapes which symbolise them the eiaivei TTJV avrrjs 6\jsiv just in so far as round square and the like are and must be shapes that have ex- tension. 6. |*T|XttVwvTai...Troiov(riv] These two words are in a kind of apposition. Corn- pare Euripides Heraclidae 181 dWf, vTrap- x ei ^" T0 '^' ^ r V ^5 X^ "^ \ flirfii> aKovaal T tv /j.{pei Trdpeffri pot. This same simile of the unguent is used by Lucretius II 848 to illustrate the necessary absence of secondary qualities from his atoms. 10. TWV Trdvrwv eU T 6'vrwv] Stall- baum would omit the re, and VOTJTUV has been proposed instead of itavrwv. But iravruv is indispensable : it is because the itc^a-ye'iov has to receive all forms that it can have no form of its own. Nor is the omission of re satisfactory. Plato would probably have written irdvruv TWV del OVTWV. I think the text may be defended as it stands, del re OVTUV being added to explain what is meant by TU>V 5i B] TIMAIO2. 179 forms which it is about to receive from without. For were it like any one of the entering shapes, whenever that of an op- posite or entirely different nature came upon it, it would in receiving it give the impression badly, intruding its own form. Wherefore that which shall receive all forms within itself must be utterly without share in any of the forms ; just as in the making of sweet unguents, men purposely contrive, as the beginning of the work, to make the fluids that are to receive the perfumes perfectly scentless : and those who set about moulding figures in any soft substance do not suffer any shape to show itself therein at the beginning, but they first knead it smooth and make it as uniform as they can. In the same way it behoves that which is fitly to receive many times over its whole extent likenesses of all things, that is of all eternal ex- istences, to be itself naturally without part or lot in any of the forms. Therefore the mother and recipient of creation which is visible and by any sense perceptible we must call neither earth nor air nor fire nor water, nor the combinations of these nor the elements of which they are formed : but we shall not err in affirming it to be a viewless nature and formless, all-receiving, in some manner most bewildering and hard to comprehend par- taking of the intelligible. But so far as from what has been said we may arrive at its nature, this would be the most just account all things, that is, all eternal existences. that Aristotle is treating from a physical Perhaps however we should read del TTOTS point of view a subject which Plato OVTUV. deals with metaphysically. 12. avTu> irpou)s should find that constituting the test of TO iravoex^s, ft x u ptf fTat T ^"' aiveo~6ai, TO Be vypavdev vBwp, >yfjv Be Kal depa, Ka.0* ocrov av fj,tfj,rjfjLara TOVTWV Be^rjrai. Xd^w Be Brj /j,a\\ov TO ToiovBe Bio- pio/j,evov<; irepl avrdov BiavtceTTTeov dp 1 ecrrt TI irvp avTo e<' 5 eavTov teal TrdvTa, Trepl wv del Xeyo^iev ourw? avTa tcaO' avTa C ovTa etcao-Ta, r; ravTa, airep teal /3A,7ro/iez/ ocra re d\\a Bid TOV o-w/iaro? alo-0av6fj,eOa, [Aova afiev elSo? eKaarov VOTJTOV, TO Be ovBev ap 1 tfv Tr\rjv 10 Xoyo9 ; ovTe ovv Brj TO Trapbv aicpiTOV Kal dBitcaa-Tov d(f)evra d^iov del /ier' s \oyov, TO Be a\ovcrfi. deduced from av6ift,vqffi%. 9. TO 8i ovS^v ap' -f\v tr\-f\v Xo-yos] 18. fltr&v ptpaiorara] i.e. we must By \6-yos Plato means a mental concept, or accept them for the truest realities that universal : the question is in fact between exist, however fleeting and mutable they Sokraticism and Platonism ; that is to may be. For if there are no ideas, par- say, between conceptualism and idealism. ticulars are more real than the \6yoi, E] TIMAIO2. 181 of it. That part of it which is enkindled from time to time appears as fire, and that which is made liquid as water, and as earth and air such part of it as receives the likenesses of these. But in our inquiry concerning these we must deliver a stricter statement. Is there an absolute idea of fire, and do all those absolute ideas exist to which in every case we always ascribe absolute being ? Or do those things which we actually see or perceive with any other bodily sense alone possess such reality ? and is it true that there are no manner of real existences beyond these at all, but we talk idly when we speak of an in- telligible idea as actually existent, whereas it was nothing but a conception ? Now it does not become us either to dismiss the present question unjudged and undecided, simply asserting that the ideas exist, nor yet must we add to our already long dis- course another as long which is subordinate. But if we could see our way to a great definition couched in brief words, that would be most seasonable for our present purpose. Thus then do I give my own verdict : if reason and true opinion are of two different kinds, then the ideas do surely exist, forms not per- ceptible by our senses, the objects of thought alone ; but if, as some hold, true opinion differs nothing from reason, then all that we apprehend by our bodily organs we must affirm to be the most real existence. Now we must declare them to be two, because they are different in origin and unlike in nature. The one is engendered in us by instruction, the other by persuasion ; the one is ever accompanied by right understanding, the other is without understanding; the one is not to be moved by per- which are merely formed from observa- lines enclose a space. It will be observed tionofthem: but if the ideas exist, then that the difference between knowledge \6yoi are more real than particulars, be- and opinion rests here upon the same cause the former are the intellectual, the reasoning as the final rejection of the latter only the sensible images of the claims of a\i)0r)s Sofa in Theaetetns 201 ideas : cf. Phaedo 99 E. A c, where Sokrates, after showing that 19. \copXs yeyova.TOV dvopoCcos T 2\- a jury may be persuaded by a skilful ad- TOV] They are of diverse origin, because vocate to hold a right opinion on a case one springs from instruction and the other the facts of which they do not know, from persuasion; of diverse nature, be- concludes his argument thus: OVK a.v, u> cause one is immovable by persuasion, i\f, ef 75 ravrbv ?Jj> 56et re dXijtfjjj nal the other yields to it. You may persuade ^TTIOTTJ/UI;, 6p9a ITOT' ay SIMKTTTJS airpos a man that pinchbeck is gold, but you (So^a^tv dvfv fTriorj/yiu/s ' vvv 5t toiKtv \\o never can persuade him that two straight TI fKdrepov thai. 182 [SI E Kal TOV fiev iravra avBpa fiere^eii' (frareov, vov Be vs, dvffputirwv Be 9 (ivaladrjrov, TOVTO o Brj 1/0770-45 TTKTKOTreiv TO o' 6/j,(avvfiov 'bpoicv re eVeu/

opr]nvoi> : i . irdvra oivSpa |MTe\iv] cf. Thcae- tctus 206 D. 4. OVT avro tls dXXo iroi lov] Here we have a perfectly unmistakable asser- tion of the solely transcendental existence of the ideas. The difficulties raised a- gainst the doctrine of immanent ideas in Parmenides 131 A are fatal and insur- mountable. From that time forth napov- ala and fj.fdeis (in connexion with avrb KO.&' avra fISr)) disappear from Plato's vo- cabulary, and fj.lfj.r)ffis takes their place. It may be added that the previous words oifre eis eavrb elffSfxofntvov aXXo a\\o6tv would seem enough in themselves to dis- pose of Zeller's theory of particulars in- herent in the ideas. 8. 8or| fur' oUrihfows] Cf. 28 A, where a\6yov is added. 9. fit Tt)s X"P as * 6 ^J Thus then we have materiality in its ultimate analysis reduced to space or extension. It may now be desirable to scrutinise Plato's con- ception a little more closely. First then as to the relation of x^P - t the absolute in- telligence and to finite intelligences. Ab- solute vovs or ^vx!n evolves itself into the form of a multitude of finite intelligences. For these it is a necessity of their nature that they should apprehend, qua finite, un- der certain unalterable forms, which we call time and space. Therefore whatever they perceive, they perceive somewhere. But this somciohere is relative to them and purely subjective (for we know that Plato's A. Herakleiteanism so far as concerns the region of sensibles was complete). All sensible perceptions then have no ex- istence except in the consciousness of the percipient. But the law which binds par- ticular \f/vxal to apprehend in this mode is immutable and eternal: hence space must be eternal; for ^VXT) must exist not only in the mode of unity but in the mode of plurality, in the form of limited souls. There must then always be finite intelli- gences percipient of a material universe existing in space. So far then as we con- fine our view to the relation of the ma- terial universe to the finite percipients, we find Plato's position to be a form of subjective idealism. But as soon as we consider the relation of finite percipients and their perceptions to the absolute in- telligence, we shall find that the subjec- tive is merged in an absolute idealism. For these percipients and percepts with the law which binds them to perceive and be perceived in this mode, though regarded as individuals they are severally transient and subject to time and space, yet regarded as a whole constitute one element in the eternal and spaceless pro- cess of thought, the element of Oarrtpov. And thus are material phenomena said to be /junri/jLaTa TUV &VTUV : they are percep- tions existing in the consciousness of finite intelligences, which perceptions are the mode in which finite intelligences, acting through the senses, apprehend the ideas 52 A] TIMAI02. 183 suasion, the other yields to persuasion ; true opinion we must admit is shared by all men, but reason by the gods alone and a very small portion of mankind. This being so, we must agree that there is first the unchanging idea, unbegotten and imperish- able, neither receiving aught into itself from without nor itself entering into aught else, invisible, nor in any wise perceptible even that whereof the contemplation belongs to thought. Second is that which is named after it and is like to it, sensible, created, ever in motion, coming to be in a certain place and again from thence perishing, apprehensible by opinion with sensation. And the third kind is space everlasting, admitting not destruction, but as existing in infinite intelligence. The phenomena are material symbols of ideal truths: and it is only by these symbols that a finite intelligence, so far as it acts through the senses, can apprehend such truths. Plato's identification of iheviroSoxy with Xwpa arises from the absolute &Tra0eia of the former. The manner of approaching it may perhaps be most readily seen in the following way. Let us take any material object, say a ball of bronze. Now every one of the qualities belonging to the bronze we know to be due to the nlfnjua. which informs the viroSox'f;' therefore to reach the uTroSox^j we must abstract, one after another, all the attributes which be- long to the bronze. When these are stripped away, what have we remaining? simply a spherical space of absolute va- cancy. The viroSoxT] then, as regards the bronze ball, is that sphere of empty space. But still this void sphere is something; because it is defined by the limits of the air surrounding it : it is in fact a sphere of emptiness. But now suppose, instead of abstracting the qualities from the bronze alone, we abstract them from the whole universe and all its contents: then we have vacancy coextensive with the uni- verse. But mark the difference. The empty sphere we could speak of as some- thing, because it was the interval between the limits of the surrounding air. But our universal vacancy there is nothing to limit, there is nothing to be contrasted with it to give it a differentia, it is va- cancy undefined : that is to say, it is just nothing at all. Thus we see that space pure and simple is an abstract logical conception ; extension without the exten- ded is nothing, for space can no more ex- ist independently of the things in it than time can exist without events to measure it. Thus in its most abstract significance X^P a is the eternal law or necessity con- straining pluralised fox^ to have its per- ceptions under the form we call space : since then foxy does, and therefore must, evolve itself under this form and not an- other, x^P a ultimately represents the law that fox^l shall pluralise itself. Between Plato's x^P a an d Aristotle's v\rj the only difference physically seems to me to lie in the superior distinctness and definiteness of Plato's conception : it was the intense vividness of Plato's in- sight that led him to the identification of the substrate with space. Aristotle, whose V\TI is taken bodily from Plato, ought to have made the same identifica- tion: that he did not do so is due to the mistiness which pervades his whole thought as compared with Plato's. A few words are demanded by Aris- totle's reference to the Platonic theory in physica IV ii 2<>9 b n. Aristotle there affirms that Plato identifies the /tera- XtjvTiKiiv with x^pa, but that he gives one account of the /teTaXrprriKii' in the 7'i- 1 84 TIAATHNOS [52 B- e'Bpav Be irapexov ocra e%ei yevecriv Tratriv, avro Be per dvaia-Orj- B via? dirrov \oyio-/J.q) nvl v60q>, /j,6yis Tna-rov 777)09 o Brj Kal oveipoTToXov/jLev ySXeTroi/re? Ka'i (fxifiev dvaytcaiov elval TTOV TO ov airav ev TIVI TOTTW /cat Kare^ov XP av Tlv( i> r Be fJir/r ev yfj 5 fjujTe TTOV KCLT ovpavov ovBev elvai. ravra Br) Trdvra teal TOVTWV d\\a a'Se\0a /cat Trepl rrjv avirvov /cat d\T)0(2<; (j)vepeTat, dvTacrfj,a, 10 Bid ravra ev erepy Trpovrjicei rivl I yi? dv ri TO pev d\\o rj, TO Be d\\o, oiBeTepov ev ovBerepy TTOTC yevopevov ev djj,a rav-rov KOI Bvo yevrja-ecrdov. 13 yevtt/JLfvov : yeyfvij/j.^vov HSZ. waetis, another fv TOIS Xeyo/u^ois &ypd- ots d6y/j.aa. Sbytiara was, Aristotle does not tell us ; presently however he says, 2O9 b 34, nXdrwrt fjifrroi \KTOV, el Set irap- 6/c^ctJ'Tas elireiv, did ri owe iv roirif TO, 61877 Kal 01 api0(j.ol, efaep ri> fj.e6tKTiKov 6 T&TTOS, efre TOU fj.eyA\ov Kal TOV fUKpov JJTOS TOV fieOtKTiKov efre T^S CXijs, uffirep iv T(f Ti/jLaty ytypafav. Now as to this airopia, it may be observed that it does not affect Plato at all : by the time his theory of x^P a was worked out, the doctrine of /ue'flefis was abandoned : Aris- totle has in fact no right to apply to the OjroSoxr; the terms neOeKTixbv, /teroXijTr- riKov, in relation to the ideas. Next it will be evident to any one who reads the whole discussion in the physica that the object of Aristotle's inquiry is a purely physical one, what is roVos? meaning by TOTTOS the place in which any object is situate, which he ultimately defines to be TO ir^paj TOV jrepi^xot'Tos (7u>/iaToj. This has evidently nothing in the world to do with the metaphysical question of the Timaeus : yet Aristotle makes as though it were the same. Zeller is per- fectly just in his criticism (platonische Studien p. 212); 'wahrend also Platon ini Timaus die Frage aufwirft : was ist die Materie? und darauf antwortet : der Raum ; so fragt Aristoteles : was ist der Raum? und lasst Platon darauf ant- worten : die Materie'. i. (xer avaKrOtjcrCas airrov XoYrn<3 nvl v60a>] None of our senses can inti- mate to us the existence or nature of space ; it is attained only by an effort of logical analysis, Xoyw/xy. Yet space is no real existence; therefore it cannot be the object of reason properly so called, which deals with ideal truth. Plato says then it is reached by a kind of bastard reasoning, which is indeed a purely mental process, unaided by the senses, yet distinct from the true activity of the soul when she is engaged on her proper objects of cognition. It is, as I have said, the anomaly of these conditions from which the obscurity of the subject arises. The compiler of the Timaeus Locrus (94 B) seeks to explain vbdy by the words Tos T0 vnv-a-wbuevov. What is meant by avrb TOVTO $ y- yovev ? of course the irapd5eiytJ.a, and the whole phrase governs eayr^j just as if Trapa.dfiy/j.0. had been written : ' since it is not the original-upon-which-it-is-mo- delled of itself. 10. 4v tT^pw Tivf| Since the image is not identical with the type, it must be manifested in some mode external to the type, that it may be numerically different. This external mode is what we term space. Space then is that which differ- entiates the image from the idea and thereby enables the former to exist, oi>- crlas ci/u.w')(f)ov XoyiaOels ev Ka\atG) SeSoaday \6yoa? 5 Se^ofjievijv, Kal 'ocra a\\a TOUTOI? TrdBrj ^vveTrerai 7rtiaivecr6ai, Sid Se TO /*;$' OJJLOIWV Svvdfieoav E icroppoTrwv fjL7ri7r\acr0ai icasr 1 ovSev avrrjt laroppOTretv, JXX' Trdvrrj TaXavTov/jievrjv creieaOai jj,ev VTT' eKeivwv avrrfv, 5' av irdXiv eKeiva creieiv rd Se Kivov/J,eva aXXa aXXoa elf 53 A ' 3 rrjv 5 5i} : 77 omittunt ASZ. 5 d!XXa TOUTOIS : TOVTOIS aXXa S. 7 ffjLirl- i: t/j,irifjLir\a.ff()ai A. n ava\iK/j.wfj.fva : dva\iKvt!)/j.fi>apr.A.S. dnKfi.wfj.eva. If. and fro over its whole expanse. And thus too it sways in turn the things that arise in it and sifts them, so that the lighter bodies fly off to one region, and the heavier settle in another. Thus, even in the rudimentary state, wherein without the working of intelligence they would have been, the different bodies tend to occupy different regions in space ; and yet more, when all is ordered by intelli- gence for the best, as we affirm to be the truth. And now we must set forth the order and generation of them. 1. XoYii<}j Geov vepl rbv voTf tff&fj.(vov Ocbv \oyiff0ets. 2. rpa Tpixip] This seems to mean no more than ' three things with three distinct natures': cf. 80 E rpia TOJYTJ y r r /vJ ifrvXT)* & W"'' ttS'n KartpKiffTat. Of course this triad is not in any way to be con- founded with the former triad of ravrbv 0a.Ttpov and ovyta. 3. Kal irplv ovpavov yv&r6ai] This, it need hardly be said, is again to be taken logically : these three are prior in analysis. 6. pj9' opiofwv SvvafJLCwv] The mani- fold bodies which are generated in space have most diverse and unequal forces, and inequality is the parent of motion, as the old doctrine of irapovvia. That doctrine affirmed that the idea existed (1) in its own independent nature, (2) inherent in the particulars. The latter mode is now declared to be im- possible for the plain reason that things cannot be two and one at the same time, nor can the same thing be at once original and copy. If the copy were inherent in the original, or the original in the copy, the difference between them would be lost ; and we should once more be reduced to a bare denial of the ex- istence of the material world. It will be observed that the rejection of /thefts is here based upon a different ground from that taken up in the Parmenides, although the criticism in that dialogue remains perfectly valid. We see then the truth of Aristotle's statement in metaph. I vi that Plato was led, in opposition to the Pythagoreans, to place the ideas irapa, ra alffd^ra through his logical speculations, did T-TJV Iv TOIS \6yois ffK^lV. 52 D 53 c, c. xix. All the universe then is divided into Being Space and Becoming, these three. And space, re- ceiving the forms that enter in, and being thereby filled with unbalanced forces, is nowhere in equipoise but ever swaying to 53 A] TIMAIO2. 187 XIX. Such then is the statement for which I give my sentence, as we have briefly reasoned it out: that there are Being and Space and Becoming, three in number with threefold nature, even before the heavens were created. And the nurse of becoming, being made liquid and fiery and putting on the forms of earth and air, and undergoing all the conditions that attend thereupon, displays to view all manner of semblances ; and because she is filled with powers that are not similar nor equivalent, she is at no part of her in even balance, but being swayed in all directions unevenly, she is herself shaken by the entering forms, and by her motion shakes them again in turn : and they, being thus stirred, are carried in different directions and separated, just as by sieves and instruments for winnowing corn the grain is shaken and sifted, and the dense and heavy parts go one way, and the rare and light are carried to a different we are informed in 58 A. Thus a vi- bratory motion is set up throughout the whole extent of the virodoxrj and commu- nicated to the objects contained in it, which are thereby sifted as by a winnow- ing machine. This vibration of the viro- SOXTJ and the irlXijcri.* hereafter to be mentioned are the two most important physical forces in Plato's scheme ; nearly all the processes of nature being due to them in one way or another. 9. K\.vov\Uvi\v 8" a3 irdXii/ IKUVO, opd, or motion in respect of place, (2) it sifts the clivers objects into different regions. Mo- tion then begins with the dviovra. Kal Qiov-ra, but once begun it is controlled by the law of the viroSoxri. In starting motion with the daiov-ra. Kal Quovra Plato distinctly intimates that there is no inde- pendent force in matter : therefore the ir\avtiifj^vrj atria cannot be regarded as an independent principle of causation. 10. irXoKavov] This was a kind of wicker sieve used for winnowing. Plato may have got the hint for his sifting mo- tion from Demokritos : compare a frag- ment given by Sextus Empiricus adv. math. VII 117, 118 Kal yap f$a 6/j.o- yevtffi fyoiffi %vvay{\dTai, ws irfptffTfpal irepiffTeprjffi Kal ytpavoi yepdvoiffi, Kal tirl T&V d\\tav a\6y at ptv ^T70ies e/j TOP avrbv TOTTOV rrjffi udtovrai, al dt irepuptptes rrjat. i' ws a.v ^waywyo TUV irprjyuaTuv TT)S tv TOVTOHTI o/ Cf. Diogenes Laertius ix 3r, 32. As Mr Heath observes (Journal of Philology 1 88 HAATHNOS [53 A- CTepav ta ep6fj,eva eSpav Tore OVTW TO. rerrapa fblf VTTO Trjs B%afj,6VT)s, Kt,vov/jLevr)<; aur/;? olov opydvov aeicfjibv Trape- ^OI/TO?, ra /j.ev dvo/j.oioTaTa TrXetcrroi/ aura a' avTwv opi^eiv, Ta 8" o/iotorara //.aXtcrra et? raurof ^vvwdelv Bio By Kal 5 raOra a\Xa a\X?;y i oTav aTrfj 10 0eo?. OVTO) Bn rare Tred>VKOTa raOra TTO^TOV Biea-vrjuaTio~aTO 'IT I /v ' re /cat dpidfAois. TO Be y SvvaTov w? /cc/XXicrra dpia-Ta re e OUTW? exovTQJV TOV deov avTa ^vvia-Tavai, irapd TrdvTa rjpuiv a>9 aet roOro \eyo/jievov \)Tcapyj?rw vvv S' ovv TTJV BiaTa^iv avT>rjs, which means a cistern and nothing else : cf. Critias 117 B. 5. irplv teal TO irav] Plato's meaning I take to be as follows. From the plural- isation of Being as such (the nature of Being remaining undefined) we get only the necessity of material perceptions : and all that is thereby necessarily in- volved is the existence of matter in some chaotic or rudimentary form. But when Being is defined to be Intelligence, the pluralisation of it must involve the order- ing of matter according to some intelli- gent design. This metaphysical meaning Plato clothes in a mythical form borrowed from Anaxagoras. In this chapter he gives us a completion of Anaxagoras and a polemic against Demokritos. Anax- agoras, though he postulated vote as a motive cause, failed to represent the uni- verse as the orderly evolution of intelli- gence everywhere working eTri TO [3{\Tia- rov : he confined himself to giving an account of the physical agencies through which he supposed vous to work. Plato, in explaining these physical agencies, is careful to insist that they are merely sub- sidiary to the final cause : the real expla- nation of each thing is to be found in its motive. Demokritos held that the pre- sent order of the universe was the effect of a blind force working without intel- ligence, which by fortuitous collisions and combinations formed a symmetrical system. This view Plato controverts, urging that such fortuitous conjunctions could not amount to more than a rudi- mentary and chaotic condition of material existence : form, arrangement, symmetry imply intelligence in the motive power. Properly interpreted then, matter as it is irplv yevfoOai rov obpavov is matter evolved on the Demokritean plan as contrasted with the Platonic. Plato does not mean that there was a time when matter existed in this form. c] T1MAI02. 189 place and settle there. Even so when the four kinds are shaken by the recipient, which by the motion she has received acts as an instrument for shaking, she separates the most dissimilar elements furthest apart from one another, and the most similar she draws chiefly together ; for which cause these elements had different regions even before the universe was ordered out of them and created. Before that came to pass all these things were without method or measure ; but when an essay was being made to order the universe, first fire and water and earth and air, which had certain vestiges of their own nature, yet were alto- gether in such a condition as we should expect for everything when God is not in it, being by nature in the state we have said, were then first by the creator fashioned forth with forms and numbers. And that God formed them to be most fair and perfect, not having been so heretofore, must above all things be the foundation whereon our account is for ever based. But now the disposition of each and their generation is what I must strive to make known to you in speech unwonted : but seeing ye are no strangers to the paths of learning, through which my sayings must be revealed to you, ye will follow me. 8. O.VTWV &TTO] This is an obviously ever been propounded. certain correction of the senseless a.vrropiK^v ptrievai wpurov world which is not the evolution of Ofos, fJ.lv Set ravra 65$ Si-yprjcrffat : and Cratylus but the result of mere chance and coinci- 425 B aXXws 3 trweipeiv /J.T) epr) vevefivj/jievr)*;. ravrijv Brj Trvpof dp^rjv Kal rdov a\\wv crcapdrcov vrroriOeiieOa Kara rov >o fier dvdyKrjs elKora \6yov rropevofJievoL* Ta9 8' en rovrcov dp%d<; dvwOev Oeof olBe Kal dvBpdov 09 av eKeivw epovra Ka\\ei rerrapa yevij avvapnoaaaOai Kal (f>dvai rrjv rovrwv dpe(r6at Kara TpoTrov. av ovv Ti9 e^rj /cd\\iov e/cXefa/nei/09 eiirelv 619 TTJV TOVTUV %v(TTa(riv, eiceivos ov/c e%6po<; oav aXXa $4X09 Kparel- Tide- 5 fj,0a o ovv TOIV TToXXoGi/ Tpiycovwv Kd\\i(rTov ev, V7rep/3dvT<; TaXXa, e' ov TO icr67r\evpov Tpiywvov etc Tpirov (rvve TOVTO e^eXey^avTi ical dvevpovTi fjitj ovrws e%oy KCITCM l\ta TO, adXa. irporjp^crdoj Br} Bvo e'f (av TO T TOV Trvpos teal TO, Ta)V d\\wv 0-tw/iara 10 TO [lev arocrtfeXe?, T^ Be Tpnr\rjv KdTa Bvva/J,iv %ov TTJV /ieia> TT\evpdv del. TO Brj TrpoeOev dcrafyws pt]0ev vvv Biopia-Teov. T& yap TcTTapa jevr) Bi' d\\ij\a)v et? a'XX^Xa tyai- veTO irdvTa yeve OVK opdoo^; : fj.\\otfj.ev A. p.'fi: 5ij A. 5^ iu\ SZ. 7 \6yos : 6 \6yos SZ. S 6 erasit A. 8 l\ia : <.\la AHSZ. i. rd 8i irp. Anaxagoras reduces matter to qualitatively determinate corpuscules, in- finitely numerous, infinitely various, and infinitely divisible. The atoms of De- mokritos are infinite in number, in- definitely varying in size shape and weight, in other respects perfectly similar, and indivisible. Plato differs (i) in the derivation of his particles from his two primal triangles; (2) in limit- ing their varieties to four; (3) in assign- ing to these four certain specified geo- metrical forms; (4) in the peculiar con- ditions he imposes upon their divisibility; (5) in allowing two or more of the smaller particles to coalesce into one larger this is directly contrary to the view of De- mokritos ; (6) in allowing within limits a diversity of size in the primal triangles, Plato seeks to explain differences of qualities which Demokritos ascribes to c] TIMAIO2. 193 but the scalene an endless number. Out of this infinite multi- tude then we must choose the fairest, if we are to begin upon our own principles. If then any man can tell of a fairer kind that he has selected for the composition of these bodies, it is no enemy but a friend who vanquishes us : however of all these triangles we declare one to be the fairest, passing over the rest; that namely of which two conjoined form an equilateral triangle. The reason it were too long to tell : but if any man convict us in this and find that it is not so, the palm is ready for him with our right good will. Let then two triangles be chosen whereof the substance of fire and of the other elements has been wrought ; the one isosceles, the other always having the square on the greater side three times the square on the lesser. And now we must more strictly define something which we expressed not quite clearly enough before. For it appeared as though all the four classes had generation through each other and into each other, but this appearance was delusive. For out of the triangles we have chosen arise four kinds, three from one of them, that which has unequal sides, and the fourth one alone composed of the isosceles triangle. It is not then possible for all of them by dissolution to pass one into another, a few large bodies being formed of many small, and the converse: but for three of them it is possible. varieties in the size and shape of the atoms; (7) whereas Demokritos insisted upon the necessity of void, Plato eliminates it so far as possible and makes no mechanical use of it; (8) though Plato agrees with Demokritos as to the sifting of like bodies into their proper region, he differs from him toto caelo on the subject of gravitation. There is moreover a still more fundamental pecu- liarity in the Platonic theory, which will be discussed later : see 56 D. 10. TpiirXtjv Kurd Svvajuv] i.e. having the square on the longer side three times the square on the shorter. Let ABC be an equilateral triangle bisected by the perpendicular AD. Then the square on the hypotenuse But A therefore therefore P. T. or AD : DC :: ^3 : 1. cf. Timaeus Locrus 98 A. ii. rA 81} irpdo-Oev] Referring to the statement in 49 c that all the elements are interchangeable. Aristotle makes all four interchangeable: see for instance meteorologica I iii 339* 37 a.^v 8t irvp Kal at pa Kal vdup Kal -ff\v ylveffffai ^ a\\y- Xwv, Kal UKaffrov tv tKaffry virapxeiv roti- TUV dwdfiti. 13 194 [54 c 7re(pvKora \v6evra)v re rwv fiei^ovcov TroXXa oyu/c/>a CK rdov av- rrav %V(mj(rerai, Se^o/zeva ra irpoa-^Kovra eaurot? o^/xara, Kal D efjs ye- B , UTTO Treme eTTiTTeBcav rpvywvwv IcroTrXevpwv 7repie^ofjievr) avrfj 8 raOra yevvrj elvai roiavTi] 1} yrj avrri Idetv, ft TIS avwOev 6e$To, uairep al SwdeKaffKvroi fffau- pai, where obviously the 'twelve-patched ball ' represents the duodenary division. There is a curious blunder in Plutarch quaestiones platonicae V i : o/j.cus TUV fjwipuv i9 aTreipov TWOS elvai Boypa wv e/jiTrei- D pov xpewv elvaC Trorepov Be eva r) -rrevTe avrov? d\r)0eia 7re \6povelv Kal OVK \\6yi/J.ov oftS' i>dpi6(J.ov, S.T' OVK els apiO- nbv ovStva iv ovdevl irwiroTe ctortSoVra. Plato is at issue with Demokritos, who consistently with his whole physical theory maintained that the number of KOfffj-ot, was infinite : Plato is equally con- sistent in affirming that there is only one. The oddest fancy in this way is one ascribed by Plutarch de defectu oraculorum 22 to Petron of Himera, who declared there were 183 KOCT/OIOJ, disposed in the form of an equilateral triangle. The eternal fitness of this arrangement is not explained by Plutarch. 4. iroTtpov 8i tva TJ irivrt] Plato re- gards as a comparatively reasonable sup- position the view that there may be five Kofffjioi, because there exist in nature five regular rectilinear solids. Compare Plutarch de el apud Delphos 1 1 TroXXd 5' oiXXa TotaCrct, %-i\v eyu, irapeXOw, rbv IlXdruva irpocrdl-0/Ji.a.i \tyovra KOCT/J.OV fra, ws etirep elffl irapa TOVTOV ?Tepoi Kal /J-TJ /j.6vos oSros els, irevTt TOVS iravTas 6vTas Kal list) ir\elovas. ov ft,rjv d\\a KO.V tls OVTOS fiovoyevys, us oteTai Kal 'A/HOTO- S, TpOTTOV Tivd Kal TOVTOV K TTfVTf Kal ffvvr)pfj.ow, ol 5' aldtpa /caXou- ffiv, ol 5' avrb TOVTO, TT^/XTTTTJJ' ovffiav, rj rb /card iarlv, OVK e avdynris ov5' d\- Xws (ru/a/Se^TjKos. The latter part of this extract does not accurately represent Plato's opinion, since the dodecahedron was not a constituent of any substance existing in nature, but simply the model for the distribution of the zodiac into twelve signs. 5. TavTQ yeyovoras. ii. irXaoriKftmiTT]] The other three are too subtle to be plastic. Aristotle's objections to the present theory will be found in de caelo in viii 3o6 b 3: they are not for the most part very forcible. The most pertinent is that of Plato's geo- metrical figures only the pyramid and the cube can fill up space continuously : the 200 nAATONOS [55 E tuy, TT;? TWV dvio-wv, TO re ef etcarepov gvvreOev eiriTreBov laoTr\evpov rerpdycovov rpiycavov /card re fJ*epr) KCU Ka0* o\ov o-Tao-ifjiWTepws e dvcuyicrjs fteftrjice. Sib 777 fiev TOVTO aTTOi/e/AOZ/Te? Tov el/Cora \6yov Biatrm^o/jiev, vSaTi 8' av r fidcreis evKivrjTOTCiTOV dvdytcr) Tretyvicevai, Tfj,r)TiKa>TaTov Te 10 KOI oi>TaTov ov irawrr) irdvTwv, TI Te e\a rjfi&v, gvvaOpoio-OevTwv Be C TToXkdov TOI)? OJKOVS avT&v 6pdo~0ai' Kal Br) Kal TO T(rraj could mean 'very small' the meaning will be 'he is free from woe (which is quite dubious: see Campbell for a time which is one of a few (sc. of a on Sophokles Antigone 625), this is not few times when he is free)'; i.e. he is 56 c] TIMAIOS. 201 with unequal ; and of the surfaces composed of the two triangles the equilateral quadrangle necessarily is more stable than the equilateral triangle, both in its parts and as a whole. There- fore in assigning this to earth we preserve the probability of our account ; and also in giving to water the least mobile and to fire the most mobile of those which remain ; while to air we give that which is intermediate. Again we shall assign the smallest figure to fire, and the largest to water and the intermediate to air: and the keenest to fire, the next to air, and the third to water. Now among all these that which has the fewest bases must naturally in all respects be the most cutting and keen of all, and also the most nimble, seeing it is composed of the small- est number of similar parts; and the second must have these same qualities in the second degree, and the third in the third degree. Let it be determined then, according to the right ac- count and the probable, that the solid body which has taken the form of the pyramid is the element and seed of fire ; and the second in order of generation let us say to be that of air, and the third that of water. Now all these bodies we must conceive as being so small that each single body in the several kinds cannot for its smallness be seen by us at all ; but when many are heaped together, their united mass is seen : and we must suppose that the due proportion in respect of their multitude and motions and all their other powers, when God had com- pleted them with all perfection, in so far as the nature of neces- seldom free; the second 'they paid at a agreement with Uemokritos, in making moment which is one of many moments his atoms so small as to be individually (sc. in which they had not paid)', i.e. invisible, and only perceptible in masses, after a long interval. But neither of 18. TO TWV dvoXo-yuov] That is to say, these constructions countenances 6\iyo- observing the proportional relations pro- yp/j.6cr0a.i who attributed the mobility of fire to the is sometimes regarded as an anacoluthon ; roundness of its atoms : cf. Aristotle de but there can be hardly a doubt that it is caelo 307* 1 6. a middle. The middle of this word is 10. ^XapoTaTov] Not light, but used twice elsewhere by Plato, each time nimble, mobile. in the aorist : see above 53 E crufMTWf 13. ortpcov yeyovos] For the bearing rfrrapa yfri) ffwapfjiocraffffai, and Politicus of this see note on 56 D. /card y&effiv, 309 c 6eiv(Ti<; VTrei/cev, ravrrj Trdvry Si d/cpifieia? d-jrore\eo'6ei,o'wv VTT avrov, vvr)piji,6a-0ai ravr* dvd \6yov. XXII. 'EiK Srj Trdvrtov wv Trepl rd yevr) TrpoeipiJKa/juev cSS' dv /card TO el/cos /taXtaV av e^oi. yfj pev ^vvrvy\dvovaa Trvpl o~ia- D 5 \v0etcrd re vrro rrjs of;vTr)TO<; avrov e'poiT' &v] Earth has not the alternative, which is open to the other three, of coalescing with the dominant element : it must therefore drift about in a chaotic condition, until it can escape into its own place and so regain its proper form. 6. tHr' Iv dUpos] The form of this sentence suggests that the dissolution takes place by the agency of fire within a mass of air or of water. But clearly the same result follows whether the agent be fire air or water. 9. |wrrdvTo] Ast and Stallbaum would read v. But ^vffrdvra agrees, by an easy attraction, with v /jv dvo d follow- ing. It might be considered however that, since the single particle of water is resolved into two of air and one of fire, would be more correct than Plato's word however is per- fectly accurate, if his theory be rightly understood. And this leads to a discussion of the chief peculiarity and difficulty of that theory. First then Aristotle <& caelo in i 299 i brings against it the fundamental ob- jection that it is impossible to form solid matter out of mathematical planes. Now it is entirely preposterous to suppose that the most accomplished mathematician of his time was not fully alive to a truth which, as Aristotle himself admits, &rt- TroXrjs toriv idflv. The theory of an over- sight in this respect must therefore be TIMAI02. 203 sity, consenting and yielding to persuasion, suffered, were every- where by him ordained in fitting measure. XXII. From all that we have already said in the matter of these four kinds, the facts would seem to be as follows. When earth meets with fire and is dissolved by the keenness of it, it would drift about, whether it were dissolved in fire itself, or in some mass of air or water, until the parts of it meeting and again being united became earth once more ; for it never could pass into any other kind. But when water is divided by fire or by air, it may be formed again and become one particle of fire and dismissed out of hand. Howbeit, if we minates void as far as possible from his regard these geometrical figures as solid bodies which interchange their forms, they will not produce the combinations required. For instance, the apposition of two pyramids will not produce an octahedron, as it ought according to Plato, but an irregular six-sided figure : and by dividing the octahedron we obtain not a regular tetrahedron, but a five-sided figure having four equilateral triangles meeting in the apex, and a square for the base. Similarly the icosahedron re- fuses to play its prescribed part. Again it is incredible that Plato was unaware or oblivious of these elementary facts. Martin has a theory so neat and in- genious that, although I do not see my way to accepting it, yet it ought not to be left unnoticed. His view is that Plato's tiriireda. are not mathematical planes at all, but thin laminae of matter, ' feuilles minces taillees suivant les figures rectilignes qu'il a decrites.' Thus our four geometrical figures are not solid bodies, but merely envelopes or shells, void within. In this way no doubt Plato's transformations would be perfectly practicable. Supposing that an octa- hedron were shattered icard. T&. rptyuva, then its eight triangular sides would be recomposed in the form of two pyramids ; and all the other transmutations would be equally feasible. This explanation, despite its ingenuity, is nevertheless not to my mind satisfactory. For Plato eli- material system ; and though we shall presently see that it cannot be entirely banished, it is reduced to an absolute minimum. It is hardly credible then that he should have admitted an ad- mixture of void into the very foundation of his structure of matter. Again, if he had intended to propound so very novel and extraordinary a theory as the con- struction of matter out of hollow particles, surely he must have stated it with a little more definiteness. Moreover on this hypothesis Plato sadly misuses technical terms : he denominates planes what are really solid bodies, though very thin ; and he terms solid what is really but a hollow shell : for the phrase in 56 B is quite definite as to this point, TO ftv TTJS Trvpafjddos crrepeov yeyovos tldos, Finally how could hollow particles es- cape being crushed by the tremendous constricting force described in 58 A? In the face of all these objections, the force of which is in part admitted by Martin himself, it seems difficult to accept this explanation. The following is the solution which I should propound as less open to ex- ception. We must bear in mind that matter in its ultimate analysis is just space. We must not look upon the geometrical solids as so much stuff which is put up into parcels, now of one shape, now of another ; but as the expression of the geometrical law which rules the con- 2O4 HAATflNOS [ 5 6 D- eV fAev Trypo? (Tafia, Bvo Be ae'/)O5* ra Be depos r^^iara eg 61/05 pepovs 8ia\v0evTo<; oV av yevola-Orjv a-cofiara irvpos. /cat TraXtz/, E '6rav depi irvp vBaa-iv re 17 Ttvt 717 ^epiXa/jL^avofievov ev TroXXot? 6\i/J,ara et? ep %vvi re etc Svolv o\oiv teal 77/410-605 eZ8o5 ev o\ov ea-rat gv/jLirayes. (uSe yap ST) \oyio-atfJie0a avTa 7rd\iv, (5 '6rav ev irvpl \ap,f3av6p,evov rwv d\\a>v inr* avrov 57 A TI 761/0? rfj rwv ywiwv Kal Kara ra? TrXeu/^a? o^vr^n refjivrjrat, 10 gva-rdv p>ev et? TTJV etcelvov (pvffiv TreTravrai re/Avo/jievov TO yap Kal ravrov avrw 761/05 eKaarov ovre rtvd fjLeraftoXrjv efj,- Bvvarov ovre TI Tradetv VTTO TOV Kara raura o/u.oia>5 re e&)5 8' av et5 aXXo rt yiyvo/Aevov $TTOV ov KpeiTTOVi i, \v6/jievov ov TraveTai. TO. re av (rfjiiKpOTepa OTav ev VdaaiHSZ. stitution of matter: they are definite forms under which space by the law of nature appears in various circumstances. The planes are real planes ; but they do not compose the solid; they merely ex- press the law of its formation. Given certain conditions, the geometrical law obtains that matter shall receive form as pyramids : alter the conditions, e.g. in- crease the pressure, and the pyramids disappear, their place being taken by octahedrons ; and so forth. It is not then that two of the former particles have combined to make one of the latter, but that the matter in its new condition assumes a shape in which the radical form, the rectangular scalene, appears twice as many times as in the former. Increase the pressure again, and the triangle will appear five times as often as in the first. And if the triangles are equal, the second and third contain twice and five times as much stuff as the first. In short, when matter which has been existing in the pyramidal form is prevented from doing so any longer, it must not assume any random figure, but one which is constructed on either twice or five times as many primal triangles as the 6 Svoiv'. Sveiv S. pyramid. The tirtireda then are, I be- lieve, neither to be regarded with Aristotle as planes out of which we are expected to construct solids, nor with Martin as thin solids ; but as the law of the structure of matter. Thus, instead of having two or more corpuscules combined into one, or one resolved into several, we have the whole mass fused, as it were, and re- moulded. This interchange however can only take place where the law of form- ation is one and the same. Earth, obey- ing a different formative law, cannot go beyond one sole form. For matter which has once been impressed with either of the primal figures can never pass into the other figure : in the rudimentary condition to which it is reduced by the fracture of its particles, the force which forms it as a pyramid or a cube is in abeyance, but not the law which im- pressed it with the rectangular scalene or the rectangular isosceles. On this showing then the correctness of |v<7TdiTa is clear : though I admit it is equally justified by Martin's hypothesis, could the objections which I have urged against the latter be overcome. i. ?v jJiiv irvpos] The sides of the 57 A] TIMAIOS. 205 two of air : and the divisions of air may become for every particle broken up two particles of fire. And again when fire is caught in air or in waters or in earth, a little in a great bulk, moving amid a rushing body, and contending with it is vanquished and broken up, two particles of fire combine into one figure of air: and when air is vanquished and broken small, from two whole and one half particle one whole figure of water will be composed. Let us also reckon it once again thus : when any of the other kinds is intercepted in fire and is divided by it through the sharpness of its angles and its sides, if it forms into the shape of fire, it at once ceases from being divided : for a kind which is uniform and identical, of whatever sort it be, can neither be the cause of any change nor can it suffer any from that which is identical and uniform with itself; but so long as passing into another kind a lesser bulk contends with the greater, it ceases never from being broken. And when the icosahedron, being 20 in number, are equal to the sum of the sides of two octahedrons and one pyramid. 2. Kal irdXiv] Having given instances of smaller corpuscules arising from the resolution of larger, Plato now passes to the formation of larger particles from the resolution of smaller. 4. KaTaOpaverOfl] This is the converse of wTaira above: the pyramids, being the smallest particle, could not literally be ' broken up ' into the larger bodies. The same applies to /cara/cep/uaTto-^i'Toj cifyos below. 7. <38e -yap Si) XoyurwixcOa] Having set forth the rules governing the transition of one kind of particle into another, Plato proceeds to point out that, when one element is overpowered by another, the only mode in which it can recover any form, in default of escape to its own region, is to assimilate itself to the victorious body. 9. Kara rds Tr\vpds] i.e. cleft by the sharp edges of the sides. 10. T& -y^P ofioiov] This view was universally held, with the sole exception of Demokritos: cf. Aristotle de gen. et corr. I vii 323 b 3 ol /JLV yap TrXetcrrot TOVTO ye o/iOPOT/TtKcDs \4yovffiv, ws TO fjv 8/j.oiov VTTO TOV 6/j.olov irdv diraffts TroirfTiKov rj iraOriTiKov elvat Odrepov dartpov (irdvTa yap o/xoi'ws virdp- Xetv TO.VTO. rots o/uofois), rd 5' dv6fj.oia Kal TO. diarpopa iroielv Kal iratT-)(e<-v et's oXXi;Xo irlVKev . ...Afj/uo/cpiTos 5 irapa TOI/S aX- Xouj tdtws Xee /JLOVOS' ij %Tepa 6vra Trotj TI fls aXXijXa, OVK rj Zrepa, dXX' rj TO.V- T0l> Tl {iTTCtpXei, TWUTr) TOVTO awToij. Theophrastos however considers that the view of Demokritos is uncertain : see de sensu 49. This doctrine of fj.t)8tv iradflv TO Sfj.oi.ov viro TOV bftolov only refers to physical change, and does not affect the principle 'like is known by like'. 14. ra. T at! o-iuxpoTcpa] There seems at first sight a good deal of iteration in this chapter; but there is no real tau- tology. Plato (i) explains how (a) the larger figures are dissolved by the smaller, (/3) how the smaller are dissolved by the larger; (2) he declares that (a) a small mass of the larger figures, intercepted by 206 ITAATHNOS [57 rots fjii%o(ri TToXXoi? i jrepi\afiftavo^eva o\iya BiaOpavojAeva tea- B raa-^evvvijrai, ^vvia-racrOai pev e0e\.ovra eiz> ofAoiov TO) Kparijcravri yevopevov, avrov %VVOIKOV fjuelvr). Kai Brj KOI Kara ravra ra TraOij/j^ara Sia^el/Serai ra? ^co/oa? airavra' C Siea-Trj/ce p,ev {perai. 10. rr\v -rfjs 8xK^VT]s K^VTJO-IV] The vibration of the virodoxi) described at 52 E. 13. ocra [j.ev ovv aKpara KO.L irptora owpaTa] i.e. the primary and typical forms of the four so-called elements. Hitherto we have been dealing merely with the broad distinctions between fire, air, water, and earth. We shall here- after find it necessary to treat of a number of different varieties. These diversities are accounted for by a diversity in the magnitude of the primary triangles. 1 7. oo-airep av fj reiv TOIS ttSeo-i y^ 1 ]] The elSos of course signifies some one of the four, as distinguished from the other three; say fire. There are a certain number of sizes in the radical triangles, and consequently an equal number of D] TIMAIO2. 207 smaller figures few in number are caught in a multitude of larger figures and are being broken in pieces and quenched, if they consent to combine into the form of the stronger they then and there cease from being quenched ; and from fire arises air, from air water. But if they assail the others, and another sort meet and contend with them, they cease not from being shattered until, being entirely repelled and dissolved, they find refuge with some of their own kind, or being overcome, form from many of their own figures one similar to the victorious element, and there remain and abide with it. Moreover on account of these conditions they all are changing their places ; for the bulk of every kind are sorted into separate regions of their own through the motion of the recipient : and those which are altered from their own nature and made like some other are carried by reason of this movement to the region proper to the element to which they are assimilated. All unmixed and primary bodies have thus come into being through the causes we have described : but for the fact that within the several classes different kinds exist we must assign as its cause the structure of the elementary triangles ; it does not originally produce in each kind of triangle one and the same size only, but some greater and some less ; and there are just so many sizes as there are kinds in the classes : and when these sizes in the pyramid. Now every sub- smaller than the smallest octahedron, and stance which is composed entirely from the largest octahedron than the smallest pyramids of some one size constitutes a icosahedron for instance we find in 66 D y^i/os of fire; there are therefore just so that the 0X^3es of the nostrils are too many -ytvri of fire as there are sizes of wide for the densest form of air and too pyramids. But there are also substances narrow for the subtlest form of water, which are composed of pyramids of dif- 57 D 58 c, c. xxiii. Our discourse ferent sizes: such substances will not be now requires that we should set forth the typical of any 7^05, but will approximate causes of rest and motion. Motion im- to some 7^cos according as any special plies the mover and the moved, without size of pyramid preponderates in its fabric. which two it cannot be. These two must Accordingly we have in nature an in- be dissimilar; therefore dissimilarity is definite number of substances belonging an essential condition of motion. And to each eI5oj, graduating from one ytvos the cause of dissimilarity is inequality, to another. The investigation of these Now the reason why all things are not begins in chapter xxiv. It is obvious sifted once for all into their proper regions that the variation in the size of the and so become at rest is as follows. The triangles must be confined within definite whole globe of the universe is subject to limits, for the largest pyramid is always a mighty constricting centripetal force, 208 HAATflNOS [57 D aXXT/Xa rr)v TrotKiXiav ecrrlv aireipa' 775 8rj 8ei Oecopovf yuyvecrOai Tov<> ovv KdTOTTia-dev \oyio-fj,<. ra fj,ev ovv rj8ij Trepl avrv- 58 A crews. dvicroTrjTOS 8e yevecriv fj,ev 8ie\t)\v6a/j,v 7T(W9 &e Trore ov Kara ryevr) Bta^copicrOevTa eKacrra TreTraurat r^? 8i d\\r/\(i)v tcivrfffecos ical epovpev. r\ 15 TOV TravTos TreptoSo?, eVeiS?) crvpTrepieXafte TO. yevij, fcvic\oTepr)S ovcra fcal Trpos avTrjv 7rer)T$' tvTe\x*i& ydp tyyt travra] Compare Empe- actually be the condition of things, dokles 185 (Karsten) IIT&V yS' aWrip were it not for the iri\r](Tis presently crQtyyuv irepl xtixXov airavra. This vast to be mentioned. Stallbaum supposes circular constriction squeezes all matter that the elements are (carot -ytvr) Siaxw- together with so overpowering force, that piffOivra. : but Plato's reasoning turns no vacancy is allowed to remain any- precisely on the point that they are not : where ; but wherever there is room for a never completely, that is; for the bulk smaller particle to penetrate the inter- of each is to be found in its own home. stices between the larger, it is at once 16. irpds avn^v ir<|>vKvia] The notion forced in. So that not only are hete- is that the whole universe globes itself rogeneous elements forced into combi- about its centre with a mighty inward nation, but the subtler and acuter figures pressure, elXeircu irepl TOV did, iravTfa divide the larger KO.T& rk rplyuva and Tfra.fj.tvov ir6\ov, so that everything within so change their structure : while they it is packed as tightly as possible. The in turn are themselves compressed by force may be compared to that exerted the larger until they assume the form in winding a hank of string into a round of the latter. Consequently we have ball. This is the second of Plato's two side by side perpetually the 63os *rdrw, great dynamic powers: we shall after- fire through air to water, and the oSot wards see what varied and extensive use avu, water through air to fire. P. T. 14 2IO [ 5 8 A- teal tcevrjv ^copav ovBepiav ea XetVecr^afc. Bio Brj irvp fiev ei9 cnravra Bie\^\vde fjuaXiara, drjp Be BevTepov, to? XCTTTOTIJTI BevTepov B 6v, Kal Ta\\a Tavry ra yap etc fieyia-TWv pepwv yeyovoTa fj,e- yiO'T'tjv KevoTtfTa ev TTJ ^vcrrdaei. Trapa\e\onre, ret, Be crjjiiKporara 5 e\a^L(TTi]v. 77 Brj rr)\o TO re diro Trj5 Be rot? ofifAacn Trape^ei, TO re (f>\oy6<; diroa^ea-Oe 10-779 ev rot9 8ia7Tvpoi]Ta] This expres- sion shows plainly enough that Plato was well aware of the fact which Aris- totle urges as a flaw in his theory, namely that it is impossible for all his figures to fill up space with entire continuity. In the structure of air and of water there must be minute interstices of void ; there must also be a certain amount of void for the reason that, the universe being a sphere, it is impossible for rectilinear figures exactly to fill it up. But, it is to be observed, Plato's theory does not demand that void shall be absolutely excluded from his system, but only that there shall be no vacant space large enough to contain the smallest existing corpuscule of matter. The larger cor- puscules have larger interstices between them than the smaller. So long however as these interstices are not large enough to afford entrance to the smallest particle of any element, the effect is the same as of a solid mass without any cavities ; but when once they are large enough to contain any particle, jrfX^iriy instantly g /j.Taf) A pr. m. xctet ASZ. forces one into the vacancy. This is all Plato means by Kevrjv x^pav ovSeplav tq. \elireaOai : he denies void as a mechani- cal principle, but not its existence al- together in the nature of things. Besides the atomists, the existence of void was affirmed by the Pythagoreans ; see above, 33 C, and Aristotle physica iv vi 2i3 b 11: it was denied by the Eleatics, by Empedokles, by Anaxagoras, and by Aristotle: see physica iv vii. 5. r\ TTJS iriXifo-tws |vvo8os] cf. Phaedo 97 A rj iW5os roC TrXrjfflov dXXi}- \ dirftpopav 5iir\i)v ovffav dia. dt TO jUera/Jd\Xetj> ofiK tvSexerai fjAveiv otiSev avruv ev OVQC/J.IO. 580 60 B, c. xxiv. Of fire there are three kinds, the flame, the light radiated from it, and the glow remaining after the flame is extinct. Of air there are many kinds, the purest being aether, the gross- est mist and cloud. Water falls into two main classes, liquid and fusible : the first is ever unstable and flowing; the second is hard and compact, but can be fused and liquefied by the action of fire aided by air. Of fusible water that which is formed of the finest and most even par- 212 IIAATfiNOS [58 D- evayea-rarov eTrttcXrjv alOrjp tcaXovpevos, ?j Be 0o\epwraro<; O/LU re KOI oveoTO9, erepa re dvcovvfjia eiBrj yeyovora Bid rr)v TWV Tpi- yatvwv avMTOTijTa. rd Be vSaTos 8i%f? fJ*ev irpwrov, TO fiev vypov, TO Be %VTOV yevos avTOV. TO pev ovv vypov Sid TO fiTe%ov elvai 5 TWV yevwv TWV vBaTOS, ova fffiitcpd, dviv OVTCOV, tcivrjTov avTO T teaff 1 avTO teal VTT aXXov Sid TT}V dvw/jLaXoTrjTa teal TTJV TOV o~')(ij[j,aTos IBeav jeyove* TO Be etc fj,eyd\Q)v ical 6/j,a\o)v (TTaari^w- E Tepov fjuev etceivov teal /3apv ^7777705 VTTO 6/iaXoT77T05 ecrriv, viro Be Trupo? elo~LWTO<> teal Sia\voi>TO<> avro TTJV 6fia\OTr)Ta [aTroySaXXet, 10 TavTijv Be] aTroXecrai/ /iertV^et fjua\\ov Kivr)(rews, yevopevov Be evtcivrjTOV, VTTO TOV TT\i] and the vacancies left by the fire. Thereby therefore evKlvrfrov this we call melting; the particles are restored to their old (2) the yielding of the now heterogeneous places and the metal regains its equi- substance to the pressure of the air, which librium and solidity. 2I 4 TIAATONOS [59 B- 6fj,a\(0rdTQ)v rrvKvbrarov yiyvoftevov, povoeiBes 761/09, o-n'X/Soz/Tt KOI gav0q> 'xpwfiari KotvwOev, rt,p,a\<^eo-rarov Krrjfjia 'xpvaos r)0r)(*vo<; Bid Trerpas errcvyr)' %pv(rov Be oo9, Bid TTVKVorijTa ev %pv6repov, rwv \afirrpwv Trrj/croov re ev 761/09 vSdrcov ^a\/co9 crvaraOels yeyove' TO 8' etc 7^9 aura) fjLi%0ev, orav TraXaioy/iei/w Bia^wpi^rjo-Bov Tfd\LV 10 OTT' a\X?;Xa)i/, e'/c^>ai/69 a^' auro yiyvofjievov ^09 \eyeTat. raXXa Se T(3i/ TOLOVTWV ov8ev TTOLKL\OV en Sia\oyicrao~0ai Trjv rwv eltcbrwv ftvOojv fieraSiwicovTa ISeav, fjv orav Tt9 dvaTravo-eax; evetca TOVS Trepl TWV OVTWV del KaraTi0fjievo<; \6yovs 7-01)9 7epeo-ea>9 Trept Sta- D ^6(w/i.6i/09 elrcoTas dfJLeTafieXtjTov rjSovrjv /crarat, perpiov av ev ro5 15 /3i'p 7rcu8tdv Kal povtfj,ov Trototro. TavTy Br) Kal TO. vvv efoj was not a crystal: for the term dSci/ias is not applied to any precious stone by writers before Theophrastos ; moreover a crystal could not be a species of X VT " vSup, all such being forms of earth. Professor W. 1 J. Lewis, who has been kind enough to make some inquiry into this matter on my i behalf, formed the opinion, on such data as I was able to lay before him, that Plato's a8a/j.as was probably haematite. 5. ITVKVOTTJTI 8' ?TI [i^v] This is ' Baiter's conjecture, followed by Her- mann. I have adopted it as possibly accounting for the rrj ptv of A. 7. prydXa Ivros 8ua\(Ji(i,aTa] These would appear to be cavities in the sub- stance of the metal filled with air, which cause bronze, notwithstanding its superior density, to be lighter than gold. Plato is of course mistaken in supposing that bronze is denser than gold. He attri- i . crrfXpovn KaV |av6w] ' infused with a glittering and yellow hue." (rr/\j3ov, as Lindau says, is a x/^* coordinate with t-avOtv : its ytveffts is described in 68 A. 3. xP wr0 '' ^ oos] What this sub- stance was it is very difficult to determine, further than that it is some hard dark metal always found, as Plato supposes, with gold and closely akin to it It is mentioned again in Politicus 303 E yuerd S ravra \eiverai ^Vfj-fj^fuyfJifva TO. !-vyyevrj ToO xpwrov rlfjua KO! irvpl fwvov daiperd, Xa\/c6s /ecu apyvpos, ( 8t /M\vfldov TOV should be read in connexion with 68 E lv y&p fflSypov &vfi.&\us ffvyne'iff6ai Ka.1 810 ST) xH W alTlasetdr)diopie(rOaiK.T.\., rb Kfvbv f\eiv iro\\axv Kal Kara peydXa where we learn that the study of dvay- Kal Kard tvia * , dirXws Si Kaiov, that is to say, of the forces of evbv TOV 8t poXvpSov l\aTTov material nature, is useful just so far as it Kevbv d/toXws vvyKeiffdai Kara TTO.V bears upon the investigation of Oelov, that opolw, Sib paptrepov ph /aaXa/cwrepov 5 is, of primary causes. Physical specu- TOV ffid-qpov. This is identical with Plato's lations then are profitable only in so far view, except that Demokritos held the as they can be made subservient to meta- cavities to be absolutely void. physical science ; to suppose that they 9. STO.V ira\aiov|x^vw 8iaxJ yevfofw trtpi. 2l6 ITAATHNOS [59 D vBcop, oavf) fiakucrra yevo- peva i\r)ev 6v6fj,ara avrwv, TO /*ei/ T^9 tywxfis fierd rov o-a>/j,aro<; 0epfj,avriKoi> oti>o9, TO Be \eiov ical BiatcpirtKov otyecos Bid ravrd re 15 IBeiv \afA7rpov ical avra%ofj,evov e\.aiijpov eJSo9, Trirra fcal Kitci /cat e\aiov avro ocra T aXXa T^9 auT^9 OGOV Be Bia^vriKov f^e^pi va-eci)<; rwv irepl TO arofia B 2 ai5 rf : airnj? A. 9 rcDv ante iiSdruv habet A. I. o. from the Ricinus communis. See He- 8. rot 84 81) irXcwrra] A complex rodotus II 94, where he says that the form of water, composed of many sorts Egyptians use this oil for anointing them- combined, are the juices of plants of selves and for illuminating purposes : it which the general appellation is sap. is said to be still put to the latter use in Of these Plato distinguishes four kinds, India. The word K(KI is affirmed by He- having peculiar properties and specific rodotus to be Egyptian. Cf. Pliny nat. names. hist, xv 7. 12. Sa-a. {(jLirvpa tt8t]] Plato infers 17. ovs] the presence of fire from the brightness The construction and meaning of these and transparency of these saps, not words seem to have escaped all the from any pungent or burning quality, editors, r&v irfpl rb ffTopa ^vvoSuv de- which olive oil, for example, does not pends upon SiaxuriKov, not upon vi> otyews perceptible transition from an abnormal for what is merely to a normal state: TO 5' e/j Qwiv diribv 218 HAATONO2 [60 B %Vv68(i)V, TaVTp TT) 8wdfJ,l, jXvKVT'TjTa Trap%6fJLVOV, fJi\l TO KttTa TrdvTfov /j,d\icrTa 7rpoo~prjfj,a ecr^e 1 TO 8e TT)^ trap/co? 8ia\VTtKov TU> Kaietv d(f)pa>8es 761/05 e'/c Trdvrcav dopio~6ev TWV ^vp.wv OTTO? eVw- XXV. TTJS Se io~r), TO fiev Jjdvjfjievov Sid #oWo v&arl yfj vvio~TaTai , Ka\\iwv fj.ev r\ TWV lawv Kal ofiaXwv Sta^a^^? fiepwv, 8e r) evavTia. TO Be VTTO irvpo^ ra^oi/9 TO voTepov irav ttn>&* *<: , 'A>s * " 8 ov wepieixev O.VTOV : sic corr. A. virepelxev avrwv pr. m. 10 dvyet: dvyeiv SZ. 3 Kaleiv : Kdeu> SZ. SZ. bov -^66: and in 66 C we find that this is just the effect produced on the tongue by a pleasant taste : rd 3 Trapa 0i5 Ka ^ ""aVfl' o TI fj.d\t,ffra lSp6y Kara i> see 586, 59 A, and 6 1 A. Com- pare also Theophrastos de sensu 84 TO 5^ fftiv rrj vypOTrjTi ry iv rfi yXwrrr) Kal Kal ffVffTariKa eh T^V opia6tv rdv Xvuuv, it is a question to my mind whether Thomas Taylor is not more correct in rendering these words 'is se- creted from all liquors'. For 6ir6s is no more 'distinguished' from the other saps than are wine, oil and honey; if any- thing, less so. I have adopted the term ' verjuice ' as the nearest rendering I could find, although this, I believe, is properly confined to the juice of the wild crab. 60 B 6 1 C, c. xxv. The chief forms of earth are as follows : (i) stone is formed when in a mixture of earth and water the water is resolved into air and issues forth ; then the earth that remains behind is strongly compressed by the surrounding air and compacted into a rocky substance : (2) earthenware or pot- tery is produced in a similar way, except that the expulsion of the water is much more violent and sudden through the ac- tion of fire, and therefore the substance produced is more brittle than the former : (3) the so-called ' black stone ' is formed when a certain portion of water is left c] TIMAIOS. 219 pores of the mouth to their natural condition, and by this property produces sweetness to the taste, of this honey is the most general appellation ; lastly that which corrodes the flesh by burning, a sort of frothy substance, distinct from all the other saps, which has been named verjuice. XXV. Of the different kinds of earth, that which is strained through water becomes a stony mass in the following way. When the commingled water is broken up in the mixing, it changes into the form of air ; and having become air it darts up to its own region. Now there was no void surrounding it ; ac- cordingly it gives a thrust to the neighbouring air. And the air, being weighty, when it is thrust and poured around the mass of earth, presses it hard and squeezes it into the spaces which the new-made air quitted. Thus earth, when compressed by air into a mass that will not dissolve in water, forms stone ; of which the transparent sort made of equal and uniform particles is fairer, while that of the opposite kind is less fair. But that behind, rendering the stone fusible by fire : (4) alkali and salt are composed of a mixture of earth and water, consisting of fine saline particles of earth from which a large part of the water has been ex- pelled, but which has never been tho- roughly compacted, so that the substance is soluble in water : (5) there remain compounds of earth and water which are fusible by fire, but not soluble in water. The reason why this is so is as follows : Earth in its unmodified form is dissoluble by water alone ; for its inter- stices are large enough to give free passage to the particles of earth and fire : but the larger particles of water, forcing their way in, break up the mass. Earth highly compressed can only be dissolved by fire, for nothing else can find entrance. Water, when most compacted, can be dissolved by fire alone ; when in a less degree, by fire or air. The highest condensation of air can only be dissolved by conversion into another element ; the less condensed forms are affected by fire only. Now into a compound of earth and water the particles of water from without can find no entrance : but fire entering in dislocates the particles of water, and they dislocate the particles of earth, so that the whole compound is broken up and fused. Such substances are, if water predominates in the compound, glass and the like ; if earth, all kinds of wax. 7. Koirg] sc. Kara TO. rpiyuva. The water, becoming air, rushes to join the surrounding air; which then thrusts the earth together, exactly as described in the solidification of metals, 59 A. 11. dXvTws vSari] There can be little doubt, I think, that these words are to be taken together, ' insoluble by water '. Martinjoins SSari withww Kal Kpavporepov eKelvov gvcrrdv, eS yevei Kepajwv eV&>- TOVTO yeyovev etrri Be ore voriBos V7ro\ei(f>0ia"r)<> YVTT) 777 yevouevr) Bid Try/309, orav tyv%0fj, ylyverai TO /j,e\av ^pm/Mi e^wv \L6ov Be CK 7779 fjuepdov d~\,fjuvpo) re ovre rifiLTrayrf yevofievm Kal \vrca 7rd\iv v vBaros, TO pev e\aiov Kal 7779 KaOapriKov 761/09 \irpov, TO 8' evdpf^ocrrov ev Tat9 KOI- v(oviai$ rat9 vrept T^y rov crrofAaros aiaQi](Tiv d\wv Kara \6yov vofjiov 0eo(f>i\e<$ awfjua eyevero. rd Be KOIVCL eg dfttyoiv vBan /j,ev 3 ylyverai : yeyove S. 4 %x uv ' ^X ot> HSZ. \l&os : eI5os H e sua coniectura. TW et cetera dualis numeri scrips! e Schneideri coniectura. r< ceteraque con- cordantia HSZ. ret A, qui tamen in sequentibus dativum habet. d5d/xas cannot be the diamond or any xP^ av /J-erafiaXXeiv Kal r-t\v irvKv6rr)Ta, fd- 1) other crystal. i. apira, we might perhaps insert 6 before T& (d\av XP^M - As to the nature of this yitAas Xi0oj, it would seem to be a substance of volcanic origin, probably lava. Compare Theophrastos de lapidibus 140 5 \iirapcuos 4Kopovrat re rrj Kowret KCU 7^erat Kiffi)poei8ys, uxrO' a/ta re TT\V Xas re 701^ Kal Xet6s effTt, Kal irvKvbs aKavvros <2>v. This Xt7ro/)a?os is a volcanic stone from the Lipari islands, which Theo- phrastos classes among the irvpl rrjKrd : on being subjected to the action of fire it leaves a residuum which is light and porous like pumice stone. The descrip- tion of it while still a/cawros seems to agree very well with Plato's /^Xas \LOos. Compare too Aristotle meteorologica iv vi 3^3 b 5 T^Kerai 8 Kal o \l0os 6 Trupfyxaxos, ware ffrdfeiv Kal pew" rb 8e infjyvviJ.evov orav pvrj, iraXiv ylyverai 8 peov irqyvv- pevov rb fj.ev xpw^ia fifXav. The /tu'Xeu certainly were made of lava : see Strabo vi ii 3,'where he says of the matter ejected from the Liparaean craters, vffrepov Se TrayTJvai. Kal yeveffffai rots fj.v\lrais X^otJ eoiKora rbv wayov. It is to be observed that Theophrastos assigns the same cause as Plato for the fusibility of some stones : see de lapidibus 10 r6 yap T-TIKTOV eviK- /JLOV elvai 5ei Kal vyporfir' ?x el " irXe/w. 4. TW 8' aiJ] Schneider's correction seems indispensable : I can see no rea- sonable way of construing the dative : and why the Engelmann translator de- clares the emendation to be ' zum Nach- theil des Sinnes' I cannot understand. Soda and salt are compounds of earth and water only partially compacted and consequently soluble in water; which is TIMAIOS. 221 which is suddenly deprived of all its moisture by the rapid action of fire and is become more brittle than the first forms the class to which we have given the name of earthenware. Again when some moisture is left behind, earth, after having been fused by fire and again cooled, becomes a certain stone of a black colour. There are also two sorts which in the same manner after the admixture are robbed of a great part of the water, being formed of the finer particles of earth with a saline taste, and becoming only half solid and soluble again by water; of these what purifies from oil and earth is alkali ; while that which easily blends with all the combinations of tastes on the palate is, in the words of the ordinance, the god- beloved substance of salt. The bodies which are composed of not the case with bodies wherein the water and earth have been brought into a complete and stable union. 6. ri i&v IXafov Kal yijs] I do not know that soda is specially applicable to the elimination of earth, and the words Kal 7775 seem to me to be dubious. Lin- dau, imputing to Plato ' brevitatem prope similem Thucydidis ', somehow extracts from the words the manufacture of soap and of glass : but such more than Pythian tenebricosity of diction, I think, even Thucyclides would shrink from. By \lrpov we are to understand natron, or carbonate of soda. 7. rA 8* tvdpjiOOTOV tv rats KOIVW- vCcus] By this Plato means that salt is an agreeable adjunct to many flavours and combinations of flavours. 8. Kara Xo-yov vojiov] This seems plainly to indicate, what would in any case be a natural supposition, that Plato quotes the expression 6eoi\ts to salt is, as afore- said, probably due to its use for sacrificial and ceremonial purposes, though this is not suggested by Plutarch in his curious little disquisition on the subject, quaest. conv. v 10. Salt was mixed with whole barley (oiXoxvrat) and sprinkled on the head of the victim. This appears to have been the only use of salt in sacrifice among the Greeks ; but both in ancient and modern times it was held to be a potent preservative against witchcraft and evil spirits, and many curious customs connected with it are to be found in me- diaeval folk-lore. It was likewise used in purifications see Theokritos xxiv 94 irvpuffare 5<2(j.a Oeely irparov, tireiTa 5' a\e9 rutv BiaKevav avrrj<; crfjiiKpofjuepecrrepa ire^vKora, Bid 7ro\\fj<> vpv%a>pia<; lovra, ov ftta- ^ofieva, a\vrov avrrjv edcravra drrjKrov Trapeer^e' rd Be vBaro? 5 eTreiBrj /Aeift> TretyvKe pepij, ftiaiov iroiovpeva rr)v BiegoBov, \vovra avrr)v TT}KI. yrjv fiev yap d^vararov VTTO /8ta? ovrws vBiop fj,6vov 61 A \vei, %vveiKro>v K 7^9 re Kal vBaros crwfidrow, /JLe^piTrep dv vBwp avrov rd rrjs 7^9 BiaKeva Kal B )Sta gv/jwreTTiXrjfjLeva Kare^y, rd fiev vBaro? einovra ega>9ev eio-oBov 15 OVK e^ovra fiepij Trepippeovra rov f 6\ov oyKov arrjKrov eiacre, rd Be %v/J:injyvvTai : 80ev tri Kal vvv TUV TO?S Oeolfftv 6irr<2oiv] We now come to compounds of earth and water. We have indeed had already one such combination, which is \vrov v #5aros: but there the water is hardly a constituent of the solidified mass; the substance has parted with nearly all its moisture, but still remains rifjuirayts. Before explain- ing why these compounds are dissoluble by fire alone, Plato digresses a little to explain the mode in which the several elements are dissolved. Solution and A. 3 alverai ante ireipvKOTa habet A. 7 irvpos : irvpl A. dilatation alone are treated here, not the transmutation of one element into an- other. i. Y 1 ! 5 o^ 1 * 01 * 5 ] Earth in its normal condition, a^vvTaros virb /3/as, is dissolved by water alone, for the interstices in its structure are so large that the minute particles of fire and air can pass in and out without obstruction and do not dis- turb the fabric: but those of water are too large to make their way without dis- locating the particles of earth. When however earth is firmly compacted, we- oTTjKina, the interstices are so small that only fire can find an entrance. 8. TI^V \Av piau>TaTT|v] Clearly metals are meant. g. TIJV Si do-0Va, i.e. by sepa- rating the particles; for ice or snow ex- posed to the air above a certain tempera- ture will melt; but it still retains the form of water. Fire on the other hand, may vaporise it; which means that the cor- puscules of water are dissolved and recon- 61 B] TIMAIO2. 223 earth and water combined cannot be dissolved by water, but by fire alone for the following reason. A mass of earth is resolved neither by fire nor by air, because their atoms are smaller than the interstices in its structure, so that they have abundant room to move in and do not force their way, wherefore instead of breaking it up they leave it undissolved : but whereas the parts of water are larger, they make their passage by force and dissolve the mass by breaking it up. Earth then, when it is not forcibly solidified, is thus dissolved by water only; but when it is solidified, only by fire, for no entrance is left except to fire. And of water the most forcible congelation is melted by fire alone, but the more feeble both fire and air break up ; the latter by the interstices, the former by the triangles as well. Air, when forcibly condensed, can only be resolved into the ele- mentary triangles, and when uncondensed fire alone dissolves it. In the case of a substance formed of water and earth com- bined, so long as water occupies the spaces in it that are forcibly compressed, the particles of water arriving from without find no entrance but simply flow round and leave the whole stituted as corpuscules of air : this is dis- air. Plato must have observed the fact solution Kara ra rplyuva. that air expands when heated. Of course 10. (Jtoj 8i cUpa jjv. 12. TdSiS-ijTwv |ju|ip,CKTa>v] Now we But the text is perfectly sound and has come to the reason why substances com- been rightly explained by Martin. Con- pounded by earth and water are fused by densed air means cloud : and cloud is fire alone. So long as the interspaces ordinarily dissolved into a shower of between the earthy particles are occupied rain; or, in the case of a thundercloud, by the particles of water belonging to the lightning issues from it. Plato therefore, rforewtj, the particles of water external holding as he does that the cloud is a form to it, supposing the body to be plunged of air, conceives it to be resolved /card in water, can find no entrance ; conse- ra rplyuva, in the one case into water, quently they can produce no effect upon in the other into fire. The agent which it. But the particles of fire, finding their produces the metamorphosis is not speci- way in, force themselves between the fied in this instance. particles of water and disturb them : and 11. dptaoTOv 8i KaTanfKti] In its these in their turn, being thrust against normal state air is subject to the influence the particles of earth, dislocate the latter, of fire alone, which dilates it by insinu- and so the structure of the whole mass is ating its own particles between those of broken up and fused. 224 ITAATHNOS [6 1 B *v ' els rd r fcoiv

\\ fjbev ovv vTrap%eiv aicruri(n,v oei roi<> heyofAevois aet* (rapicos be icai rwv irepl crdpica yevecriv, ^vxrjf re ocrov Ovrjrov, OVITW Bie\rj\,v- i post TOVTO delevi trvp atpa, quae dant codices omnes et HSZ. TOVTO 84 S. 7 ffxtfuafft. : and that fiSup was expelled c] TIMAIO2. 22$ bulk undissolved; but those of fire enter into the interstices of the water, and acting upon it as water does upon earth, can alone cause the combined mass to melt and become liquid. In this class those which have less water than earth are all kinds of glass and all stones that are called fusible; and those which contain more water include all formations like wax and frankincense. XXVI. Now all the manifold forms that arise from diverse shapes and combinations and changes from one to another have been pretty fully set forth; next we must try to explain their affections and the causes that lead to them. First we must assign to all the substances we have described the property of causing sensation. But the origin of flesh and all that belongs to it and of the mortal part of soul we have not yet discussed. would be forced to call the same point successively above and below: since it would at one time be overhead, at another beneath him. The true explanation of gravity and attraction is as follows. Ow- ing to the vibration of the universe, every element has its proper region in space ; and every portion of any element which is in an alien sphere endeavours to escape to its own sphere. For this reason, if we raise portions of earth into the region of air, they tend to make their way back to earth again, and the larger portion strives more forcibly so to return than the smaller. Hence we say that earth is 'heavy' and tends 'downward'; while fire, because it seeks to fly away from earth to its own home, we say is 'light ' and tends ' upward '. But could we reach the home of fire and raise portions of it into the air, we should find this condition reversed: fire would be 'heavy' and tend 'downwards' to its own home, and earth would be 'light' and tend 'upwards' to the home of earth. And so the gravi- tation of all bodies depends altogether upon their position in space relatively to their proper region; and the 'weight' of any body is simply the attraction which draws it towards its own home. Such is the nature of light and heavy : roughness is due to hardness and irregularity in the P. T. substance, smoothness to regularity and density. 7. teal TO, (i.iv 8i] crxtjuewri] Having explained the structure of the various forms in which the four etdrj appear and their combinations, our next task is to set forth the causes of the sensations they produce in us. For yyii\ua.ai the editors from Stallbaum onwards, with the exception of Martin, read o-x^ara sub silentio. This reading is not men- tioned by Bekker, and no ms. testimony is by any one cited for it. It is by no means an improvement ; and since I can find neither its origin nor its authority I have suffered it fp-/ifj.t]v 6\eiv and revert- ed to the old reading. Ficinus translates ' eas species, quae figuris commutationi- busque invicem variantur.' 8. rd 8i 71-0.07] P.O.TCL ] The word TrdOrjua is here used in a rather peculiar manner. Elsewhere it denotes the im- pression sustained by the percipient sub- ject from the external agent see 64 B, c. But here vddrjfia signifies a quality per- taining to the object which produces this impression on the subject. We have a similar unusual significance in inrapxttv al? TO 7rpoo~rv%ov del Tefj,vei, \oyio~reov dvafjUfivrjaKO- rrjv rov cr^/iaTO? avrov yeveaiv, on /jbdXio-ra eKCivrj Kal 62 A OVK d\\tj Averts SiaKplvovo~a rj/jitov Kara o-jAiKpd re Ta croo/jiaTa Keppuari^ovaa rovro o vvv Oep/jiov \ev ydp ftm rd ffvynplvov r& opoyevri (rb yap diaKpiveiv, oirep tftaffl iroieif TO irvp, ffvyKplvetv Iffrl ra d/tdu\a' (rvfj-ftaiyei ydp l^aipelv TO. d\\6rpia) t \J/v- Xpov d TO crvvdyov Kal avynplvov o/jioLus Ta re ffvyyevrj Kal Ta /J.T] 6/Mv\a. Theo- phrastos also complains that Plato does not explain heat and cold on the same principle: de sensu 87 O.TOTTOV 5 Kal TOVTOV irp&Tov fj.iv TO fj,rj irdvTa 6fJ.oius 62 B] TIMAIOS. 227 Now this cannot be adequately dealt with apart from the affections of sense, nor yet can the latter without the former ; yet to treat them both at once is hardly possible. We must assume one side then, and afterwards we will return to examine what we assumed. In order then that the properties of the several elements may be discussed in due order, let us first as- sume the nature of body and soul. First then let us see what we mean by calling fire hot ; which we must consider in the following way, remembering the power of dividing and cutting which fire exercises upon our body. That the sensation is a sharp one we are all well enough aware : and the fineness of the edges and sharpness of the angles, besides the smallness of its particles and the swiftness of its motion, all of which qualities combine to render it so vehement and piercing as keenly to cut whatever meets it all this we must take into account, remembering the nature of its figure, that this more than any other kind penetrates our body and minutely divides it, whence the sensation that we now call heat justly derives its quality and its name. The opposite condition, though obvious enough, still must not lack an explanation. When the larger particles of moisture which surround the body enter into it, they displace the smaller, and because they are not able to pass into their places, they compress the moisture within awooovvai, fiySt oaa TOV afirov ytvovf the word was originally /cep/uoV, 'cutting'. 6/uVas yap TO Gepfjiw ffxnf-a-Ti TO \f/vxpov irdOr]p,a is again used as in 6 1 C. ov% vcriv avTo eavTO et9 TovvavTiov dirwOovv. TTJ Brj Kal ro5 creicrfAU) TQVTW Tp6fj,o- vwv ov fidcrewv, are /3e/S?7/co? crv wv OVK ael , aXXa Kal fw.-xf.raL, rrj fj-axjl 5' avruir ovo/j.a piKi) Kal rpo/ios. 4. TO ird0os...Kal TO Spa>v] i.e. we apply the term cold both to ice and to the sensation it produces in us. 6. Trpos d\\T]\d re OVTWS] i.e. the terms hard and soft are applied to them in relation to each other, as well as in relation to our flesh : thus lead, which yields to iron, is soft in relation to iron, though hard in relation to our flesh. Theophrastos takes exception to this definition also: de sensu 87 tirel 8 fjLa\aKW TO vireiKov, tpavepov on TO vdup Kal 6 drip Kal TO trvp /juiXaKa' ri) [itvov aXXa fj-eOurrd/j-evov tlvai /j.a\aKov, d\\d TO els TO fidOos virfiKov avcv neTaffTdffeus. Here- in he follows Aristotle meteorologica IV iv 38 2 a 12 /naXaKW de TO virfiKov Tcp ^177 O.VTI- irepiiffTacrOat,' TO yap vdup ov /jLa yap inretKei Trj 6\l\f/ei TO tiriireSov cis fil6os aXX' dvTiTrepiiffTaTat. This is of course merely a question of names. 9. f3apv 8 Kal KOV<{X>V] Here we have Plato's theory of attraction and gravitation, which is unquestionably by far the most lucid and scientific that has been propounded by any ancient au- thority. The popular notion was that the portion of the universe which we occupy is AcaTw, and that above our heads dvu : ftapv is that which has a tendency to move KO.TU, Kovov that which has a tendency to move avu, or at least a slighter tendency KOLTU. Plato clearly saw the unscientific nature of this con- ception. The explanation he offered in its place was this. We have seen that the vibration of the viroSoxy tends to sift the four elements into separate regions in space; but owing to the TT/XTJO-IJ portions of them are found scattered all over the universe. A mass of any element which finds itself in an alien sphere endeavours with all its might to escape to its proper region : and it is just this endeavour which constitutes its gravity: attraction is the effort of all matter to obey the sifting C] TIMAI02. 229 us ; and whereas it was irregular and mobile, they render it immovable owing to uniformity and contraction, and so it becomes rigid. And what is against nature contracted in obedience to nature struggles and thrusts itself apart ; and to this struggling and quaking has been given the name of trembling and shivering : and both the effect and the cause of it are in all cases termed ' cold '. ' Hard ' is the name given to all things to which our flesh yields ; and ' soft ' to those which yield to the flesh ; and so also they are termed in their relation to each other. Those which yield are such as have a small base of support; and the figure with square surfaces, as it is most firmly based, is the most stubborn form ; so too is whatever from the intensity of its com- pression offers the strongest resistance. Of 'heavy' and 'light' we shall find the clearest explanation if we examine them together with the so-called 'below' and ' above'. That there are naturally two opposite regions, dividing the universe between them, one the lower, to which sink all things that have material bulk, the other upper, to which every- thing rises against its will, is altogether a false opinion. For force which is in nature. So when we of flame has a stronger upward tendency raise any substance of an earthy nature, than a smaller as an objection to Plato's the earthward impulse which we observe theory ; whereas it is precisely what in it is not due to the fact that the earth Plato affirms must on his principles in- is the downward region whither all heavy evitably be the case. Aristotle's own bodies tend to fall, but to this sifting force doctrine differed but little from the vulgar which causes the mass of earth to strive notion on the subject : see physica IV v towards its own sphere. 2 1 2 a 24 woV eVel TO p.lv KOV^OV TO ai>fp&/j.(i>6i> ean (pi'fffi, TO 5e fiapb TO Kara, theory (de caelo IV ii 308* 34 foil.) sim- TO i^v irpos TO ptaov irepi^ov irtpas KO.TW ply ignores the whole point of it from eVri, Kal auro TO fdffov, TO 52 irpos TO beginning to end. The extent to which ec/xaroc avu, Kal aiVo TO Tr)Ta theory (tie senstt 88) shows a clearer Tuf Tptydvwv e' uv ffvveo-Tavai aaiv comprehension of it, though marred by a tKaffTov avruv, TO vvp 5.vd) ffTTov av t -ffv eV irXeiovwv ot> Tpiyu- KO.TU : see Diogenes Laertius II 8: but v(av. vvv bt QalvfTai rovvavrlov' ocrtf yap Aristotle says neither he nor Empedokles dv rj TrXetoc, KovtpoTepov fffTi Kal avu ov. Tat OO.TTOV. That is to say, Aristotle de caclo IV ii 309" 20. actually urges the fact that a larger body 230 HAATONOS [62 c ovpavov o-aipoeiBovs oro9, oeo~rra icrov rov fieo~ov D yeyovev ea^ara, o/W9 avrd ^pr] ea-^ara rrefyvKevai, TO Be ftecrov TO, avrd perpa rwv eo-%dra)v dfaa-TrjKos ev ro> KaravriKpv voai^eiv Bel rrdvrwv elvai. rov Brj KoajAov ravrrj rrefyvKoros rl rwv elprjue- 5 va)v dva) Tt9 17 Karco ndeuevos OVK ev BiKrj So^ei TO fJLrjBev ovoua \eyeiv ; 6 p,ev yap /iecro9 ev avrw TOTTO? ovre Kara) ovre ava) \ejecrOac SiKatos, aXX' avro ev fjiecra)' 6 8e irepi^ ovre /i<705 ovr ex wv ^^d^opov avrov ftepos erepov Oarepov fj,d\\ov TO fjbeo~ov 77 n TWV KaravriKpv. rov Be oyuo/w? irdvrr) rrefyvKoros rrold 10 Ti9 Tri(f)epa)v cvofjiara avry evavrla KOI rrrj Ka\(a<; av 77704x0 \eyeiv, el yap ri Kal arepeov eirj Kara fiecrov rov TTCW/TO? to-OTraXe?, et? ov8ev av rrore rwv ecr^arwi/ eve^deir} Bid rrjv rravrrj ofjLoiorijra G3 A avr&v a\V el Kal irepl avro rropevoirb rt? ev KVK\O), TroXXa/ct? av crra? ai/T/Troi/9 ravrbv avrov Kara) Kal dvw rrpocreirroL. TO yaev yup 15 oXov, Kaddrcep elprjrai, vvv S>j, apovo, ov Kal 7r\el omittit A. 3. v TiS Ka.Tavn.Kpv] The universe being a sphere, every point on the cir- cumference (^xara) has precisely the same relation as every other to the centre, which is right opposite to each. There is therefore nothing whereby one portion of the circumference can be differentiated from another so as to justify us in term- ing one avw and the other KO.TU. Nor yet will Plato allow the correctness of terming the centre KO.TW, as Aristotle subsequently did, nor dvw either: it is just 'the centre' O.VTO ev /jitfftp. How- ever in Phaedo 1 1 2 E the centre of the earth is regarded as the lowest point : but in that passage physics are largely tern- pered with mythology. 8. (xdXXov irp6s TO plo-ov] That is, no part of the circumference has any difference in its relations towards the centre, as compared with any part on the etrj irpbs o ' m which the point that now is KO.TU will be avta fire has its allotted place.' Compare when he reaches the antipodes thereof. Aeschylus Seven against Thebes 423 Ka- I think we must conceive the traveller iravtiis 5' ^ir' 'H\tKTpa.i (IXyxtv Ti/Xeuj. to be moving round the inside of the See too 41 c above. circumference of the universe; not, as 20. irXeio-rov av rjOpowrjUvov clij] Al- Stallbaum supposes, round the arrpfov. though detached portions of fire are to For were he walking round the latter, be found in all parts of the universe, yet, every point in it would always be KO.TU in since all fire is perpetually struggling to the vulgar sense. reach its proper home, naturally the great 19. Ka8' ov] Stallbaum would ex- bulk of the element will be accumulated punge epo[j,evov K\t}0rjvai,, TO Be o-piKpov e\a(j>pbv teal dvw. TUVTOV ST) TOVTO Bel i, SpwvTas r;/ia? Trepl TOvBe TOV TOTTOV. Trl jap yrjs /9e- , yeoaBr) jevrj Buo-Tapevoi, teal yfjv eVtore avTrjv e\KOfJ.ev et? 10 dvopoiov depa ftlq ical Trapa (frvo-iv, afji^oTepa TOV %vyov ovv avTO -Trpoaeipijica/jiev teal TOV TOTTOV et9 ov ftia^ofieO' avw, TO B' evavTiov TOVTOIS 7ra'#o9 fiapv teal tcaTco. raOr' ovv Brj BiatyopaJS e%eiv avTa 7rpc9 avTa dvdyicr) 15 Bid TO TO, TrXrldv) TU>V yvv TOTTOV evavTiov d\\a d\\ois tcaTe^etv TO yap ev ere/aw tcov(f)ov ov TOTTW r3 /cara TOV evavTiov TOTTOV e\a(f>pq) teal TW ftapel TO fiapv T3 re KCLTW TO tcaTto Kal r&5 dvo) TO dvo) TcdvT evavTia teal 7T\dyia Kal Tcavrws Bidtyopa Trpbs d\\r)\a E dvevpeBrjveTai yiyvopeva teal ovTa- ToBe ye fj,rjv ev TI BiavorjTeov 20 Trepl 7rdvT(ov dvTwv, &J9 rj p,ev 7rpo9 TO vyyeve$ 6809 e/cdcrrot9 orcra i. irvpos d^aipwv icrTaftj] Our mis- efforts precisely as earth and water do conception about the nature of light and now: it would have a similar tendency to heavy is due to this cause. We are con- revert to its proper region, and would fined to this region of earth and water; be 'heavy'; while earth or water, so far and when we weigh masses of earth or from resisting the effort to remove it water, we find that they always have a from the region of fire, would have a tendency in one direction. This tend- natural impulse to fly off in the direction ency we call weight, and the direction in of earth, and would be 'light'. Accord- which they tend we call downward ; and ingly, whereas now we call the region because earth and water resist our efforts of earth 'down', and things that tend to remove them from their own region, towards it 'heavy', we should, in the we conceive of them as absolutely heavy. supposed case, call the region of fire Fire, on the other hand, so far from ' down ' and things that tend towards fire resisting any effort to lift it from the 'heavy'. There is therefore no such thing region which earth and water seek, has a as absolute lightness and heaviness; all natural impulse to fly from it ; whence we things are light or heavy only relatively conceive of fire as absolutely light. But to the region in which they are situate. this opinion is due to the limitation of 4. PWLTCU is middle, as in Aeschylus our experience to one sphere. Could we Agamemnon 385 /3iarot 5' a rdXaiva reach the home of fire and endeavour to irtidJ). raise portions of it into the region of air, 5. I|TTOV is of course to be joined as we now do with earth and water, we with fiWireotfcu. should then find that fire resisted our 7. TOVT^V 8rj TOVTO 8ti pao-cu] E] TIMAIOS. 233 acquiring the needful power, should separate portions of fire and weigh them in scales, when he raises the balance and forcibly drags the fire into the alien air, evidently he overpowers the smaller portion more easily than the larger : for when two masses are raised at once by the same force, necessarily the smaller yields more readily to the force, the larger, owing to its resistance, less readily : hence the larger mass is said to be heavy and to tend downwards, the smaller to be light and to tend upwards. This is exactly what we ought to detect ourselves doing in our own region. Moving as we do on the earth, we separate portions of earthy substances or sometimes earth itself, and drag them into the alien air with unnatural force, for each portion clings to its own kind. Now the smaller mass yields more readily to our force than the larger and follows quicker into the alien element ; therefore we call it ' light ', and the place into which we force it ' above ' ; while to the opposite conditions we apply the terms 'heavy' and 'below'. Now that these mutual relations should vary is inevitable, because the bulk of the several elements occupy contrary positions in space. For as between a body that is light in one region and a body that is light in the opposite region, or as between two that are heavy, as well as upper and lower, all the lines of attraction will be found to become and remain relatively con- trary and transverse and different in every possible way. But with all of them this one principle is to be borne in mind, that in every case it is the tendency towards the kindred element What escapes our notice is that in lifting a variety of ways. earth from earth, we are not lifting it 18. tvavrla. Kal irXaYia] Different sub 'up', but simply out of its own region. stances which are imprisoned in an alien This we should realise if we tried the region will have the lines of their attrac- experiment on fire in the fire-home, be- tion in some instances opposite, as in the cause we should find our customary case of masses of fire and of earth in the notions of up and down inverted. region of air, in others the lines may 10. ap,6Tcpa] i.e. the earth in each be inclined at any angle (ir\dyia) one scale. to another, according to the position 14. ravT ovv 81^ Sia6ps ^X lv l occupied by the two bodies in relation These relations of 'light' and 'heavy' to their proper regions. Plato is insist- have no absolute fixity, because, as he ing that the lines of gravitation are not goes on to explain, the same thing which parallel. is light in one region is heavy in another; 20. r\ p^v irpos TO Ivyytvis 686s] Here and consequently the direction of 'up' we have the definite statement in so many and 'down' is reversed and altered in words that gravity is just the attraction 234 HAATflNOS [6 3 E- ftapv p,ev TO ^epofievov iroiel, rev Be TOTTOV et9 uv TO TOIOVTOV epTat, Kara), TO. Be TOVTOIS %OVTO, 009 eTepws OaTepa. irepl Br) TOVTCOV av TWV fraOrj/jidTatv raOra aiTia elpfaffo). \etou 8' av KOI rpa^eo9 7ra#/;/zaTO9 aiTiav 7ra9 TTOV tcaTiBoov /rat erepa> BvvaTo? av 5 eirj Xeyeiv crtcXijpoTijs jap aVw/iaXdr^Tt f^i^Oela-a, TO 8" 0/101X0x779 64 A TTVKVOTIJTL TTape^erat. XXVII. M.eyio~Tov Be /cat \OITTOV TWV KOLVWV irepl o\ov TO o~ ra? atrta? \afjL/3(ivo)/jt,ev, dvafAifjuyo-Ko/Aevot TO r^9 CIKIVIJTOV re /cat Bva/civij- B TOV vo~e(i) %iryyfvts is towards that region, we apply the term KOVOV to a substance whose 65os irpos TO vyyevts is towards another. To adopt Martin's example, in the region of earth stones are heavy and vapour light; but in the region of air vapour is heavy and stones light. 5. v- it is transmitted to the seat of conscious- Xcuca: cf. Herodotus 1 1 cxxxiii (quoted by ness, it does not produce afoO-riais. Thus Prof. Campbell) Iva. ol Svudeica. rea avrl cutting the hair is a ira6ij/j.a, but not an Ijf iriwv yti>r)rat, al vvKres rj^pai voitv- atffOrjffts : or, to take another example, fuevcu. Just below the juupta are spoken a deaf man has the Tradi]fj.a but not the of as transmitting the 7rd#os, 5ia5i5povtfMov e\66vTa e^ayyei\r) TOV Troiijo-avTos Ttjv Bvva/uv TO 8' evavTiov eBpalov ov icar ovSeva re KVK\OV Ibv Trdo-^et p.bvov, a\\o Be ov Kivei TOOV 7r\rjv d\\ot<{ TO TrpwTov 7rd0ooz> jevofjLevov dvaio~dr)Tov Trapeo-^e TO iraObv. TavTa Be trepi TG ocTTa teal Ta? T/9t^a? ecrTl Kal ocr a'XXa yijiva TO irXelcrTov ev tffjilv fj,6pia' TO, Be efjiTrpocrdev irepl TO, Trjs o^eco? /cat /xaXi<7Ta, Bid TO Trvpbs depo<; T ev CIVTOIS Buvapiv eveivat, TO Br) T)79 qBovrjs Kal \i>7rr)<> wBe Set Biavoelcrdai. TO /j,ev Trapd 10 vcriv teal ftlaiov yvyvo/juevov ddpoov Trap THMV TcdQos d\yeiv6i>, TO D 8' ei9 (f>vcriv aTCibv -rrdXtv dOpoov ySv, TO Be ripefia Kal KaTa o-fj,iicpbv dvaio-QijTov, TO 8' evavTiov TOVTOIS eVavTtw?. TO Be /ne yiyvofjievov ajrav alcrOrjTov fj,ev 'o TL /j,d\,i) 5' aftrflTjim 6Vt 5id TOV Aristotle's objections miss the point. He ffui/jLaros ylverat TTJ ifsvxy 8ij\ov Kal 5td TOV is treating pleasure subjectively and psy- \5yov Kai TOV \6yov x^pts. chologically ; whereas Plato's theory is 6. 66/JL(6a, STL yrjs he is only concerned with explaining the tffriv. physical causes which give rise to pleasure 9. TO jtiv irapd }>vevfj.a. particles, which yield without resistance 15. |v|juf>vs i]pu3v] Stallbaum is per- to any external impulse. This may come haps right in reading TJ/MI>. But as try- in contact with fire or be divided by a yevrjs is several times followed by the sharp instrument, and yet, while the KO.V- genitive (see 30 D) it seems possible that o-tj and the TO^T) are clearly perceived, t-v/jupvrjs might have the same construction, no pain is felt, notwithstanding that in V/J.VTOS seems to have the same go- either case the particles are very much vernment in Philebus 51 D xai rovruv dislocated. Plato is of course speaking v/i0t5roiis riSovas eirontvas. merely of bodily pain and pleasure, not 18. ical odirTrfrai Kal 5 &v a\\o txtlvov. gust excited by a spectacle of contrary 19. Siaicptcrei TC avrfjs Kol Bpoivri, BiaBiBovra Be ei? o\ov ra? Kivqaeis, 17801/0? KOI XuTra?, d\\orpiovfieva fiev Xinra?, KaOicrrafjieva Be et? 65 A TO at'To jraXii' ijBovds. oe, rds Be altr0ijri,Ka yiy- Xi/ira? pev ov Trape^ei TO ffinjrqt rfj<; "^v^fjff, //eyurra? Be rjBovd'/iTO9 iravros TraOij- para, roov T' eTraWfUcov ocrai TOW BpM* in 60 A. Plato's statement of the tongue by substances that are is quoted by Theophrastos de causis plan- dissolved in the mouth. Whatever power- tarum VI i: to the list of x v f*l given by fully contracts the small vessels of the Plato in the present passage he adds Xi- tongue is harsh and astringent; that which irapos. Farther on he gives the views of has a detergent effect we call alkaline, Demokritos, who referred differences of or if its action is milder, saline. A sub- taste to differences in the shape of the stance which is volatile and inflames atoms : cf. de sensu 65 69. Opinions the vessels is called pungent; and one not dissimilar to Plato's are ascribed to that produces a kind of fermentation or Alkmaion and to Diogenes of Apollonia effervescence is acid. All the foregoing by pseudo-Plutarch de pladtis philoso' exercise a disturbing influence upon the phorum IV 18. substance of the tongue: that which 17. irtpl -rqv y^"' 1 ""'] The under mollifies it and restores the disturbed surface of the soft palate is said by ana- particles to their natural state, producing tomists to share this function with the a pleasurable sensation, is named sweet. tongue. 240 DAATHNOS [65 c vd, f)rrov Se rpa^y- vovra avcrrrjpd (paiverai- ra Be rovrwv re pwrrriica teal irdv ro 7repl rrjv j\ Trpo? Ta9 rfjs /ce(f)a\fj, el<; Se rds crrevdf 3 5oKifj.eia : SOKI/J.IOL HSZ. 14 \eaiv6jj.eva : \iaiv6fj.ei>a ASZ. i. 8id ervYKpCcrtwv] Nearly all sense- all taste is produced by substances in a perception is reduced by Plato to con- liquid state, whether liquefied before or traction and expansion, which however after entering the mouth. In this opinion in different organs produce different Aristotle coincides ; see for instance tfe classes of sensation. This is the agency anima II x 422 a 17 ovQlv 8t iroiei \vfj.ov by which taste is brought about, though atffQrjfftv avev vypbrtiros, d\\' fx ei tvtp- the tongue is in a peculiar degree affected yelq.rj Swap-ei vyp&TrjTa. Aristotle's theory by the roughness or smoothness of the of taste will be found in that chapter. entering particles. 6. > rrjs iryp<5- pansion, and also the means of trans- rrfros rj TTTIKTIKOV ^ SIJKTIKOV rj dwXws rpa^vv milling Ihe irdOrina to the seal of con- 17 /LtoXiora rpaxvv. sciousness. Of the nerves Plato, like 12. $l\a. (j.d\Xov r](i,iv 4>avTaTcu] Aristolle, underslood nothing at all : their This is mentioned because all the sub- functions are attribuled by him to the slances hitherto enumerated, including tf>\tpia. salt, have a disturbing action upon the 5. KaTarr|K6|Acva] Plato holds that substance of the tongue, and are there- 66 A] TIMAIOS. 241 like most other things, are brought about by contraction and dilation, besides which they have more to do than other sen- sations with roughness and smoothness in the agents. For whenever earthy particles enter in by the little veins which are a kind of testing instruments of the tongue, stretched to the heart, and strike upon the moist and soft parts of the flesh, these particles as they are being dissolved contract and dry the small veins ; and if they are very rough, they are termed 'astringent'; if less so 'harsh'. Such substances again as are detergent and rinse the whole surface of the tongue, if they do this to an excessive degree and encroach so as to dissolve part of the structure of the flesh, as is the property of alka- lies all such are termed 'bitter': but those which fall short of the alkaline quality and rinse the tongue only to a moderate extent are saline without bitterness and seem to us agreeable rather than the reverse. Those which share the warmth of the mouth and are softened by it, being simultaneously in- flamed and themselves in turn scorching that which heated them, and which owing to their lightness fly upward to the senses of the head, penetrating all that is in their path owing to these properties all such substances are called ' pungent '. But sometimes these same substances, having been already refined by decomposition, enter into the narrow veins, being fore presumably disagreeable. The irri- There seems a lack of finish in his de- lation produced by salt is however so finition. mild that it amounts to no more than 17. TWV Si O.VTWV irpoXeXerrruo-iA^vcov] a pleasant stimulation of the organ. In this portentous sentence it is quite pro- 13. rd 84 TTJ Toii o-TOjxaros 6eppt6rr|Ti] bable that some corruptions may lurk. Compare the view assigned to Alkmaion But no emendation suggests itself of by Theophrastos de sensu 25 : yXurrri sufficient plausibility to justify its ad- 5 rota x"/* 01 ^ xpiveiv \\iapav y&p ovffav mission into the text, although I have Kal fj.a\aK-fjv T-f)Ktiv Tiy OepfioTriTi' 5^xeaXrjs aiaOrjertis] standing the construction : 6 TV ffvfj. that the construction is carried on from 0fp/jMTr,Tos cis Toi> avu) TOTTov T? ^X^ 7 ? m t ne previous sentence, or that j x 1 '^'' KavrtKw ^ OepfiairriKOv. it never recovers from the effects of wcrre P. T. 16 242 TIAATflNOS [66 A- , Kal rot? evovaiv avr60t fj,epevKvla, \eaivg pev e7ra\eiXe/3eT09 jap vSarot ei9 depa depot re elt v8a>p ev E KaTrrot 77 , TO Se e T3 /ieTafi) rovratv yeyovaa-iv, elcrl 8e ocr/ial rovrcov 8e TO /z,ei> e^ depot 619 t? aepa Kairvos' '60ev \e7rrorepat, 8e oa-fjial !;v,u,Tracrai ftla TO Trvevfui et? avrov rare yap GO-//,?) fiev ovSe/iia ^vvSitjOelrat,, TO Se Trvevfjia rwv cxrfJLoiv eprjfjiwOev avrd /MOVOV eTrerai, Si ovv ravra dvwvvpa ra rovrwv 7roiK.i\/j,ara yeyovev, OVK e/c TTO\\WV ov& a7rX3i/ elbrnv 67 A 2 ffTfv6repat : ffTevdrepai AZ. 3 d\\i rj: dXX' deJ S. 6 eial d : elffl re S. 12 di' otv: dtf oZv ASZ. 443 b 17 o^ yap uxnrep nvts a.ffiv, oiiK Herri? etSrj rov 6ffpai'Tov, dXX' tariv : a little above he gives a list; /col yap Spi- /j.flai Kal y\VKtai elfflv dfffjtal xal avartipai Kal ffrpv(f>val Kal \iirapal, Kal rois TriKpois (sc. X U M' J ) Ta s Tipa.x6vTos is of course neuter 'if an obstacle be placed'. It would seem then as if Plato conceived matter in its passage from air to water, or from water to air, to be made up of irregular figures intermediate in size between the particles of air and those of water: but how this comes about he does not explain. Theophrastos says curiously enough) in de sensu 6 Trept 5 6cr0p^TJs 6'Xws ovd^v etpyKtv [d nxdrwv] : he means probably that Plato's account treats more of the al aiadyruv : still the statement cannot be considered accurate. 12. 81* ovv ravra] Although all the mss. agree in giving Si/' ovv, it is impossi- ble to retain it. For the Svo tldi) could only refer to the two divisions specified below, which are not dvuvvfjia, but 7781) and \vwi)pbv. It is the endless diversity of different scents that fall under these two heads T& TOVTUV Trot/c/X^ara which are dv&vvfM.. 13. OVK ^K iroXXcwv] Tastes were di- vided into numerous species, which were 2 a6v/jdaos' 6fj,lx\f] Trepirrw/aa TI/S e/j v5up pax0^vTOs] When the air is filled with any odour, if a handker- chief, for instance, be pressed to the nostrils, and then a strong inhalation be taken, the air will force its way through the barrier, but the scent will not ac- company it ; whence Plato deduces the inference that the matter which excites the sensation of smell is less subtle than the par- ticles of air. This led him to devise the 246 [67 A- ovra, d\\d Bi%fi TO 0* rjBv Kal TO \vTrrjpbv avTo0i \eyeo-0ov, TO fjbev Tpa%vv6v TC Kal fiia^ofjievov TO KVTOS airav, ocrov rjfjitoV /JLCTa^V KOpvfyrjS TOV T OpfyaXoV KCtTat, TO B TttVTOV TOVTO KaTairpavvov Kal Trd\iv rj TretyvKev dyaTrr/T(i), airo Trjs Kea\fjs fj,ev dp%o/jLevr)v, TeXevToScrav Be Trepl Trjv to ToO 777raT09 eBpav, aKor'jv' oatj 8' avTr/s Ta^eia, 6elav, oar} Be (SpaBvTepa, /3apVTepav TT/V Be opoiav op,a\r)v Te Kal \etav, Trjv Be evavTiav Tpa^eiav p,ea)v[a<> avTwv ev Tot9 vaTepov Xe%^cro- dvdfyKi} pri0f/vat. 15 XXX. TeTapTov Br) \onrbv eTt 76^09 rjfuv alaOrjTiKov, o 6 Si' as : Si' as 5' A. 1 1 fSpadirrtpa : Ppaxvrtpa- A. 13 ra 5t : ras 5^ A. an-Xa, because we could name the precise kind of substance which produced each and the mode of its action: smells are not dirXa, because they do not proceed from any definite single substance, nor TroXXd, because we can only classify them as agreeable or the reverse. Although a stricter classification than this can be made, Plato rightly regards taste as much more orXoDr than smell. For the more complex flavours which we ' taste ' are really perceived by smell. 2. TO (xiv Tpa^vvov] Plato's classifi- cation is based on his broad distinction between irritant and soothing agents. 3. (WTO^U KOpVT]S TOV T O|ioXov] This must apply to extremely pungent and volatile scents, such as the fumes of strong ammonia: compare the descrip- tion of 5pi/j.ta in 65 E. 7. rr\v 81' WTWV] Plato's account of sound is in many respects consonant with modern acoustic science. He is correct in attributing it to vibrations which are propagated through the air until they strike upon the ear, and in saying that the loudness of the sound is propor- tionate to the amplitude of the sound- wave (/j.eya\7it> 8t TTJV TroXXijj'). He is also right in referring smoothness in the sound to regularity of the vibrations ; for this is what constitutes the difference between a musical sound and mere noise ; in the former case the vibrations are executed in regular periods, in the latter they are irregular. His explanation of the pitch is correct if by 'swiftness' he means the rapidity with which the vi- brations are performed, but erroneous if he refers to the celerity of the sound's transmission through the air: from 80 A, B it would appear that he included both, supposing the more rapid vibrations to be propagated more swiftly through the at- mosphere. eyK((>aXov T Kal atpcvros] The con- struction of all these genitives is a little puzzling. Stallbaum constructs eyKed\ov re Kal al'/ioTos with did, but the interposition of UTT' dtpos surely ren- ders this indefensible. I think we should join the words with irX-rjyijv: 'a striking of the brain and blood by the air through the ears '. Plato conceives the vibrations, entering through the ears, to reach the brain and to be from thence transmitted TIMAIO2. 247 only two conspicuous kinds are in fact here distinguished, plea- sant and unpleasant. The latter roughens and irritates all the cavity of the body that is between the head and the navel ; the former soothes this same region and restores it with contentment to its own natural condition. A third organ of sensation in us which we have to examine is that of hearing, and we must state the causes whence arise the affections connected with it. Let us in general terms define sound as a stroke transmitted through the ears by the air and passed through the brain and the blood to the soul; while the motion produced by it, beginning in the head and ending in the region of the liver, is hearing. A rapid motion produces a shrill sound, a slower one a deeper sound; regular vibration gives an even and smooth sound, and the opposite a harsh one; if the movement is large, the sound is loud; if otherwise, it is slight. Concerning accords of sound we must speak later on in our discourse. XXX. A fourth faculty of sense yet remains, the intricate through the blood-vessels to the liver. The liver appears to be selected because that region is the seat of the nutritive faculty of the soul, 70 D: and since the sensation of sound, as such, does not appeal to the intellectual organ, it is transmitted to that faculty which is speci- ally concerned with sensation. 13. TO. 8J ircpl vjicovias] The ac- count of concords is given in 80 A, where the transmission of sounds is explained. Aristotle's opinions concerning sound will be found in de anima II viii 4i9 b 4 foil., and scattered through the . treatise de se n sit. 67 c 69 A, c. xxx. The process of vision has already been explained : it only remains to give an account of colours. The particles which stream off from the objects perceived are some of them larger than those which compose the visual current, some smaller, and some of equal size. In case they are equal, the object whence they proceed is colourless and transparent ; if they arc- smaller, they dilate the visual current ; if larger, they contract it. White is pro- duced by dilation, black by contraction. Brightness and gleaming are the effects of a very swift motion of the particles, which divide the visual stream up to the very eyes themselves and draw forth tears. Red is the product of another kind of fire which penetrates the visual stream and mingles with the moisture of the eye. The other colours, yellow, violet, purple, chestnut, grey, buff, dark blue, pale blue, green, are produced by com- mixtures of the aforesaid, but in what proportions mingled God alone knows. The physical processes we have been de- scribing belong to the rank of subsidiary causes. For we must remember that there are in nature two classes of causes, the divine and the necessary; whereof we must search out the divine for the sake of happiness, and the necessary for the sake of the divine. 15. alcrOiyriKov] It is again a ques- tion whether we ought not to read ala- Brfr6v, since colours are the object of investigation. Here however I think the 248 HAATftNOS [67 c- 8ie\eo-0at, Set 7roitci\fJ,ara ftev p^pda? Ka\e) /cat 8ia(f>avrj \eyofjiev, rd Be /iei^tw Kal eXarrw, ra /Ai^ o-vyxpivovra, rd 10 Se Siaicpivovra avrrjv, rot? Trept T^I/ o-dpica 0epfJ>ot<{ KOI \|ru^pot? /cat rot? Trept rrjv y\wrrav o~rpv(f)voi<; /cat bcra OeppavrtKa E oi/ra Spt/iea e/taXecra/iey dSe\d elvat,, rd re \ev/ca /cat r fj.e\ava, e/ceivwv rraO^ara yeyovora ev d\\(a yevei rd avrd, avra6iJ,va 8e d\\a Sid ravra<; rds atrta9. OUTO)? GUI' avra 15 7rpoo-pr)reov,-ro fiev Sta/cptrt/coy T'7? o-^rews \evKov, TO 8' evavriov avrov p,e\av, rrjv be 6vrepav (f>opdv /cat yevovs Trupo? erepov Trpoer- 4 aC r6 : ai/ri A. aurwi' HSZ. 6X^70 post yevfoeus e margine codicis A dedit H. eieci cum SZ. 5 TOV tirieiicrj \6yov scripsi: rbi> tv-ieucr) \6ytf AH. ewitiKe? SZ. sed forsitan melius legatur irptirov T' dv ms. reading is defensible : we have, says Plato, to examine a fourth faculty of sense, which has various Troi/ciX/wiTa : the iroiid\(Jia.Ta being the sensations we call colours. But he passes immediately from the subjective to the objective aspect of x/>o a ' 0X6*ya TUI> ffu/j-druv e/cder- TUV diropptovffav. 3. o\\iu ^vp.p.erpa (Jtopia] i. e. par- ticles of the right size to coalesce with the o^ewj pevfj-a and form with it one sympathetic body. Stallbaum says Plato is following Empedokles, but this is in- correct : see Theophrastos de seitsu 7 'EMTeSotfXijs 5^ irepl airaffuv 6/uoi'ws \tyft, KO.I r)ai T(J) tvapubrTeiv els TOI)S ir6povs TOI>S eKdffrris aicrffdveffBai : cf. pseudo- Plutarch de placitis philosophorum I 15. The views of Aristotle concerning colour may be gathered from de sensu iii 439* 18 foil, and from the not very luminous treatise de coloribus. Aristotle considered the beauty of colours to depend upon numerical ratios: see de sensu iii 439 b 31 TO. fjitv yap eV dpi0/ji.ois etiXoyiffrois xp^/xara, KaOdirfp Ki rds ffv/Mpuvtas, TO. -f)5iffTa TUV xP u f JL< ^ TUV f^at SOKOVVTCI, olov TO dXovpyov Kal oiviKovv Kal 6\ty' drra rot- aura, 5t' ijvirfp alriav Kal at ffv/jicpiavlai 6\iyai, ra 5^ /j.ri fv apidnois raXXa xpu- fj.ara, rj Kal irdffas ras xP as *" a'/>i0yao?j eli'at, ras /J.ei> Tfrayfj^vas raj 5 draxrous, *cal aurdj rawras, flrai* ny Ka.9a.pal uip6)j.eva diro TUJV dXXcov |i6- pia] i.e. the particles of fire which stream off from the object : it must be remem- bered that Plato's conception differs from the Demokritean or Empedoklean efflu- ences, inasmuch as he does not hold that any image of the object is thrown off. 7-77^ Stf/iv again = TO r-JJs o\f/ews pevfw.. 8. TO, \&v ovv lo-a] Colours are then classified according to the relative size of the fiery particles from the object. If they are equal to those of the visual stream, we perceive no colour, but trans- parency alone: if smaller, so that they penetrate and dilate the v iraOiiiAaTa] I take tied- between its fiery particles and those of vuv to refer to TO. ffvyKplvovra. Kal diaxpi- white, (2) by its more rapid motion. It vovra.: the iraO-fi/j-ara belonging to the penetrates the o^ews ptv/jia right up to objects affecting the eye are the same as the eyes, the pores of which it displaces the Tradri/jLara belonging to the objects of and dissolves, drawing forth a mixture taste &c, namely fftiyKpuris and 5io/c/;te%pi TU>V re TWV ov ra? Bie6Bovs j3ia BicoOovcrav KOI rr/Kovcrav, r rrvp ' ddpoov teal vB(i)p, o Bdtcpvov /caXoO/Ltev, etceWev eK%eovcrav, Be ovcrav Trvp e evavTias aTravTwcrav, teal TOV fiev eKTrij- 5 BGOVTOS Trvpbs olov air d&TpaTTrjs, rov S' elcriovros KOI Trepl TO voTepdv tcaTacr/SevvvfJievov, TravToBaTrwv ev rfj Kv/crjcrei ravrrj C icavOelcri Te /j,d\\ov crvyKpaQfj /j,e\av. jrvppov Be av0ov Te teal aiov tcpdcrei yiyveTai, Be Xevtcov Ka et9 peav tcaTatcopes ep,7recrv tcvavovv 3 aOpoov post C5wp ponunt SZ. 10 rrj: avrri A. n (uyvvfttvov dedi cum S e Stephani correctione. fjLiyvv/jitvri AHZ. irapa.vivov] This is probably a termediate between the fire producing very deep shade of violet : compare Aris- \evKov and that producing ar'iKfiov. totle tie coloribus ii 7y2 a 25 evTetvo/j^va 10. TIQ 8i Sid TTJS vorCSos avyji] The ydp TTWS irpbs TO ^>cDs aXovpyts ?%et TO reading of the ms. cannot be construed. xpu/J-a' AdTToi>oj 5 TOV ^wros irpocr^dX- I think it is necessary to receive fuyvv- XOJTOS fo(j>ep6v, o KO\OVviov. The ftfrov and irapacrxonevov, agreeing with word occurs again in the same form in ytvos. The sense will then be, the rays chapter iv 794 b 5. See too Xenophon arriving at the eye, as their fire mingles Cyropaedia VI 1 1 iii 3 ouSti* vpiduv ore 6pvii>ui> otfre , it may be noted that ^ ofo TOV uypov /j.e\aii>o/j,ti>ov TO this is the same combination which is yiverai /caraxop^s iffxvpus /cat assigned by Demokritos to iroptpvpovv : KVO.VOVV xP'*H' a ] Dark blue. Uemo- Theophrastos de sensu 77 TO 8t iropatov theory which has been put forward that the is a dusky grey: wxpo" an ochrcous yel- Greeks were deficient in the colour-sense: low or buff. indeed it is somewhat difficult to get a 20. tls (w'Xav KaraKop^s] i.e. an in- sufficient number of English terms to tense, absolute black; the substance translate the Greek names. 252 IIAATnNO^ [68 C Kvavov oe \evKw Kepavvvpevov ofjuoiovfjLeva D /jui^ecrt, BiaaM^ot rov eiKora pvOov. el Be rt? rovriov epyw CTKO- 7rovfj,vos ftacravov \ap(3dvoi, ro rfjs dvBpaJTTLVijs Kal Octets 9 5 r]opov, ori 0eo<> fjt,ev rd 7ro\\d els ev vvvai Kal Trdkiv e evos els TroXXa Bta\vet.v i/cavws e d/j,a Kal Svvaros, dvBpwTrwv Be ovBels ovSerepa TOVTMV iKavos ovre ecrrt vvv oi/V elcrauOis TTOT' ecrrat. ravra 8rj irdvra rore ravrrj E 7re(j)VKoTa e dvdjKrjs 6 rov KaXkicrrov re Kal dpLcnov SrifAiovpyos 10 ev rot? yvyvofMevois 7rape\,dfj,(3avev, rjviica rov avrdpKr] re Kal rov re\ea>rarov deov eyevva, ^pco/iez^o? pev rals Trepl ravra airiais virf) per ovcrais, ro Se ev reKraivofAevos ev irafft, rot? 'yiyvofievois O.UTO9. Bi6 Brj ^pr) &v alrlas e'lBrj Btopi^eaBai, ro fiev dvayKatov, TO Be deiov, Kal ro /j,ev delov ev aTracrt fyretv Krr]crew<$ eveKa evBai- 15/^01/09 /Stou, Ka6' oaov rj/juwv r/ v evBe^erai, ro Be dvayKaiov GO A eiceivwv %aptv, \oyi6/j,evov, ee5? dvev rovrwv ov Bvvard avrd eKelva, efi ot? o-7rovBd%ofj,ev, pova Karavoelv ovB" av \a(3elv ovB' a'XX,co9 16 \oyi$fj.ei>ov : \oyifridvovs SZ. development of that form through all the ramifications of its manifold appearances. Plato here probably has in view the problem of ?v Kal TroXXa as presented by the methodical investigation of physical phenomena; the tendency of his later thought was however to the conclusion that the problem is one which can only approximately be grasped by finite intelli- gence. Compare 83 C. n. alriais virr)perovfjr (via. yap avrol Kepavvvovfft, ro 5 0oi- VIKOVV KM. irpamvov /cat a\ovpyov ov yty- verai Kfpavvvfj.evov. rj 5^ Ipu ravr' Zx ei T X/sw/aara 1 TO 5 /xeTa|i> TOU oivi.KoG Kal n-paaivov vpov Kal rrjs Iffdridos, -rj e'/c -x\(apov Kal iropa\rjv re ra> p,v6<> Tret, putted a dp/j,6rrova-av eTTifleivai 15 rot? 7Tp6v dj;io\ev 8eia)V avros yiyverai Srjfjiiovpyos, rdSv Se dvrjrwv rrjv yeveaiv rots 15 eavrov jevv^fMacn 8r)fj,tovpyeiv rrpoa-era^ev ol Be fjbifiovf^evoi, irapa- Xa/Sovre? dpxfiv ^u%^9 dOdvarov, ro fjierd rovro Ovijrov avrfj Trepieropvevcrav o^rjfjbd re rcav ro crwfia eSoaav, aXXo re et 2 SivXafffifra : div\ia H et ex correctione, ut videtur, A. 6 ravra: airra rd A. 13 fx ov T( * Tavra : ^ovra irdvra A. and appetite they chained in the belly. 3. eir' dpx^v tiravcXOwp-ev] We This they did that the nobler part should here resume our account, interrupted at hear the voice of the reason and pass its 47 E, of the operation of intelligence, commands through all the swift channels which now acts through the created gods of the blood, and so might aid it in sub- in the generation of human beings. At duing the rebellious swarm of lusts and the same time Plato fulfils the promise passions. And knowing that the heart, made in 61 D of expounding v irepi a-Apta ytveaw faxy* re ooXi]v TC] Corn- cushion to soothe and sustain it in the pare Phaedrus 264 c d\\d r65e ye olp.a.1 time of need. a\ov elvai p-fre avow, Oeia atria from the dva.yKO.la. and by enu- ciXXd peaa re tx tt ' Ka ^ o.Kpa, irpeirovr 1 merating the manifold forms of the latter. dXXiJXou Kal TQ 5X

r)i> Hoiicev iKav&s l?X-v, rr)v 8^ olov i. 8ivXa(T|iva] I can find no au- rots (j>ap/j.dKois Kal Ty ffvyKpdffei rCiv XP W - thority for using 5iv\iff(j.fi>a, which Her- /tdrwi/ evdpyeiav OVK O7rei.\i)OS yap Kal vuKras notion of 6x>jna is not a vessel to contain Kal fj.T)vas Kal tviavrovs, OVK 6vras irplv the soul, but a means of her physical otipavbv ytvtcrOai, r6re &/j.a tKeivy 1-vvurra- locomotion. fj.tv<$ TT}V ytveviv avruiv fj.Tj-xa.va.Tai.. diXXo T cISos . .TO Oviyrov] The nature 9. TOVTWV] sc. TWV ffvp.nerpi.Giv. of this BVIJTOV elSoj has been discussed 10. OVTS r6 irapairav dvo(idtor, could that dialogue into OvpofiSts and 256 riAATHNOS [69 c- ev avra) ^1^779 TrpocrwteoSoiJiOvv TO Ovrjrov, Seivd teal dvayteala ev eavrw TraOijfjLara e%ov, jrpwrov fiev ijSovijv, fieyia-rov teateov Se\eap, D ejreira \vrras, dyaOdtv (frwyds, en S' av ddppos teal \(o, OvfAOV 8e 8vs TO OVIJTOV yevos %vvedecrav. teal Sid ravra &rj o-/36fj,evoi /jbiaiveiv TO Oetov, o rt (Mr) irdaa TJV dvdytcr), ^coplf eiceivov fcaroiiei%ovo~iv els aXXrjv rov crco/iaTO? oitcrjcriv TO Ovrjrov, Icr6p,ov E teal opov SioiKoSofjLrjo-avres rfjs re teea\fj<> teal rov emjaws, av- 10 %eva ^era^v ridevre^, f iva eitj ^(opl^. ev Srj Tot? cmj0e(ri teal rw tca\ovfj,ev eveSovv, teal eirei^r) TO jjiev dfjieivov avrrjs, TO Se j^eipov e7T(pvKi, SioiKoSo[AOV(ri TO TOU . 0a>pa/eos av tevros, Siopi^ovres olov yvvaite&v, rrjv Se dvSpoov %&)/3t9 70 A oiterjcriv, rds (frpevas Sid^pay/jia ei9 TO /juecrov avrwv nOevres. TO 4 Ovfibv 84 : 6vpav re et mox e\irloa r' S. 5 aiffBr/ffei 84 : alcrd^fffi re SZ. vyKtpawrt interpunctione, SZ. 12 {TTf(f>vKei: ire Trpoarj- yopiav dOavarois ovffiv cis "Xfipoffi rov Xo- yicrriKou xa.1 ws Kara, rd Qvrfro. ruv ^ifiuv tvepyovffi /JLOVOV ; Of this question he offers no determination, but that he raised the point is interesting. i. Scivd Kal avavKcua] This and much more of the phraseology in the present passage is echoed from 42 A. dvayKdta = necessarily inherent in their nature. 3. apov vp|3ovXci>] Compare Laws 644 c, where pleasure and pain take the place of confidence and fear : tvavriu} re KO.I a.x<"' the head heart and liver : this view Galen himself defends against that of Aristotle and Theophrastos, who made the heart the sole dpxn ' cf. Aris- totle de iuvenlute iii 4^9* 5. See note on 73 B ol yap rod fiiov 8fV Terpawo- 5uv. Euripides has it once, Hercules furens 1095 veaviav 6u>pa.Ka Kal j3paxiova. Aris- totle also uses the word in a more com- prehensive sense than it bears nowadays, including the entire trunk : historia atii~ malium \ vii 491* 29. 13. olov ywaiKwv, njv Se avSpcov] This is no more than a mere simile : there is nothing in the words to warrant the titles which Martin bestows upon the two tttr) 1'ame male and Fame femelle ; nor is there the slightest appropriateness in these names. It is not even said which division corresponds to theyvvaiKuv, which to the dvSpuv otic-riffis. 14. Sidpt\6veiKov ov, KCLTW- Kia\fjs /jLera^v rwv (frpevaiv re Kal av%evo<;, iva rov \6yov Karr)KOov ov tcouf) per e/ceivov ftiq TO TV emOvfjuwv Kare^oi, 76^09, OTTOT' eV r/?9 a/cp07roXert>9 rc3 erriTdy/jiaTi Kal \6ya> 5 /J.r)Ba/mfj Treideaffat, e/cov 0\oi. rr)V 8e Sr; Kap&iav a/jL/j.a rdov oSpo)9 at- B /iaro? ei9 TJ)I' SopvopiKi}v oiKr](Tiv KarecrTfjorav, Yva, ore Accrete TO TOU dvfjiov /tez/09, TO) \6jov 7rapayyi\avTO Ka TO TTOfjua I dvdpetas: avSpias AZ. 5 o/a/ua: 13 t$ : {(fa S. 15 otdrjffis 3. KaTijKoov] Undoubtedly this means 'within hearing of: that was the object they had in view when they placed the 6vfJi.oti$ts tyyvrtpta T^S Kfa.\rj dttcr)v fj.eya.Xov /3a(n\^ws o ^7/c^aXoj tdpv- rat. 5. apfia] This reading has best ms. authority and gives the best sense : Stall- baum's a.px'n" ^M a is comparatively feeble. It is true that Aristotle de iitventute iii 468 b 31 has 17 6^ Kapdia on early apM r ^ v tp\efiu>v : but that is no evidence that Plato wrote opx 1 ?" here. Galen quotes this passage, de plac, II 292, and charges Chrysippos with plagiarising the Platonic doctrine. 6. o8p<<5s] From this word Galen de plac. VI 573 infers that Plato makes the heart the apxn of the arterial circula- 10 TUV ante ffrevuiruv omittunt AS. 19 ir6fj.a : irwp.a A pr. m. SZ. S. A. tion only, not of the venous, the of which is the liver; rk p.h yap o8pus. This seems however a slight basis on which to found the inference that Plato knew the difference between veins and arteries, which he nowhere else gives any sign of distinguishing. Compare pseudo- Hippokrates de alimentis vol. II p. 22 Kiihn pifacns 0\e/3<2j/ ffirap, p/fwais aprr]- piCiv KapSir), tic rovrtuv aTroirXavSLrai Kal irvevfji.a, Kal 6epna) dta v] Compare the functions of the v\aKe$ in protecting the city efre rts t%u6ev rj Kal rQiv evooOev c] TIMAIO2. 259 soul which shares courage and anger, seeing that it is warlike, they planted nearer the head, between the midriff and the neck, that it might be within hearing of the reason and might join it in forcibly keeping down the tribe of lusts, when they would in no wise consent to obey the order and word of command from the citadel. And the heart, which is the knot of the veins and the fount of the blood which rushes vehemently through all the limbs, they made into the guardhouse, that whensoever the fury of anger boiled up at the message from the reason, that some unrighteous dealing is being wrought around them, either with- out, or, it may be, by the lusts within, swiftly through all the narrow channels all the sensitive power in the body might be aware of the admonitions and threats and be obedient to them and follow them altogether, and so permit the noblest part to be leader among them all. For the throbbing of the heart in the anticipation of danger or the excitement of wrath, since they foreknew that all such swelling of passion should come to pass by means of fire, they devised a plan of relief, and framed within us the structure of the lungs, which in the first place is soft and void of blood, and next is perforated within with cavities like those of a sponge, in order that receiving the breath and the drink it might cause coolness and give rest and relief in the burning. Wherefore tot KaKovpyriffuv 170. of the paramount importance of the lungs 10. 8id irdvTwv TWV orcvttirwv] i.e. in the process of breathing and the purifi- through all the narrow blood-vessels ; to cation of the blood : he is also of course which, as we have seen, Plato attributed quite wrong in calling them avaifiov. His the functions which are really discharged view is impugned by Aristotle on grounds by the nerves. of comparative anatomy, de partibus ani- 1 1. TWV T irapoKcXcwrccov Kal dim- malium III vi 669* 18 rb dt jrpAj TTJP S.\crii> Xwv] Cf. 718 x a ^ e7r ') TrpofffvtxOficra. flvai rbv irXevnova rrjs KapSias OVK ttpr)Tai diret\fj. TO ptXriffrov of course = TO \oyiff- /caXuij : further on, 66g b 8, he says 5\wj TIKOV. fj.ti> oiv 6 ir\(i/fjui>v tariv dvairvorjs x^P 1 " ' 13. TTJ 8i 81] -inj8TjTas, 172 260 HAATONOS [70 D v KCU r&v iroiijruv 'EvpiirLSrji', i' Bio Brj r/7 Tefj,ov, KOI Trepl TTjv KdpBidv duTov Trepieo'Trjfrav olov a\fj.d p.a\a- KOV, 'iv o Ovfjios rjvitfd ev avTy d/cftd^ot, 7rr)B(5cra els VTreiKov KOI dvatyvyo/jievr), irovoixrd IJTTOV, fj,d\\ov TO> \6yy /Ltera 0vfiov Bv- 5 VdiTO VTrrjpeTeiv. XXXII. To Be Br} aiTW T real TTOTWV eTriOvf^rjTiKov Trjs tywyfjs Kdl ccrwv evBeiav Bid Tt)v TOV trw/zaro? i^x i < f )VO ~ t >v, TOVTO 6i9 T fATav TWV T peVU>V Kttl TOV 7T/3O9 TOV OfJ,(f)d\.OV OpOV KdTO)- E Kio~av, olov (baTvriv ev arravTi TOVTW TU> TOTTW Tfj TOV cra)/j.aTo x'Tw^a avTov Spoffotidws xaTapptov. 1. Tijs aprt]p(os] i.e. the windpipe: later it was designated 17 Tpaxeia dpnjpla, ' whence trachea. This is the only usage of the word aprr/pla in Plato and Aristotle; it never means 'artery' in the modern sense. 6x TOVS is plural like dpTtjpias in 78 c, probably because of the bifurcation of the trachea into the bronchia before entering the lungs. 2. oXpa jtaXaKov] There is certainly no reason for altering the text : Plato might very well say 'a soft leap' for 'a soft place to leap upon '. Martin's dy/j.a is a very unhappy suggestion, and Her- mann's fj.d\ayfj.a is as inappropriate as arbitrary. fj.d\ayfj.a means a poultice or fomentation ; but the function of the lungs is distinctly stated just below, irr)duffa et $ vireiKov : this is perfectly well expressed by the received reading. I believe that Aristotle had this word fiX^ta in his mind, when he wrote fiXfv(j,ovos ddeiai. It is remarkable that Galen also held this view: cf. de plac. Hipp, ct Plat. Vlll 719 aXXa el Kal vSup jrtetV, et doirjs eifre Kvavip xpw- as efre /i/Xry, elro eu^e'ws ^ ws *" fK^i)^ TO Ka.Tf\06v. See too de partibits aninia- lium ill iii 664 b 9, where he gives divers demonstrations that the hypothesis is untenable. It is also denied by the writer of book IV of the Hippokratean treatise de morbis, vol. II pp. 373, 374 Kiihn : but affirmed by the author of dt ossium nafura, a work of uncertain date, vol. I p. 515 Kiihn. Galen de plac. Vlll 715 points out that Plato conceives only a part of the fluid to pass down the trachea : OVK dOpoov ovSt Sid /u&r^j rijs ev- TIMAIO2. 261 they made the windpipe for a channel to the lungs, which they set around the heart, as it were a soft cushion to spring upon ; so that when wrath was at its height therein, the heart might leap upon a yielding substance and become cooled, and thus being less distressed it might together with the emotions be better enabled to obey the reason. XXXII. But that part of the soul which lusts after meat and drink and all things whereof it has need owing to the body's nature, this they set between the midriff and the navel as its boundary, constructing in all this region as it were a manger for the sustenance of the body : and here they chained it like a wild beast, which must yet be reared in conjunction with the rest, if a mortal race were to be at all. To the end reason : that is to say, that the emotional faculty may not be hampered m its action by the physical agitation of the organ which it employs. From first to last, in this dialogue as in the Republic, Plato regards the emotions, if they are given fair play, as sure allies of the reason. 70 D 72 D, c. xxxii. But that part of the soul whereunto belongs the craving for meat and drink the gods placed in the belly, where they made, as it were, its stall: and so they kept it far away from the habitation of the intellect, that it might cause the least disquietude. And since they knew that it could not appre- hend reason, but would be led by dreams and visions of the night, they devised for it the liver, which should copy off for it all the messages from the brain ; either terrifying it by threats and pains and sickness, or soothing it by visions of peace. Here then they set up the ora- cular shrine in the body of man: and since the appetitive soul could not di- rectly comprehend the precepts of rea- son, they thought to guide it by signs and tokens and dreams which might be com- prehended of it. A proof that divination is a boon for human folly is this. No sane man in his waking senses is a true seer: only one that is asleep or delirious or in some way beside himself has this gift. The part of the sane man is to interpret the prophetic utterances of the distraught seer, for that the prophet cannot do. Whence the seer always has an inter- preter to expound his sayings ; who often, but wrongly, is himself termed a seer. So then the liver is the seat of prophecy : but it has this virtue only during life : after death it is blind. Next to the liver is placed the spleen, which is as a sponge to purify it and carry off noxious humours. 7. 8i& TTJV TOV o-wjxaros fo"X l 4>v- i> detached from the body is just pure soul, the one and only soul ; but i/na tin6v- uriTtKbv it is considered as working through and for the body, the nourishment of which it has to superintend. 9. olov 4>d.TVT)v] This suggests a horse as the similitude, rather than a wild beast : compare Phaedrus 247 E. 10. TO? ec3 ^ou\evecrdai, Sid TavTa evTav6 e8o/} ^eo? 7n,f3ov\evo~a<; avTw TTJV r/TraTo? IBeav %vve- 10 cTTirja-e Kal eOrjKev ei? TTJV CKCLVOV KaToiKrjaiv, TTVKVOV Kal \elov B Kal \a/j.7rpov Kal >y\VKV Kal TTiKpOTrjTa e%ov fjLr]^avrio'dfjLi>o<;, "va ev avTO) TWV Biavorjfidrwv rj eK TOV vov ^tepopevrj Bvva{j,is, olov ev I TO Ovrjrov '. iroTe 6vi)Tov S. 6 avTaiv alcrOriffeus : aC TUI> alffdriaewv SZ. soul; hence there must be an tin K&V, or, as Aristotle would say, a Kbv elSos of soul. For, as has been said, the differentiation of souls into individuals involves materialisation and hence imper- fection. 5. OVT ^w^a-tiv 2|iX\tv] The lowest elSos would not have any comprehension of rational principles, or if haply it had some inkling of them, it would not care to pay any heed to them. Therefore they are expressed to this faculty in simili- tudes by means of the liver. It will be noticed that this symbolical representa- tion of the dictates of the individual reason is exactly analogous to the sym- bolical manifestation of the ideas of uni- versal reason by means of the sensible perception of particular objects. 6. avrwv] This is doubtless right, referring to the TIVWV \6ywv which fol- lows. Stallbaurn's reading is, as I think, weak in sense. 8. teal |M0' T^e'pav] The phantasms of the daytime are the perceptions of the senses. IO. TI^V tKlivOV KaToClCTJalvf.rai ^er^x e "' & ff - vep eiTro/aev' ireiOapxet yap rauev ?x et|/ XOYOJ', Kal oi>x uffwep TUV /jLadrjfiaTtKtcv. Sri d irelOeTai TTWJ inro TOV Xo-you TO dXo- yov, (Ji.r)vvet Kal ij vovde"Ti)o~is Kal iraffa eiri- Ti/J.r)ffis Kal Trapd.K\rio'a. el de XP*I Ka ^ TOVTO dvai \6yov %xeiv, SITTOV fo~Ti Kal TO \6yov fx"> T0 P^ v Kvplws Kal ev avrtp, TO 8 uffirep TOV iraTpos d/cowTt/cbV TI. In Aristotle's analysis then the rational part is twofold, the one kind possessing reason absolutely, the other listening to its be- hests. The aXoyov also is twofold, one kind being absolutely irrational, while the other /*eT^xet irrj \6yov. It thus ap- pears that the lower kind of X670P txp is identical with the higher kind of aXo- yov: that in fact they are the same thing viewed in different aspects. Comparing this with Plato's statement, we shall find that Aristotle's aXo-yo^ nerexov T"Q \6yov 71 B] TIMAIOS. 263 then that always feeding at its stall and dwelling as far as possible from the seat of counsel, it might produce the least possible tumult and uproar and allow the noblest part to con- sult in peace for the common weal, here they assigned it its place. And knowing that it would have no comprehension of reason, and that even if it did in some way gain any perception of rational thoughts, it was not in its nature to take heed to any such things, but that it would be entirely led away by images and shadows both by night and by day, God devised as a remedy for this the nature of the liver, which he constructed and set in its dwelling place : and he made it a body dense and smooth and bright and sweet with a share of bitterness. This he did to the end that the influence of thoughts proceeding occupies the same position as Plato's Ov- /j,ofi8s KarriKoov rov \6yov. This directly hears and obeys the dictates of reason. If a man is betrayed by his friend, the declaration by the reason that such con- duct is immoral is at once responded to by the Ovpofiits with a surge of indig- nation against the friend's baseness. But no such response would come from the firi6u/j.ijTiK6i', which is incapable of under- standing the situation. The judgments of the reason must therefore be conveyed to it in the symbolic form which alone appeals to it, by signs and visions, by portents and presages and terrors. This indirect communication has no place in the statement of Aristotle, who would no doubt denounce it as TrXaer/uoTwSe s. It must of course not be forgotten that Aristotle's iri6u/j.i)TiK6v is not the same as Plato's. A point worth noticing is a certain ad- vance in the psychology of the Timaeus as compared with that of the Phaedrus. In the latter the lowest elSos is simply appetitive ; but in the Timaeus it in- cludes the functions of nutrition and growth. This is plain from 70 E olov a.Tvr)i> K.T.X. ; and also from the fact that the rplrov el<5os is assigned to plants. Aristotle then is in reality indebted to Plato for his OpeirriKbv /cal QVTIKOV: though it must be confessed that the debt is by no means acknowledged. n. iva (v a.vr*p] As this long sen- tence is very involved, a few words about the construction may not be amiss. The optatives belonging to iva are oj3oi (the temporal clause after oirore extending as far as irapexoi) and the second TTOIOC : while to oirore belong tftfabvt, the first Troto?, and irap^xoi ; and to ore belongs diroo/3oi ought to have been answered by a 3^, when the soothing influence was first mentioned, but the length and intricacy of the sentence has interrupted the exact correspondence, so that the second mem- ber is introduced by na.1 instead of 5^. Again, it is not at first sight obvious, especially as the sentence is sometimes punctuated, to see where the apodosis to ST' o5 begins. I should without hesi- tation, putting a comma after djreu0<5- vovaa, make the beginning of the apodo- sis at tXediv re : though, if we took the participles vap^x ovffa - ar >d the rest in agreement with SiVajiuj instead of eir/- TTVOICL, it would be possible to begin the apodosis at TTJS it.fr jri/rporrjros. But the former view seems to me in every way preferable, ev avrf is anticipative of the clause beginning olov tv Karovrptf, from which we must supply the notion 'pro- ducing reflections in it'. 264 IIAATflNOS B- TVTTOVS teal KariBelv eiBo)\a Trape^oi'Ti, o/3ot yu.ei> avro, O7TOT6 fAepei T/y9 TTtKpOTrjTOS ^pojfjLevr) %vyyevei, ^aXeTr/} cnreiXf), Kara irdv VTrofjLtjvvcra oea>? TO rjirap, epfyaivoi, ^vvdyovad re TTCLV pvaov teal rpa^v 5 TTOtol, XoySoy e /cat 0^09 7ru\a9 re, ra /iJ> e' opdov Karatd/jur- C rovaa Kal ^vcnruxja, rd Be efi^paTTOvaa <7vyK\eioL>crd re, Xi/7ra9 /cat ao~a9 7rape%ot' fcal or' ay rdvavria ^tavrdafjiara diro^wypafyol 7T/9aOT?7TO fjbrjre Kiveiv fjujre irpoardTTTecrdai, rrjf eVai/ria? eavrt) Be r/J ;ar' eKelvo ^vp-fyv-rw Trpos avro 6p0d real \eia avrov /cat e\ev6epa d-rrevOv- D vova~a, tXeaiv re Kal evr/pepov iroiol rr)i> Trepl TO rfTrap ^fX'}? polpav KaTWKLcrp^evriv, ev re rfj vvKrl Biayaiyrjv e^ovcrav /jLerpiav, IMavreia %pa)fAevr)v icad' VTTVOV, eVetS/} \6yov Kal <^poi///'o-eo)9 ov 15 yiteTet^e. /j.e/jLVT}/j,evoi yap rfj^ TOV Trarpo? eVto-ToX^? ol ^vffrr^ffavre^ , oT6 TO 6i>r)Tov eVecrTeXXe 76^09 069 apia-rov et9 tvvajMiv Trotelv, 5 re: ro A. 10 O.VTO : eavro A. t T7]S 1Tt-KpTT)TOS Stallbaum understands ry TJTTO.TL after tri/yye^e?, saying ' ridicule enim quidam sic interpretantur, ac si rationis naturae cognatum intelligatur'. It appears to me that the 'ridiculous' interpretation is the only correct one: vyyevet signifies, akin to the dark and gloomy nature of the thoughts which are conveyed by i) etc rov vov Tes: ZwHTTavTes HS. effect Stallbaum cites Rufus Ephesius : the 5oxu seem to be the small vessels in the liver: the wu\ai are the two entrances of the portal vein, which conveys blood to the liver; the plural is used because the vein divides into two branches immedi- ately before entering the liver. That all these were of high importance in sacri- ficial divination is clear from Euripides Electro. 827829: cai \o^36j pv ov irpoffrfv ffirXdyxvois, irv\a.i $t Ka fcafca? <-a.ivov ry ffKOirovvri irpcff^o\ax. Compare Aristotle historia animaliiini I xvii 496 b 29 irpoffirtyvKe 5^ r-g /j.fyd\ri \{\l/, 3 5J; al KaXovnevat irv\ai flffl TOV ijiraros. The fj.cyd\r] <(t\t\(/ is evidently the vena cava; see de partibtis animalium III iv 666 b 24 on 5t wp&rov tv ry Kapdiq. ylreTai TO alpa iro\\aKis tipj)- Ka/j,ev, did Tb TCLS dpxrjyous 0\^/3as vo f'vat, TT\V re fj.eyd\t)v Ka\ovfj.tvt)i> Kal TTJV dopTriv while -q diro Trft /teyd\7jj is as clearly the portal vein. D] TJMA1O2. from the brain, when the liver received outlines of them, as if in a mirror, and exhibited reflections to view, might strike terror into the appetitive part, whenever making use of the bitter element akin to its own dark nature and threatening with stern approach, diffusing the bitterness swiftly throughout the whole liver it displayed a bilious colour, and contracting it made it all rough and wrinkled, and reaching the lobe and the vessels and the inlet, twisted the first from its right position and con- torted it, while at the same time it obstructed and closed up the two latter, thereby producing pain and nausea : and on the other hand in order that, whenever a breath of mildness from the reason copied off on the liver visions of an opposite kind, giving relief from the bitterness, because it will not excite a nature opposite to its own nor have dealing with it, but using upon the liver the sweetness that exists therein and soothing everything till all is straight and smooth and free, it might render gentle and calm that part of the soul which is settled about the liver, and might enable it to secure a sober amuse- ment at night, enjoying divination during sleep, in recompense for its deprivation of intelligence and wisdom. For our creators, because they remembered the behest of their father, when he commanded them to make the mortal race as perfect as they TO. jxiv] I suspect rbv /J.EV to be the CU'TO to refer to the tiri6vfi.-riTiKt>v : but this right reading. will not do. For avrb must surely have 6. Xviras teal aaas] The effect is partly the same reference as avrov, which neces- phyaical, partly moral: the pains and sarily means rov ijiraros. nausea would cause evil dreams, which 12. t\wv rt Kal cvrjpcpov iroiot] Aris- served as portents and deterrents. Her- totle (who must have been rather mysti- mann, presumably by a typographical fied by this passage) has a direct reference error, puts no stop at all after iraptyoi. to these words in de partibus animalinm 8. irpaoTT)T<5s Tis...tirirvoia] With IV ii 6j6 b 22 didirep ol \4yovres r^v Qfoiv this very striking expression compare the T^S ^o\jjs alff6-/iota SJTWS rijs if'vxw T& irepl rb rjirap fj.6piov is the regulaV word for divine inspiration : SdKvoucra nlv ffwiffry, \v6fj.fvov 5' t\tui> cf. Phaedrus 265 B, Laws 811 c. TOIT). Aristotle is himself decidedly 10. y^ VK " TT l TI ' "Hi tar' ^KCIVO] sc. rb sceptical concerning the prophetic charac- Jj-n-ap: the tiriwoia. uses upon the liver ter of dreams: see his exceedingly in- (Trpds avrb) the sweetness which per- teresting treatise de divinatione. meates it. ZVH^VTV, i.e. akin to the 13. Iv rt rfj wic-rC] The re merely (iritrvoia. Stallbaum understands irpbt couples < r x ow '' a *' with tXeaurt KO\ einjufpov. 266 EAATHNOS [71 D Brj Karopdovvres ical TO av\ov r)fj,(av, 'iva dXrjffeias Try E KaTo~Tr)crav ev TOVTW TO pavTeiov. IKCLVOV Be 0-77- , et$9 (JiavTiKTJv d^poavvrj 6eo<> dvOpwTrivrj BeBajKev' ovSels yap eWoi/9 ed7TTTai /AavTiKrjs evdeov KOI d\rj0ovs, aXX' 17 icaO' VTCVOV 5 Trjv r^9 (frpovrjcrews 7reBr)0el$ Bvva/J,iv rj Bid voo~ov rj Bid Ttva ei 6ov- (riao~fj,ov 7rapa\\d^a 0i/df), TTCLVTCI Xoyicrftq) 72 A Bie\e eavTov Kpivetv, aXX' ev Kal TrdXat, \eyTat TO TrpaTTeiv Kal yvuivai TCL re avTov Kal eavTov o-(apovi fjicvw trpoo-rjKeiv. '66ev Brj Kal TO TWV TrpotfrrjTwv yevos eVt ra.i9 evQtois jjiavTelais Kpnus i-niKaQ LOT aval vop.o<>' 01)9 /iayret9 B 15 avTOVS ovofJbd^ovcyL Tires, TO Tfdv r}yvor)KOT<>, OTI Trjs Bt au'iyfj,a)i> OVTOL ai'Tacr&)9 vTTOKpiTai, Kal oi> TI pdvTeis, 7rpo(f)fJTai Be /j,avTevo/j,eva)v BiKaioraTa ovof^d^oivT dv. rj /jiev ovv vo-is rj Bid TavTa ToiavTij re Kal ev TOTTW u> \eyo/j,ev 7reavTapoo-{ivT) 66s av0pTr{v[] SeSwKtv] /Spax^a ^ ovdtv. Presently follows the The keen irony pervading the whole of well-known derivation of fj.aviicrj from this very curious and interesting passage fjunvrtKy. The most remarkable passage is too evident to escape notice. Plato is at 244 D: dXXd ^v v6TjTevffa. contemptuous reference to dytiprai Kal evpero, KaraQvyovaa. irpbs Oeuf evx&s TC yua^retj in Republic 364 B, and Symposium KO.I Xarpe/as, &0tv dy Ka.Oa.pn.Civ re KO.I re\e- 203 A xal TTJP fj.avreiav irdffav Kal 7017- TO>V Tvxovva ti;dvTi) firoiriffe TOV eavrTJs reiav. In Politicus 290 D he says with ?x" Ta i"/>o's re TOV irapovTO, Kal TOV jmra similar irony rb yap Srj TWV ieptuv ^vffiv T opdCis fiavlvTi Kal /cara- Kal r6 TUV /j.avT^wv e3 fj.d\a (ppovrjuaTos ffx.ofj.tvtf TUV vapovTUV KUKWV tvpofJilvri : Tr\Tr)povTai Kal d6av ffe/j.vi]v \a/j.[3dvei Sia where see Thompson's note. TO ptytOos T&V ^YxeipTjyuaTWP : but for all 6. irapaXXaJjas] For this sense of their assumption, they practise but a the word see above, 27 c el /XT; iravrdirafft 'servile art', ejrwn}/*i;j diaKovov fiopiov. Tra/DaXXdYro/xei', and Euripides Hippolytus oiiSds yap ?vvovs] Compare Phacdrus 935 \oyoi irapaXXdffffovTfs l^eSpoi tfrpevCiv. 244 A 17 Te yap d-f) tv AeX<#>o?j vpo iffu 5 ? dtXXois Phaedrus 244 B he applies the term irpo- jtAet 0?;Tts to the Pythian priestess. This how- ol ir\r) 6affjJTa.i are in no sense navreis. iniXos. 18. x&P tv H-O.VTIKTJS] Plato does not This points to the existence at Delphi of altogether ignore the physiological func- two classes of irpo^rai : one class, to tions of the liver, as may be seen from the which only high-born Delphians were important part played by x o ^> when this admitted, heard the inspired utterances secretion is in a morbid condition, in his of the Pythia herself; the other and pathology. But he characteristically less exclusive class having to declare what- gives chief prominence to the final cause, ever was to be made known to the public which is to redeem the tiriOvfi.rjTiKoi' from without. complete irrationality. 268 [72 B- %(, arepyOtv Be rov %rjv yeyove ru jfvcrracris Kal eSpa cr7T\dy^vov yeyovev el; dpicrrepds etcelvov, rov rrape^etv avro \afj,rrpov del Kal Kadapov, olov 5 rp(f) irapev/cevao-fAevov Kal eroipov del irapaKtip,evov Bio Brj Kal orav rives aKadap&iai yiyvwvrat, Bid vocrovs rrepl TO rJTrap, rrdvra r) arr\r}vo^ Kadaipovcra avrd Be^erat, are KOI\OV Kal dvaipov ixfravdevros' Wev 7r\r)pov/j,evos KaOaipofievwv fieyas Kal VTTOV\O<; av^dverai, Kal rrd\iv, orav D 10 Kadap0fj TO crtw/za, rarreivov/jievos et? ravrov uvtei. XXXIII. T fiev ovv rrepl ^^79, ocrov Qvr]rov e^ei Kal '6crov Oelov, Kal O7TT), Kal /u.e#' w/', Kal Bt a %&>/H9 WKicrOrj, TO ^ev a\r)0e<; w? eiprjrat, Oeov ^vfifyrjcravTos, TOT' av ovrw //.o/'W9 8ncr^vpt^oi/ji.0a' TO 7e fjirjv etVo9 ri[MV elprjcrOai, Kal vvv Kal en ^d\\ov dvaaKOTrovcri 15 BtaKivBvvevreov TO dvai, Kal rrefydcrdw. TO 8' e^fjs B>} rovroiai E arro- i. (TTpr]9iv 8^ TOV STJV] The function of the liver in divination is twofold, one mode being proper to man, the other to beasts. In the living man it is the means of warning him by dreams and visions ; while the liver of the slaughtered beast gives omens of the future by its ap- pearance when inspected. The efficacy in the first case Plato satirically allows, as a sop to human folly; to the second he will not allow even this. 5. eK(JLa-yiov] Here we have a totally different use of the word from that in 50 c : it now means a sponge or napkin for wiping clean. The spleen then, accord- ing to Plato, exists solely for the sake of the liver, to purge it of superfluous and noxious humours, which it receives into itself and disposes of. 72 D 76 E, c. xxxiii. Now to assert that all we have said in the foregoing is certainly true were folly, wanting the assurance of some god, yet the account that seemed to us most likely, this we have given. On the same plan we have next to describe the remaining parts of the human body. First the intestines were devised as a precaution against gluttony and excess, in order that the food might not by passing through too rapidly leave a void that needed per- petual replenishment. Of bones and flesh the foundation is the marrow. This is made of the very finest and most per- fect elements of fire air water and earth commingled. Part of this was moulded into a globe-like form and placed in the head ; the rest, drawn out into a cylindri- cal shape, in the spinal column. And the marrow of the head, which we call the brain, is the habitation of the reason ; while the lower forms of soul were at- tached to the spinal marrow. Bone is formed of fine earth kneaded with marrow and then tempered by being plunged alternately into fire and water ; and of this was made a hard envelope to pro- tect the vital marrow : and joints were in- serted in the limbs for the sake of flexi- bility. And to prevent the structure of the bone decaying, the gods constructed flesh, and to impart the power of moving the limbs at will they made tendons. Flesh is a kind of ferment made with fire and water and earth, containing an acid and saline admixture ; tendons, which are of a tougher and finer consistency, are made of unfermcnted flesh mingled with E] TIMAIO2. 269 enough ; but when deprived of life, it is become blind and gives the token too dimly to afford any plain meaning. And the structure of the neighbouring organ and its position on the left has been planned for the sake of the liver, in order to keep it always bright and clean, as a napkin is prepared and laid ready for the cleansing of a mirror. Wherefore whenever any im- purities arise in the region of the liver owing to sickness of the body, all is received and purified by the fine substance of the spleen, which is woven hollow and void of blood. This, when it is filled with the impurities from the liver, waxes swollen and festered ; and again, when the body is purged, it is reduced and sinks again to its natural state. XXXIII. Now as concerning soul, how far she has a mortal, how far a divine nature, and in what wise and with what con- junctions and for what causes she has her separate habitations, only when God has confirmed our statement can we confidently aver that it is true : nevertheless that we have given the probable account we may venture to say even now and still more on further meditation, and so let it be said. But what follows hone. And such of the bones as con- tained the greatest amount of vital marrow the gods covered with the thinnest en- velope of flesh ; such as contained less, with a thicker envelope ; to the end that the marrow in the former might not have its sensitiveness blunted by a thick cover- ing. For this cause the head has but a slight covering, though a thicker one would have better protected it ; since the gods deemed that a shorter and more in- telligent life was preferable to a longer and less rational. In the construction of the mouth and neighbouring parts both the necessary cause and the divine cause were consulted : the necessary in view of the nutriment that must enter in, the divine in view of the speech that should issue forth. For the further protection of the head they devised the following. The surface of the flesh in drying formed a tough rind, which we call the skin: this is pierced by the internal fire of the head, and the moisture issuing through the punctures forms what we call hair. And the nails are formed by the skin at the end of the fingers, mixed with tendon and bone, being suddenly dried : for the gods knew that other creatures would arise out of mankind in future ages, which would need these defences. 14. r6 -y* F L1 1 V l*os] It may be ob- jected that soul is immaterial and eternal, and therefore we must not be satisfied with rt> etVAs concerning her. But here we are treating not of the nature of soul as she is in herself, but of her connexion with body : this belongs to the region of physics and consequently to that of the 'probable account'. Therefore Plato begins the chapter with a reiterated warn- ing that we are dealing with matters where absolute certainty is impossible. But this does not apply to the exposition con- cerning the soul's own nature which we had in 34 R 37 r. 2;o ITAATHNOS [72 E Kara ravrd fieraSitoKreov -rjv Se TO rov crwaaros erri\oircov y ye- yovev. K Si) \oyicrfiov roiovSe ^vvicrracrPai /iaXtcrr' (iv avro rrdv- rwv rrpirroi. rrjv eo-ouevriv ev -rjfuv rrorwv /cat eoearwv dfcoXaaiav ySeaav ol vvri0evre<> rj^wv TO 761/09, ical ori rov /j,erpiov /cal dvay- 5 Kaiov Sid [J,apy6rr)ra 7roXX&3 %pr](roiae6a rr\eovi' 'iv ovv /IT) fyOopd Sid vocrovs 6eia yiyvoiro Kal aTeXe? TO 761/09 evdvs TO Bvtjrov re- \evrq), ravra 7rpooptt>fivoi rr) rov Trepiyevrja-o/^evov Tro/iaTO? eSe- 73 A re e^ei rrjv ovo^a^o^iv^v /cdrw Koi\iav vrro^o'^rjv edecrav, re rrept,% rrjv rwv evrepwv yeve BieKTre- 10 pwcra TI rpo8e e cra>fiari ^vvSovfjLewr) 1 ? ev rovrw Siaoovjjievoi, Kareppi^ovv TO dvyrov 761/09. ai;T09 8e o //,ueXo9 yeyovev e^ aXXtui/. rwv yap rpiywvwv oaa rrpwra d&rpafir} Kal XeZa o^Ta rrvp re Kal vSwp Kal depa Kal yfjv oY a/cpt/3eta9 /AaXtcrTa ?)V rrapacr'xelv Sward, ravra 6 deos drro rwv eavrwv 10 eKaara yevwv %&>/H9 drroKpivwv, ^471/1)9 Be d\\ij\oi<; ^vfifjuerpa, C 6 re\evT(f : Tf\evT' av the 0c6pa| strictly so called : cf. Aristotle fttov Xye. problemata xxxill ix 962' 35 rpiwv rbiruv 15. ol -yip TOV PIOV Sco-pof] That is 6i>Tui>, Kf^aX^s Kcd BupaKos Kal rr/s /cdrw to say, it is through the marrow that the KoiXiaj, 77 Kea\ri Oei^rarov. The BJopa^, soul is linked to the body. Plato, though though sometimes applied to the entire unacquainted with the nervous system, cavity of the body, was properly identical saw clearly that the spinal marrow and with i] &i>u Koi\ia, which included the ultimately the brain was the centre of stomach: cf. de partibus animalium in consciousness: a point wherein he is xiv 675 b 29. much ahead of Aristotle, who declared viro8oxi]v] Plato does not seem to (i) that the brain and spinal marrow are have understood very clearly the func- essentially different substances, (2) that tions of this part of the human anatomy, the function of the brain is merely to cool merely regard ing it as a safeguard against the region of the heart : see de partibus 73 c] TIMAIO2. 271 upon the foregoing is the next object of our research : this was the manner wherein the rest of the body has come into being. The following is the design on which it were most fitting to conceive that it is constructed. They who framed our race knew the intemperance in meat and drink that would prevail in us, and that for greed we should use far more than was moderate or necessary. In order then that swift destruction through sickness might not fall upon us, and that the mortal race might not perish out of hand before coming to com- pletion, foreseeing the danger they made the abdomen, as it is called, a receptacle to contain the superfluity of food and drink, and coiled the bowels round about therein, lest the food passing speedily through should compel the body quickly to stand in need of a fresh supply, and thus producing an insatiable craving should render the whole race through gluttony devoid of phi- losophy and letters and disobedient to the highest part of our nature. Concerning the bones and flesh and all such substances the case stands thus. The foundation of all these is the marrow : for the bonds of life whereby the soul is bound to the body were fastened in it throughout and planted therein the roots of human nature. But the marrow itself comes from other sources. Such of the primal triangles as were unwarped and smooth and thus able to produce fire and water and air and earth of the purest quality, these God selected and set apart, each from its own class, and mingling them in proportion one animalium II vii 652* 24 TroXXots yap i)5aros nal 7^5. Plato had considerably Kal o tyKt stotle ; but this is one of several cases aury bpoiv (j.ve\6v. tan dt vav rovvav- where his superior scientific insight keeps rlov avr$ T7]i> (pvffiv, us direiv o ptv yap him nearer to the truth. dyKt(f>a\os if/vxp^Tarov TWV tv T<$ ffufj-aTi 1 6. Iv TOVTCO] i.e. in the spinal mar- fj.opi(j)v, 6 8 /tueXos Otp/jas rrjv tiai.v. row; for the brain was the seat of the 652 b 16 tird 5' airavra Setrai r^y tvavrias Oeiov ytvos. poTTT?*, IVa Tvyx^ v V T0 " P-fTplov Kal roO 17. i dXXwv] sc. 77 oarGiv Kal aapKuv fj.tffov,...8t.a raijTTjv TTJV alriav irpos rbv Kal TWV TOLOVTWV. rrjs KapSlas T&ITOV Kal rrjf Iv avry Oep- raiv ydp rpiyiavuv] The triangles being /j.6rr)Ta fj.efj.r)xa\ov ?} the elements of the corpuscules of which vtiv ev avru> KareBei rd rv fyvxwv yevrj, o"^r)/j,dra)v re ocra efjue\\ev av o-^creiv old re KaP Kao~ra e'iBr}, rov /jive\ov avrov rocravra Kal roiavra Bippelro ov ro rrepl rovro dyyelov Ke(f)a\rjv yevrjcrofjievov o 8' av ro XoiTroz/ K.CLI Ovrjrov T^9 "^rv^rjf e/ieXXe 10 Ka6e%ew, a^a crrpoyyv\a Kal 7rpofj,r)(cr) Bir/peiro o-^^/aara, /ji,ve\ov Se Trdvra eVeq^/ztcre, ical KaOdrrep e dytcvpwv /3aXXo//.ei>oc? f/c rov- ra>v 7rdcrr}, KOI perd rovro eta\ov avrov o-^alpav Trepteropvevaev ocrreivijv, ravry Be crre- iovr}v BiegoBov /careXeiTrero Kal rrepl rov Biav%eviov ap.a Kal vw- 74 A rialov /j,v\ov e avrov cr(f)ovBv\ova\fj$, Bid Travros rov Kvrovf Kal TO rcav Br) a-rrep^a Biao~q>a>v ovrw \i6oeiBel rrepi^6\w %vve sepa- capable of supplying material for all parts rately ; the spinal cord serving for the of the human frame. &vi)ri>v as a whole. 3. Sera gpeXXev] It is remarkable 5. TJJ Kar' apxas] i. e. without wait- that, although Plato only mentions two ing for the differentiation to be made in ffX^na-Ta explicitly, his phraseology is so the course of evolution. studiously vague concerning their number 6. irspwj^pTj] The brain is made ap- \ as to lead one to imagine that he may proximately spherical, because, as we have suspected the existence of further have seen, the action of reason is sym- ramifications of /ii>e\6s, such as in fact bolised by the rotation of a sphere on its are the nerves. axis : cf. 44 D rt> rov Travros Kaff CKOcrra rfStj] sc. rijs ^i>X 7 ? s : the shape of the different portions of marrow in the body was made to suit 8. cos...'yVT)fj.(voi her action to the rest of the body. The curort, Kal 1/j.dvTas irepi(i\iTTovTj does not refer to any liga- i\oyvfj.vaffTouffi Kal fipaxeias di/a/SoXas ment or the like, nor has it any physical TOI/S AaKf5ai/j.oviovs. For the phrase Ka.6a.irep t Aynvpuv com- 10. o-rpoyyvXa KalirpofJ.T]KT]] 'Round pare 85 E (\vffe ret rfp ifsvxfy avruOev clov and elongated' is the same thing as j/ews a-dcr/taro. 'cylindrical' : this of course refers to the 13. ip|JoXov] The ms. reading rtpl vertebral column. 8\ov will no doubt yield a reasonable 1 2. irdurqs 4)(TJs 8e through ^iW^paSex. the spinal marrow and they transmit 15. jitrd TOVTO tU irvp] The process P. T. 18 274 [74 A dpdpa, TT) OaTepov Trpoa^pcofievo^ ev avTois w evia-Tapevr) Bvvdpet, Kivr)o~e(t)/re&>9 eveKa. TTJV B av Trjs oo-TivT]<; (puo-ews egiv 777*7 crduevos TOV BeovTO? KpavpoTepav elvat B Kal aKafjiTTTOTepav, BiaTrvpov T' av iyiyvofjLevr]v Kal ira\iv -^rv^Ofjievrjv 5 o-aKe\io-aa-av ra^i) Bia(f>0epelv TO o-7repfjui eVro9 avTrjs, Bid raura oyrtw TO TCOI/ vevpwv Kal TO T^9 crap*o9 fjtev cnravTa Ta /ie\77 %vvBij irvpl TOV e^a)0ev Kal Trepiio-Tdfjievov Trdyov d/j,vveiaKeX(o-ao-a.v] This is a medical term, signifying caries of the bones or gangrene of the flesh : it is also used of the blighting of plants; Aristotle de in- ventnte vi 470* 31 X^-yereu aKf\lfav Kal affTp6(3\Tfra yivecrOai, TO. dtvdpa irtpl TOI>S Katpofc TOWTOI/S. ri tpovtpova\l8a 6 5' eXdx'tf- TOS (Is avrov TOV eyK^tpa\ov ' ^Adxwros 5' effTlv 6 irpbs T$ /j.vnTrjpi /jiiXiffra. About the auditory nerve he gives a very con- fused statement, apparently, as Martin observes, mistaking for it the Eusta- chian tube: ibid. 492* 19 TOVTO 5' els nev TOV eyK.epoffviri)i', Ka0op$ de e-ri- aTri/j.r]v : see too below 87 A irotuciXXet (itv .. .TrotK/XXei 5^. And there is quite suffi- cient ornateness in the present passage to justify this rhetorical device. As to the construction, the future infinitives are sub- stituted for the final clause: something like d.evo^07) must be mentally supplied. 13. oiKtiov] contrasted with TOV irepi- v firiputv Kal Kvr)/j,di)v Kal TO Trepl rrjv rwv la"%iu>v (fiixriv rd re 75 A \rrepl ra] rwv /3pa%i6va)v ocrrd Kal rd rwv rrri^ewv, Kal opovrj crews, ravra Trdvra crv^rrerrXrjpwrai, crap^iv 'ocra 8' 20 ejjipova, rjrrov, el JAIJ rcov riva avrrjv K.aff avrrjv alcrBrjcretov evexa i Kal ante viro/j.las omittunt AHZ. 3 a.noiv. awapfolv supra scripto i A. 17 irepl TO. inclusi, quae retinet H. omittunt SZ. for abandoning the reading of all the <5(rr^> irfvKaffi, Kal rp^ovrai 8 rb mss., since cra/3/io is readily supplied as the jr\er*c6j, Kal TTJV XPV * a ^ T '?" *ai is positively bad. The insertion of laxbv //ero^i) TTJS yapicds Kal TOV iffrtov Kal before virofj.ii;as seems to me, in this ire(iMavo-iv] The de- life. By these are meant the bones of scription of vevpa tallies closely with the skull and the vertebral process only ; that given by Hippokrates de locis in since it is clear from what Plato says homittf\o\. II. p. 107 KUhn ra 8t vedpa. a little below (Sib dy rl> re rCiv nypCiv ton Kal d/ro/Aia Kal irp&s ra\r)v ^va-raais, eiTrep a/j,a ^VfjurtTrreiv rj0e\r)a\rjv /3/oy av Snr\ovv ical 7ro\\a7r\ovv teal vyiei- vorepov teal nXvTrorepov rod vvv KareKrrjcraTO' vvv Be rot? irepl rrjv jfjierepav yevea> ftev oVrcS, crap^l Be teal vevpois K6a\.r]v, are ovBe KafATras e^oucrav, ov vve- Giiyacrav. Kara iravra ovv ravra evaicrOrjTorepa fiev teal 15 Tepo, TroXi) Be da-devearepa Travros dvBpds Trpoaeredrj ra Be vevpa Bid ravra /cat OUT&J? 6 Oeos eV ecr^drrjv rrjv repl rev rpd^r)\ov tc6\\r]crv OJJLOIO- D S. 12 Tif ante /tavf habet A. 13 06 delet A. sation be registered in the consciousness. But in the case of the tongue, on the contrary, the fleshy structure is speci- fically adapted for the reception and dis- crimination of a particular class of sen- sations, and is no longer a mere passive medium. Hence Plato's distinction is sound. 2. T] -yelp i dva-yKTjs] That is to say, the conditions of the material nature to which our soul is linked will not admit of the combination of a dense covering of flesh with acute sensitiveness. This would have seemed too obvious to need pointing out, but for Stallbaum's perverse comment 'intelligit animum'. Of course Plato does not mean anything so absurd as to deny that the flesh of the thigh, for instance, is acutely sensitive : he only means that the thigh is Ktvov ^-poj^irews : it has no power of perceiving anything apart from the mere sense of touch re- siding in its nerves ; whereas the parts containing /-tueXos are centres of conscious- ness, and the fleshy structure of the tongue is the organ of a special mode of sensation. 4. pa\iora ^op] Had such a com- bination been practicable, the gods would certainly have given the brain a more powerful protection than it now has: as it is, they sacrificed length of days and immunity from sickness to vividness of perception and power of reasoning. Aristotle attacks this doctrine because it does not fall in with his fan- tastic theory of the brain's functions: see de partibus atiiwaliutn II xii 656* 15 ov yap ucrirtp TU>S \4yovfftv, 6Vt el affiv aicrBaffffdai fj.tt> yap T fyKf>d\tf), TT\V 5' atffdriffiv ov irpoffifffffai ra fjiopia TO. ffapKa\oi> rovvavriov SLV direipyd- fero aKeaivuv ai/Vdj Xiap' TUV 5' alffOr/ffewv OVK atrtoi ov5ffj.ids, 6j ye dfat(r6rjTos /cat D] TIMAIOS. 279 where God has formed the flesh to be in itself an organ of sensation, as for instance the tongue: in most however it is as aforesaid; for this material nature which comes into being by the law of necessity and is reared with us does not allow dense bone and much flesh to be accompanied by ready and keen per- ception. For had these two conditions consented to combine, the structure of the head would have displayed them in the highest degree ; and the human being, bearing upon it a fleshy head, sinewy and strong, would have enjoyed a life twice, nay many times as long as now, besides being much more healthy and free from pain. But as it is, the creators who brought us to being considered whether they should make a long-lived race that was inferior, or one more short-lived which was nobler, and they agreed that every one must by all means choose a shorter and nobler life in preference to a longer but baser. Therefore they covered the head with thin bone, but not with flesh nor sinews, since it has no flexions. On all these grounds the head that is set upon the body of every man is much quicker of apprehension and understanding, but much weaker. For these reasons and in this manner God placed the sinews all round the base of the head about the neck and cemented them with ai)To'j tvriv uffirep OTLOVV TWV irepiTTw- 16. eir* co-xdTTjv T^V KajmXijv] Plato fjidruv. Aristotle is, I believe, to a cer- supposes the vevpa to pass up the neck tain extent right in his assertion respect- and terminate at the base of the head, ing the avaiad^ala. of the brain ; so that made fast to the jawbone, we have here again an instance of his 17. JKoXXrjo-cv OIXOIOTTJTI] It is im- drawing a false conclusion from correct possible that O/IOIO'TI/TI can simply stand data. One might have supposed that he for oyuoiws, as Stallbaum asserts ; nor is who affirmed an anlvriTos &pxn Kivricreus he justified by the passage he cites, f!e- need not have felt much difficulty about public 555 A, frt ovv, rjv d' tyta, dirto-' an dvaioOrjTos dpxrj aiffOrjffeus. ToufJ-ev pr] /card rrjv 6\tyapxov/j.i>i)v troXiv avra] i.e. a strong protective cover- oyaotorijrt rov tj>fidw\6v r( Kal x/nj/wmoTrfy ing along with keenness of sensation. r-a.x0at ; there obviously the meaning 13. av fttj vtvpa. ofj.oioTrjTi. In like manner I think we 14. cvaio-OijTortpo] i.e. more sen- must take it here as an instrumental sitive than it would have been had the dative. gods taken a different view. 280 ITAATHNOS [75 D TIJTI, KOI TO? criayovas aicpas avrols %vveBr)(rev VTTO rrjv vcriv rov Trpocranrov rd 8' a\Xa e/9. airavra TO. fie\r) Biecnreipe, ^vvdirrwv dpOpov dpQpy. rr}v Be Brj rov trrouaros r]^&v Bvvapiv oBovtri Kal y\a>rrr) Kal %ei\fo-iv eveKa TOJV dvajKaiwv Kal roav dpiarwv Bie- 5 KCffuvjaav ol BiaKocraovvres, y vvv BiareraKrai, rr)v aev eicroBov ruiv dvayKaicav f^rj^avw/jievoi %dpiv, rrjv 8' eo&ov rwv dpi peov Kal vir^perovv (^povrjcrei Kn\\ia\rjv ovre ftovov ocrrei'vriv SvvaTov edv rjv Bid rrjv ev. raZ? a>paivcra)v pa(f)wv TravroBaTTov elBos yeyove Bid rrjv r&v TrepioBwv Bvvaftiv Kal 13 ov inclusi a tribus codicibus omissum. ser\-ant AHSZ. A. 14 tepfi*. post ro vuv Xf-yoptvov ponit S. 4. TWV dva^Ka^wv Kal TWV dpicrrwv] fordert', and renders if 'welche nicht aus- This distinction differs from that of dvay- getrocknet war': but obviously this would KO.IO. and Oeia in 68 E; for here both require Kara^rjpavfffiff^t I suspect we dvayxata and apicrra are an end, not ought to read aC. a means. Xt^xjia (iti'^ov] V/iijita is a peel or rind: 8. Xo^wv voina] Compare the meta- the skin, according to Plato's concep- phor in Euripides Hippolyttis 653 dya> tion, is analogous to the membranous puTois vaa^oiaiv t%ofwpofMi \ e/s WTO. K\V- film which forms on the surface of fa>. Somewhat similar is the metaphor boiled milk, for instance, when exposed in Phaedrus 243 D, iroTifjuf \6y

i] \eyofj.tm] ypavs. n. TOV TWV o-afKMV d\\ov] cf. 42 c Aristotle's language, it may be observed TOV TTO\VV 6x^ov KCU SffTfpov irpoffvvTa by the way, supports the omission of ou IK irvpos Kal CSaros Kal at pot Kal yrjs. before rara^KMUMpfaft. As to fJ-ftfrv, ! 3- t "] KaTa|T|paivofUvT]s] Notwith- I see nothing for it but to acquiesce in standing the approximate unanimity of Lindau's 'dixit vero fitifrv, quod cetera the mss., I do not see how it is possible amplectitur ' : but I cannot believe that to reconcile ou with the sense. Surely the the word is genuine. That Plato should \t/j.fia is formed by the drying of the sur- think it necessary to point out that the face of the flesh. The Engelmann trans- envelope is greater than that which it later indeed says it is ' durch den Sinn er- envelopes is altogether incredible : but 76 A] TIMAIO2. 281 uniformity; and he fastened the extremities of the jaw : bones to them just under the face; and the rest he distributed over all the limbs, uniting joint to joint. And our framers ordained the functions of the mouth, furnishing it with teeth and tongue and lips, in the way it is now arranged, combining in their purpose the necessary and the best; for they devised the incoming with the necessary in view, but the outgoing with the most excellent. For all that enters in to give sustenance to the body is of neces- sity; but the stream of speech which flows out and ministers to understanding is of all streams the most noble and excellent. But as to the head, it was neither possible to leave it of bare bone, owing to the extremes of heat and cold in the seasons; nor yet by covering it over to allow it to become dull and sense- less through the burden of flesh. Of the fleshy material as it was drying a larger film formed on the surface and separated itself; this is what is now called skin. This by the influence of the moisture of the brain combined and grew up and clothed the head all round: and the moisture rising up under the sutures saturated and closed it in on the crown, fastening it together like a knot. Now the form of the sutures is manifold, owing to the power of the soul's revolutions and of the aliment; if these I cannot see my way to any satisfactory 1 7. TO 8i TWV pcujxuv] The number emendation. and diversity of the sutures depends upon 14. 8e'p(xa] Is this meant to be de- the violence of the struggle described in rived from X^t/xa? The PVV looks like 436 foil, between the influx of aliment it ; and Plato's etymological audacity has and the revolutions of the soul acting adventured things /ciVrepa'than this. through the brain. There is a passage 8td ri}v irpl riv eyK^aXov voriSa] of Hippokrates which curiously falls in Plato is explaining how it comes to with Plato's connexion of the sutures pass that the skull is covered with with the soul's irepioSoi: de capitis vul- skin, although, according to his account, neribus vol. Ill p. 347 Ktihn 6Vrw /XTJ- there is no flesh upon it. He regards it dertpudi juijSe/otfoj' vpo^oK^v ?x> OVTOS as an extension of the skin on the face x ei T ^ s ^a^as TTJS Kf Bt avTov epo[j,evr)<; TO fifv vypov Kal Bepfiov 'oaov ei\iKpive<> aTrr/eiv, TO Be /J.IKTOV el; ojv Kal TO 5 BepfjM ijv, alpofievov fjuev VTTO TrjvK, %vyyeve<; pev r/MPtwta ov 10 atTov, (T/cXypoTepov Be Kal irvKVOTepov Ty TrCh.rjcrei Trjs ^rt'^etu?, rjv dTroxwpi^opevr) Bep/j.aTOa\rjv 6 TTOIGOV, fievos ftev atT/oi? Tot9 elpr)ne.vois, Biavoovfievos Be dvT\ aiTo Beiv elvai aTeyao-fj.a T^9 Trepl TOV eyxe(f)a\ov eve.ua do~(^a- *5 Xeia? Kov\v/j,a e/i7rooVy yevrja-6/J.evov. TO Be ev TTJ Trepl TOVS BaKTiiXovs KaTaTr\OKrj TOV vevpov Kal TOV 5ep/ia,T09 oVrof) Te, ^v^fju^jdev CK Tpuwv, d7ro^r)pav0ev ev KOIVOV gu/j,7rdvT(0v o-K\rjpov yeyove BepjjLa, Tot9 f*ev ^vvaniois TOITOIS BTJ- 10 /J,iovpyr)0ev, T^ Be alTicoTaTp Biavola TWV 7reiTa ecropevoiv eveKa 3 rpuOtvTos : TprjOfrros SZ. 7 VTTO TOV : airb TOV A. 8 TO T(>l\(i3V: TO TWV TplXW S. IO TTVKVOTtpOV '. TTVKVlaTtpOV S. so far as the shape of the head departs is pure evaporates and disappears ; but from the spherical or normal shape, in that which contains an admixture of the the same degree the sutures depart from substances composing the skin is forced the figure X; and in the same degree we outward in a cylindrical form fitting the may suppose the struggle between the size of the punctures. But owing to the irepioSot and the KU/J.O. TT?J T/>o0/7J to have slowness of its growth and the resistance been long and severe. The treatise con- of the surrounding atmosphere, the hair cerning wounds on the head is one of is pushed backwards, so that the end those considered to be the genuine work becomes rooted under the skin. Thus of Hippokrates. In 92 A we find that the hair is composed of the same sub- in the lower animals the dpyia TUIV Trept- stance as the skin, but by refrigeration opZv causes the head to assume an elon- and compression has become more hard gated shape. and dense. As to its identity with the i. rd 0iov] i.e. the brain, which is skin Aristotle agrees: cf. de gen. anitn. the seat of TO 6eiov. Plato now passes II vi 745* 20 6vvxct 5 KOI T/3/x es KC ^ K ^~ to the growth of the hair, which he paTa. KCU. TO. Toiasra tic TOV btpnaros, 810 thus explains. The skin of the head Ka.lffv/j.n(Tapj.\\ovotpfj.aTiTas-xp6as. is punctured all over by the fire issuing 3. rpw&vros] The suggestion Tpy- from the brain: through the punctures Otvros is certainly tempting: but the mss. moisture escapes, of which so much as are unanimous, and I retain their read ing, D] TIMAIO2. 283 contend more vehemently one with another, the sutures are more in number; but if less so, they are fewer. Now the whole of this skin was pricked all about with fire by the divine part: and when it v/as pierced and the moisture issued forth through it, all the moisture and heat which was pure vanished away; but that which was mingled with the substances whereof the skin was formed, being lifted up by the impulse, stretched far outwards, in fineness equalling the size of the puncture; but owing to the slowness of its motion it was thrust back by the surrounding air, and being forced in and rolled up under the skin it took root there. Under these conditions hair grows up in the skin, being of similar nature but of threadlike appearance, and made harder and denser by the contraction of cooling: for every hair in being separated from the skin was cooled and contracted. Hereby has our creator made our.head hairy, using the means aforesaid, and conceiving that this instead of flesh should be a covering for the protection of the brain, being light and capable of affording shade from heat and shelter from cold, while it would be no hindrance in the way of ready apprehension. The threefold combination of sinew skin and bone in the fabric of the fingers, when dried, forms out of all a single hard skin, for the construc- tion of which these substances served as means, but the true cause and purpose of its formation was the welfare of races not though with considerable hesitation. are formed the nails. Plato's statement 4. dirfl'eiv] They at once departed in here differs somewhat from Aristotle's as the course of nature to their own habita- cited above. lion : but the earthier substance, having 20. TWV 2imTa elvai in the the human race. There is however a prior cause. curious approximation to Darwinism in 1 7. KaraTrXoKifjl That is to say, the his statement : the nails appeared first three substances of tendon skin and bone in a rudimentary form in the human race ; are interwoven into one homogeneous and afterwards in course of evolution the body and completely dried; out of this claws of the lion and the talons of the 284 nAATHNOS [ 7 6 D-. eipyaa-fievov. ey? yap TTOTG e' dv&pwv yvvaiK$ /cat raXXa Orjpia , tjTriaravTO ol ^vvicrTavre*; ^a?, KOI STJ KOI rfj^ rwv E ort TroXXa rwv 0pe/jL/j,dra)v Kal eVt TroXXa Se^crotro y&ecrav, o0ev ev dv0pa>7roi o*>u^a9 re eV a/cpot? rot9 /cou v[i.7rer]$ ^vyyevrj fyvcrews (pva-iv XXU9 ISeais Kal alvOycreari, Kepavvvvres, wa#' erepov %wov eivai, ffrvrevovcriv d Srj vvv tff. 3 drqeoiTo : dtycroivTo A. 6 r' inserui. eagle were developed from them. The notable point is that Plato evidently does not conceive that in the transmigrations any arbitrary change of form takes place, but that each successive organism is regu- larly developed out of its predecessors. Plato's notion rests on no zoological evi- dence, so far as we know ; it is but a brilliant guess : none the less, perhaps all the more, seeing that such evidence was not at his command, it is a mark of his keen scientific insight. 6. Tpx.as6'vvxas T] I have taken upon me to insert re, since I do not believe Stpfta. Tp/x as fovxA* T can be Greek. It may be noticed that this cor- rection almost restores a hexameter verse : \oiffiv tywav. Is Plato quoting from some old physical. poet? Empedokles might have written such a line. 76 E 77 c, c. xxxiv. So when all the parts of the human frame had been com- bined in a body for ever suffering waste by fire and by air, the gods devised a means of its replenishment. They took wild plants and trained them by culti- vation, so that they were fit for human sustenance. Plants are living and con- scious beings ; but they have the appe- titive soul alone ; they grow of their inborn vital force, without impulsion from without ; they are stationary in one place, and cannot reflect upon their own nature. g. ji^pt] Kal ji^Xi]] For this combi- nation compare Laws 795 E T&V rov re Kal fj-epuv : and Phi- lebus 14 E &rav ns txaffTou ra p.^\ri re Kal a/j,a (J.tpr) 5t.e\ui> ra\r) Kal ffK^Xos Kal x f i-P Kal SXoj o j3/)a^t'wj' Kal 6 6u>pa^' ravra yap avra T{ fffri n^py SXa, Kal tvriv avTwr Zrepa nopia. A /iAos then is that which is part of a whole, but is yet in itself a definite whole. TT]V 8i coi]v Iv irvpl Kal irvetffiaTi] Man's life is said to depend on fire and air because these are the agents of digestion and respiration, as we shall see in the next two chapters: cf. 780. These two elements in fact keep up the vital movement of the human body. IO. TTJK^JWVOV KVa.ylas rwv fyuv rjfii.a.s TWC /JL^V, wj 6 fjivOfo fffn, rt> ira.pvra teal a-Treppara jraiSevdevra VTTO yewpyias rt- Oacroos Trpos 7/irt 7r /^ I/ ^ *l v l^ova ra rwv aypiwv yevrj, Trpeo-ftvrepa rwv r)pepwv cvra. TTO.V jap ovi>, o ri irep av p.erda")(ri B TOV f)v, &5oi> [lev av ev Bitcy \eyoiro opdorara' yu.ere^et ye fj,rjv 5 TOVTO, o vvv \eyofiev, TOV rpirov ^1/^779 etSovs, o fAeragv (f)pevv 6fi(f)a\ov T IBpva'dai Aoyo?, w 86^rjv avrov rt \oyia-acr6ai, KariSovri, tiffti. A. i. &TXC] i.e. attained the condition in which now they are. 3. irdv yap oiv] This passage is of the highest importance, as proving be- yond controversy that Plato in the fullest degree maintained the unity of all life. He drew no arbitrary line between ' ani- mal' and 'vegetable' life: all things that live are manifestations of the same eter- nal essence: only as this evolved itself through countless gradations of existence, the lower ranks of organisms possess less and less of the pure activity of soul ope- rating by herself, until in plants and the lowest forms of animal life the vital force only manifests itself in the power of sen- sation and growth. Aristotle agrees with Plato in ascribing to plants fwi) and ^vxn, but he does not allow them afa^erts : see ak anima I v 4iO b 23 atvtTai -yap Tvra ^TJV oti fj.tr^x ot>ra opvrd /j.erx el ' This coincides with Plato's statement. Aristotle however draws the distinc- tion between &Ja and vra that the former possess afff6r)r Ta < t>w'& ' they of course as- signed them ^Tri0vfj.ia and atff&rjffis also : ibid. 8i5 a 15 'Ava^ayopas pv o$v Kal ri6v/j:ia TO.VTO. KivtlffBai. \t- alffOdveadaL Tf Kal \vTreiff6ai Kal diafiefiaiovvTai. uv 6 fj.lv 'Aj/a|- ayopas Kal fipa elvai Kal rfitvOai Kal \v- TretffOai elirt, Trj re airoppori TUV rj- prjpovfiv : Theo- phrastos says of Parmenides TO ydp Kal TO (ppovfiv us Tavro \ty(t : c] TIMA1O2. 287 the cultivated trees and plants and seeds, which are now trained by culture and domesticated with us ; but formerly there existed only the wild kinds, which are older than the cultivated. For indeed everything which partakes of life may with perfect justice and fitness be termed an animal; but the kind of which we are now speaking shares only the third form of soul, which our theory says is seated between the midriff and the navel, and which has nothing to do with opinion and reasoning and thought, but only with sensation, pleasant or painful, with appetites accompanying. For it ever continues passively re- ceptive of all sensations, and having its circulation in itself about its own centre, it rejects all motion from without and uses only its own ; but its nature has not bestowed upon it any power of observing its own being and reflecting thereon. Wherefore it is indeed alive and in no wise differs from an animal, but it is and this is no doubt still more true of others. 7. alcr0T]crtos 8f| The OpeirriKiq 5(5- ra/uts, though not explicitly mentioned here, is of course included, as we see from the account of the rpirov etSos in 70 D foil. 8. ira^VTi 8* avrw tv avr<3] That is to say, its motions, e.g. the circulation of the sap, take place within it : its movement is not Kara T^TTOV, but iv 9. Tqv jxiv ?0ev airera.(x^vw] It rejects motion from without and avails itself of its own innate force: that is, its growth is not due to any external com- pulsion, but the development of its own impulse. As Aristotle would put it, a plant has its proper motion Kara v KIVCI and therefore must possess if'vxy, which alone is self-moved. 10. TCOV avroC TI Xoyiv(Tiv] i.e. it is conscious, but not self-conscious. Man can look into his own consciousness and realise his own identity and personality : he can speculate upon his relation to other personalities and to the sensible objects around him. The plant can do none of this : it can but take its sensations as they come, without inquiring what they are, what it is that feels them, what is the line of continuity that binds them together. The meaning of this phrase is plain enough ; but the expression of it is a little strange. There is an overwhelming preponderance of ms. evidence in favour of vV] It would seem a necessary consequence that a thing which fjj is ffiov : and Aristotle is per- haps somewhat inconsistent in allowing plants fSJi>, while refusing them the title of f, TO croo/za avTO r/pdav Stw^ereva-av rep- Si VOVTevcrtv D TOV BepfJiaTos Kal TTJS aapKos Bvo <^Xe/3a? ere/noi/ vatTialas BiBv- /Ltoy?, Xe'/3a9 Kal Bi d\\TJ\a)v eVavrta? TrXe^a^re? Bieto-av, ra? pev E ex TOUV Be^idSv e7rl TapicrTepd TOV (Ttw/Aaro?, ra? 8' e/c roof a/ 6 Kpv(f>aiovs : Kpva.iw$ A. 7 Si : SlSv/tovSZ. 14 rapurrfpa.: ra apurrepd S. covered or discoverable by science ; but it seems at least improbable that any- where a hard and fast line can be drawn between the afoOrjins of animals, from man down to the zoophyte, and the cor- responding 7rci0os in plants. Plato here as everywhere in his system preserves the principle of continuity, the germ of which he inherited from Herakleitos, and which attained so astonishing a development in his hands. Brief as is Plato's treat- ment of the subject, the union of poetical imagination and scientific grasp which it displays renders this short chapter on plants singularly interesting. And but for it, we should have been forced in- ferentially to fill up a space in his theory, for which we now have the authority of his explicit statement. I. TTJS v<|>' tavTOU Kivqo-ccos lartpTJ-